Quote:
Originally Posted by Vulcan
You're comparing me and most of Canada to a psychopath, that's not how come to conclusions.
|
How did you manage to get that from my post. My point is that if the justification is "things are wrong if they feel wrong", how can you say that a psychopath is wrong to kill when it feels right to him?
If, by referring to yourself and the majority of Canadians, you're saying "things are wrong when society at large generally feels they're wrong", that's normative ethical relativism. If that's the case, I guess in certain societies human sacrifice was perfectly morally acceptable because that felt like the thing to do. In certain societies it must be morally right to stone a woman to death for adultery. In a lot of societies, slavery was totally morally acceptable. None of these societies can be said to be more or less moral than ours, since it's just about what the majority of people therein felt okay with - in order to say that our values are better than a society that felt its moral imperative was to exterminate the jews, there must be some outside standard by which to judge other than "it feels wrong" or "it feels right". So, there's no possibility of moral progress - since it felt right to the Romans to feed Christians to lions, we're in no position to judge simply because it feels wrong to us, and we're no better than they were.
Try again.