I agree with the first person about morality determining how to respond socially. For example, why is killing someone in self defense necessary? Why shouldn’t you just run? Responding to violence with violence could be bad if someone else thinks that you weren’t in enough legitimate danger. Similarly, is it ok to kill if you are protecting someone else? What if the person you were protecting did not feel that killing was necessary?
I don’t believe that you are picking up what I’m putting down. Why shouldn’t you die instead? Why do we consider it understandable to defend yourself to the death? Obviously it is because we value lives more than whatever the other person wants that drives them to attack someone, but there isn’t a strict reason for that beyond social acceptance. We could just as easy decide, as a society, that those who can’t defend themselves should be culled. Or that murder is so incomprehensible that there is no reason to consider it.
Murder and death are obviously extreme examples, but you work that idea forward to charity, politeness, and social contract to yield to a government authority.
Regardless, ancient scripture is no foundation for morality. It’s simply what people came up with thousands of years ago before moral foundations got properly built. It took all that time to develop because tradition held humanity back.
Not really, no.
Would you want x done to you?
If not, don’t do it to others.
It’s as simple as that.
I wouldn’t want to get bombed. Therefore, I refuse to defend Ukraine against Vladimir Putin, because it might involve bombing other people.
I wouldn’t want to get fired, therefore I will not remove a direct report who is sexually harassing a coworker.
I wouldn’t want to gain weight, therefore I will refuse to feed my young child.
We’re taking about morally good and bad here.
Killing people in self defense might be necessary, but that doesn’t make it good.
Killing people is morally bad, even if it’s someone no one in their right mind would hesitate to murder if given the opportunity, like Putin.
I agree with the first person about morality determining how to respond socially. For example, why is killing someone in self defense necessary? Why shouldn’t you just run? Responding to violence with violence could be bad if someone else thinks that you weren’t in enough legitimate danger. Similarly, is it ok to kill if you are protecting someone else? What if the person you were protecting did not feel that killing was necessary?
If it’s truly necessary, there’s no option to run - no alternatives - it’s your life or theirs.
I don’t believe that you are picking up what I’m putting down. Why shouldn’t you die instead? Why do we consider it understandable to defend yourself to the death? Obviously it is because we value lives more than whatever the other person wants that drives them to attack someone, but there isn’t a strict reason for that beyond social acceptance. We could just as easy decide, as a society, that those who can’t defend themselves should be culled. Or that murder is so incomprehensible that there is no reason to consider it.
Murder and death are obviously extreme examples, but you work that idea forward to charity, politeness, and social contract to yield to a government authority.
Morality varies widely by individual and culture.
Pro-Life folks have been saying this for decades.
Ffs, Zionists have been saying this.
You need more than just platitudes to build a moral foundation
Regardless, ancient scripture is no foundation for morality. It’s simply what people came up with thousands of years ago before moral foundations got properly built. It took all that time to develop because tradition held humanity back.
By what standard?
Killing people is wrong. This is an immortal and unquestionable truth that everyone has always agreed upon
We didn’t have a proper moral foundation until very recently, so disregard everything older than several hundred years ago.
What?