If it is actually forced, why bother with a command? The debt/obligation/duty to willfully & consensually treat your neighbor/enemy the way you would want to be treated is not about merely reducing pain/pressure. Sometimes finding out what someone else likes and making sure that happens can … add tension.
But. There is a sense in which the command to love is also redundant, like telling someone to sit down who is already in the process of sitting. Gravity takes over at some point. Against such things there is no law.
I’m not going to correct you about every little thing you say wrong on purpose. I’ve said too much already.
Correct me where I’m wrong then, go ahead… oh wait, you can’t, cuz im not.
The Abrahamic God’s “Commandments” pertain to keeping the slave population in check and otherwise people, serving State and/or Church. It is not in “the best interest” of the slave necessarily, individually, but for the whole population. That’s why they’re Commands and why they’re Forced. They are NOT choices.
Christ demonstrates Universal morality in terms of Suffering / Pain. You still don’t know the basics, after all this time spent on this forum. I’m honestly disappointed. I expected a lot more out of you. But at least you can memorize, I suppose.
You feel forced when you hear a command. That’s a you-problem.
Treating your neighbor/enemy as self means there is no distinction between master and slave. The Jews in particular were told to remember they USED TO be foreign slaves when they were commanded to be kind to the stranger/sojourner, and their laws made sure vulnerable groups were not mistreated. Violating those laws (see, cuz they had a choice…) resulted in stuff like exile (as a nation).
Based. It makes me feel nice to know the planet has some people in it that aren’t idiots.
this kinda just sounds like doodoo to me. First of all Aristotle had garbage physics of believing objects in motion come to rest. The Kant garbage is garbage because actions depend on context, for example an action some might say is immoral, might be actually moral in certain situations. Kant just robotically says all actions must be universal law or some shit
Utilitarianism has lots of counterexamples. For instance, if a doctor has five patients who will die without a separate organ, and a healthy patient comes in for a check-up, why can’t the doctor kill the healthy patient to save the five?
Or for instance, what’s wrong with the colosseum? Sure, a few people suffer enormously, but look at the collective enjoyment of the crowd. Why can’t we have people suffering on national TV for the amusement of the many?
Under utilitarianism, why is human or animal experimentation unethical?
And if you manage to get around all such counterexamples, you’re still left with the fact that people typically don’t judge an action solely on its outcomes. If somebody intends to harm people but ends up saving people, we don’t typically say it was a moral action. The utilitarian has to maintain we only care about intentions because the right intentions usually lead to the right outcomes; they have to say the value of good intentions is derivative from the value of good outcomes.
Deontology, the idea that there are rules every rational person must follow, does not emotionally connect with people but it seems harder to directly criticize. Although Kant himself thought you should NEVER lie, under ANY circumstances, even to save lives…
Virtue ethics seems useful but vague. It doesn’t directly tell us what we should do, except that we should do “what a virtuous person would do”. Plus what is called a virtue is partly cultural. Aristotle himself believed pride is a virtue, an elite minority should rule, tradespeople should not be citizens, and some people are natural slaves.
It really depends. What if the person is some criminal on death-row? And the healthy patient is some kind of brilliant person trying to make a better world. Wouldn’t it be unethical to not give them their organs?
There isn’t anything wrong with a colosseum, in fact I support it and WANT it. I hope someday there will be humans vs. zombies where Fent addicts are zombies and attack the human gladiators. And the humans shoot them with non-lethal guns. Maybe moving to lethal guns if the public demands it.
It sounds like you’re just biting the bullet and wanting to say these apparently immoral situations aren’t actually immoral. In which case you’d have to be way more comfortable with the idea of victimizing a minority of people and overriding their rights for the benefit of the majority, than most people are.
I don’t like Kant’s strictness. But apparently there are ways to build rule-based systems that are sensitive to context and where conflicts between rules can be adjudicated. Will learn more about this shortly. It just won’t be as tidy as “maximize happiness”.
yes but it wouldn’t be Kant. I only said Kant’s moral system is garbage, not some other hypothetical thing.
thats modern morality. everyone’s been indoctrinated into modernity like that.
there is nothing immoral about putting death row inmates into gladiatorial arenas against fent addicts.
also what if we can send normal prisoners there, it would actually be more moral than the current prison system, they could sign a waiver and consent to be gladiators in exchange for their freedom. There would even be 0 consent violations that way
Sorry about the delayed reply here. I felt a duty to express this is a point of agreement, and here I am choosing to do so. I’m not 100% certain all secularists don’t understand this, though, but that is a side issue.