Originally posted by seer
View Post
The moral conclusion flows from what we value. For the Maoist to get me to change my stance on "random killing" they would have to convince me that my valuing life is pointless or misguided. Then my moral framework might change.
Premise: what we value
Conclusion: arrived at by reason (hopefully) to sort action into ought and ought not
Originally posted by seer
View Post
Originally posted by seer
View Post
Originally posted by seer
View Post
BTW - this kind of collective vs. individual life decision is made all the time. Note, for example, the entire Khashoggi incident in which the reason for NOT calling Saudi Arabia to task was not just "collective vs. individual," it was "too much money involved." I did not see a great deal of objection coming from too many people to that line of reasoning - even those who believe morality is absolute/objective.
So now I'm the curious one - did Trump act properly in giving Saudi Arabia a pass and remaining financially tied to the Saudi royal family? Is $400B now the price of an individual man's life - according to your so-called absolute/objective metric, of course...
Comment