0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Adultery is not illegal in a civilised society, but it fails the first moral test because people expect others to keep their promises - why else make them?There is no moral principle involved if you want to go to jail because that decision per se doesn't affect anyone else.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 25/11/2020 05:27:54What makes you think that following your rules are right or good? I don't need to. And they aren't rules but tests: I ask the question and leave the respondent to decide whether his proposed action is justifiable .Quote What makes ignoring or violating them wrong or bad? They are tests, not rules, of justification (benefit/cost). QuoteHow can someone without a wife follow your second rule, e.g. kids, bachelors? or someone with more than 1 wife? It's never been a problem but the question can be adapted to suit the circumstances. I had an enthusiastic inventor wanting to trial his intravaginal ultrasound probe. I thought the electrical and thermal insulation were inadequate, so rather than argue about it, I said "stick it up your arse and switch it on". We never saw him again.
What makes you think that following your rules are right or good?
What makes ignoring or violating them wrong or bad?
How can someone without a wife follow your second rule, e.g. kids, bachelors? or someone with more than 1 wife?
There is no theoretical limit to what we might do in the guise of science, but a lot of what Nazi and Japanese scientists did in the 1930s and 40s, and quite a bit of what went on in the civilised world in the 1950s, would not pass either of the moral tests I have set out in this thread: 1. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you2. Would you do this to your wife?so various august bodies in Geneva, Helsinki and elsewhere tend to exercise themselves with questions of the morality of scientific endeavour. Science and engineering have come a long way in the last 100 years, to the point that we rarely ask "can we?" and are beginning to ask "should we?" more frequently. Why "universal"? Because whilst idiots try to divide the world with politics and religion, scientists like collaborating with other enquiring minds, no matter where they live or what their parents did on Sunday.
4, 5 and 6. Intentional random killing is against any recognisable moral code. Your motives and beliefs are irrelevant: you wouldn't want anyone else to kill you for his beliefs or pleasure, even if you are motivated to kill your wife, so they fail Test 1.
Quote from: alancalverd on 01/12/2020 00:48:474, 5 and 6. Intentional random killing is against any recognisable moral code. Your motives and beliefs are irrelevant: you wouldn't want anyone else to kill you for his beliefs or pleasure, even if you are motivated to kill your wife, so they fail Test 1.Tell that to Harry Truman.
On August 6, the B-29 Enola Gay dropped a Little Boy on Hiroshima, an embarkation port and industrial center that was the site of a major military headquarters. Three days later, to take advantage of favorable weather, the B-29 Bockscar dropped a Fat Man on Nagasaki, a major military port, one of Japan's largest shipbuilding and repair centers, and an important producer of naval ordnance.
Most terrorists usually believe that civilians in enemy's territory are supporters of their governments which enables them to oppress the terrorists' allies. Those civilians are regarded as enemies as well.Religious terrorists usually don't mind being killed in their action. They believe that by being a martyr, they will get infinitely better life in the afterlife.
Kokura and Niigata were also selected targets but it was not necessary to bomb them.
But back to the plot. Would you be happy if I killed or injured you without provocation? Would you kill your nearest and dearest without enquiring about their religious beliefs? Failed on both moral tests, I think.
Your alternative reasoning is unnecessary. I have demonstrated that the conundrum you presented, can be resolved by my very simple tests, without making any assumptions about fundamental universal goals, and my resolution is consistent with civilised behavior.
Sacrificing yourself is not a moral decision since it affects nobody else. Sacrificing your family may pass test 2 (you said you'd do it to your wife) but probably won't pass test 1 (you wouldn't like it if somebody else sacrificed you for his country).In the words of General Patton "No goddam sonofabitch ever won a war by dying for his country. You win wars by making the enemy die for his." You would do well to defer to that expert opinion.
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.
And I have offered two tests that determine whether a proposed action constitutes good or bad behavior.Sacrifice necessarily involves loss of something you hold dear and irreplaceable. Anything else is just "business".
Is there any point to continuing these arguments. They never come to any conclusion. So why waste time on them?
Let me remind you again the definition of morality according to dictionary:Quoteprinciples concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 02/12/2020 01:21:04In this thread I've come into conclusion that the best case scenario for life is that conscious beings keep existing indefinitely and don't depend on particular natural resources. The next best thing is that current conscious beings are showing progress in the right direction to achieve that best case scenario.The worst case scenario is that all conscious beings go extinct, since it would make all the efforts we do now are worthless. In a universe without conscious being, the concept of goal itself become meaningless. The next worst thing is that current conscious beings are showing progress in the wrong direction which will eventually lead to that worst case scenario.In many religious beliefs, the best case scenario above is taken for granted. So their efforts are never directed towards achieving that. Instead, they set arbitrarily chosen preferred conditions as their terminal goal.On the other hand, the worst case scenario is dismissed without adequate justification. This creates false security that whatever we do, it is guaranteed that the consequences will never bring that worse case scenario.
In this thread I've come into conclusion that the best case scenario for life is that conscious beings keep existing indefinitely and don't depend on particular natural resources. The next best thing is that current conscious beings are showing progress in the right direction to achieve that best case scenario.The worst case scenario is that all conscious beings go extinct, since it would make all the efforts we do now are worthless. In a universe without conscious being, the concept of goal itself become meaningless. The next worst thing is that current conscious beings are showing progress in the wrong direction which will eventually lead to that worst case scenario.
Do you really think that whatever is good for you is always good for everyone else?
A man rushes into a burning house to save a crying baby. His action risking his own life is considered a sacrifice, even when he doesn't end up dead.
I haven't suggested that. Test 1 is essentially negative: would you be happy if I did whatever you are proposing, to you?