Thanks man im just glad you can see where im coming from. I can be strong willed but sometimes I dont know if its from sound logic or just my will being overbearing so its nice to test these ideas.
LOL @ the spicy food
Yeah it's hard to apply because you'd have to know someone's intents deep down. Its tough to mearure pain and intent on a scale. Plus Absolutism in morality is a tough standard you know?
But at the same time...i feel like it exists. And maybe it has to. What is the other option?Completely subjective morality to me feels like soft hearted bullshyt to appease the immoral.
Think about it. No human wants to live in a reality of subjective morality. It would be pretty much like living in the wild where right and wrong goes according to the desires of those strong enough to enforce them. It'd be anarchy.
There is a reason we live in society with its contracts and rules. We all have a sense of good and bad. To the point where we want to rectify wrongs according to that sense, this is where the idea of justice is created. Humans abide by this albiet in a enternal struggle with power. But even kings must observe or at least pretend to play along with being "good" versus "bad" or he'll face uprisings.
With that said I think its legit subjective areas to it because inflicting pain is more abstract with relational concepts like money or proprerty. But idk the objective level exists.
As for the plague doctors, yes given the context of their time and lives they lived their ineffective treatment was seen as preferable to leaving the diseased men to die.
But they didnt. because outside of some little known good intentioned action they planned to do eventually, they were still rallying around hate and violent anger rationalized by a superiority theory in the present. Not any sort of good intent. They are ignoring the suffering they caused in the present for dominance.
Check their speeches and nazi propaganda, these people were not rallying behind fighting a supernatural threatthat shyt is obscurr nazi fiction
Though it would beif any of the convicted nazi war criminals went with "I was just getting us ready for the aliens
" rather than "I was just following orders
"
Though ironically this is would fly as "subjective morality" which is why I feel its bullshyt. Objectively you cant ignore the injustices of genocide. But subjectively people can eat that excuse up
I don't know how far you want to go down the Nazi rabbit hole, but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss their perception of Jewishness. I've nerded out on Nazi history so if you're interested:
He makes clear in his books and speeches that he felt wiping out "Jewry" would be good for the entire human race...that German predominance in continental Europe would set the earth back on track, and be a benefit to all humanity. And, its not really that they were superhuman or supernatural.....they were more para-human. Something different. An ultra-nationalist believed humanity is created to serve their nation (not state...nation, i.e., ethnicity/race/etc.) Jews and communists were thus not human because they didnt adhere to a nation...they were internationalists...they were committed to ideas that were expressly anti-nationalist, and therefore anti-human. Ridding the world of them would benefit all....not only Germany. It helped, of course, that all those people were also Slavs who were nation-less as well. To the Nazis, Judaism and Communism were parasites or diseases to humanity that had to be stopped. And...to be fair...America felt the same exact way about Communism for a long time after WW2....we're only now beginning to move away from it...slowly.
Sure there were probably a large portion of Nazis that were just evil fukks (and it was a time when business was good for evil fukks to flourish), but I dont think you could sell a nation of millions on just being evil fukks....causing pain/death/destruction for the sake of pain/death/destruction. Their argument was that Judeo-Bolshivism was a scourge to humanity, caused World War 1 (which was a nightmare that they all lived through), and causes the disastrous treaty that ended it. A treaty that threatened the entire world (to them), not just Germany.
Sure there were probably a large portion of Nazis that were just evil fukks (and it was a time when business was good for evil fukks to flourish), but I dont think you could sell a nation of millions on just being evil fukks....causing pain/death/destruction for the sake of pain/death/destruction. Their argument was that Judeo-Bolshivism was a scourge to humanity, caused World War 1 (which was a nightmare that they all lived through), and causes the disastrous treaty that ended it. A treaty that threatened the entire world (to them), not just Germany.
And, you talk about retribution, but even the concept of retribution is questionable w/r/t morality.
Is it eye for an eye or turn the other cheek?
Often times I think society establishes moral codes that is directly against our human nature in the name of a functioning society. If all humans are naturally predisposed to seek vengeance on those that harm their children...then it must be moral to do so. Human society has decided, though, that what's best is for society to decided what that retribution should be. And, if the state fails to achieve that retribution (mistrial, wrongly accused, etc.) then you just have to accept it. Are you then acting immorally if you don't handle it yourself?
In A Time to Kill, was Samuel L Jackson acting morally or immorally when he smoked the dudes who killed/raped his daughter? Could you really say either answer is objectively right/wrong?
Its a nice break from the constant barrage of politics. Im gonna post more subject matter from the book I got to see if it spurns more talk
