...Surely it's bad for a soldier to be physically lacking, but does a merchant who's ventures have paid 'still need physical capability?
I think it is in the merchant's best interest to possess Larsen's "Might is right". Irrespective of physical capability, I think the merchant would have to be held morally responsible for Weena's death if and only if she was there with Weena. IMHO, her wealth does not absolve her from moral responsibilities.
That's a very civic/social minded viewpoint. Can't say I disagree when it's applied 'to nations in which duty and civics to other people is placed in high value and obligation.
These are useful counter examples to Larsen's "might is right". Moreover, I think being idle is preferable than being an imperialist. At least, I would say so based on the examples you've listed. That said, I would argue that those examples are exactly why everyone should refrain from golden rules in moral dilemmas but that's a different topic for a different time. -
MarkWebberFan
Developed off where I agreed partly, and disagreed partly with
secularmerlin's main point of the forum, whether ethics ought be justifiable without appeal to authority.
Myself saying pretty much saying yes to a degree, people after all 'must have 'some sort of reasoning for what they follow and do in life. What/Why they trust or believe.
'But, I argue it can be 'very primitive, or minimalized, subconscious instinctual habit. To the point people pay it little mind, so long as it 'seems to work, or that they can push the duty of thinking off onto authority, so long as all is going well.
3RU7AL then pointing out, that if the ethical decisions are going 'clearly wrong by causing harm, death, and danger to other people, then oughtn't the person show a greater interest in the soundness of the ethics?
Which I 'do agree with, but the problem is that most people's ethics work well enough, seemingly at least. What with society indoctrinating people into similar ideas of what is culturally acceptable. People habituating themselves to such lifestyles. Most people don't go about causing wild mayhem, thus needing their ethics checked. If they do, they see a psychologist or a jailer.
And then there's also the problem that harm, death, and danger to other people, isn't necessarily a person's ethics malfunctioning from their perspective. What with people having different ideas of what life's all about and such. What goals one should achieve, ethics in relation to others one should have, what value and place other people/s have in the world.
Which brought the topic to the sidebar,
Myself, I'm fairly self interested, rather than community interested. -
LemmingThat is a common condition. If it were not for self interest overcoming our sense of empathy would we even need ethics? -
secularmerlinDo you think all the "good intentions" would short-circuit any and all "moral culpability" (requirement for punitive "punishment")? -
3RU7AL
And the list of counter examples I gave, arguing that even a person lacking selfish interest, could wreck terrible harm upon others for those other people's own good.
I don't quite agree that they serve as a counter to the "might is right" argument though.
To me "might is right, as, 'always been a flawed statement, that would be truer 'put as,
Might is reality, or 'Force is reality, what.
After all, no matter one's strength, people can possess different beliefs of right and wrong, even if they are weak. So long as they exist anyhow,
Though, one 'would cease to exist by my thinking, if they were killed, tortured to a different frame of mind, or lobotomized.
Existing beings being what assigns meaning to reality by my way of thinking.
Though certain patterns are likely to occur for sentient beings I'd think, that'd call certain realities of life and being good or evil.
. . .
Though as a rule of thumb of a common social perspective, a truism of human nature often, "might is right" works well enough.
People often enough being willing to cheer the victor, rewrite history.
Or as Larson does, view it more philosophically as a desirable attribute and state of what is good for an individual or group.
Bit rambling, but ah well.
edit,
. . .
secularmerlin's main point of the forum, whether ethics ought be justifiable without appeal to authority.
We defer 'medical knowledge to doctors,
Politics to politicians,
Rocket science, to Rocket scientists,
We still have 'some opinion/justification about the medical, politics, rocket science.
But even in very 'free societies, so long as the disease is cured, our rights aren't trampled, the rocket flies.
People don't deem to mind deferring and appealing to authority.
To an extent anyhow,
After all, even if a guy's a rocket scientist, if he builds it out of wood, I'm going to have some questions.
It'd be nice to have the time and wisdom to justify one's ethics as much as ethical authority.
But not everyone has the time or mind for it.
Thus practicality takes place, and it seems reasonable to me, that some people defer 'much of their ethical thought onto someone they see as reliable/trustworthy.
