On Moral Right

[jthegreat]

Morality is objective and it would be wrong not to cure them/press the button.

[lehighguy]

1) Morality is not objective.

2) If it is objective, how do you know what is right and wrong?

[ QUOTE ]
1) Morality is not objective.

2) If it is objective, how do you know what is right and wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't #1 and #2 conflict?

In otherwords if morality WAS objective wouldn't that mean I WOULD know what is right and wrong (as opposed to if it was subjective)?

[Roybert]

[ QUOTE ]
To do something wrong to someone is bad, but to allow something bad to happen through your inaction is fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand and respect your position, but I disagree with it entirely.

Let me use an analogy to show you what I mean ... Fraud is legally defined as the "intentional misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact that results in financial or other damages to another party." Therefore, there are two ways to commit fraud; an 'active' way (intentional misrepresentation) and a 'passive' way (intentional concealment). To me, the intentional misrepresentation of a material fact is akin to doing 'something wrong to someone', and intentional concealment is akin to allowing 'something bad to happen through your inaction'. Either way you do it, you're still guilty in the court's eyes.

I believe that causing harm to someone is worse than not trying to prevent harm, but that isn't what is being discussed here. I do feel that it is certainly possible to be immoral through inactivity.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Fraud is legally defined as the "intentional misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact that results in financial or other damages to another party."

[/ QUOTE ]

Couldn't that be applied to all winning poker players? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[lehighguy]

Fraud is active in both cases. Implying truths is not much different from saying them outright. In each case you have actively decieved. There is a sin of action.

[lehighguy]

The speed of light is a constant, yet for most of human existence we did not know what it was.

If morality is constant, there is no gurantee we can ever figure it out.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
(If this does not belong here let me know)

There is a virus that is going to kill everyone in the world. One man created the cure; no one else can possibly create it in time. He decides not to give it to anyone but himself. Is what he doing morally wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not admirable. However, enslaving him and stealing his labor and the product thereof is much, much worse.

[jthegreat]

If I were going to die, I'd steal it in a heartbeat, even if it took the rest of my life to pay him back.

See Rand's treatment of "emergency ethics".

[jthegreat]

[ QUOTE ]
In otherwords if morality WAS objective wouldn't that mean I WOULD know what is right and wrong (as opposed to if it was subjective)?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it has to be discovered, much like physical laws.