0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
First we need to understand what a moral standard is, and what it is not.
Please forgive me as I am now on a ship and have a very limited connection
Now back to the first question. This time to distinguish between moral standard and non-moral standard. Google search replied with this.https://philonotes.com/index.php/2018/06/08/moral-standards/
The criterion of intention means that the persons who do immoral actions prefer the consequences of their actions that we don't like. It means that we have incompatible interests with them. Which means that their long term goals are different than ours.
Your proof relies on the assumption that everyone is pursuing self preservation.
A joke compares doctors with engineers.What's the difference between a doctor and an engineer?A doctor kills people one at a time.
moral rules can't be too specific either. Otherwise, it would only be applicable in very limited situations, thus useless in most other situations, and lose its function as a guidance.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 22/06/2021 03:54:40Your proof relies on the assumption that everyone is pursuing self preservation. Apologies for slow response - been working too hard!Not true. In order for "universal" to have a nontrivial meaning, it must apply to more than one subject. So we need a minimum of two subjects that could share a moral standard. If they are both ultimately altruistic neither will eat the last apple and both will perish. So the only possible embodiment of a universal moral standard is either a mutual suicide pact or a passive acceptance of whatever happens by chance. Neither of which seems to have much value in directing your everyday interactions in a multi-subject world.
So we need a minimum of two subjects that could share a moral standard.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 24/06/2021 08:22:43A joke compares doctors with engineers.What's the difference between a doctor and an engineer?A doctor kills people one at a time.True, but far more lives are saved by civil engineering than by medicine.
In order for "universal" to have a nontrivial meaning, it must apply to more than one subject.
Then we need to know why we need a moral standard. It's essentially asking what would happen if we don't have any moral standard, and why it would be bad or unpreferred.
Moreover, being altruistic prioritizes the well being of others rather than harming oneself. In your example, one of them can commit suicide, or go somewhere else to find another apple.
If they are both ultimately altruistic neither will eat the last apple and both will perish. So the only possible embodiment of a universal moral standard is either a mutual suicide pact or a passive acceptance of whatever happens by chance.
The answer would give us the common goal we want to achieve from establishing the moral standards.
Shortly, the moral standard is needed to improve our chance to survive, especially when we live in a society. I've explained in another thread in case you still wonder why being dead is bad.
The Peoples Temple Agricultural Project, better known by its informal name "Jonestown", was a remote settlement in Guyana, established by the Peoples Temple, a San Francisco-based cult under the leadership of Jim Jones.