IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
Troll_Whisperer said:
There is no 'greater morals' because morality is 100% subjective. I have a definition of what 'good' morals are and you have another. Now, these definitions are usually close because we live in a society that raises people in a certain way, and it is usually societies with certain set of morals the ones that become successful and survive (social selection).
Therefore many moral choices seem like a given, but the truth is they are still 100% subjective. We just shun or jail those that don't follow the society's standards.
Now, if we were to create beings that we deem 'greater' than us or whatever, perhaps we would think of them as 'more valuable', but again that would be a value that we, as a people, set as standard. Society's mentality would've changed. As you said, values can be taught, or learnt, and those are the ones that set the value of something, nothing more concrete or objective.
I don't know if I'm making any sense. I know I'm being extremely relativist here but there really isn't a straight, objective answer to this.
|
Hehe, amen on that last part. The question was though if you'd consider it to be morally correct [by your own moral standards] to let a vastly superior being survive a human being, knowing that the superior life form would be helping and supporting more humans and possibly others of his kind than what the human would have. If the answer is "yes", then the human has become the dog in the save human or dog scenario.
(Damn this is some complex shit x)
|
Ah, so it's one of those 'would you eat shit to save your mum's life' kind of questions.
I guess I would go for saving the superior being, as long as I don't personaly know the person being sacrificed.
And would mankind accept a secondary role? I don't know about this. Depends on how these beings treat humans. History tells us that people rather have at least some degree of freedom, even if it costs human lives.
