Quote:
Originally Posted by uke_master
But you haven argued that. You just told us about an ethical system you thought of and what the consequences of that system might be in a specific scenario. You didn't say anything about subjective/objective of why it is bad to think about it this way, why these are the wrong questions to ask.
Perhaps we should start here: what do you think these words mean?
On Zumby's recommendation, I've read (and reread) 'The Elements of Moral Philosophy' (Rachels) so I have a basic understanding of the context here.
I'm not proposing a moral system, quite the opposite, I'm suggesting that instead of a list of always right/always wrong morals (i.e. some system of Objective morality) or the idea that morals change and are sometimes right and sometimes wrong (i.e. Moral Relativism) that there's a completely different paradigm from which to approach this. That the way we behave is neither right nor wrong, it's simply whatever that in that particular circumstance, is best for our survival. That we have evolved to behave in whatever way best achieves that species imperative.
So there would be no 'right' or 'wrong' or a perspective of taking each type of behaviour and trying to permanently classifying it or decide whether or not you can even do that (why did we start trying to do that?), there is only what is right and wrong in terms of our survival. For example, currently rape and looting is generally regarded as a bad thing but once it was a fitting reward for your soldiers, because that encouraged them to fight and that helped your 'tribe' survive.
Like I said, I'm just sounding out here. I suppose that I'm expecting at any point to be told why this is a stupid idea, or has been discounted already by someone in a book that I should have read before even speaking about the subject. Do we still need to agree terms? (subjective/objective)