(November 15, 2013 at 12:27 am)Esquilax Wrote: What I mean is, we all experience pain the same way; we don't want it to happen to us, and therefore we tend to band into groups to form social contracts about that sort of thing.
Besides, just because someone can do a thing, doesn't mean the morality of it doesn't apply to them; I'd suggest that, in your analogy above, the vast majority of people would still find the dictator's actions to be immoral. All you're really saying is that people can break social contracts and do immoral things; yes, and that would be true no matter how our morals are derived.
Again, you are speaking in we and us. We are all in the same social contract, but 'we' do not feel pain the same. I only feel pain that hurts me. You only feel pain that hurts you. Neither of us want that to happen to ourselves individually, so we make a deal not to hurt eachother.
But there is no onus on anyone to join the club. What you're trying to do is say, you and I made a deal, and decided everybody else in the world has to join it too because...um...I don't know why. Majority rules I guess?
But there is no impetus to respect the majority. A dictator is not worried about receiving pain, so he has no reason to enter in the social contract. The people inside the social contract can be mad about it, but getting from "This sucks" to "He's immoral" is quite a leap. The ONLY reason to be in the social contract is your own best interests. So when it is no longer in your best interests, you are free to do what you want.
Now, religion doesn't keep him from being a douch, and pulling out our fingernails. But we'd be right in saying that he's behaving immorally because God's rule would make us we, rather than individuals. And the reason to buy into it would universally apply to everyone.
