You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Morality...Not That Complex
Because killing is a threat to the species' sustainability and progression, therefor destructive.
The phrase "point of view" exemplifies precisely the issue with good/evil. It's malleable to an agenda. The followers of such destructive teachings will of course justify their action as "good". However, the rest of the world, including droves of Muslims, condemn the teachings because they can see they are destructive, and serve no purpose to humanity or it's advancement.
"Because killing is a threat to the species' sustainability and progression, therefor destructive."
Threat to species, sustainability and progression are value judgments some with plus sign some with minus as in constructive/destructive or more traditionally good/evil.
What I don't get what makes destructive with a minus sign? Killing for food for example does not threaten the species sustainability and progression, Completely the opposite. The more cows we kill the more cows there are and the progress in feed tech and veterinary care keeps it sustainable.
You seem to have an agenda to advance humanity and call it constructive which is with plus sign. But why? Some argue humanity with it's greed and progress is the problem for sustainability of the planet. But it's still confusing. What makes unsustainable with a minus sign?
(I am trying hard to avoid agenda malleable good/evil issues )
I think what has thrown you off is the assumption that I am placing constructive and destructive completely apart from evaluation.
The simplest way I can explain this is good/evil is a subjective evaluation while constructive/destructive takes one's personal interests out of the evaluation process. It doesn't make (some) decisions any easier. But it does eliminate arbitrary elements from the process, which yields a much more beneficial result, even when the results are still not ideal.
"What I don't get what makes destructive with a minus sign? Killing for food for example does not threaten the species sustainability and progression, Completely the opposite. The more cows we kill the more cows there are and the progress in feed tech and veterinary care keeps it sustainable."
"Some argue humanity with it's greed and progress is the problem for sustainability of the planet"
I'm not sure where excess was marked as constructive, but I see what point you are wanting to make.
"The simplest way I can explain this is good/evil is a subjective evaluation while constructive/destructive takes one's personal interests out of the evaluation process."
I don't see how it does. If constructive/destructive takes one's personal interests out then whose interests does it takes upon? Plus it seems to me it is subjective.
" It doesn't make (some) decisions any easier. But it does eliminate arbitrary elements from the process, which yields a much more beneficial result, even when the results are still not ideal."
Again I don't see how it is less or even eliminates arbitrariness. As soon as elements like beneficial or ideal introduced they necessary lead to it.
"I'm not sure where excess was marked as constructive"
Right but that is the point at least for me. Why not? May be not for you but it can very well be constructive for the next guy.
I guess in my mind when we talk about morality it is unavoidable to appeal to some kind of standard or moral law. Otherwise it's just a bunch of arbitrary, subjective propositions without explanation why good is better then evil or constructive is better then destructive.
After all it all depends on point of view and yes constructive vs destructive is also depend on the point of view just as good and evil.
Any way thank you for the conversation.
Sayandude.