• charleton
    The sense of sight always belongs to a subject, and yet it does not follow that the object seen is not objectively real.Samuel Lacrampe

    This is such a poor response. Morality is not "OUT THERE". You can't see it, and get agreement from others that only see a house or a car. Morality has no physical substance. It's all conceptual, and emotional.

    We can stand in front of an object and agree it will persist after we walk away. Moral matters we take with us in our minds.

    You cannot make a single moral statement that can get an agreement of all people and remain constant after they walk away.
  • creativesoul
    Morality is all about what counts as acceptable/unacceptable thought, belief, and/or behaviour. All such criterion are existentially contingent upon subjects. All such criterion are established by subjects.

    Morality is codified behaviour; the rules that 'moral' behaviour follows and 'immoral' behaviour does not. These rules are subject to individual, historical, familial, and cultural particulars... Therefore...

    Why would you believe morality is not subjective?
  • Samuel Lacrampe
    No of course not. The "net gain" criteria is closer to a last resort, not the first. Equality in treatment, or justice is the first.
    — Samuel Lacrampe
    Why? The only reason I can see for that is one's selfishness resulting in that they don't want to be the one in the worse situation.
    How can the demand for justice rise from selfishness? And if injustice is present, then what becomes the measure of the net gain?

    Mercy is an expression of love towards another person, and love has an intrinsic value. Alternatively, moral intuition. Moral theories should be made to fit the applications, not another way around.BlueBanana
    Let's take the example of mercy to the extreme. Out of mercy, we set Hitler free over and over again, and each time, he kills more and more jews, and yet we continue to set him free regardless. This act is no doubt merciful, according to your definition; yet, would you still judge such an act to be morally good? I take it you are an extreme pacifist, since this consists in mercy towards everyone and under all situations.
  • Moliere
    To generalize: "Equality in treatment in all men" means that for a given situation, a just treatment is determined such that all men must follow it for others and themselves, as well as from others. This is really nothing more than the golden rule.Samuel Lacrampe

    They are connected, because both are derived from justice. Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have done unto you" is the only way to preserve equality in treatment when interacting with others. Just War Theory: how to conduct a war while preserving justice. If you are in conflict with a neighbouring country, how would you want to them to behave towards you in order to resolve the conflict? E.g., you would likely want them to first use peaceful acts before resorting to force. As such, to preserve justice, you ought to behave the same way towards them. Thus the Just War Theory is related to the Golden RuleSamuel Lacrampe

    If they are both derived from the golden rule then then golden rule would differ from justice. In which case I'd be back to your original definition --

    Justice is defined as: equality in treatment among all men.Samuel Lacrampe

    In which case I'd say that my principle is derived from your notion of justice. Or, at least, is compatible with what is stated by your definition of justice. So if I treat everyone as some sort of means to whatever happens to please me, then everyone is treated by the same rule, and would at least count as equal treatment.

    Your counter-example to this was a person who wanted to kill a person who wanted to live. But this doesn't show that my principle isn't derived from your definition of justice. It's in line with it just as much as the golden rule is. Unless any conflict in desire counts as a counter-example?

    In which case the golden rule also wouldn't count. What if I don't want to be treated like you want to be treated, after all? Or, in the so called platinum form of said rule, what if treating me as I want to be treated goes against what you want?

    I'd like a massage, after all. Why aren't you giving it to me?

    No, I don't think a mere conflict in desired outcomes would be enough to invalidate a principle, given the principles you've lain out here. After all, even if it is a just war, we both want to win it once it starts.

    Which is just my way of saying that you need a more robust theory of justice than the preservation of the equality of treatment. It is too permissive to count for justice.
  • Vaskane
    "But selfishness is unjust." Your prejudice is showing.
Add a Comment