|
thetownbicycle -> RE: What good is morality anyway? (3/12/2014 4:09:19 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess
quote:
ORIGINAL: thetownbicycle
quote:
ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess
quote:
ORIGINAL: Marc2b
Morality is the ability to empathize combined with the willingness and self discipline to behave so as to minimize harm to others.
This is nicely put. I'm trying to think of a logical exception to the above, and can't. Holds up for me…..
It's nicely put, but I don't know that it applies universally. What if they want to be harmed, and you're willing to accommodate? Who can claim omniscience of all variables and calculate least harm?
The closest thing I've found to a Kantian categorical imperative is the non-aggression principle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle
I would think harm can have both an objective and a subjective interpretation. I'm a masochist and I like pain. Someone who acts as a sadist to my masochist in a consensual way is not actually harming me (even though it might look like that objectively). Pain does not equal harm in my (masochist) brain. If you're not a masochist pain probably does equal harm. When I play with sadists they are always able to properly calculate the distinction between pain and harm. (I'm careful about who I play with). A sadist who cannot distinguish between pain and harm, or chooses not to distinguish between pain and harm, in my world, would not be acting in a moral way.
It may not have been your intent, but you've just illustrated how subjective the concept of "harm" is. When does the sadist cross that line? When he violates your consent. Hence, the non-aggression principle. Hurting someone is not intrinsically immoral. We do it by accident, in self-defense, or just for fun. But can you think of any instances where initiating coercive force against other human beings (and violating their peaceful free will) is morally defensible?
|
|
|
|
