»Is there objective moral? Why was the holocaust immoral?«
|
|||
 By wich standards can we claim what is moral and what not? What should the objective guidelines for morality be? Is there anything like "objectively evil"? Or "objectively good"? Is there a universal moral by which we could judge other cultures (aliens, for example)? posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgReligion and Mysteries, from worship to werewolvesReligious & Philosophical TopicsIs there objective moral? Why was the holocaust immoral? |
|
|||
 Don't do unto others what you don't want them to do unto you. posted by Tiefling |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tiefling: if I am not mistaken, you are citing the Silver Rule, the negative of the golden rule, which is, if I am not mistaken, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". A problem arises with the Golden and Silver Rule. With regard to the Golden Rule, a person who applies it as an absolute may tell someone a harsh or hurtful truth even though that person either would prefer blissful ignorance (e.g. telling someone who is insecure about his/her physical appearance that others find him/her physically unattractive) or shouldn't be told the truth for purposes of safety (telling criminals the wherabouts of their next victim, for instance, seems to be an application of the golden rule by someone who prefers being told the truth). With regard to the Silver Rule, one may not want to die, yet if one life was to be sacrificed to save 1 billion, would the Silver Rule overrule the principle of least damage/greater good/ lesser evil? I am inclined to say no. In a less gruesome example, a self-reliant person who finds recieving free money to help make ends meet condescending may not give money to those who believe they need it. The Golden and Silver Rule assume persons have uniform desires and beliefs, as their applications are based upon this. But people are individuals; as such, they desire and believe different things (regardless of whether they are right or wrong in desiring or believing these things). Moreover, the categorical imperative it seems to entail would not work in situations such as the criminal example; nor would it sit well with a utilitarian standpoint, as my greater good example implies. Thus, the Golden and Silver Rule do not seem universally applicable---neither seem to be an objective truth. posted by dub329 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Maybe something like "Act for the greatest good of the greatest number of people/life forms" posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 I agree on all above posts, and I would like to add that the specific case of the Holocaust was immoral because it was the mass killing and torturing of innocent men, women, and children for absolutely no valid reason. It was an act of pure hatred.  posted by Echelon |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
dub329 : The Golden and Silver Rule assume persons have uniform desires and beliefs, as their applications are based upon this. All the Silver Rule assumes is that people don't want to be harmed. Why must anything more than that be assumed? And like all rules, those who are in violation of it will have to be punished accordingly. knn: "Act for the greatest good of the greatest number of people/life forms" Would anyone that you personally know meet this standard? posted by Tiefling |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
 From a utilitarian point of view, the holocaust was completely invalid. More were made angry or sad from it then those made happy. I wouldn't imagine many benefited or were made happy. And Echelons point is pretty good, there wasn't really any reason other than racial bias. posted by hungarian kid |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 Tiefling: Why must anything more than that be assumed? because: dub329: people are individuals; as such, they desire and believe different things (regardless of whether they are right or wrong in desiring or believing these things). Moreover, the categorical imperative it seems to entail would not work in situations such as the criminal example; nor would it sit well with a utilitarian standpoint, as my greater good example implies. Thus, the Golden and Silver Rule do not seem universally applicable---neither seem to be an objective truth Tiefling: Would anyone that you personally know meet this standard? As mentioned in the above circumstances, not everyone will be able to meet the Golden/Silver Rules standards either. posted by nocturnal_anonymous |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
If the Golden and Silver Rule are interpreted as a general code of conduct---not necessarily moral conduct---then it seems they would only be sound if people had uniform desires and beliefs, as these can shape how we would "like" or "not like" to be treated in a variety of situations. Sometimes people would like to be treated in an unreasonable manner (masochism is an extreme example). To entrust all practice of these Rules, without other moral guidelines, to any of these persons could yield chaos. More rules are needed to guide moral action; thus, the Golden and Silver Rule cannot be always trusted by themselves. This calls their objectivity into question. Another problem with the Golden Rule concerns merit. One could reasonably argue that it requires us to give more to people than they are entitled. posted by dub329 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
nocturnal_anonymous: because: dub329: people are individuals; as such, they desire and believe different things (regardless of whether they are right or wrong in desiring or believing these things). Erhm, nocturnal, did you not see me post this?: Tiefling: All the Silver Rule assumes is that people don't want to be harmed. posted by Tiefling |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
dub329: Sometimes people would like to be treated in an unreasonable manner (masochism is an extreme example). A masochist doesn't want to be hurt by anyone, anytime. A masochist wants to be hurt by a particular person / set of people during a particular intimate circumstance / set of circumstances. posted by Tiefling |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tiefling: nocturnal_anonymous: because: dub329: people are individuals; as such, they desire and believe different things (regardless of whether they are right or wrong in desiring or believing these things). Erhm, nocturnal, did you not see me post this?: Tiefling: All the Silver Rule assumes is that people don't want to be harmed. Of course I saw it. Do you think that answers what I quoted previously?
What do you say to the criminal example? In that circumstance, the Golden/Silver Rules cannot work if you do not assume that people have a set of uniform beliefs and desires, as stated before. Tiefling: A masochist doesn't want to be hurt by anyone, anytime. A masochist wants to be hurt by a particular person / set of people during a particular intimate circumstance / set of circumstances. I don't think that's the point. Okay, so maybe a masochist only wants to be hurt by a particular person during a particular time. Would you? posted by nocturnal_anonymous |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
nocturnal_anonymous: Of course I saw it. Do you think that answers what I quoted previously? Yes, I do. You quoted where dub said that people want different things. I have already said that we can assume that all people do not want to be hurt. And that is all the Silver Rule assumes. If you think that doesn't answer that point, then maybe you should rephrase how you feel it is still unanswered, rather than copying/pasting. nocturnal_anonymous: What do you say to the criminal example? What criminal example? Repost it please. nocturnal_anonymous: Okay, so maybe a masochist only wants to be hurt by a particular person during a particular time. Would you? Would I... hurt a masochist? No, sorry, I'm not into sadism. posted by Tiefling |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 Tiefling: nocturnal_anonymous: Of course I saw it. Do you think that answers what I quoted previously? Yes, I do. You quoted where dub said that people want different things. I have already said that we can assume that all people do not want to be hurt. And that is all the Silver Rule assumes. If you think that doesn't answer that point, then maybe you should rephrase how you feel it is still unanswered, rather than copying/pasting. I suppose what nocturnal meant was that not everyone wishes to not be harmed, as can be seen from the example of masochism. You can't generalise saying that the only assumption that need be made is that people don't want to be harmed, because "people are individuals" wanting different things, therefore the only way the Golden or Silver Rule could hold would be when people want the same things. Tiefling: nocturnal_anonymous: What do you say to the criminal example? What criminal example? Repost it please. I suppose she is talking about the Prisoner's Dilemma
Tanya and Cinque have been arrested for robbing the Hibernia Savings Bank and placed in separate isolation cells. Both care much more about their personal freedom than about the welfare of their accomplice. A clever prosecutor makes the following offer to each. "You may choose to confess or remain silent. If you confess and your accomplice remains silent I will drop all charges against you and use your testimony to ensure that your accomplice does serious time. Likewise, if your accomplice confesses while you remain silent, they will go free while you do the time. If you both confess I get two convictions, but I'll see to it that you both get early parole. If you both remain silent, I'll have to settle for token sentences on firearms possession charges. If you wish to confess, you must leave a note with the jailer before my return tomorrow morning." The "dilemma" faced by the prisoners here is that, whatever the other does, each is better off confessing than remaining silent. But the outcome obtained when both confess is worse for each than the outcome they would have obtained had both remained silent. I could be wrong. Tiefling: nocturnal_anonymous: Okay, so maybe a masochist only wants to be hurt by a particular person during a particular time. Would you? Would I... hurt a masochist? No, sorry, I'm not into sadism. I don't want to be hurt by someone, neither do I want to hurt anyone. Thus I would try to not hurt anyone, according to the Silver Rule. But if I was a masochist, I would want to be hurt by someone, so does that mean, according to the Golden Rule, that I would hurt others too and regard that as moral? Can we moralise pleasure? Masochism is some people's way of "being happy" (to generally put it), so is it wrong for them to feel that way and thus do we not consider the Rules applicable? But then, how can we pass judgement of majority on them? Just because most of the people feel one way doesn't mean that is basis for that way to be right. 
posted by ryder |
|||
|
|
|||
|
||||||||
|
Why was the Holocaust immoral? Aren't there umpteen reasons to explain why it was? For instance:
posted by ryder |
||||||||
|
||||||||
1, 2, 3 Next
Goto page
1, 2, 3 Next
 Register Log in |
The time now is 21 November 2008, 04:40 php B.B. |