RE: The Case For A Non-Absolute Morality
December 16, 2013 at 1:33 am
(This post was last modified: December 16, 2013 at 1:56 am by JohnCrichton72.)
(December 15, 2013 at 8:19 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: [Inspired by the 'Father Arguments' thread. Thank you, Severan]I disagree, if only because I am bored. If what you are saying makes any sense to me, you might believe in moral relativism and judge people by their own cultural standards whilst in their culture. Which I would find disgusting.
If I may use your example, to stop someone from killing thousands is the goal and to kill him IS A LAST RESORT because you have failed to stop him by any other means. All you would be doing is not confounding your mistake(s), or the mistakes of others, that lead to a situation where a person whom would kill thousands has the means.
If you were not derived of any empathy and held yourself to any sort of intellectual standards, you would see, this person is a victim whom needs treatment.
People are a product of their environment and perception there of, nature and nurture. People don't choose to be suicide bombers or, in this hypothesis, some sort of Bonde villain. And yes I believe that morality can be weighed and measured to a degree whereby all actions can be judged by the same standards irrespective of the situation. Killing is never moral, even killing a potential killer.
To follow the example, a society that merely kills the Bonde villain every time he is about to kill everybody else is statically going to loose at some point. The punishment for not fixing the root of the problem and stopping the creation of the villain, whether it is biological or environmental, is its own destruction.
The variables are enumerable granted, but, they are not supernatural. As such a solution is possible, we owe it to all the potential Bonde villains and our society to insure everyone has an upbringing that negates the situation entirely.
Sam Harris, it should interest you.
.
