How could you disagree on that? Okay, there are two options: either the person in this situation is shooting/stabbing people and cannot be reasoned with presently, so, in order not to let another innocent soul die by his hand, you take him down. He went from man to rabid dog so we had to put him down. That’s a clear-cut scenario, right? Now, another, in which someone used to kill indiscriminately and has vowed to do it, again, he’s unrepentant and just unimaginably bloodthirsty (so the “will continue doing so” makes sense because people do have free will and can repent and change their ways, we cannot see the future after all)… You could either kill him, or simply restrict his freedom forever, in solitary so he doesn’t kill. But these are two goods we’re arguing about, so the direction (not allowing a killer to continue killing, because we believe murder is wrong) is still the same, and this is not a major issue comparatively, not a major disagreement that would collapse our moral framework but just a limitation of our judgment and understanding. It’s clouded, but we can both see the same, more or less, behind the veil.
Now, from my perspective as a religious man, and because we simply cannot see the future, I’d choose solitary confinement. Who knows, maybe he’ll see the light in his dark room, with good, enriching literature, maybe he will repent, at least in spirit if not in action because what can he do in containment, and he’ll have a better chance with God and His judgment. What do you think? Even if you’re not religious, don’t you think it’s better to give this person a chance to reflect and repent than die a complete villain? Isn’t it more humane? And the resources are there, it’s not like there are that many serial killers percentage wise in the world, right?
I think you missed the “indirect” part. This isn’t someone going around stabbing people. It’s someone who goes obstructing people from getting medication or medical treatment that they need, or from acquiring food, or someone who indiscriminately gets people fired from their jobs and put on the streets where they’ll die a slow death.
Regarding solitary confinement: As an individual, you don’t have the power to detain someone in that manner. But you do have the power to kill.
But why can’t we do something about it before having to murder the dude ? We live in a society! This scenario doesn’t make much sense, IRL you can report it to the authorities, bring it to the media, etc etc. Sure, if you live in a corrupt decaying empire/police state like the USA, maybe it’s more difficult but even then I feel there are so many things to do before just going full vigilante murderer…
But the whole point is that societies usually have a moral framework when they’re not entrenched in moral relativism, so of course this is not the case for America but around the world, as corrupt as people can be, they can never be like America. I mean, bribery is legalized and the president openly receives bribes and gifts and posts it online, lol, it’s crazy. And everything happened because American society, which for a while had a working democracy, doesn’t have a proper moral framework. Just saying. 🤷
Yep. I mean, the moral reality of things aren’t, that’s still there and the rest of the world sees it clearly (mostly), but of course without strict limits (“thou shalt not kill” is a solid one), that people truly believe in (no empire and people who support believes in it, they make money out of forever wars, murder and pillage), perhaps through the belief in God as the rule maker (so, very objective, as categorical as it can be), these societies can only conceive morality as relative, ideologically. Their hearts might initially tell them A but without guidelines in your brain you’re more likely to forgo virtue (because, what’s right or wrong, right? If I can do it and I like it, why not?), and once you accept one you can more easily accept the others. So, yeah, that’s the whole problem!
Without this objectivity, these strict guidelines that one can build upon but are fundamentally undeniable (because God put them in place, for example), you leave it to yourself, the supreme subjective, to make the rules. Unless you’re Solomon or someone like him, that’s just asking for trouble.
So when you say “I believe in objective morality”, you mean that you believe morality should be objective, not that it is objective. I’m inclined to agree because that would certainly simplify life a lot, but unfortunately, you can’t just make morality objective any more than you can make gravity not exist. It is what it is, and we have to figure out a way to work with what we have.
How could you disagree on that? Okay, there are two options: either the person in this situation is shooting/stabbing people and cannot be reasoned with presently, so, in order not to let another innocent soul die by his hand, you take him down. He went from man to rabid dog so we had to put him down. That’s a clear-cut scenario, right? Now, another, in which someone used to kill indiscriminately and has vowed to do it, again, he’s unrepentant and just unimaginably bloodthirsty (so the “will continue doing so” makes sense because people do have free will and can repent and change their ways, we cannot see the future after all)… You could either kill him, or simply restrict his freedom forever, in solitary so he doesn’t kill. But these are two goods we’re arguing about, so the direction (not allowing a killer to continue killing, because we believe murder is wrong) is still the same, and this is not a major issue comparatively, not a major disagreement that would collapse our moral framework but just a limitation of our judgment and understanding. It’s clouded, but we can both see the same, more or less, behind the veil.
Now, from my perspective as a religious man, and because we simply cannot see the future, I’d choose solitary confinement. Who knows, maybe he’ll see the light in his dark room, with good, enriching literature, maybe he will repent, at least in spirit if not in action because what can he do in containment, and he’ll have a better chance with God and His judgment. What do you think? Even if you’re not religious, don’t you think it’s better to give this person a chance to reflect and repent than die a complete villain? Isn’t it more humane? And the resources are there, it’s not like there are that many serial killers percentage wise in the world, right?
I think you missed the “indirect” part. This isn’t someone going around stabbing people. It’s someone who goes obstructing people from getting medication or medical treatment that they need, or from acquiring food, or someone who indiscriminately gets people fired from their jobs and put on the streets where they’ll die a slow death.
Regarding solitary confinement: As an individual, you don’t have the power to detain someone in that manner. But you do have the power to kill.
But why can’t we do something about it before having to murder the dude ? We live in a society! This scenario doesn’t make much sense, IRL you can report it to the authorities, bring it to the media, etc etc. Sure, if you live in a corrupt decaying empire/police state like the USA, maybe it’s more difficult but even then I feel there are so many things to do before just going full vigilante murderer…
But the whole point is that societies usually have a moral framework when they’re not entrenched in moral relativism, so of course this is not the case for America but around the world, as corrupt as people can be, they can never be like America. I mean, bribery is legalized and the president openly receives bribes and gifts and posts it online, lol, it’s crazy. And everything happened because American society, which for a while had a working democracy, doesn’t have a proper moral framework. Just saying. 🤷
So morality is relative in a society that doesn’t have a proper moral framework?
Yep. I mean, the moral reality of things aren’t, that’s still there and the rest of the world sees it clearly (mostly), but of course without strict limits (“thou shalt not kill” is a solid one), that people truly believe in (no empire and people who support believes in it, they make money out of forever wars, murder and pillage), perhaps through the belief in God as the rule maker (so, very objective, as categorical as it can be), these societies can only conceive morality as relative, ideologically. Their hearts might initially tell them A but without guidelines in your brain you’re more likely to forgo virtue (because, what’s right or wrong, right? If I can do it and I like it, why not?), and once you accept one you can more easily accept the others. So, yeah, that’s the whole problem!
Without this objectivity, these strict guidelines that one can build upon but are fundamentally undeniable (because God put them in place, for example), you leave it to yourself, the supreme subjective, to make the rules. Unless you’re Solomon or someone like him, that’s just asking for trouble.
So when you say “I believe in objective morality”, you mean that you believe morality should be objective, not that it is objective. I’m inclined to agree because that would certainly simplify life a lot, but unfortunately, you can’t just make morality objective any more than you can make gravity not exist. It is what it is, and we have to figure out a way to work with what we have.
No, I believe that it is and it should be understood that way. But yes, I’m glad we at least see eye to eye in how it would simplify life, haha. 👍