| Subject: My answer |
Author:
Damoclese
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 12/15/02 3:49pm
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "What is your take on morality?" on 12/14/02 11:39pm
I don't adhere to any of those categories in particular because I don't think it is possible for humans to ever arrive at what is definitively moral and what isn't as this would be an example of our senses perceiving something about reality.
I do however, in the world of experience think that in order to engauge in conversations about morality, one most postulate that morality exists to begin with, though it may well be the case that it doesn't.
Hence, the golden rule to me in the world of experience is to do the least harm for the most people. It isn't okay to kill an infant to the pleasure of the masses because the masses aren't going to be as harmed as the killing of the infant. They aren't going to experience the joy of it, but this is far less of a problem than inflicting suffering (because the masses won't know the difference if it never happens). If the situation were to kill an infant or to let everyone else die, then the infant could be killed, and the principle wouldn't be violated.
I hold to this simply because I view suffering as generally bad, and to be avoided as much as possible.
Damoclese
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
