RobNY:
They are thus: killing this person would be to your gain, and you absolutely positively will not get caught. Would you kill this person? Yes or no.
As to me personally, absent issues of self defense, killing a person could never be to my gain. Because I personally have strong feelings of empathy, I would view killing someone else
per se as profoundly distressing. So distressing, in fact, that no possible benefit other than the preservation of my own or another’s life could possibly outweigh it. In fact, my feelings of empathy cause such distress at the thought of killing another that even if my own life were in danger, I would try to exhaust non-lethal means of resolution before killing.
So, might makes right. Right? At least might in numbers.
In my opinion, there is no objective “right” for might to make. Might is just might.
So far, the criterion you’ve given me is what’s best for me is what’s good.
What I believe is best for me,
all things considered is what I will, in fact do.
No amount of numbers changes that. If one million people think X, and I still think Y is best for me, obviously that doesn’t change the fact.
Not necessarily. If Y is in conflict with X, if one million people avow that they will hunt me down and kill me if I do Y, that would definitely affect my opinion about whether Y is, in fact, good for me.
Let me give an example. I personally like to drive fast. Without considering other people’s opinions, I would drive at 90 mph. As P. J. O’Rourke says, “55 mph is the speed at which a spirited person parallel parks.” I’m a very good driver, and I believe that I’m less of a danger at 90 mph than most people are at the speed limit.
However, our society has seen fit to impose speed limits. That definitely changes the equation for me. I
don’t want to spend a lot of money on speeding tickets, I don’t want to lose my licence, and I don’t want to go to jail. Therefore I drive at the speed limit.
Of course, in the middle of the night, when there are probably few cops around, and I know the road is safe, I might go a little faster.
Is anyone fundamentally allowed to abrogate someone else’s what’s best for me?
Because I deny objective morality, I deny that anyone is
fundamentally allowed or prohibited to do anything (other than per the laws of physics). I deny that the concept that
fundamental permission or prohibition is meaningful at all. There is only
effective permission or prohibition. There is only what we in fact approve or disapprove of, what we do and do not enforce.
And again I will note that my position is in agreement with the facts.
Are they allowed to abrogate it given a majority vote? If so, why would a majority vote contain the power that each individual constituent wouldn’t have?
Moral subjectivism, at least my version of it, does not preclude sophisticated forms of political agreements. All that is necessary is that most people do in fact approve of the agreement.
We Americans have a sophisticated political structure. We have a majority agreement that, in the absence of a real threat, minority interests should be protected. This feature of our society, though, is predicated on people having subjective opinions about abstract principles. If the preponderance of people didn’t buy into the protection of minorities at some level, it would not be a feature of our society.
I’m actually half interested in this, here.
I’m
very interested in considerations of morality, ethics and law.
Your definition of ethical goodness is following what’s best for me.
Again, I have to reiterate: Subjective opinion does not establish objective truth. My position is, rather, that subjective opinions are all the facts we have to work with in constructing laws.
(continued)
