Relativity of ethics: Difference between revisions

From BurnZero
No edit summary
mNo edit summary
 
(42 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
[[File:Moral relavitism.png|alt=Moral relavitism|thumb|'''Figure 1'''. Freedom fighter or terrorist?]]
'''What delineates good from bad? Are these notions fixed, or could an action deemed harmful for one be beneficial for another?''' Consider a scenario where a parent steals bread from a bakery to feed their starving child. This is obviously bad for the baker, however, it is good for the parent and child. This is the concept of moral ''relativism''''',''' where we use the words "''good"'' and "''bad"'' as common terms, but their meaning is actually relative to the individual at that point in time.
A quintessential example of this is Star Wars. In Episode IV, Luke Skywalker and the Rebels go out to defeat the Empire and blow up the Death Star, he's treated as a hero, however, flip the perspective... Imagine an Imperial officer coming to work on the Death Star simply to pay his mortgage and feed his newborn baby... It begs the question, is Luke doing ''good'' when he launched the proton torpedo blowing up the Death Star or was the Imperial officer doing bad when coming to work to feed his newborn child? Isn't the Star Wars Saga just a story about a group of heartless terrorists? ''Or a bunch freedom fighters?''
Traditionally people like to avoid the complications of moral relativism by simply believing in the moral standards of a book, however, rules of thumb often run into issues in more nuanced matters. Rules like "''thou shalt not steal''" don't work in our bread stealing parent analogy. But our [[Energy frugal brain|efficiency-seeking mind]] likes the simplicity doctrine offers as complicated matters can be reduced to nicely on a shelf in our brain.[[File:Moral relativism.png|alt=Relativity of Ethics|center| relative morals]]<div class="res-img"></div>
== The Definition of ''Good'' ==
[[File:Good or evil.jpg|alt=Good or evil|thumb|Is this good or evil or both?]]
[[File:Good or evil.jpg|alt=Good or evil|thumb|Is this good or evil or both?]]
'''Relativity of ethics is the concept that something that is deemed ''good'' might not be good for everyone.'''
In '''this''' galaxy, not so far away... right under our feet to be precise, we all find common ground, ''Earth''. We quench our thirst with the same water and fill our lungs with the same air. If one's true endeavour is to do good, the purest form of good would be to resonate with the common welfare of all. In essence, their actions should be chiefly dedicated to safeguarding our shared environment, as it lays the groundwork for our collective needs, a sentiment echoed by [[Maslow's hierarchy|Maslow's Hierarchy]].
 
The word ''good'' is a relative term. For instance, on the death Star Luke and the rebels went out to blow it up but, what of the imperial officer coming to work to feed his newborn baby. Was Luke doing ''good'' when he blew them all up or was the imperial officer doing bad when coming to work? I comes down to [[framing]]. The only 100% good is what is common for all. We all stand on the earth, we all breath the same air, if someone truly thought their aim was to do good, they would have to be involved in protecting the environment.

Latest revision as of 06:44, 19 December 2023

Moral relavitism
Figure 1. Freedom fighter or terrorist?

What delineates good from bad? Are these notions fixed, or could an action deemed harmful for one be beneficial for another? Consider a scenario where a parent steals bread from a bakery to feed their starving child. This is obviously bad for the baker, however, it is good for the parent and child. This is the concept of moral relativism, where we use the words "good" and "bad" as common terms, but their meaning is actually relative to the individual at that point in time.

A quintessential example of this is Star Wars. In Episode IV, Luke Skywalker and the Rebels go out to defeat the Empire and blow up the Death Star, he's treated as a hero, however, flip the perspective... Imagine an Imperial officer coming to work on the Death Star simply to pay his mortgage and feed his newborn baby... It begs the question, is Luke doing good when he launched the proton torpedo blowing up the Death Star or was the Imperial officer doing bad when coming to work to feed his newborn child? Isn't the Star Wars Saga just a story about a group of heartless terrorists? Or a bunch freedom fighters?

Traditionally people like to avoid the complications of moral relativism by simply believing in the moral standards of a book, however, rules of thumb often run into issues in more nuanced matters. Rules like "thou shalt not steal" don't work in our bread stealing parent analogy. But our efficiency-seeking mind likes the simplicity doctrine offers as complicated matters can be reduced to nicely on a shelf in our brain.

Relativity of Ethics

The Definition of Good

Good or evil
Is this good or evil or both?

In this galaxy, not so far away... right under our feet to be precise, we all find common ground, Earth. We quench our thirst with the same water and fill our lungs with the same air. If one's true endeavour is to do good, the purest form of good would be to resonate with the common welfare of all. In essence, their actions should be chiefly dedicated to safeguarding our shared environment, as it lays the groundwork for our collective needs, a sentiment echoed by Maslow's Hierarchy.

Share your opinion