Quote:
Originally Posted by BeaucoupFish
Do you think that sex before marriage used to be immoral (actually immoral, not simply considered immoral by more people than do today) and became moral (actually moral, not simply considered moral...)?"
At one point in time, in much of western society, it was immoral. I am not sure what you mean by "considered immoral".
You're making a distinction between what is 'considered immoral' and what is 'immoral' as if slavery had always been immoral, but it just took us some time to realise this...
My counter to this is the argument that before industrial machinery empowered us to better meet the accelerating demands for physical labor, slavery may have been necessary to the development and survival of many of the great ancient civilizations.
In this case above, it was technology's influence that prompted a real change in our thinking on slavery. In fact, some philosophers in ancient Greece may have been repulsed at the moral implications of slavery, just as some people may be repulsed at the moral implications of eating meat in the current context. This doesn't mean that eating meat is immoral right now. Especially if meat is currently necessary to ensure that our growing populations can be fed.
On a related note. I can just as easily make a similar distinction between those who are 'considered powerful' and those who are 'actually powerful', but for all intents and purposes this distinction would be unnecessary. If some CEO for example is 'considered powerful' because he is paid/valued twenty times higher than any of his peers, then he is powerful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeaucoupFish
I'm more interested in the medical teams choices rather than the gunshot victims, actually. Earlier you described someone that failed to perform an immoral act that would have an overall great benefit as cowardly. Are the medical team cowardly if they save that persons life instead of allowing him to die and harvesting the organs to save multiple other patients? For simplicity, this gunshot victim requires only a standard level of care to save him, nothing extraordinary, but without this care he would not survive.
The medical team have to follow procedures that have been set in place. Are they cowardly for following the procedures? Only if they disagree with them.
P.S. I think that cowardice is rampant in modern society. It has almost become the normal way of functioning, as value for 'courage' has lost significant ground in the post-industrial era. Much of this is to do with the new power structures and rising power inequalities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeaucoupFish
Without the ability to empathise, an organism cannot be aware that it is causing harm to another. Hence, empathy is a requirement for moral behaviour. Species without empathy cannot exhibit moral behaviour. I don't think this is controversial, is it?
It's not controversial.
So you wouldn't label for example a lion who eats his own baby as behaving immorally?
Last edited by VeeDDzz`; 07-12-2015 at 06:57 PM.