How Human Morality 'Evolves'...

Discussion in 'Ethics' started by Jimbee68, Mar 8, 2023.

  1. Jimbee68

    Jimbee68 Member

    Messages:
    2,270
    Likes Received:
    688
    Anyways, I have been making memes and sharing them on the internet. I made this one a while back:

    Sometimes right and wrong aren't so clear. Is it wrong for a man to steal bread to feed his starving children? Was Robin Hood wrong? Were the American colonies traitors? Or heroes. Sometimes it's clear. Sometimes not so much.

    Yeah, sometimes morality can be a relative thing. Now I am not saying it usually should be, don't misquote me. Because that can be a controversial statement, especially for people trying to rationalize their harmful actions. And just to be clear, I think really the only law (that I can think of so far) that you'd be justified in breaking, would be like a silly assisted suicide law (like now have in MI).

    Apparently, I am not alone in this, which is ironic. 20-30 years ago, Michiganders all remember Dr. Jack Kevorkian ("Dr. Death"). He was always my hero, but to some he was a villain. Anyways, Oakland Co. Prosecutor Richard Thompson felt he was on a crusade, send by God. But he lost his reƫlection due to that nonsense. The more sensible prosecutor Gorcyca took his place. Here is the rest of the story from Wikipedia:

    "As Kevorkian's notoriety increases, he provokes polarizing public opinion. His supporters believe he is performing a public service and that the government has no right to interfere with the decisions of competent individuals who want to die. He insists that he gives his patients a means to end their suffering; they alone made the decision and initiated the process. He also claims to have turned down 97 or 98 percent of the people asking for his help. His critics, however, believe he is playing God. Conservative Oakland County prosecutor Richard Thompson believes Kevorkian is a murderer, but can't gain a conviction; he attributes his failures to Michigan's weak laws regarding assisted suicide and advocates stronger laws. In 1998, Thompson loses an election to a more liberal assistant prosecutor, David Gorcyca, who has no interest in wasting money (a major criticism of Thompson) prosecuting Jack Kevorkian as long as he only assists in suicides."

    You Don't Know Jack (film) - Wikipedia

    Anyways, Americans are in some ways traditional, but they are always fair-minded. I disagree with the statement Gorcyca was that liberal. I know in the infamous Jenny Jones case Thompson said or implied he normally wouldn't prosecute a case if the victim was gay. Gorcyca always would. Also one time the police raided a homeless shelter. Gorcyca demanded. He wanted to know what all that nonsense was about, before he got involved in the case. Gorcyca was kind of jerk too (if I can use that word). He believed in vigorously enforcing certain vice laws. I don't know what that was all about. But they say, when it went to the jury, they promptly dismissed them usually. Gorcyca was just a decent man. But in the US that's a liberal trait for some reason.

    Also the view of certain moral issues can change over time, and that's just human nature. Masturbation used to be thought of as a horrible moral wrong. Even Margaret Sanger called it people's dirty little secret. But my very conservative doctor friend once told me before he retired, it's largely evolved into a nonissue. Witches were illegal at one time. "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live". Yet even the most conservative fundamentalist Christian in my country doesn't think Wiccans should go to jail. They try to disrupt their gatherings with bullhorns. But it's only homosexuality that they think should still be illegal, for some reason.

    I also have always been drawn to the Aldous Huxley novel "Brave New World". It's a dystopian drama. But is it really? Crime is an illness and corpses are fertilizer. But is that really the worst thing that could happen in the future? The people there are all happy. Isn't that what would really matter?

    And the irony of it all, is the "savage" is really just one of us. It's only in the future that he would be considered a disruptive influence. Consider that.

    Anyways, in conclusion, morality is sometimes relative, and sometimes it isn't. Maybe some people were just always wrong in the past. Maybe people will be shocked by some of the things we do now. But morality is always changing, because it is always evolving. And that I think is important.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice