RE: morality is subjective and people don't have free will
May 16, 2017 at 12:19 pm
(This post was last modified: May 16, 2017 at 12:24 pm by Aroura.)
Harm reduction is the basis for most morality in most society. That does not make it objectively correct, but at least it has a testable basis that makes sense.
Harm to society must be considered as well as individual harm is considered, which I think Hammy is neglecting to mention. Gayness was once considered wrong for this reason, the claim that it harmed society, not the individuals. Once it was demonstrated it caused no societal harm, people began to reject the arguments of it's imorality.
Someone who steals any amount of money will likely do so again. Even if the 10 bucks did not directly harm the thief or the victim this time, the act itself is harmful to society, because it erodes trust in the individual. And the next time they steal it could cause more direct harm. The behavior has a high harm potential to individuals and groups, so we call it immoral.
However, if a starving child in some country where there is no social welfare program steals a piece of bread, most people would no longer consider that act completely imoral, though it remains illegal. That is because it is reducing the net suffering when there are no other options. Who is the villain, the rich people who refuse to help feed the poor, or the poor who do what they must to survive? Aladdin or Jafar? Robin Hood or Prince John? Valjean or Javert? Etc etc etc.
Morality, like most things, works on a sliding scale, not just 2 states of is or isn't.
Stealing isn't blaket imoral, because there are times when it reduces more suffering than it causes. If it has no net harm reduction, as in your 10 bucks analogy, then it is considered imoral, though minorly so at time, as the behavior of stealing without the intent to reduce harm or suffering will eventually cause harm and/or suffering.
Harm to society must be considered as well as individual harm is considered, which I think Hammy is neglecting to mention. Gayness was once considered wrong for this reason, the claim that it harmed society, not the individuals. Once it was demonstrated it caused no societal harm, people began to reject the arguments of it's imorality.
Someone who steals any amount of money will likely do so again. Even if the 10 bucks did not directly harm the thief or the victim this time, the act itself is harmful to society, because it erodes trust in the individual. And the next time they steal it could cause more direct harm. The behavior has a high harm potential to individuals and groups, so we call it immoral.
However, if a starving child in some country where there is no social welfare program steals a piece of bread, most people would no longer consider that act completely imoral, though it remains illegal. That is because it is reducing the net suffering when there are no other options. Who is the villain, the rich people who refuse to help feed the poor, or the poor who do what they must to survive? Aladdin or Jafar? Robin Hood or Prince John? Valjean or Javert? Etc etc etc.
Morality, like most things, works on a sliding scale, not just 2 states of is or isn't.
Stealing isn't blaket imoral, because there are times when it reduces more suffering than it causes. If it has no net harm reduction, as in your 10 bucks analogy, then it is considered imoral, though minorly so at time, as the behavior of stealing without the intent to reduce harm or suffering will eventually cause harm and/or suffering.
“Eternity is a terrible thought. I mean, where's it going to end?”
― Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead
― Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead
