Prior to World War II, there were no acts identified as “war crimes” against civilians. Signatories to the Geneva Convention agreed to protect certain rights of their POWs only.
You still evade the question. This is not a question of what I personally would do, but of what makes logical sense - what applies to everyone? - given the conditions we have set forth, and the logical conclusion appears to be that we should in every circumstance do what is in our own best interest. This means that if it is our best interest to help someone we should help him, but if it is in our best interest to steal from him or even kill him we should do that as well. So far you have provided no argument against these (admittedly illegal) acts other than to say it’s probably not a good idea because in all likelihood we’ll be caught and punished. Absent punishment, however, there appears to be no objection.
What is in our best interest is also subjectively defined. It must also take into consideration that we are not just individuals, but also social beings (“herd animals”). So there is no universal panacea that would apply to “everyone”. Our best interest cannot be separated from the interest of others. It is incorrect and very naïve to think that total selfishness is the best way to live.
To be caught and punished is not in our best interest.
Only reason and logic tells you otherwise. It is not a surprise that most societies across all the ages accept the principle of reciprocity (the different versions of the golden rule) as the best way to behave.
This is an interesting comment. I started this thread to examine the moral implications of assuming that right and wrong do not objectively exist, but this suggests there are practical implications. Which I guess ought to be obvious: if Natural Law is true, and if we ignore it, there ought to be real life consequences.
This would explain why having, and doing whatever one wants doesn’t bring happiness and fulfillment.
So it is reasonable to ask: is this what we’re seeing? Certainly a case can be made that we are.
For the record, I was reluctant to participate in this thread, because it seemed likely to turn into a thread for mocking people who say “morality does not objectively exist” (or a variation of that statement).
However, it is a mistake to expect to “see”, or “foresee”, those consequences (let alone weigh them all up - good and bad) in any particular timeframe. Perhaps there is a connection between this reality and the secondary position which circumstances/consequences take in judging morality of acts? Something much more immediate and identifiable is required to guide us.
This: “By reason of the very purity of His being, God is distinguished from all finite beings. Hence it follows, in the first place, that the world could only have come from God by creation; secondly, that not even by way of a miracle can any finite nature be given creative power, which of itself directly attains the very being of any being; and finally, that no created agent can in any way influence the being of any effect unless it has itself been moved by the first Cause” (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, Vl (1914), 383*86)
I’m actually just summarizing the essence of the Thomist view of human flourishing.
Yes. The problem is that our wants are often not properly disposed towards what it is that, by our nature, will actually fulfill them, let alone with the correct amount of desire fitting for the stimulus. Through habits called virtues, we can order our desires so that can potentially be fulfilled by whatever it is that can fulfill them.
What is “this?” Sorry, I don’t understand
According to your standard the actions of Otto Schindler, and Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman are morally indistinguishable, despite the fact that Schindler risked his life to save Jews during the Holocaust, and Guzman risked his to control a drug cartel and make tons of money. Doesn’t this suggest a problem with your standard?
Reason and logic tell me that in a world where right and wrong are whatever I choose, my actions will be directed by my self interest, and while I would like everyone else to act according to the golden rule there is no reason whatever that I should. I would simply fake it.
Keep in mind the conditions set forth in the OP: objective morality does not exist. I don’t want to argue the truth of that assumption; that wasn’t the point of the thread. What I want to examine is what such an assumption implies. It’s no different than saying “If we assume Batman is real, what would that imply?” You don’t address the question by asserting Batman does not exist.
“This” - the consequences of believing morality is subjective.
No, they are not. I have my standard, and you have your standard. They are simply different.
What is the source of your standard?
Put another way - personal judgement.My conscience, which originated during my formative years, and later fine tuned, when my critical skills developed. Just like everyone else’s, I guess.
Obviously, just like you. You are also required to follow your own conscience. Of course I follow mine because it is my best guide… why should I follow someone else’s guidelines, if I find them unacceptable, illogical and irrational? However, I am amenable to learn and change my conviction, IF and only IF someone can bring up a rational argument which would invalidate my previous judgment. So far it did not happen, but who knows, maybe sometime it will happen.Put another way - personal judgement.
Jiminy Cricket! So you believe in consciences, then. I wasn’t sure.