orgone

There's concrete thinkers and abstract. One will blow each other away in certain situations.

I see your point, you have to put it in a box somewhere. A psychopath might result in a different answer to the dilemma and yet they exist in our herd and there's rational benefit for their behaviour. I think I need to look more into to psychology and social sciences to see why this might be.

So where's the alternative scenario that doesn't end in a bloody battle? Also, original sin = the biblical answer to the will to power, selfishness? Baby, "I want, I want."

I've had some thoughts about the Trolley problem. As a purely mechanical utility problem it seems like a dilemma, However, if is it robust if you add to the fact that humans have a will to power ?

(My other argument was flawed as RichardY pointed out.) Sure conflicting moral principles exist through different cultures, that is a fact. "All morality is relative" seems similar to "all apples are blue or green." Moral relativists seem to think because other cultures have conflicting moral principles, there is no sense of morality. This does not follow. I will attempt to explain. If all moral principles are relative, then a power can take your property for _any_ reason they decide and there's nothing immoral about it in your eyes. Someone can take your property from you and because property covers a large number of things, the moral relativist can't fight about. it seems ridiculous.

If a justification using a moral principle results in a negative outcome it that immoral? Seems to underpin relativism.

Some more thoughts. I think I have the beginning of an answer. I was approaching morality as a purely factual basis and ignoring emotion. I think this approach is wrong in some circumstances. My own actions could have a consequence to others. I could be selfish and it could give a positive or negative outcome. The outcome could be huge or small. One naturally assumes that a selfish act is bad because the outcome in others is bad. This is not always the case. A selfish action although rewards oneself. Can also reward others too in a massive way. Consider when a selfish action leads to the other person gaining something they have extreme value for. Would the other person consider the act selfish? If we consider moral principle as having an objective and subjective component. With an absolute moral principle, the subjective component would have always 0 net effect. Does this mean that moral absolutes are just an objective property of the universe? If so then why are they considered in morality? Am I missing something? My brain seems to be imploding!

Potentially, isn't that a loaded question? Ok I got you. I really don't have an answer for this. "Who", "what", "innate in consciousness", "a property in the universe" etc. If a moral principle is shown to be wrong, then reason dictates it should be changed. I'd ask myself the question where does reason come from and is it universal? So I think reason becomes the master. What are your views on this? "Can we keep on doing this ? Can the right/wrong state (value?) of this principle change forever, or does it tend to a specific value. If it tends to a specific value then we have an absolute moral principle. So really, I am interested in the fact that there exists moral absolutes in a moral system. "Now can this be applied universally?" I was approaching the topic from a system of reason/logic. I am kind of thinking that a moral absolute would be the the end result of a refinement process, which we cannot refine anymore because it is impossible. I don't follow, can you explain? Personally, It is the fear that my reasoning would lead to a contradiction, in which I can't be really sure about Moral relativism/Moral absolutism. Really I want a robust answer.

I've been pondering over moral relativism. Seems that one camp says that moral absolutes don't exist because of historical evidence. I take this as a fair point but I see it as fallacious because of appeal to tradition. It tells us nothing about the fact that moral absolutes _can_ exist in the future. Based on this question "Is it right to argue that no moral absolutes can arise in a moral system?" YES, NO Either answer affirms to me that moral absolutes exist in a moral system, because you used a moral judgement to answer a moral question. What is wrong with this argument? Is it fallacious? If so what fallacy does it fall under? It seems like St Anselm's proof to me.

I have a question here The general theme is why should this kind of behaviour be tolerated? See This reminded me of a quote attributed to Noam Chomsky. "If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.” What's the consequence of this? Eventual conflict? Does utility trump Chomsky's statement in this case? Have I missed something? I am conflicted. Has anyone got an answer to this?