This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
On Morality (maybe just an interesting story)
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Still, you cannot say that less death is better than more death without acknowledging that no death is better than death. What you're saying is just a derivative of what I'm saying.
Post by
pezz
And what you're saying is just a rephrasing of what I'm saying.
If relativism just means you decide things like good and evil based on how they relate to the objective standard, then I'm a relativist.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
If relativism just means you decide things like good and evil based on how they relate to the objective standard, then I'm a relativist.
No, that's objectivism, and that's the position I'm arguing.
Post by
Deepthought
less death is better than more death without acknowledging that no death is better than death
I do acknowledge it, but in the scenarios I have layed out, a end with no death is not obtainable. No death is the absence of death, and so the course of action which causes the largest (thought obviously not complete) absence of death is the "good" one.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
A couple things:
You have no way of knowing what's possible and what's not. Your killing of the man might ensure the other men's lives, but you have no way of knowing what might have happened if you had tried to save them all. So no matter what you do, you cannot say the least amount of men died, unless none did.
Why are you defining what is good by what is possible? My question still stands
Why does every situation have to have a possible good?
Post by
pezz
If relativism just means you decide things like good and evil based on how they relate to the objective standard, then I'm a relativist.
No, that's objectivism, and that's the position I'm arguing.
I realize that. My point is that relating outcomes to objective standards is integral to objectivism, so you can't run from the word relative if it's part of what you do.
Every situation doesn't have to have a possible good, but every situation has a 'closest to the good, relative to the other choices.'
Also, Hyper, it's a thought experiment. It's like a scientific model, you have to oversimplify, so you know you can't apply it exactly to reality, but it's still close enough and framed correctly to be insightful.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I realize that. My point is that relating outcomes to objective standards is integral to objectivism, so you can't run from the word relative if it's part of what you do.
Who's running from anything?
Every situation doesn't have to have a possible good, but every situation has a 'closest to the good, relative to the other choices.'
'Closest to good' doesn't make it good. It's the lesser of two evils. yes. But it is not good.
Also, Hyper, it's a thought experiment. It's like a scientific model, you have to oversimplify, so you know you can't apply it exactly to reality, but it's still close enough and framed correctly to be insightful.
If it cannot be applied to reality, it is meaningless as far as I am concerned.
Post by
pezz
Did you ever take high school chemistry? Did you see the little diagrams of nuclei and electron orbits around them, with little electrons floating in certain two dimensional ways around them? You know it's bull, I know it's bull, but both of us gained a better understanding of chemistry because we saw that. That's all I mean about a scientific model.
And your second point: Yes, I agree, that's why I agree you've posed a good question. There is not necessarily a positive outcome in any situation, just less negative ones.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Did you ever take high school chemistry? Did you see the little diagrams of nuclei and electron orbits around them, with little electrons floating in certain two dimensional ways around them? You know it's bull, I know it's bull, but both of us gained a better understanding of chemistry because we saw that. That's all I mean about a scientific model.
That's application by analogy. Most high schoolers have no way of understanding a probability wave (or whatever the 'cool' thing is nowadays...that's what it was when I was studying it). You're setting up a system that has some measure of truth, so that people can begin to understand what is really happening.
Setting up a system that is unusable in reality is another matter entirely.
Post by
150529
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
pezz
It has some measure of truth the same way the ten or one people does. You can simplify a moral problem to the point of absurdity by saying 'you can allow one person or ten people to die' just as you can simplify atoms to the point of absurdity by saying 'electrons follow these strict little orbits and they're spaced apart like so.' Neither statement makes sense but both are useful as purely conceptual aids.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Just to take from the Christian faith, don't we dondemn Pilatus that didn't prevent the execution of Christ?
Not really sure what you're trying to say. Did Pilate sin and make an evil decision? Yes.
Yes, yes it is. Would you kill Hitler if given the chance? I bet many people would, would you blame them?
You'd fix killing (which you must be assuming as evil if you say Hitler was bad) with killing (which you're now assuming is good).
@pezz You're the one who said it wasn't applicable to reality, not me. Simplifying is the not same as universalizing, or generalizing.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I'm just going to lay this out here, because there seemed to be a bit of confusion regarding it in the OP and some of the replies.
Moral Objectivism: There are moral codes or dicta (stemming human nature itself, divine command, or both) that exist apart from human opinion.
Moral Subjectivism: Moral codes are dependent on human opinion.
Moral Absolutism: Certain actions are morally wrong or right regardless of circumstances or context.
Moral Relativism: Morals are dependent on social convention.
Post by
150529
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Numbers are arbitrary. What makes Hitler's killing 'bad' and your killing 'good'?
Post by
150529
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
i said it is morally justified.
No you didn't.
let's face it, we can't always take 'good' decisions. Leaving 10 millions to die is bad, killing 1 person to save 10 millions is bad. But saving 10 millions in the expense of 1 person is MUCH smaller of the 2 evils.
Have you even read my argument over the last 4 pages?
ah,yeah,also numbers are big factors, for obvious reasons
No they don't. As you just admitted above that numbers had nothing to do with whether killing was bad or not.
Post by
150529
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
To add to what Queggy said.
Is killing someone really a good thing when it saves others? Yes, it might be the lesser of two evils, but that doesn't automatically make it good. You are still taking a life.
Again, to reiterate, you haven't offered any evidence beyond a couple assumptions, so what makes your position true?
sorry people,didn't read the whole thingy:(
, just want to comment on this.
Yes, yes it is. Would you kill Hitler if given the chance? I bet many people would, would you blame them?
The biggest crime is to remain inactive. You aren't 'good' if you don't directly kill anyone but just leave millions dying instead.
Just to take from the Christian faith, don't we dondemn Pilatus that didn't prevent the execution of Christ?
did you even read my posts?
It's in the post your responded to and quoted twice. Are you telling me you didn't even read that?
Bolded and underlined for your convenience.
Post by
TheMediator
The lesser of two evils is good in the sense that a perfectly moral person would choose the lesser of two evils. Yes, there are some situations where both options are ugly, but the option the perfectly moral person would take is the "right" choice, or in other words, good.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.