3 ms·
I would clarify that in order to escape the charge of relativism and utilitarianism. There is no "today ethics" or "yesterday ethics" or "particular ethics". T
by lo_zamoyski 4y ago
I would clarify that in order to escape the charge of relativism and utilitarianism.
There is no "today ethics" or "yesterday ethics" or "particular ethics". There is merely the objective good, the objective privation of that good (evil), and the science of moral good, i.e., ethics. Otherwise, there is moral good or evil to speak of, only a collection of arbitrary tastes, rendering justice nothing more than the opinion of the powerful (to borrow from Thrasymachus).
Child sacrifice is unjustifiable per se. Meaning, there is no circumstance that justifies child sacrifice because no circumstance can justify an intrinsically evil act. In that sense, we are right to condemn child sacrifice as such.
However, we should also interpret history in context. Someone else mentioned that your stance allows (chattel) slavery to be justified. That is only if we adopt a relativistic or utilitarian stance. (Chattel) slavery is evil as such and unjustifiable as such, but it also has been the norm for most of human history. If any of us were born a thousand or a few thousand years ago, we might even come to hold that slavery is wrong (as, for example, the Church always has), but given how pervasive its practice was, how historically entrenched it was, you would likely also believe that it was simply an unfortunate and endemic fact of human existence in this world (after all, we human beings exploit each other in all sorts of ways, all the time, beginning with the smallest of ways we hardly even notice). And that's if you even payed it any attention given how normal it must have seemed to most people in the world. (For this reason, I think the oikophobic condemnations of "the West", which have become especially rabid in recent years, are preposterous. If anything, it is the West that has, historically, catalyzed the eradication of such practices as chattel slavery and human sacrifice across globe. It is childish and ignorant to believe that the world was populated by gentle peoples before the dark, corrupting forces of "the West" (this villain is given various names) landed on their shores, bringing with them Original Sin.)
- cercatrova 4y agoThis is a good comment, compared to the others in this thread. However this line > There is merely the objective good again falls into the trap of Kantian ethics. You might believe that there is an objective morality, but others may not [0]. It is a long held debate over whether there is objective versus subjective morality, with good (and poor) arguments on both sides. The utilitarian might say there is no such "evil as such and unjustifiabil[ity] as such" because they could find many scenarios where it is justified, as in the example above of causing an entire civilization to avoid harm were a child to be sacrificed. Let me also state that I am not a staunch utilitarian, yet nor I am I a Kantian, I (as likely most of us) am somewhere in between. I will agree with you on the "condemnations of the West" points you made though, as I think it's really a strictly Western and perhaps even American view that sees Westerners as being the worst perpetrators, over and above all other civilizations on the plant. No, being humans, any civilization has committed atrocities. [0] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/