(August 15, 2015 at 4:47 am)robvalue Wrote: 3) I do not claim that anything I say is certainly correct, nor do I claim to know everything. "I don't know" is a perfectly valid answer. I can speculate, but I'm aware that is what I am doing.
4) My morality is based on evaluating the consequences of my actions. I weigh the likely benefit to humans, animals and the environment against the likely costs. No other definition of morality matters to me. My answer to any moral question may be that it's very complex and I'd have to consider all angles. I don't have instant answers to everything.
7) I believe in people and animals being treated as fairly as possible, regardless of their particular attributes or personal choices. Of course some choices to harm others must be met with removal from general society in order to prevent further harm to others.
Go for it!
An interesting combination, is that you've formed your own morality (4), which you accept is not "certainly correct" (3), but you're comfortable applying it to and judging others (7).
I wonder if with 7 you're dealing with 'right and wrong' or just the practicality of the situation. It seems like applying a philosophy you are uncertain of to everybody to the point that they would be removed from general society would be a big move based on something you aren't certain of.
While if it's a practicality, it'd be a much less big deal. For example, I don't think murder (or anything really) is wrong, but I'm comfortable sticking local murderers in jail because the implications of murdering willy-nilly would be bad for me. While some African Warlord can murder people much more willy-nilly'r than anyone in my area, and I don't feel the need to do anything about it.
