2013-08-30, 10:56 AM
I prefer not to take sides, so I'll just leave a couple of comments here.
=> Nurmengard - "For the greater good"... who deems what is good? How good is good enough? Do the ends - (a/an) "greater good(s)" - justify the means? On whose justification(s)? This applied to both sides of the current issue.
=> Moral obligations are... I would say, highly personal and subjective. The claim of a moral obligation is not a solid argument because it is not solely affected by societal norms. A twisted righteousness is still righteousness... to the own person but not others. Morality is, unfortunately, not universal, and most definitely isn't tied to us all being (civilised) humans.
=> Even if one's words and actions resonate with some others, performing an act that is later echoed by others does not necesarily grant one justification for one's actions at that point of time. Because of this, judging one's actions becomes very... nuanced.
@above: would you mind clarifying your sentence? Its sentence structure makes understanding difficult.
Hadriel
=> Nurmengard - "For the greater good"... who deems what is good? How good is good enough? Do the ends - (a/an) "greater good(s)" - justify the means? On whose justification(s)? This applied to both sides of the current issue.
=> Moral obligations are... I would say, highly personal and subjective. The claim of a moral obligation is not a solid argument because it is not solely affected by societal norms. A twisted righteousness is still righteousness... to the own person but not others. Morality is, unfortunately, not universal, and most definitely isn't tied to us all being (civilised) humans.
=> Even if one's words and actions resonate with some others, performing an act that is later echoed by others does not necesarily grant one justification for one's actions at that point of time. Because of this, judging one's actions becomes very... nuanced.
@above: would you mind clarifying your sentence? Its sentence structure makes understanding difficult.
Hadriel