(January 9, 2016 at 4:01 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:(January 9, 2016 at 3:38 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: Let me begin with my functional definition of morality. Which is behaviors that lead to the betterment of the well being of the most people possible, and the harm of the well being of the least number of people.
Societies that would have an "every man for himself" ethic, would just not last. They would fall apart, and those moral members of the society would start their own society with a better moral ethic, or find one that exists that they could join.
But more importantly, the vast majority of people are psychologically healthy, and have no compunction to behave immorally.
If society became "every man for himself" I would rape, murder, steal, as much as I want. And the amount I want to rape, murder and steal is exactly zero.
Under your definition, wouldn't the genocide of weaker members of society be acceptable, if it provided betterment to a greater number of people? If one deems it better for a greater number of people, then the harm a fewer number of people would be justified.
Notice the conjunction "and" in the definition.
