One defends against the danger, not the aggressor. That is the point of defending against a rabid dog and the rabid human. Yes, the dog and the human are not the same, but the danger they posit IS the same. And the insane human is just as dangerous as a dog.
While both situations represent a danger, they do not represent the same degree of danger. And while all life is sacred to some degree, not all forms of life are deserving of the same level of respect. We do not respect mosquitoes very much at all, even when they are just a minor nuisance. We respect cattle a little more, requiring more humane treatment, but we still slaughter them and eat them. We hold human life as most sacred of all. Therefore the decision to shoot or not to shoot must take into account both the degree of danger and the degree of respect for the human life. I would think the occasions where it is moral to shoot a human rabies victim, while theoretically possible, is next to impossible to achieve in practice, compared to the chances of encountering the need to shoot a rabid dog.o_mlly:
One defends against the danger, not the aggressor. That is the point of defending against a rabid dog and the rabid human. Yes, the dog and the human are not the same, but the danger they posit IS the same. And the insane human is just as dangerous as a dog.
Your whole argument is based upon some “speciesism”.
Actually, this is based on a misunderstanding. I only point out that there is no epistemological method to decide which one is “better”. As such it renders the ethical systems subjective. For someone who subscribes to the “divine command theory” and that divine entity commands “to kill all the boys and non-virgins, but keep the virgins for your use” to follow this command is moral. For others it is not.
As soon as you utter: “But this is not one of those times.” you subscribe to relativistic morality - which is fine by me.
Obviously not. The fact that the Catholic approach to sexuality is different from mine does not render either your or mine “immoral”. On the other hand the genital mutilation practiced by some people is immoral in our eyes. It is not just different.
Again, I agree.
Even though I don’t use the adjective “sacred” (for obvious reasons) but I value human life over the lives of others - ALL other things being equal. However this respect is not based upon some DNA. But that is a different discussion.Not exactly. The danger (so far) that your scenario indicates is a physical evil, disease. Yes, one ought to work to preserve one’s life against a rapid dog, a hurricane, a tornado but may not harm an innocent human being to do so.
OK. Did the contagious person agree that you may murder her?
Unacceptable. A danger is a danger, no matter who or what causes it. The person may be totally insane.
Apples and oranges.
I didn’t say there was. But once a person has decided to adopt an ethical system, there can be an absolute morality within that system. That is why, when arguing with an atheist about, say, the morality of theft, I will not cite the Catechism, even though that is my moral reference. Instead I will explore common principles I might happen to share with that atheist and try to convince him of my view of theft using only those principles. Of course it is also possible that I might not find enough common principles with that person to make this possible. In that case it is just impossible to convince such a person. But I’ll bet that atheist thinks he is right in an absolute sense just as I think I am right in an absolute sense. Anyone who says they believe X but contrary views may just as well be right does not really believe X.LeafByNiggle:
Actually, this is based on a misunderstanding. I only point out that there is no epistemological method to decide which one is “better”.
That judgement itself is a subjective one. Think about it.
This is just a tautology and conveys no illuminating content. “Those who believe in murder believe in murder.” So what? That does not make belief in murder good.
You are merely citing a value we happen to share and declaring it “immoral”. But when viewed from the perspective where genital mutilation is acceptable, it is just different. But it is not surprising that people of different ethical systems will agree on some points and disagree on others.
What about when you run into disagreements on the question of who is an affected party? For example, the ethics of high-sulfur coal in power plants is that it pollutes downwind waterways. But you might say that those downwind are simply mistaken, and it doesn’t really affect them. Therefore they are not an affected party and their disagreement with burning coal is of no consequence. This is just one example, but if you would like to cite another example of where all affected parties agree and yet Catholic doctrine says it is not allowed, please do so and I will do my best to comment on it.
Does your ethical system have any principles?Let me come clean. I follow the utilitarian / consequentialist method. As long as ALL the affected parties agree, everything is permissible.
o_mlly:
Not really. It is a meta-ethical proposition, not an ethical one
I merely point out that the same act in the same condition is “moral” from one ethical system, and not moral in another one. There is no tautology in it.
Then we use reason and logic. Fortunately the litmus test is objective.
Yes. The basic one is the negative form of the golden rule.
Is that, “Do unto others before they do unto you”?o_mlly:
Yes. The basic one is the negative form of the golden rule.
But it is still subjective.LeafByNiggle:
Not really. It is a meta-ethical proposition, not an ethical one
Tautology means something that is true directly from the definition. That is the case here. Ethical systems, by definition, define right and wrong for that system. Different ethical systems then can define different things as right and wrong.
I disagree that is objective. People will disagree about whether or not they are affected.
No…
There is no litmus test for that. For example some people cry a river if they are prevented from discriminating against others.
An economy of words from “Economist” that, unfortunately, does not progress the debate.
If you are ignorant about the two versions of the golden rule, you need to learn about it. Another version would be: “The right of your fist ends where my nose begins”. Is that clear now?
No, it’s hardly clear but rather muddled in trite sayings. And the one whom you think is contagiously infected has no nose? Still mayhem and chaos. No getting around it; you have no system because you have no principles that you can articulate.
You are entitled to your ignorance.
It all depends on your intent and your ethical system. If your basic principle is to save as many as you can, then killing one is better than have all ten perish. If your basic principle is to “wash your hands”… or avoid action, then your inaction is “moral”… at least in your own eyes.
You just revealed your own absolute sense of morality! Welcome to the club.LeafByNiggle:
There is no litmus test for that. For example some people cry a river if they are prevented from discriminating against others.
Facts are objective. Their evaluation is not.
Sorry, I don’t understand you.