My Take On Absolute Morality.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
chezlaw --
<font color="white"> .. </font>
Couldn't it be that people believed slavery was wrong but owning slaves was easy and their greed overcame their morality.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think most people in the South believed slavery was right. However, their ability to apply moral principles could have been tainted by tradition, greed, racism, and a myriad of other shortcomings.

PairTheBoard

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I think most people in the South believed slavery was right. However, their ability to apply moral principles could have been tainted by tradition, greed, racism, and a myriad of other shortcomings.


[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't there racism mean they also believed that the slaves weren't every bit as human as their masters?

chez

[jthegreat]

Read up on Rand's Objectivist Ethics, David. Objective morality without any gods.

[ QUOTE ]

There just isn't enough difference between killing people for misguided reasons and letting thousands die when it could easily be prevented.


[/ QUOTE ]

There is a difference and it is quite vast in my mind. Causation is what matters. When you are the direct cause of something it makes you responsible. Your inaction is not the same level of causation at all. This fact is recognized everywhere in life (especially the legal system) and moreover is intuitive. Some warlord is butchering africans. You don't pay money to support some other warlord who would slaughter half as many africans. Are you killing Africans? Are you just as im/moral as the first warlord?

[txag007]

If there is no absolutely morality, what defines "right"?

DS-
"My point about absolute morality is not a deep one. It is simply the same point that you can make about something like beauty. It is in the eye of the beholder."

So morality is a matter of opinion? What's right for me may not be right for you.

If that's true, what keeps chaos from resulting?

Our system of laws, but based on what?

That which does the greatest good?

DS-
"Lets skip to those Nazis who were a willing part of the Holocaust. An obvious case of evilness? Why? I'm quite sure that the majority of Nazis were not licking their chops at the thought of killing Jews. And that they were not sociopaths either. This is probably even more true of the doctors who performed medical experiments. What at least some, if not most of them, were is people who had figured out a way to turn off enough of their empathy instinct to rationalize doing horrible things to fellow human beings because of the greater GOOD they thought would result."

But what is "good"? Either "good" and "right" are defined in terms of each other (which is circular reasoning), or they must be defined by some standard beyond this utilitarian process.

[erby]

[ QUOTE ]
This is probably even more true of the doctors who performed medical experiments. What at least some, if not most of them, were is people who had figured out a way to turn off enough of their empathy instinct to rationalize doing horrible things to fellow human beings because of the greater GOOD they thought would result.


[/ QUOTE ]

Among these experiments were studies of the effects of removing vital organs...I really don't see how knowing the length of time i could live without my liver in any way contributes to the greater good...

ERBY [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
"There just isn't enough difference between killing people for misguided reasons and letting thousands die when it could easily be prevented."

I'm not quite sure exactly how "easily" thousands of deaths can be prevented, but let's assume, for the sake of argument, that it's true. So you see "not enough difference" between Charles Manson and somebody who votes for a United States senator who is not in favor of increasing humanitarian aid for Africa?

[/ QUOTE ]

As usual, I'm having trouble understanding David.

How can starvation in Africa "easily be prevented" by you or David sending more to charities that serve Africa? My understanding is that starvation in Africa isn't usually due to any lack of food sent by more developed nations; rather political leaders use starvation as a tool for their own ends.

~ Rick

[erby]

With regards to aid in Africa and other things... Is it not possible that perhaps what is "economically feasible" may not be in line with "absolute morality". Your post seems to suggest that because everyone does not act in accordance to "absolute morality", then there must not be an absolute morality.

But consider something that is absolute...how about the speed limit on a given road? Let's say it's 55. Now, does that mean everyone goes 55, even though 55 is absolutely the maximum speed? No, some people willingly choose to drive above 55. However, sometimes it is necessary to go above 55. For instance, if you had to get to the hospital. If one of your loved ones was dying then i could see the need to drive faster than 55, even though it has been set as an absolute speed limit.

In this way, it is not fair to say that there is no "absolute morality" simply because some people acted against it and are not viewed as evil. Some people speed too...it happens...absolute morality could still be possible

ERBY [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

[andyfox]

Yes, famine is usually caused by politics, not lack of food. When Bangladesh, for example, had a horrible problem with starviation, it was a net exporter of food.

[andyfox]

I see a bigger difference between tolerating slavery and being a slaveowner than you apparently do.

I agree that if anything makes sense as an absolute, it would indeed be the Golden Rule. And if I therefore opt to have a $200 dinner, instead of a perfectly healthy $5 one, thereby decreasing the amount of money I donate to effective charitable institutions, I am being immoral. I confess to not being perfect. But I see a difference between wasting that $195 and, say, going to Africa and murdering several people.

But maybe I'm deluding myself in an effort to feel good about it.