NeverMore said:
Yea I'd still hang out with my friend, I wouldn't mind if he was a robot, I mean look at full metal alchemist, though I've never watched it a lot, so I may be wrong,but that robot guy, he's the guy's brother's soul trapped in that right? And they're still cool with each other
This is a good point; however, doesn't the older brother then devote the rest of his life to "fixing" his brother? I must admit, it's been a while since I saw the series, and I didn't see as many episodes as I would have liked.
I think rationally we know that the person is still there. Emotionally, though, can we make this same claim? Just a thought. Personally, the mere knowledge that this consciousness is
not in its original vessel would make an impact on how I perceive the person. I guess, no matter how much I'd like to believe consciousness defines someone, I'd still involuntarily cling to the concrete reality in front of me. I can't help but feel that there might be others who feel the same way. With the continued integration of humankind and technology, this attitude would surely diminish as time went on.
Nevermore said:
Yea that's true, and that to me is a major problem, we won't have the ability to have opinions on morality, since everyone already knows what's right and has to follow that universal truths no matter what...Kind of a scary thought isn't it?
Most definitely.
Nevermore said:
But anyways morality,yeah, I read Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals by Immanuel Kant, he was very difficult to understand for me,and in it he identifies what he thinks is a universal moral truth or rule that is formulated three ways:
1.Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law
Basically stating that when making a decision about morality you have to ask yourself, what if everyone else did the same thing, would the world be better or worse, or could it even function at all? For example, I'm deciding whether of not to tell a lie, well I ask myself what would the world be like if everyone lied, and I would come to the conclusion that the world couldn't function without truth, so lying is therefore wrong
2.Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means
Don't use rational beings in a way that diminishes their rationality I think this one is implying not too sure though...
3.Therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends
Don't act on maxims that create impossible or irrational ends, exactly what the first one implied, is what I got from it
What do you all think of these as being universal moral truths?
I think they work, except I can't possibly imagine not using anyone as a means to an end, that would say you couldn't take a taxi, because you are using the driver as a means to get somewhere i.e. an end...So I'm not too sure what to think of that one maybe I misunderstood it?
First off, let me say: I think almost every philosopher's works are difficult to understand or get through. They operate on such a logical level, that it's almost like reading a textbook on some high-level mathematical concept. Sometimes, I'll read a work, and then have to go on the internet to find a summarized version just to find out what I just read, lol!
As I mentioned before: I think moral truths are easy to apply in the general case; it's in the specific situations that I'm more hesitant to agree with them.
For example, number 1 sounds like a great rule to follow. It's basically a rephrasing of the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have done unto you." I try to base my actions around this principle, but I feel it's easy for me because I'm not in any stressful or highly intense situations that push me to do otherwise. Most people I meet are nice to me, so it's not too much for me to do the same, but let's consider a special case...
Now, I think stealing is generally wrong. You're taking the honest living of another man for your own benefit. However, what if you were a victim of a financial "perfect storm"? You were a hard-working, honest man who considered the welfare of others, but now you suddenly find your entire family living on the street. Let's also say that much of your misfortune was the result of a powerful and wealthy, yet evil, man's machinations. Your family, including your two infant children, are dying right in front of your eyes. One day, you suddenly find yourself in a situation where you can swipe a bit of food from the evil man's kitchen. Doing so will have no effect on the evil man, since he's rich, and he probably won't even know you did it or that anything was stolen from him. If you live according to Rule 1, you don't, because you don't believe in stealing, and you wouldn't want anyone stealing from you. Instead, you simply return to your family and watch them die.
If I heard this story, and was asked what the poor man should do... I'd say "Go steal from that *******." I think there are a few out there who would agree with me. Is the stealing justified? No, of course not. The man is still committing a wrongful act (if you consider stealing wrongful, which I hope you do
); however, is it a greater wrong to steal or to let someone die? Though the answer to this question may seem obvious to some, other comparisons can be made where it would be a much harder call. In the situation I described, though, I think many of us would probably be lenient on the poor man, given the circumstances.
The Golden Rule is a nice rule to follow, but I feel it works best in a society of harmony. If everybody followed the Golden Rule, then the world would be a great place to live in. However, how well would it work if you were suddenly dropped into a world based on deceit and lies? If nobody respected promises and betrayal was an everyday thing, would it make sense to live according to that principle?
I think people are often caught between living a righteous life and looking out for their own survival. Being kind and respectful to others works with the right people, but there are situations where other measures are needed. Oftentimes, we're willing to withhold judgment on a normally "good" person if a wrongful deed was committed to preserve his/her survival, as well as the lives of others. In a sense, an act of survival is considered a "get out of jail free" card. If this is the case, then I wonder if moral truths can really exist, or at least be upheld, within a human society?