(December 13, 2012 at 9:55 am)pocaracas Wrote: I guess we've come to the definition of the word: morality, morals...
As far as I see it, it's the right thing to do. Right in the light of better for the world.
If you do something that is of no consequence for the world, then morality doesn't apply.
If you kill yourself, you reduce the human capacity in the world, and force some one else to handle your carcass.... someone would have to do it eventually...
If you drink and watch tv, instead of learning something new, you're just doing some temporary harm to yourself... postponing your potential contribution to the rest of the world.
It's almost impossible to find a situation where anything you do affects you and only you.
You're wrong on multiple counts.
There is no requirement for morality to be considered in light of betterment of the world. That is just your personal assertion without any justification.
Secondly, almost everything you'd do in life would be of so little consequence to the world that it might as well be inconsequential. By that standard, hardly anything you do in your life would be of any moral consequence.
And thirdly, try to take this line of thought to its logical conclusion of having "betterment of the world" as the criteria for morality. Currently there is are huge sections of human population - the elderly, the unemployed poor, the disabled or sick - who are currently suffering, are not contributing to the world and whose any potential contribution is easily outweighed by the drain on resources they are causing currently. By your criteria of reducing suffering - both current and future - and maximizing benefit, the most significant moral thing to do would be to exterminate them.
