[mrmazoo]

[ QUOTE ]

My contention is that the scenario outlined is somewhat similar. The right thing to do would be to refrain from using the death ray, even though it would be very difficult for most people to actually do so because they would allow their emotions and personal interests to trump their concern for making a morally correct decision. And given the stakes at hand and the fact that many people would make what I believe is the morally wrong decision, that indicates to me that it is possible (indeed appropriate) to be lenient toward the person even though they end up doing something wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

But this is not even an argument. All you do is state the conclusion you believe is correct without giving any reasons to believe so. It may seem obvious to you, and most of us, that 10 lives are worth more than one, but that doesn't make it true.

I'm not arguing that morality is relative. That would imply that ethical propositions are something we can assign as either true or false. I'm saying that there is no list of facts and inferences that can prove one way or another which actions are good and which bad.

That means that ethics is fundamentally NOT like physics, or poker. It isn't just that it is "difficult." It is completely intractable. It is beyond truth. Not even GOD could come up with an objective proof that ten lives have more worth than one (all things being equal). That's why it's called faith.