RE: Is it bad to kill people?
That's precisely the point I was debating. The Vikings had an ancient culture, hundreds of years old, and it was a warrior culture. Their have been plenty of those. America had some, there's the Zulu, there's the Sentinel Island (read about this one, it's the best example), the vikings, etc., and in those societies, the death of your enemies is celebrated. For this kind of warrior society, it is not only socially accepted but a great achievement to kill your opponents. You only think it's bad because you were raised that way. They only think it's good because they were raised that way. That's why morality is relative and things are not bad by themselves but bad to the people who see them as such.
Do you still disagree? If so, what makes you think that morality is absolute?
That is exactly the point I am debating, you are saying that morale depends on a social context. While I think that morale is something which doesn't depend on the cultural context. As the examples, I was making, having slaves was bad all along, nowadays most people know it was.
We can usually try to see this through the "Do I want this happening to me" point of view.
I mean, Vikings also were sad about one of their owns being killed in a battle (Although they'd believe to rejoin them in Valhalla eventually). This means that they are not happy about people killing people. They are happy about them killing others which shows the lack of morale in this setting.
Well I'm not happy when I have to give my money to someone in exchange for a good. I'd rather keep my money. That doesn't mean that asking for compensation for essential goods and services is bad.
You're creating a symmetric moral system where things that make people feel good are good and things that make people feel bad are bad. However, first, society is filled with asymmetricalities and it's much more complicated than that. And second, it's something you created and decided was the right thing. They created another system and decided that one was the right system, an asymmetrical moral system conflicting with yours. How do you decide that yours is right and theirs is bad? It is as much their belief that they are right as it is yours that you are right.
In the end he point is: why should anyone else change their opinion and believe that yours is the right one? Why is their culture's moral system wrong and yours right? Why should morals be symmetrical and based on feelings?
Posted using Partiko Android
While you might not want to pay for a service, you might want something in exchange for a service you are offering yourself?
I know that our society is filled with asymmetries, but isn't this in huge parts the root of most problems we are facing during these times? The richest having "high" morales in protecting the environment and fighting for equality while the poor barely have enough to eat and surely other things to worry about.
So it might be fine for someone who is poor to drive an old diesel which is bad for the environment while it might not be fine for someone who can afford a cleaner car.
Or, while it might be fine for a poor person to steal food, as someone from the middle class this is not acceptable.
I'm not saying that a system of morale has to be symmetric, but, it has to be consistent. It's like math. If 1+2 = 3, then 2+1 must be 3 too.
If I find it wrong that other people kill, then it should be wrong for me too.
Of course, this can be context sensitive (Self-defense, accidentally, attack, war) but in this sense, if I find it wrong if someone kills me in self-defense, I should find it wrong for someone else, in the same situation, to do this as well. Anything else is selfishness and inconsistent.
I mean, else, when we say that morale does depend on the culture, and can be asymmetric and inconsistent, then do we need morale at all and couldn't we call it all culture, couldn't we?
I mean, seemingly you are following the path of "everything is alright".
People killing, robbing, raping, kid soldiers, it's all fine, who are we to judge them, who are we trying to impose our moral standards on them?
And don't get me wrong, I don't believe morale is absolute at all. I find the question of "is it bad to kill someone" extremely complex. Taking as an example the train paradox where you have to decide between killing one or three people. Or, should you shoot a plane full of people because it might crash into a building and kill many others?
These questions are incredibly difficult to answer and might not have a decent response at all.
But, morale has to be consistent. If I think it is right to kill the people in the plain, I must be okay with it when I am in the plain as well. Else, it's just being selfish.