(November 7, 2013 at 7:15 am)GodsRevolt Wrote: Following the command of a man/or woman blindly strictly because they are in charge does not necessarily make your action moral, but it doesn't make it immoral either.
Amoral at best, then.
(November 7, 2013 at 7:15 am)GodsRevolt Wrote: For instance, if Mother Teresa told me to kill someone that would immoral. If Hitler told me to go feed a starving man, that would be moral.
Why and why, respectively?
How do you determine the morality of those instructions? What mechanism are you using? This is a vital question to everything you are contending, because unless you are suggesting that old canard "might makes right", which you do appear to be, you have to make the determination of whether the instructions you are given, or feel you are given, conflict with your own innate moral sense.
For instance, Mother Teresa (that old fraud of Christopher Hitchens) tells you to kill a child. You refuse, because to you that would be deeply immoral. That child later acquires power and influence and is responsible for the death and suffering of millions. Your refusal to kill him when you were given the opportunity becomes the immoral act.
Similarly, Adolf Hitler orders you to feed a starving man. You do so eagerly, as this is a moral act and makes you feel good to help. It transpires that the man was carrying information of Hitler's genocidal ambitions to the powers able to prevent them; the meat you fed him was laced with strychnine. Do you still consider your complicity in the act a moral one?
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'