Uranium makes big fire, also useful in producing electricity for the culinary arts and keeping us warm on cold winter nights.Why? The discovery of fire was not directly and exclusively for the purpose of killing. It was also useful in the culinary arts and keeping us warm on cold winter nights.
Nuclear weapons were invented for one purpose only, to kill on a monumental scale.
Oh, they got the quick surrender for sure.To me that indicates they were fairly certain they got the decision right and that there would be a quick surrender.
What will prevent a future World War will the the moral axiom, “Do not do unto others what you would not want others to have done unto you.”It’s been a long time since the last world war. Is that due to nuclear weapons making it too hairy to start another one? Don’t know, no way to go back and start again.
Then you need laws that will put you in jail if you violate them and these laws need to be universal. “Social contracts,” as I’ve read in forums other than here, can and do exclude morality and even common sense. So I am against those particular types of contracts.Actually the notion of social contracts has been around since the 17th-century, from at least Locke’s work onward.
The whole notion of laws and government is based on social contract theory. In political science there is “positive freedom” (the freedom to do something) and “negative freedom” (the freedom from having something done to you). In a social contract, citizens agree to give up some of their positive freedoms, such as the freedom to steal others’ property, in exchange for negative freedoms, such as the freedom from having their own property stolen.
Anyway, social contract theory works because, in a society, everyone’s best interests are entwined. If I violate your liberty, it puts my own at risk. Thus the contract creates a situation in which it is most rational to not harm others.
I am suspicious of flexible morality because, due to human nature, people can and will bend it to whatever they want. Recently, a man shot another man through the front door of his home since he believed the man was trying to force his way in. He was arrested.One of the problems with an “absolutist” morality is that it offers no flexibility in the event that not everyone follows it. A moral against killing sounds great, but what happens if someone breaks into your house and is trying to kill you?
A consequentialist ethic allows you to say, “I tried my best to resolve this situation without harming anyone, but harm is inevitable in the current situation, so it’s time to make a decision.”
I assure you that if you ever do read some of Locke, Rousseau, etc., they do not advocate “excluding morality or common sense”. Their goal was to create a system in which what is moral will also be rational. This is a nice supplement to morality, because if anyone ever asks “why should I do what you claim is moral?”, the social contract theorists can respond “It’s in your best interest. You would do it anyway, even without our assertion that you should.”Then you need laws that will put you in jail if you violate them and these laws need to be universal. “Social contracts,” as I’ve read in forums other than here, can and do exclude morality and even common sense. So I am against those particular types of contracts.
So where does that leave you in the debate over gun control? Why would anyone ever need guns unless they’re hunting? Heck, why have a military if killing is always wrong? Also, going back to hunting, why is it okay to kill some animals but not humans? If some animals should not be killed, such as dogs, why is it okay to kill the others?I am suspicious of flexible morality because, due to human nature, people can and will bend it to whatever they want. Recently, a man shot another man through the front door of his home since he believed the man was trying to force his way in. He was arrested.
Believe me, I’ve been exposed to the people you mention. I will continue to state that by investigating people and motivations, which is critical to writing stories and building worlds and their societies, there is always a finite set of principles. Always.I assure you that if you ever do read some of Locke, Rousseau, etc., they do not advocate “excluding morality or common sense”. Their goal was to create a system in which what is moral will also be rational. This is a nice supplement to morality, because if anyone ever asks “why should I do what you claim is moral?”, the social contract theorists can respond “It’s in your best interest. You would do it anyway, even without our assertion that you should.”
So where does that leave you in the debate over gun control? Why would anyone ever need guns unless they’re hunting? Heck, why have a military if killing is always wrong? Also, going back to hunting, why is it okay to kill some animals but not humans? If some animals should not be killed, such as dogs, why is it okay to kill the others?
I’ve never seen an absolutist moral code answer questions like those without inventing ad hoc rules designed for every particular question.
Would you say that the immorality of slavery is an absolute or would it be relative to the times and customs of the society? Similarly with the use of torture (such as the rack) to extract confessions. Is the use of the rack to extract confessions absolutely immoral, or would it depend on the customs and conventions of the society at that time?I am suspicious of flexible morality …
Referring to these particular examples, historical research needs to be done. For example, Pol Pot declared it to be Year Zero, and along with the Khmer Rouge, killed whoever and set up reeducation camps. The Serbians, because they were defeated on some field 500 years ago, used modern weapons to kill people in Bosnia-Herzegovina.Would you say that the immorality of slavery is an absolute or would it be relative to the times and customs of the society? Similarly with the use of torture (such as the rack) to extract confessions. Is the use of the rack to extract confessions absolutely immoral, or would it depend on the customs and conventions of the society at that time?
As to slavery, it would seem to be immoral all the time, though opposing it at some times would be more difficult than at others, as we found out during our Civil War. This would fall under the absolute moral axiom that we should do unto others as we would have them do unto us. If there are people who would enslave others, it’s not likely those same people (the masters) would like to be enslaved.Would you say that the immorality of slavery is an absolute or would it be relative to the times and customs of the society? Similarly with the use of torture (such as the rack) to extract confessions. Is the use of the rack to extract confessions absolutely immoral, or would it depend on the customs and conventions of the society at that time?
So you do not know offhand as to whether these would be absolutely immoral? If these are relative to the culture, then it looks like morality has a certain amount of flexibility?Referring to these particular examples, historical research needs to be done.
No, morality never has any flexibility. My remarks were directed at the very strange idea of " the customs and conventions of the society at that time?"So you do not know offhand as to whether these would be absolutely immoral? If these are relative to the culture, then it looks like morality has a certain amount of flexibility?
The issue is not choosing between the greater or the lesser of two evils, but the particular case of **having to necessarily choose **between a greater and a lesser evil. The normative application of Utilitarian political or economic theory applies to actions in general, not to **necessary choices **in particular. Example: Truman **did not have to choose **between using the bomb or losing the war. The war in effect was already won. The surrender was imminent.I don’t see the difference between “choosing the lesser of two evils” and more plainly suggesting that we “cause a little suffering to prevent even greater suffering”. The idea of choosing between evils at all is utilitarian.
This is true. However, utilitarianism has a “built-in” restriction on how often it advocates choosing among evils, since the goal is to maximize happiness, not merely increase it. Thus, all else being equal, if the situation permits us to avoid causing additional suffering, utilitarianism would choose that option.The issue is not choosing between the greater or the lesser of two evils, but the particular case of **having to necessarily choose **between a greater and a lesser evil. The normative application of Utilitarian political or economic theory applies to actions in general, not to **necessary choices **in particular.
But the rationale behind Hiroshima was that more lives in total would be saved by using it rather than not, even though I don’t doubt that allied soldiers were foremost in the minds of those who made the decision. It could therefore be classed as utilitarian.Also, you keep bringing up the example of bombings, but this doesn’t reflect a utilitarian ethic. This is because nationalism inevitably plays a role in politics, and the lives of a country’s own citizens will be given greater weight than other humans. Utilitarianism doesn’t discriminate like that.
The government has never been honest about collateral damage before, so I wouldn’t trust the projections they offer to the public. But I think we can infer from other policies that a nation’s politics aren’t utilitarian on an international scale. For example, immigration quotas and tariffs are hard to defend on a strictly utilitarian basis.But the rationale behind Hiroshima was that more lives in total would be saved by using it rather than not, even though I don’t doubt that allied soldiers were foremost in the minds of those who made the decision. It could therefore be classed as utilitarian.
Utilitarianism would acknowledge that the action was good if the consequences worked out. However, in my personal brand of utilitarianism, I wouldn’t advocate making “unconventional” decisions in the face of great uncertainty. I think it’s safer to fall back on rules that tend to maximize happiness in most cases when the results are difficult to predict, instead of what we hope for.But is it possible to hope for a utilitarian outcome? That whoever has to make the decision says: I have a pretty good idea of what the toll will be if we don’t use it but I’m not sure of the toll if we do, but I’ll do it anyway and hope the books balance to back my decision.
Assuming a more or less deterministic universe (yes, I know it isn’t on the quantum level), actions never become wrong after the fact. They are right or wrong, and we don’t figure out which until later.But what happens if more people die of their injuries later on? Does it then become wrong?
So do you say that slavery is intrinsically evil? And that torture by the rack is always immoral? So that both slavery and torture by the rack are absolutely immoral?No, morality never has any flexibility. My remarks were directed at the very strange idea of " the customs and conventions of the society at that time?"
Monstrous evil can happen today, anytime.
Peace,
Ed
No is wasn’t.Oh, they got the quick surrender for sure.
Unfortunately, at a civilian casualty rate that was unparalleled in the history of warfare.