pull down to refresh
20 sats \ 1 reply \ @elvismercury OP 3h \ parent \ on: A bunch of alarming shit BooksAndArticles
It depends on what the exercise is for. One could impose some set of moral axioms and reason forward from it, and say "this is how it should work" and make a rule set for how we should punish this or that. But others aren't likely to be bound by my logic, so I can't get very excited about the exercise.
You can get pretty far with some pretty basic stuff, though -- the golden rule is pretty good. It's relative, but it seems a stretch, in any era, to argue that people really don't see the problem with raping and murdering women in Juarez, or lynching negroes for moving into the wrong neighborhood. One can make the argument ("I'd expect the same if I moved into their place where I wasn't wanted") but I don't believe it.
the bigger class of concerning things, ... are things we don't think twice about now that our successors will one day look as monstrous in the same way we're stunned that our ancestors thought slavery was fine.
You piqued my curiosity here.
I'd never really put the consequences of my actions under the microscope of this level of scrutiny.
Anyway, since we've come this far and we agree that others (especially our successors) likely won't feel bound by my logic or yours, then I'll admit that don't get very excited by discussing the limits of moral relativism either, since it feels a bit like playing a lose-lose game.
Self-examination, discernment, compassion, charity, understanding, the list can go on ... are principles of morality, besides the golden rule, that might be solid ground to stand on. (I am not sure how much these differ across the spectrum of belief systems.) I think if I am true to these, then how much does it really profit me to concern myself with the disapproval of my successors?
Over time our starting premises seems to change more than the logic itself.
reply