RE: Moral Obligations toward Possible Worlds
May 6, 2021 at 7:04 pm
(This post was last modified: May 6, 2021 at 7:16 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
I think that's a possibility in possible worlds, yeah. That visitor conformity to equivalently justified moral standards on some radically different world could imply or might even require moral abrogation. I think that's true here in this world alone.
That, for example, even if we went to some part of this world and conformed to that parts moral imperatives - equivalently justified - we've done something wrong. Just eyes wide open wrong. Usually wrong for effect - at least in my experience. We justify it by imagining that were helping, sometimes..at least, I think we're right about that too.
-Slavers were financially tied, not morally tied. Still are. The notion that a society's perpetuation relies on slavery in any actual and necessary way would, to me, imply a moral obligation to destroy that society and liberate those people. Indoctrination is great. Like the distinction between to and in, above, the distinction between has and does is monumental. It may be true, for example, that a society has relied on slavery to perpetuate itself - but that doesn't mean that it actually does require it..or even if it did, that there would be any moral imperative to preserve it. One is a bit of historic trivia, or at most a practical concern. The other is a moral condemnation of a society's very nature.
That, for example, even if we went to some part of this world and conformed to that parts moral imperatives - equivalently justified - we've done something wrong. Just eyes wide open wrong. Usually wrong for effect - at least in my experience. We justify it by imagining that were helping, sometimes..at least, I think we're right about that too.
-Slavers were financially tied, not morally tied. Still are. The notion that a society's perpetuation relies on slavery in any actual and necessary way would, to me, imply a moral obligation to destroy that society and liberate those people. Indoctrination is great. Like the distinction between to and in, above, the distinction between has and does is monumental. It may be true, for example, that a society has relied on slavery to perpetuate itself - but that doesn't mean that it actually does require it..or even if it did, that there would be any moral imperative to preserve it. One is a bit of historic trivia, or at most a practical concern. The other is a moral condemnation of a society's very nature.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
