dk

I submit moral truths (principles) are applied by the science of ethics to different circumstances and situations. Moral truths exist in tension but not conflict. The conflict proceeds from the science of ethics. For example, it is immoral to lie, but it can be ethical to withhold the truth from a person without a need to know.

[ May 27, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]</p>

seebs

Well, imagine the famous "do you admit to the SS that there are Jews hiding in your house" circumstance. Some moral systems say the lie remains immoral; others say that the lie is fully justified.

dk

When human law violates moral and natural law then people are forced to live lawlessly. Lawlessness generated the hatred Hitler exploited to justify Aryan Superiority, slave labor and genocide. I think people sometimes mistake morality for the virtues of a superman. Morality regulates behavior coercively with punishment commensurate to the offense or transgression. Virtue denotes qualities consonant with a person’s character that transcend punitive measures with mercy, hope and charity. Virtue requires personal initiative not morality, and goes a long way to explain why free societies put such a premium on personal initiatives and command style regimes stagnate under a rigid formal hierarchy.

JL

Interesting insight dk.

Seebs wrote:
Very true. Such a contradiction actually seems beneficial from an evolutionary standpoint if the innocents in question aren't capable of any reciprical action. Seems like hypocrisy can be a virtue when unacknowledged. Ever notice that governments or societies act in ways that would see individuals within that society imprisoned or shunned?

seebs

Yup. And this is something that bugs me a lot.

99Percent

seebs: If I stand by idly while innocents suffer, I'm not showing much love for the innocents.

How do you actually know

• that they are "suffering"? Suffering is entirely subjective and can have very wide ranges. I can be suffering miserably because I don't have a girlfriend. Does that mean the first attractive woman is morally obliged to aliviate my "suffering"?
• that they are "innocent"? Someone might be "suffering" from lack of food and shelter but because he was kicked out of his home after beating his wife and children. How can you possibly know if he is completely "innocent" of his "suffering" circumstances? Besides isn't it Christian dogma that we are all sinners and therefore not innocent to begin with and that we deserve any kind of suffering bought to us by the Lord?

seebs

"Innocent" is relative to context. Someone may be innocent of one crime, but guilty of another. Shooting someone who cheated on an exam looks like "killing the innocent" to most people.

Christian dogma is that we are obliged to try to reduce the suffering of other people, and yes, this includes sinners. I think presenting it as "deserving" suffering is a bit misleading, at best. I'd have to think about the phrasing for a while.

And yes, there are serious problems with context and knowledge; my moral system generally asserts that reasonable misunderstandings are not moral culpability.