Originally posted by lucifershammerAll killing or just murder?
So, your argument is that a person P considers X to be immoral if and only if P would not want to commit or be a victim of X?
EDIT: From a Catholic perspective, all killing is always objectively evil. Whether a particular act that results in a killing is immoral or not depends on double effect.
Originally posted by no1marauderI'll be damned ..... a compliment from the marauder ?
Why does it have to be an entity or entities that "decides" it? It's part of our makeup; how it got there is an open question. Read Halitose's posts on pages 2 and 3 and Ivanhoe's rather good first paragraph in his post on page 3.
*cloink*
......... glass of water for Sir Ivanhoe, please
Lemme drive this debate a little further:
To distinguish between preference claims, and normative moral claims, consider these two statements:
1. I like vanilla ice cream.
2. Killing people without justification is wrong.
The first statement is a preference claim, since it is a description of a person's subjective taste. It is not a normative claim. It is not a claim about what one ought or ought not to do. It is not saying, "Since I like vanilla ice cream, the government ought to coerce you to eat it as well."
A claim of subjective preference tells us nothing about what one ought to think or do. For example, if someone were to say, "I like to torture children for fun," this would tell us nothing about whether it is wrong or right to torture children for fun.
The second claim, however, is quite different. It has little if anything to do with what one likes or dislikes. This statement is a moral claim. It is not a descriptive claim, for it does not tell us what, why, or how things are, or how a majority of people in fact behave and think. Nor is it a preference claim, for it does not tell us what anyone's subjective preference may be or how one prefers to behave and think. Rather, it is a claim about what persons ought to do, which may be contrary to how persons in fact behave and how they prefer to behave.
Originally posted by HalitoseThat is hard to say, since society is an incredibly complex interactive set. Perhaps we could consider a theoretical and simple society liek a small tribe?
Right. Perhaps we to need define what exactly "good for society" entails, since at the moment it is a tautology.
I guess I have a utilitarian view of society, whatever creates the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. This will clearly be relative to the changing desires of the people therein.
Originally posted by StarrmanLet us take away all the rights of privacy, to protect the children!
That is hard to say, since society is an incredibly complex interactive set. Perhaps we could consider a theoretical and simple society liek a small tribe?
I guess I have a utilitarian view of society, whatever creates the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. This will clearly be relative to the changing desires of the people therein.
Much damage can be done trying to justify the greater good.
😞
Kelly
Originally posted by StarrmanIf it gives the "greatest happiness for the greatest number of people" for the tribe to kill any children with blue eyes, is that morally acceptable in your view?
That is hard to say, since society is an incredibly complex interactive set. Perhaps we could consider a theoretical and simple society liek a small tribe?
I guess I have a utilitarian view of society, whatever creates the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. This will clearly be relative to the changing desires of the people therein.
Originally posted by HalitoseI agree with almost all of this but have reservations about this sentence:
Lemme drive this debate a little further:
To distinguish between preference claims, and normative moral claims, consider these two statements:
1. I like vanilla ice cream.
2. Killing people without justification is wrong.
The first statement is a preference claim, since it is a description of a person's subjective taste. It is not a to do, which may be contrary to how persons in fact behave and how they prefer to behave.
Rather, it is a claim about what persons ought to do, which may be contrary to how persons in fact behave and how they prefer to behave.
I think how persons normally act is strong evidence, though not conclusive evidence, of what is morally acceptable. I think "how they prefer to behave" is pretty overwhelming evidence.
Originally posted by no1marauderFrom my perspective, growing up in this moral set; of course not. But in a time in which our moral sensibilties were not present, the members of that society may have had no reservations about it.
If it gives the "greatest happiness for the greatest number of people" for the tribe to kill any children with blue eyes, is that morally acceptable in your view?