Howdy Guest!  / Create an account
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
On the Topic of Logic in Morality
#11
Highly probable that a killer like the character Dexter would deliberately dehumanise his victims, be all emotionally detached as he compartmentalised what he was doing. His defence mechanism against cognitive dissonance or feeling any moral compunction.

Some years ago in Sydney, I was at an ATM making a withdrawal when a man came up and demanded money from me. I suppose the sensible thing would have been to hand over the cash. But it was the last $20 in my account and I wouldn't get paid for another week. So I started talking to my would-be mugger, explaining our money woes. I showed him my otherwise empty purse and the $0 balance in my account. I must have been convincing because he saw me as a person then and not just as a mark. His expression changed and he began to rant about injustice in the world, and evil government taxes. He wished me all the best and I quickly got out of there.

So what do you think his ethic, moral and maxim most likely would be?
There's life...and then there's the afterlife.
Reply
#12
Probably, he took more of a Locke approach. "Take what you need, and leave as much as and good a quality, in return." The idea is that if there is a large amount of resource, you don't take more than you need to survive. However, it's not enough to just take all of the best stuff that you need, because others deserve an equal quantity and quality of the resource. So, you try to spread out the quality of the resource you take.
The ethic that would likely be involved here is that, while he believed that he deserved the excess of your money (in a moral manner), he would not take money from someone that was in the same boat that he was (with little). Thus, he set up an ethic that would stop him from causing "unjust" harm to people.
Reply
#13
Recently, I read in the news of a man accused of a crime and his defence was "I was a victim in my past." Therefore he had diminished responsibility for his actions and the jury was expected to feel sorry for him. But I hardly think that this gives someone the moral right to do whatever he wants to someone else. Especially if the person he in turn victimises is innocent of any wrongdoing against him. Is this a sense of entitlement gone wrong, thinking that the world owes this person something? Where is the moral logic in that?
There's life...and then there's the afterlife.
Reply
#14
Doesn't really seem like there is any. xD That is in direct conflict with my system's FMP. If you are going to victimize innocent people, you aren't considering their own moral rights, and your own moral obligations. In that respect, you're probably right. It is a sense of entitlement gone wrong, where they believe that the world owes them something. Unfortunately, that seems to be on the rise, in this age.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)






About Talk Paranormal Forum

...

              Quick Links

              User Links

             ...

  • ...
  • ...
  • ...
  • ...