[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
There’s some misunderstanding of what “relativism” means here.
I will never throw a baby off a cliff, under any conceivable circumstances. It goes against my code.
Someone else might think it’s all right to throw a baby off a cliff, and it might be impossible for me to convince that person that he’s doing wrong. I could say, “But you’re hurting a defenseless human who never harmed you!” And he’d say, “And what’s wrong with that?” I couldn’t prove objectively that there’s something wrong with throwing babies off cliffs, unless you start by accepting certain values as axiomatic. You can’t derive morality from first principles.
That doesn’t mean that I, personally, will occasionally throw a baby off a cliff. It doesn’t mean that I won’t do what I can to stop baby-throwers. I am an anti-baby-thrower. But a pro-baby-thrower could be just as logically consistent as I am; I happen to be his enemy, that’s all.
This is a ridiculous example, but there are real creeds and real belief systems that are, by my lights, immoral and repugnant, and yet I can’t prove that my own beliefs are better. Eventually I hit a wall, and I have to say, “I value this; clearly, you don’t.”
There are two ways you can deal with someone who starts with fundamentally different moral values than yourself. One, you can tolerate him (it doesn’t mean you approve, it just means you let him be), or two, you can make war on him, using force to stop him from acting on those different moral values. I personally would choose to tolerate in most cases, but to make war in a few (mainly, when the other person initiates aggression.) There are things I wouldn’t tolerate. What I do think is that it isn’t wise to NEVER choose tolerance. You cannot hope to force everyone to follow the moral values you hold; if you try to do it by verbal guilt-tripping, you’ll be friendless and ignored, and if you try to do it by literal force, you’ll make a dictator of yourself.[/quote]
This is the most wishy washy thing I have read from you. Throwing a baby off a cliff, even if it would save the world, is always wrong. Because murder is never just.[/quote]
…except when it’s your god who does the murdering, right?
[/quote]
But is it wrong? Its not “just” to kill an innocent baby but if killing one baby saved 6 billion people…
IE. If you DONT throw the baby, you’re killing 6 billion people instead? MURDER!
So something can be unjust, but still the right thing to do? thats pretty interesting.
[/quote]
Where I come from, killing babies is wrong no matter what your justification for it.
Just because an act contains some perceived benefit does not justify the act itself. Morals are not suddenly transformed by situations. They inform our response to situations. They remain, despite all our justifications.
If you disagree, then tell me honestly, if you had to look a baby in the face and then crush its head to save six billion people, which part would stick with you afterward, the fact that you had purportedly saved six billion people, or that you had crushed the life out of an innocent child?
[/quote]
Basically youre saying you’d let the human race be wiped out to save your guilt of killing one baby? Imo (in an obviously unreal scenario)- if you had the choice to save six billion people, or lose one child, you could absolutely justify your decision to save the larger amount of people, which would include other babies.
If this is not the logical choice well Im just flabbergasted… Im not saying anyone would enjoy it or remember it with fond memories but surely for the greater good ?
Also, i understand what you’re trying to say about any one act being right or wrong(perceived benefit) and whether it is justifiable, but like most things, surely there is circumstantial change to what would be “morally” the right to do. In this case, obviously saving the entire population.
And to answer your (silly) question, I think most people would choose to off the baby to save the entire earth’s population. Because not killing that one baby would be killing MANY MANY other babies(and everyone else). So that is justifiable.