If you were to do a risk / benefit calculus, what kind of benefit would you need in order that the suffering be worth it?

For survival yes, for natural resources, yes - this is a part of survival.

Jamie

So you're an immoralist, huh?

So you're an immoralist, huh?

Is war ever morally justified? Why or why not?

Is war ever morally justified? Why or why not?

To all who have responded thus far,

My question is only vague if your conception of morality is vague. I would describe morality as being the concept of right and wrong action according to its utility for individual and collective well being, and cooperation between members of a group.

An immoralist is someone who judges actions less in a sense of right or wrong, and more in a sense of aesthetics. Immoralism expresses an opposition to any conventional moral code. If it is any ethics at all, it is the ethics of ambiguity.

What I see within many of the responses that have been given thus far is a failure to distinguish descriptive morality from prescriptive morality. Moral relativism, while it is true in its descriptive form, in its prescriptive form it is nothing more than moral nihilism and sometimes egoism. If indeed you believe in prescriptive relativism then this discussion is not for you.

thanks

So you're an immoralist, huh?

I would describe morality as being the concept of right and wrong action according to its utility for individual and collective well being, and cooperation between members of a group.

An immoralist is someone who judges actions less in a sense of right or wrong, and more in a sense of aesthetics. Immoralism expresses an opposition to any conventional moral code. If it is any ethics at all, it is the ethics of ambiguity.

Moral relativism, while it is true in its descriptive form, in its prescriptive form it is nothing more than moral nihilism

If indeed you believe in prescriptive relativism then this discussion is not for you.

Your description would be wrong.


Again, there is no reason why you should've decided Twisted was a immoralist. If anything, the above section reinforces such.


What's wrong with moral nihilism?


If anything, the door should be opened wide for us.

By setting limited standards upon the scope of substance in the discussion, you also limit insight and perspective.

To all who have responded thus far,

My question is only vague if your conception of morality is vague. I would describe morality as being the concept of right and wrong action according to its utility for individual and collective well being, and cooperation between members of a group.

An immoralist is someone who judges actions less in a sense of right or wrong, and more in a sense of aesthetics. Immoralism expresses an opposition to any conventional moral code. If it is any ethics at all, it is the ethics of ambiguity.

What I see within many of the responses that have been given thus far is a failure to distinguish descriptive morality from prescriptive morality. Moral relativism, while it is true in its descriptive form, in its prescriptive form it is nothing more than moral nihilism and sometimes egoism. If indeed you believe in prescriptive relativism then this discussion is not for you.

thanks

So your subjective opinion is that killing no matter what is wrong. So you call me an immoralist. What if by chance that human nature is to kill and that you are wrong. Then morality would be defined differently. The narrow scope of your thinking has determined in your own mind what morality is subjectively. You have not taken into account the many facets of morals. Or perhaps you were meaning mores. Cultural mores, religious mores instead of morality?

Your description would be wrong.

Again, there is no reason why you should've decided Twisted was a immoralist. If anything, the above section reinforces such.

What's wrong with moral nihilism?

If anything, the door should be opened wide for us.

By setting limited standards upon the scope of substance in the discussion, you also limit insight and perspective.

I didn't say killing no matter what is wrong. I ask if you were an immoralist because you stated that you thought war was justified for entirely selfish reasons like natural resources. Now if by natural resources you meant defending your own then I agree; but if you mean stealing other people's resources I disagree. Which one were you referring to?

Secondly, nature has nothing to do with morality, so your argument of human nature is void in this discussion. Nature is amoral.

My narrow scope of my thinking, huh? You really have no problem being outright presumptuous do you? Your narrow scope of thinking leads you to believe that you know all of my thoughts on the nature of morality and values, but you clearly don't. It's nearly self-evident that there are different conceptions of morality to anyone who knows that there are cultures and societies other than their own. You asked me what exactly I meant by moral and immoral and I gave you my description. You can choose to accept my description or reject it, but if we're not going to progress on the topic (just war theory) then we can just stop here.