"By whatever means necessary." Malcolm X Of course, self defense, or the protection of your family are times that most of us would feel totally justified in doing the aggressor some harm, but that don't make it right. I say that truth is simple, and most really important concepts can be summed up in one word. Trust, faith, love, hope, courage, etc. It is the falsehoods, equivocations, lies, and prevarications that get complicated. When one harms another, that is not a good thing, even if it is in self defense, imho. It is just vengeance and cruelty to get pleasure out of inflicting pain on another, no matter how wicked that person is. I personally feel that serial killers should be executed, not as punishment or revenge, but cuz there is no place for them here. But, the extermination of them should be done humanely, and not for reasons of anger or hatred, imho. Help = good Harm = bad Is that wrong somehow cuz its simple?
That's wrong because letting yourself being hurt, killed or w/e else would be considered good and if this "moral" code would be really believed in people who effectively neutralized their ennemy wouldn't be considered honorable, maybe it would even be shameful. It's sad i even have to explain this. But I'm not really talking about what morals should the State as a whole should agree on, there are ethical sciences for that, to deal with millions of very different people. It's more complicated than a normal set of morals.
"Why would absolute morals need an objective point of view to be "found" ?" Absolute means perfect, infallable, ultimately righteous. Who amongst us mere mortals possesses such qualities? No one. Objectivity in the strictest sense is impossible. I don't mean objective, as being able to see something without bias. I mean, for instance, to view an object and TRUELY experience it for what it is. BECAUSE you exist and I exist how can either one of us claim an objective perspective? What is it that makes your perception of an object Superior to my perception of an object? At this stage, we must create a consciousness which trumps ours. For instance, we create a omniscient supernatural being. Still this being is not a possessor of complete objective perception as there are others who percieve differently, however, his idea of morality is Superior because of his innate qualities: omniscience, omnibenevolence, omnipresent and so on.... There is a difference between Ethics and Morals. Something can be moral and be unethical. Ethics are more of a set guideline, morals are much more contexual and situational. I abide by the prehistoric truth: Survival of the fittest. I prefer to live over others (there are exceptions). However, we do not live by Survival of the fittest, we have controled our environment and Created this thing called Morality to protect the Weak. Its a compromise, with ends seeking peace. This peace must be simultaneously Selfless and Selfish.
Morality was not created to protect the weak... You can have a set of moral that protect the weak but that's not the ultimate goal of morals. The 1st use of morals was preservation of the tribe. People were not savage in a sense that they DID have morals, but they didn't care about protecting the weak. It's still generally true today, nobody cares about weak people because they're weak. It represents the "tribe's intelligence", a group identity. You will find that there still is an emphasis in survival in groups that deal with harsh conditions. There can also be transparent groups within a society, they don't risk dying so the morals are engineered to protect the intellectual, artistic value for example. The idea of protecting the weak come from weak people identifying themselves as part of this "The Weak group" protecting each other. People who (think they) are in "The Ruling Class" group will behave accordingly if they are moral. Of course power isn't always the basis of groups.
Antimater. The old wise ones of the tribe...[male and female..the physically weak] Must have been pretty sharp... Maybe the tribe learnt a human truth. Knowledge is power. Occam
Can anyone see a link between Morality (which goes with good and bad) and what permits "a state",(I mean something close from the country definition and any form of organisation) to be. ? I will think about it It give moral the role of preserving an unity, an "order" as you antimatter explained it
we humans were born weak and need security so its' a simple deal-do unto others as you would have them do unto you. any two year old can understand that, absolutely.
