(October 24, 2009 at 2:06 am)Meatball Wrote:(October 23, 2009 at 4:22 pm)rjh4 Wrote:I see why this is confusing. At some level, actions, events, and ideas can be considered "favourable" or "unfavourable".(October 23, 2009 at 2:30 pm)Meatball Wrote: Morals don't exist in the sense that there is a universal right and wrong.
Morals do exist in the way that the average human, at the neurological level, recognized where an action is good or bad. This is extremely consistent.
Morals do exist in the way that society, as a whole and in subpartitions, has drafted a very rough outline of what is and isn't acceptable.
They are definitely subjective and have no underlying meaning to them, aside from pack survival and whatnot.
I'm a bit confused by this. Are you saying that while right and wrong are not universal, good and bad are somehow at least extremely consistent "at the neurological level"? This seems somewhat contradictory. Also what is the standard you are using for "good" and "bad" such that you know it when you see it at a neurological level? And what do you mean by "at the neurological level" to begin with?
(October 23, 2009 at 4:22 pm)rjh4 Wrote: Because honestly, if I think from a pack survival view point, I could care less what happens on the other side of the world as long as my "pack" will survive. Why would I care if they destroyed themselves as long as my "pack" was ok (again, if I thought from a pack survival viewpoint)?This is true. Obviously some people (For example, the ones behind the genocide) couldn't care less.
Look at the news. A lot of people don't care about international human rights issues. How do reactions vary between reports of insurgent deaths in Iraq and reports of American deaths? The whole issue of global information and media makes this issue complex.
So are you saying that the ones who commit the genocide are merely doing something that is "unfavorable" to some (the ones being killed) and are still acting in a moral manner because what they are doing is "favorable" to them? Are you suggesting that genocide, therfore, can be morally acceptable depending on ones point of view (the killer as compared to the killed)?
