3 ms·

Unless you live in a society where hunting for food is essential to ensure your own survival, I believe a lot of people are prepared to disagree with you.

by Zirro 11y ago

notdonspaulding 11y ago
I've heard this argument before, but I don't quite understand the logic. I really struggle to come up with any other ethic I hold where it doesn't break down: - Unless you live in a society where raping young boys is essential to your survival, it's wrong. - The racism of the past was OK, but as a society we've moved past the need for it, so now it's morally wrong. What's an example of another moral or ethic that you would say follows this pattern of being malleable across space and time? Is this just ends-justify-the-means moral relativism?
- Houshalter 11y ago
  What about animal testing? Most people think torturing animals is wrong, but are ok with it when it is necessary to save humans. In fact I can think of many examples where something is a crime unless it is necessary for survival. In law there is even a concept of "necessity" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity) that says it's ok to commit some crimes in some circumstances when it is necessary, e.g. self defense.
- trhway 11y ago
  > Is this just ends-justify-the-means moral relativism? no. At some point we, as a species and civilization, mature to the point where we understand that "thing A" is unacceptable. It happened to slavery, raping (violently or statutory) children, etc... Actual stopping of such things takes time and organized effort and practically happens in stages. It is just naturally happens what the last, most hardest, place of getting rid of "thing A" is where that thing is performed for survival. We know that it is wrong, and many people work to stop it from happening, it just takes more time and effort, and for the time being in such cases for political reasons "exceptions" are sometimes granted - a tradeoff made to minimize evil until that evil is completely eradicated. So in short - it isn't "an evil thing stops being evil when for survival", instead it is "an evil thing is much harder to get rid off when it is for survival".

Unless you live in a society where hunting for food is essential to ensure your own survival, I believe a lot of people are prepared to disagree with you.

by Zirro 11y ago

Unless you live in a society where hunting for food is essential to ensure your own survival, I believe a lot of people are prepared to disagree with you.

notdonspaulding 11y ago

I've heard this argument before, but I don't quite understand the logic. I really struggle to come up with any other ethic I hold where it doesn't break down: - Unless you live in a society where raping young boys is essential to your survival, it's wrong. - The racism of the past was OK, but as a society we've moved past the need for it, so now it's morally wrong. What's an example of another moral or ethic that you would say follows this pattern of being malleable across space and time? Is this just ends-justify-the-means moral relativism?

Houshalter 11y ago
What about animal testing? Most people think torturing animals is wrong, but are ok with it when it is necessary to save humans. In fact I can think of many examples where something is a crime unless it is necessary for survival. In law there is even a concept of "necessity" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity) that says it's ok to commit some crimes in some circumstances when it is necessary, e.g. self defense.
trhway 11y ago
> Is this just ends-justify-the-means moral relativism? no. At some point we, as a species and civilization, mature to the point where we understand that "thing A" is unacceptable. It happened to slavery, raping (violently or statutory) children, etc... Actual stopping of such things takes time and organized effort and practically happens in stages. It is just naturally happens what the last, most hardest, place of getting rid of "thing A" is where that thing is performed for survival. We know that it is wrong, and many people work to stop it from happening, it just takes more time and effort, and for the time being in such cases for political reasons "exceptions" are sometimes granted - a tradeoff made to minimize evil until that evil is completely eradicated. So in short - it isn't "an evil thing stops being evil when for survival", instead it is "an evil thing is much harder to get rid off when it is for survival".