joefromchicago wrote:It is undeniably true that the ethical practices of one group may differ significantly from those of another. For instance, one group may view the killing of deformed infants as an ethical duty, whereas another might view that practice as abhorrent. But that difference does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that both practices are right. One (or both), after all, could be morally wrong.
You are using ethics and morality interchangably, which comes into this discussion in the nature of a tacit assertion that this is the case. However, i have pointed out that i, and many others, do not consider this so, and see an important distinction. I have stipulated the distinction, and you are ignoring that. I consider that you don't wish to discuss that which is the more interesting and important part of the discussion from my point of view. I accept that, but am likely to become more quickly bored with this discussion.
If you are going to assert that anyone can be morally wrong, than you'll either have to assert a principle or set of principles upon which this can be determined, or acknowledge that you cannot provide the principle or set of principles, and are only willing to stipulate a possibility that there can be a universal, absolute morality, without being able to demonstrate as much, or even provide some direction of a road to travel to find said absolute morality.
Setanta wrote:You're not suggesting that the cat would be acting morally, are you?
Certainly--no less and no more morally than he or she who would kill the cat to preserve their own offspring, as the cat will kill that offspring to preserve her offspring. That's exactly the point--that human or hunting cat, each sees as good that which furthers their goals, and as evil that which impairs the pursuit of said goals.
Setanta wrote:No doubt, but then that's not the question. Morality is not concerned with what can happen, but rather with what should happen.
This is one of the weakest statments i've ever read from you here. Morality is no more poignantly evident than when it is being preached, on the basis of what has happened, or what may happen, and why that is to be held to be good or bad. This is merely a statement from authority on your part on the nature of morality--an authority which i haven't any reason to assume you possess.
Setanta wrote:A view held by many. Nevertheless, many who hold this view also maintain that they know that some actions are right and some are wrong. What about you?
I only assert a preference--and am prepared to back up the preference with a justification. In the example of the hunting cat, i assert a preference for human survival over hunting cat survival, in any example in which the choice is unavoidable. I cannot and do not accept statements about what is "right" and what is "wrong" without a justification, and reject the contention if i find the justification implausible.
