| sapphi_snake said: I can't really say that anything is really "good" or "bad" in itself. These are subjective terms, and the study of the morality present in different cultures essentially prove this (unless you have an ethnocentric view, and think that what is "good" and "bad" in your culture is absolute, and that other cultures are "wrong"). In my example with the "will of most people" I was reffering to the ideea of individuals with similar interests forming groups in order to protect their interests. I was in no way suggesting that what they deemed to be "good" is univeral, or should be imposed on other people. They should defend themselves though for those who threaten them (like the suicidal manian who wants to kill everybody). You think that killing someone is bad, no matter the consensus. But that is just your opinion. What is this "something outside the realm of matter" that makes some things be "good" and some things be "bad"? (FTR, I myself believe that killing someone is bad, and hope that most people will share my view) Your 9/11 example is quite interesting, because the fact of the matter is that neither side is "right". There really is no "right" or "wrong" in this situation. As with war, the "right" side is the winning side. Speaking of war, it's a situation were killing is validated, and even and presented as a virtue, in pretty much every society, regardless of the general beliefs regarding killing (tell war veterans that they're murderers, and see the negative reaction you'll get from the general population). As I said, this is the case regardless of the general beliefs regarding the morality of killing (Christians in the US support their country's wars, and are more likely than other categories to join the Military). Science hasn't solved this "problem", but I don't really know if there's anything to solve. Morality isn't really natural, it's constructed by society. It's not really a matter of "faith" as much as it is a matter of going with what works best for everyone. Morals essentially assure that society works well, and society assures our survival. Now you may ask "What importance does our survival have anyways, as there is nothing outside the real of matter? After all, what does the physical universe care whether or not we survive?" Well, the simple asnwer is: I have no answer. This is an unanswarable question, at least at this moment, and I don't see it being answered within our lifetime, or even within the current millennium. All we can do is continue to live in our culture and absorb all the constructs and myths (all of them obviously made-up) that give us the illusion that our existence has meaning, and that the world is structured in a certain non-chaotic way. Within our cultures, we could make it the purpose of our lives to simply enjoy our existence, find something that we'd like to dedicate our existence to, and try to fulfill those aspirations. If that answer isn't good enough for you, well sorry, it's all I've got. Back to the Life of Pi, if you believe killing someone is bad, then how can you call Pi's actions "heroic"? Isn't that hypocritical of you? |
Now we're getting somewhere! This is pretty much the point I've been trying to make. What you say about morality is a natural consequence of a mechanical world view. It is also one of the most difficult problems to address with this view. After all, if nothing is bad or good in itself, where is the justificiation for laws, punishment and reward. To place this justification in the will of people with similar goals or feelings is problematic.
Another implication of this world view is that the world is deterministic, meaning that nothing is really free to change. The entire course of history, our actions, feelings and fortunes are already set for us. Does it make any sense to punish people if they don't have free will? Does it make any sense questioning punishment when who gets punished and who doesn't is already predetermined?
In the end, subscribing to a purely mechanical world view is ultimately a matter of faith as well. You have to chose to reject supernatural exsistence, you can never prove that is doesn't exsist.
Finally, to round out a few of your direct questions:
I have no idea what something outside matter that controls ethics would be. It could be a set of undiscovered natural laws (similar to gravity and friction) yet unobservable (at least for now) or it could be a all knowing supreme conciousness, or perhaps it is an essential part of the human body? I really have no idea, it is also very possible that no such rules exsist and that the world is nothing but matter.
And, killing in self-defense is not the same as killing in aggression. The way I see it Pi kills the chef out of necessity and self defense. His actions are heroic because he manages to survive against increadible odds. Being trapped with a physically superior insane murderer being one of the things that stacks the odds against him considerably. When I say it's wrong to kill somebody, it is not an absolute rule. There are exceptions. In fact, I don't think there is a moral universal law that says killing is bad. I think if there is a fixed point of morality it will probably say something more along the lines that forcing your will on others is bad. That said, questions of ethics are notoriously difficult to determine with 100% certainty.
PS: This conversatiopn is exactly what Life of Pi is meant to inspire. I guess the book is successful on some level ;)
