The Case For A Non-Absolute Morality

[Medi]

[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 would believe in moral relativism and judge people by their own cultural standards whilst in their culture. Which is 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 already failed in their moral obligation to his society, of letting a person whom would kill thousands get in a position where they could and making killing him the only out.


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. To follow the example, a society that merely kills the Bonde villain every time he is about to kill everybody 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



.

Of course this requires every person being totally great at parenting or at least us having adequate fail-safes in place if some aren't, and a means for psychological analysis and identification of high-risk individuals, which currently we don't have. It is a nice thought, but it's just not achievable, not in my lifetime anyway.

Besides, killing him is the last resort, of course, and surely I empathize that people are often pidgeon-holed into positions like his in lots of ways, but we can't blame society entirely for him being in that 'last-resort' position. People grow up with great upbringings and kill, maim, torture or harm others.

If it's a choice between innocent kids, for instance, and his life, I'll take his any day of the week, if it should come to that black-and-white scenario. Since his uprbringing shouldn't destroy the lives and opportunities of those who have barely had one yet.

I do agree that there are more angles to morality and peoples' mental state than a lot of theories suggest, but then, I've not had the upbringing of a prince and I still hold myself generally accountable for my state of mind and personal choices.

Come the moment, should it come to life or death, I would consider myself to have no choice but to stop him any way that fitted the gravity of the situation. And I'd probably feel guilty for it for the rest of my life. However, a preferrable route would be treatment.