Was talking to Jon today and now thoughts are swarming in my head.
Basically, the thing that struck n is stuck with me is if you do NOT commit evil because you do not want to go to hell or want to avoid wrong-doing, isn't it a selfish act. I feel that why we do not do evil acts is usually cos of our principles and values in which we have been socialised into from birth. Thus, in a sense it is not selfish cos tt's the way we have been taught. But then, the fundamental basis for these principles/values are to avoid wrong-doing and if you're Christian, to avoid eternal damnation. So isn't the very basis for this selfish?
An example to illustrate: If you were forced to either (1) choose 3 out of 10 ppl to be shot dead to survive 7 others, (2) refuse to choose any and allow all 10 to die, which would YOU choose? In this example, you cannot choose urself to be killed. By right, we should never condemn anyone to die so choice (1) seems to be the immoral answer. By choosing choice (2), we may be choosing the morally correct answer cos we are not choosing ppl to be put to death but is it becos we are selfish and do not want to end up responsible for the death of these 3 ppl? Is it becos you do not want the blood of these 3 human beings on your hands??
Anyway, is morality really absolute? Then why do have different views of what is right and wrong. Why are there exceptions to situations whereby euthanasia/abortion may seem to be justified...how can we justify these exceptions? I believe that the incongruence is due to the fact that we are unable to fully accept the moral absolutes. This incongruence thus leads us to think that there may be exceptions, therefore meaning morality is subjective whereas morality is in fact absolute. Sigh. I seem to be going in circles.
Enough of this for now. If I can get it out of my head.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
But is it not moral to save as much life as possible? In which case one would be justified in choosing 3 out of 10 people to die. In the one case, 3 people die, in the other, 10. So one option saves more lives than the other - is that not then the more moral choice?
But at what cost my friend? By saying that 10 lives is more important than those 3 lives, you are in fact saying that, "ya, those 3 lives are not important". I do not think that we have a right to take any life even if it is justified as being for a "greater good". The fact remains that you have done something immoral.
The queen in Kingdom of Heaven said, "one day you will regret not doing this small evil to achieve a greater good" but at the end of the day, this evil act remains and retains its very essence: it IS evil.
=) btw who r u?
Post a Comment