Moral Superiority

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Morals are how we live with ourselves. Ethics are how we live with each other.

[Tero]

Sure, it's easy. The one that kills less people is suprior to the one that kills more. Includes killing as part of your job.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Sure, it's easy. The one that kills less people is suprior to the one that kills more. Includes killing as part of your job.

Um, in some cases.

[Blind groper]

1. The most basic moral rule is not to do anything that hurts (or kills) other people. Plus the reverse, which is that it is good to do that which helps others.

In this modern world, we also have adopted two other moral rules.

2. Do not be cruel to animals. Plus the reverse - kindness.

3. Do not do that which harms the natural environment. Plus the reverse - preservation.

Those three rules cover everything pretty much, in various different wordings.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

1. The most basic moral rule is not to do anything that hurts (or kills) other people.

I've killed people because it was the right thing to do. I've hurt people because they pissed me off the same reason.

[Gallstones]

Morals are how we live with ourselves. Ethics are how we live with each other.

I like this.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Morals are how we live with ourselves. Ethics are how we live with each other.

I like this.

Soc. 101, Prof. Eugene Jackson.

[Gallstones]

Sure, it's easy. The one that kills less people is suprior to the one that kills more. Includes killing as part of your job.

So a physician who tries a treatment necessary to treat a disorder or disease or injury, and that treatment causes the patient to die instead is morally inferior to the physician who refuses to treat and allows the patient to die?

[Gallstones]

Sure, it's easy. The one that kills less people is suprior to the one that kills more. Includes killing as part of your job.

So a mother who when faced with a violent sex offender refuses to use lethal defense but allows the offender to murder her leaving her daughter to be raped and also murdered is morally superior to the offender.

Of what use is that kind of morality?

[Blind groper]

I've killed people because it was the right thing to do.

I suspect you were applying the first rule in a broader (but still valid) sense, in that harming one or a few is to benefit the greater number. That is valid, as long as the choice is correct. That is, harming a few does indeed benefit a greater number. It is a cost/benefit estimate. If your estimate turns out to be wrong, then you have inadvertently committed a moral wrong.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I've killed people because it was the right thing to do.

I suspect you were applying the first rule in a broader (but still valid) sense, in that harming one or a few is to benefit the greater number. That is valid, as long as the choice is correct. That is, harming a few does indeed benefit a greater number. It is a cost/benefit estimate. If your estimate turns out to be wrong, then you have inadvertently committed a moral wrong.

I've written here about one time that ethically correct and morally horrid.

[Tero]

Sure, it's easy. The one that kills less people is suprior to the one that kills more. Includes killing as part of your job.

So a physician who tries a treatment necessary to treat a disorder or disease or injury, and that treatment causes the patient to die instead is morally inferior to the physician who refuses to treat and allows the patient to die?

The physician should avoid those decisions. But the physician did not cause the condition in either case so he did not kill.

[Blind groper]

So a mother who when faced with a violent sex offender refuses to use lethal defense but allows the offender to murder her leaving her daughter to be raped and also murdered is morally superior to the offender.

When you or Seth talk of lethal defense, you are talking of a gun. The moral action in the case you describe, assuming the mother has a loaded gun, is to shoot the offender in the abdomen. That is the easier target anyway, and will totally incapacitate 19 out of 20 offenders. The offender may still die, but the mother will have given him a chance, since many gut-shot people who get good medical attention will survive.

That leaves a 1 in 20 chance that the offender may still cause harm. But any person who is so cowardly as not to take a 1 in 20 chance in order to save a human life is an utterly despicable asshole.

[Robert_S]

Sure, it's easy. The one that kills less people is suprior to the one that kills more. Includes killing as part of your job.

Um, in some cases.

Case in point:

I was talking with a Christian pacifist who said he wouldn't kill Hitler even if he knew full well what would happen and if he knew that the alternative timeline wouldn't involve something even worse because for him, killing was just wrong. End of.

That is to say, he couldn't deal with the thought of blood on his hands. I thought it was a moral NIMBY. Millions dead is just fine as long as long as it wasn't him.

[Gallstones]

So a mother who when faced with a violent sex offender refuses to use lethal defense but allows the offender to murder her leaving her daughter to be raped and also murdered is morally superior to the offender.

When you or Seth talk of lethal defense, you are talking of a gun. The moral action in the case you describe, assuming the mother has a loaded gun, is to shoot the offender in the abdomen. That is the easier target anyway, and will totally incapacitate 19 out of 20 offenders. The offender may still die, but the mother will have given him a chance, since many gut-shot people who get good medical attention will survive.

That leaves a 1 in 20 chance that the offender may still cause harm. But any person who is so cowardly as not to take a 1 in 20 chance in order to save a human life is an utterly despicable asshole.

•