Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Yakk
She's displaying severly aberrant behaviour. And what do you mean by 'real moral behaviour' -- I wasn't talking about law, I was talking about taboos and morals. A moral system that doesn't take into account practicality is functionally bankrupt.
|
Ok. Ignore the law. Ignore how people would react to her. Also ignore considerations of aberrant behaviour.
My question is:
Is a mother who physically abuses a very young child doing anything morally wrong?
If the answer to this question is 'yes', then
why is it wrong.?
Quote:
|
And, as I mentioned, there are other reasons. They include the intense emotional response of other people, the continuity of the child into the person, etc. I am just claiming that the practical taboo reason is sufficient, not the only reason.
|
So socially defined taboos are sufficient to determine an act morally wrong?
I certainly accept that taboos can be functionally useful (e.g. the incest taboo). But incest is not wrong by virtue of the fact that there is a taboo against it - if it is wrong, it is wrong for other reasons. One need only look at historical examples of what was once considered taboo to realise this.
Quote:
On some level, yes. Of course, on that level, the valueing life more than non-life is arbitrary, or animals vs non-animals.
Hell, you seem to be implying that pain is bad -- yet another arbitrary choice.
Pain is just another sensation -- many people enjoy non-damaging pain (be they people who like to exercise, or BDSM-aficionados, or just people who like being nibbled on).
|
In these cases there is much psychological pleasure to be had (for differing reasons) from the occurrence of physical pain. The psychological pleasure wins out over the physical pain - this is why it is enjoyable. The net result is pleasure, not pain.