"no amount of consensus can take something to the level of "intrinsic"."
Sure, I guess that's indeed true.
"Imagine a hypothetical in which the world would explode if you did not torture that baby to death. If there are objective morals, I think it's pretty clear that the right thing to do must be to kill the baby. If there are no objective morals, I think so long as your aim is to save as many lives as possible you should also kill the baby."
I see what you're saying, but torturing a baby to death simply IS unacceptable in my view, NO MATTER how logical it would be or how much humanity would benefit from it. You just CANNOT go there. Period. Personally, I'd rather die, than torture a baby to death, no shit. People who wouldn't aren't really worth saving anyway I think.
"My point is that no matter what you believe about the nature of morality, there are hypotheticals which would make any rational person accept that killing the baby is the right thing to do. That makes it not intrinsically wrong."
Basically, you're saying that the end can justify the means (which can be a VERY dangerous idea BTW). Maybe indeed in some cases, but certainly not in this one. If you're doing evil to accomplish something good, you're still doing evil.
"If there are objective morals, they must originate somewhere. Where would you propose they originate from?"
I really wish I could answer that. It would be the end of SO fucking much misery. However, you may find this interesting: http://www.samharris.org/the-moral-landscape
I've heard of that book before. I'll do a bit of reading about the book first, but I might end up putting it on my list to read. It's a long, long list though - and I'm a very slow reader.
I think having rigid, unshakable convictions is what is dangerous. I can't see how torturing one baby can be considered worse than killing every single baby, every adult and all life on Earth. It seems like a belief that relies so much on emotional reasoning that it can't even really be debated. If it exists in the emotional realm you can't really debate it in the logical realm - you believe what you believe and that's that. If emotional reasoning prevents someone from making utilitarian decisions, especially with regards to human life, I think that is undeniably dangerous.
I think if you can logically determine that the ends will justify the means, then it should be all systems go. If you're doing evil to accomplish good, you've got to remember that you're doing evil *and* good. Focusing on the evil biases your argument. You've got to look at the balance between good and evil, and I think the best way to do that is by utilitarianism. One life for billions - I think the balance is pretty obvious and I think the evil is more than justified through utilitarian eyes.
If you can logically justify a moral decision, do what you want. I don't see why there should be any exceptions.
I thought the matter over some more, and concluded you're probably right. Still, I don't think I personally could ever torture a baby to death, EVEN if I knew it was the best (or the least worst) option. I simply couldn't do it. I also still think it CAN be a very dangerous idea to believe that the end justifies the means. I think history has very, very clearly shown that.
Are certain things INTRINSICALLY right/wrong?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
"no amount of consensus can take something to the level of "intrinsic"."
Sure, I guess that's indeed true.
"Imagine a hypothetical in which the world would explode if you did not torture that baby to death. If there are objective morals, I think it's pretty clear that the right thing to do must be to kill the baby. If there are no objective morals, I think so long as your aim is to save as many lives as possible you should also kill the baby."
I see what you're saying, but torturing a baby to death simply IS unacceptable in my view, NO MATTER how logical it would be or how much humanity would benefit from it. You just CANNOT go there. Period. Personally, I'd rather die, than torture a baby to death, no shit. People who wouldn't aren't really worth saving anyway I think.
"My point is that no matter what you believe about the nature of morality, there are hypotheticals which would make any rational person accept that killing the baby is the right thing to do. That makes it not intrinsically wrong."
Basically, you're saying that the end can justify the means (which can be a VERY dangerous idea BTW). Maybe indeed in some cases, but certainly not in this one. If you're doing evil to accomplish something good, you're still doing evil.
"If there are objective morals, they must originate somewhere. Where would you propose they originate from?"
I really wish I could answer that. It would be the end of SO fucking much misery. However, you may find this interesting: http://www.samharris.org/the-moral-landscape
--
dom180
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I've heard of that book before. I'll do a bit of reading about the book first, but I might end up putting it on my list to read. It's a long, long list though - and I'm a very slow reader.
I think having rigid, unshakable convictions is what is dangerous. I can't see how torturing one baby can be considered worse than killing every single baby, every adult and all life on Earth. It seems like a belief that relies so much on emotional reasoning that it can't even really be debated. If it exists in the emotional realm you can't really debate it in the logical realm - you believe what you believe and that's that. If emotional reasoning prevents someone from making utilitarian decisions, especially with regards to human life, I think that is undeniably dangerous.
I think if you can logically determine that the ends will justify the means, then it should be all systems go. If you're doing evil to accomplish good, you've got to remember that you're doing evil *and* good. Focusing on the evil biases your argument. You've got to look at the balance between good and evil, and I think the best way to do that is by utilitarianism. One life for billions - I think the balance is pretty obvious and I think the evil is more than justified through utilitarian eyes.
If you can logically justify a moral decision, do what you want. I don't see why there should be any exceptions.
--
BLAh81
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I thought the matter over some more, and concluded you're probably right. Still, I don't think I personally could ever torture a baby to death, EVEN if I knew it was the best (or the least worst) option. I simply couldn't do it. I also still think it CAN be a very dangerous idea to believe that the end justifies the means. I think history has very, very clearly shown that.