0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
You need to define "our". You and I are the descendants of primordial fish, sauropods, or something else, that really isn't recognisable as homo sapiens. Assuming that dinosaurs had whatever it is that you call consciousness, that quality has survived despite the extinction of practically every species that ever had it. Humans are actually the only species that is determined to eradicate itself rather than wait for nature to do so.
... your villain should not be bad simply because he’s the bad guy. He must have believable motivations. After all, villains don’t consider themselves villains. They believe their actions are justified.https://jerryjenkins.com/story-structures/
You are confusing moral wrong with inefficiency or ineffectiveness. But the implication of your statement is that moral wrong is defined by the effect of an action on others, which brings us back to my ethical tests.
When we think that someone did evil things, it could be that they were motivated by wrong goals,
It could also be both.
effect of an action on others, which brings us back to my ethical tests.
Here's an example. Someone has terminal goal to live forever in heaven. They believe that it can be achieved by suicide bombing on vital assets of an enemy group.If you share their goal and world view as well, you would find that their actions were morally right.
What makes you believe that your moral tests are better than other moral standards?
they can be prevented by practicing human sacrifice.
Otherwise, their tribe would go extinct.
Their terminal goal is to minimize human impact to the natural environment. They then go killing humans as many as possible, using the most effective and efficient method.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 18/03/2023 10:53:46Here's an example. Someone has terminal goal to live forever in heaven. They believe that it can be achieved by suicide bombing on vital assets of an enemy group.If you share their goal and world view as well, you would find that their actions were morally right.Not if you apply my tests. The objective is to kill infidels. But if he killed me, he wouldn't be killing an infidel and I wouldn't be able to kill any myself, so he fails the first test of "Would I like it done to me?" because it would prevent me from carrying out my god-given destiny.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 18/03/2023 11:10:23What makes you believe that your moral tests are better than other moral standards?Engineering - the business of finding 10 cent solutions to 100 dollar problems. Are the principles clear? yesDoes it work? yes Does it work better than anything else? yes Is it good enough for what we need? yes Is it reproducible? yesIs it affordable? yesAre there any circumstances in which it won't work? none known.The use it.
Do you think that Charles Whitman did immoral things? Why or why not?
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 18/03/2023 10:48:38Their terminal goal is to minimize human impact to the natural environment. They then go killing humans as many as possible, using the most effective and efficient method.The motive is irrelevant. The action fails my tests.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 18/03/2023 10:35:05 they can be prevented by practicing human sacrifice. so they didQuote Otherwise, their tribe would go extinct. and they did.Which is why you should never believe any thing a priest tells you.
Who should take the tests?
You just said that you don't share their goal and world view.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 20/03/2023 05:36:04Who should take the tests?What matters in this instance is who should apply the tests to the proposed action.