kriminal99
09-23-05, 03:24 PM
I have studied ethics and morality and it is my opinion that our understanding of it will ultimately come to the following.
The human sense of morality is equivalent to the animalistic sense of power. People do things which benefit them the most and are the easiest to accomplish. If the world makes it easier for them to do something one way they do it the easy way. For example it might appear easy to steal, but if you steal people steal from you and everyone hates that so we all agree not to steal so we can keep our own belongings and stealing becomes "morally wrong".
The fact that someone will stop you if you steal is what MAKES it "wrong". Then if you see someone else steal you get mad because you were not allowed to, so you become angry that they think they you are somehow less valuable than they and thats why they should be allowed to steal. Thus the self righteous feeling often accompanying claims such as "THATS WRONG!!" and the domino effect where an idea or entity which stops one person from doing something causes that person to add to its power.
I am not neglecting the other side of morality where we sympathize with people who suffer a similar problem as we have, but rather recognizing this is not a signifigant factor in determing weather or not something is wrong because we do things all the time that hurt others when we believe their behavior is "wrong" for the aforementioned reason. We sympathize with people as such because we believe that it will benefit ourselves somehow, as it often does considering people often appreciate sympathy and befriend those who give it.
This sort of generalization that doing good for others benefits you is reinforced often in society as people appreciate having good things done for them and do good things back to you, smile at you etc.
However, what then regarding the following situation. (And for once it is not a far fetched scenario, it relates to enviornmental issues)
You have a button that will end the life of everyone on the planet earth, the day after the last person alive now will be alive. Noone on the planet earth can claim personal harm by this, because they will all be dead anyways. They also will never benefit or fail to receive benefit from it not happening, because everyone who would benefit from this lack of destruction will never be alive to appreciate it at the same time current people are.
Is there any valid justification for the claim it is morally wrong to press the button? If you claim so, what definition of morality can be used to claim so? It seems easy to sympathize with the people who would die, but doing so is an error in reasoning as the goal of sympathizing is to make yourself happy. What if it costs you something not to press the button? How far will you go to avoid pressing this button when you will never see who you save?
The human sense of morality is equivalent to the animalistic sense of power. People do things which benefit them the most and are the easiest to accomplish. If the world makes it easier for them to do something one way they do it the easy way. For example it might appear easy to steal, but if you steal people steal from you and everyone hates that so we all agree not to steal so we can keep our own belongings and stealing becomes "morally wrong".
The fact that someone will stop you if you steal is what MAKES it "wrong". Then if you see someone else steal you get mad because you were not allowed to, so you become angry that they think they you are somehow less valuable than they and thats why they should be allowed to steal. Thus the self righteous feeling often accompanying claims such as "THATS WRONG!!" and the domino effect where an idea or entity which stops one person from doing something causes that person to add to its power.
I am not neglecting the other side of morality where we sympathize with people who suffer a similar problem as we have, but rather recognizing this is not a signifigant factor in determing weather or not something is wrong because we do things all the time that hurt others when we believe their behavior is "wrong" for the aforementioned reason. We sympathize with people as such because we believe that it will benefit ourselves somehow, as it often does considering people often appreciate sympathy and befriend those who give it.
This sort of generalization that doing good for others benefits you is reinforced often in society as people appreciate having good things done for them and do good things back to you, smile at you etc.
However, what then regarding the following situation. (And for once it is not a far fetched scenario, it relates to enviornmental issues)
You have a button that will end the life of everyone on the planet earth, the day after the last person alive now will be alive. Noone on the planet earth can claim personal harm by this, because they will all be dead anyways. They also will never benefit or fail to receive benefit from it not happening, because everyone who would benefit from this lack of destruction will never be alive to appreciate it at the same time current people are.
Is there any valid justification for the claim it is morally wrong to press the button? If you claim so, what definition of morality can be used to claim so? It seems easy to sympathize with the people who would die, but doing so is an error in reasoning as the goal of sympathizing is to make yourself happy. What if it costs you something not to press the button? How far will you go to avoid pressing this button when you will never see who you save?