This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
On Morality (maybe just an interesting story)
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
The lesser of two evils is good in the sense that a perfectly moral person would choose the lesser of two evils. Yes, there are some situations where both options are ugly, but the option the perfectly moral person would take is the "right" choice, or in other words, good.
Someone choosing something does not make it good.
Post by
TheMediator
A hypothetical perfectly moral person does make it good. I can type too.
Post by
Orranis
The lesser of two evils is good in the sense that a perfectly moral person would choose the lesser of two evils. Yes, there are some situations where both options are ugly, but the option the perfectly moral person would take is the "right" choice, or in other words, good.
Someone choosing something does not make it good.
That's a matter of opinion, how an individual defines good.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
The lesser of two evils is good in the sense that a perfectly moral person would choose the lesser of two evils. Yes, there are some situations where both options are ugly, but the option the perfectly moral person would take is the "right" choice, or in other words, good.
Someone choosing something does not make it good.
That's a matter of opinion, how an individual defines good.
Hitler chose to murder people. Therefore it's good? No, it's not a matter of opinion.
A hypothetical perfectly moral person does make it good. I can type too.
You're begging the question by positing a morally perfect person.
Post by
TheMediator
It seems pretty straight forward to me.
*One or more actions will cause the least amount of harm or the greatest amount of help.
*Good is minimizing harm and maximize help.
*One or more actions in any given situation are good.
Post by
pezz
This thread isn't going anywhere unless everyone agrees on what a 'good' choice is versus what a 'better' choice is.
You can't use words interchangeably like you do with informal language in a discussion of morality. You end up with confusion like this.
The argument being advanced is that killing Hitler would be a
better
choice than not killing him and letting an arbitrary number of people die, but not a
good
choice.
Do we all see the difference?
'Good' and 'bad' are words we use to discuss how a choice relates to a moral absolute. 'Better' and 'worse' are words we use to discuss the relations of each possible choice to that same moral absolute. If one choice relates more closely to an absolute, it is 'better' than the other choices, irrespective of how 'good' or 'bad' any or all of the choices may be.
Therefore, we can easily see how a 'better bad' choice could exist. Trying to use 'good' and 'bad' in both of these contexts (as people are trying to do here) leads to discussion of 'good bad' choices which makes no sense.
Define your terms carefully.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
*Good is minimizing harm and maximize help.
Why
is maximizing "help" good?
Why is not maximizing "help" bad?
I'll answer that for you. Because "help" is good and "harm" is bad. Absolutely.
Therefore, that you helped 10 people is good, but that does not change the fact that your harming of the one person was bad.
Post by
TheMediator
Right, but you're not harming one person, you're helping 10/harming 1. You can't break an action into all its consequences and then say that because of one consequence the action is no longer good. You have to look at the net effect.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Right, but you're not harming one person, you're helping 10/harming 1. You can't break an action into all its consequences and then say that because of one consequence the action is no longer good. You have to look at the net effect.
The action of harm is bad, absolutely (you just agreed to that).
Therefore the act of killing someone, albeit to save lives, is bad.
Post by
TheMediator
Right, there is an absolute value in an act, just like how I pour myself a glass of milk, there is an absolute value of milk in the cup. Let's say that I pour a glass of milk, and that milk represents good. If I drink an amount of milk from that cup, which represents harm, I can still have milk in the cup.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Right, there is an absolute value in an act, just like how I pour myself a glass of milk, there is an absolute value of milk in the cup. Let's say that I pour a glass of milk, and that milk represents good. If I drink an amount of milk from that cup, which represents harm, I can still have milk in the cup.
And you also have empty space (harm) in the cup. The bad is there whether you want to so it or not.
Post by
TheMediator
Right. I guess it just depends whether you're an optimist, a realist, or a pessimist.
Post by
pezz
Or just kind of thirsty.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Right. I guess it just depends whether you're an optimist, a realist, or a pessimist.
Well, wouldn't you say that optimism and pessimism are flawed views, and that only a realist who sees both the good and the bad has it right?
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.