Quote:
|
Originally Posted by alansmithee
But when person A's morality comes into competition with person B's, there's a clash. And when you say that A is allowed but B is forbidden, you have acted as a moral authority.
|
Perhaps you're acting as a moral authority, but that is probably irrelevant. What bearing do morals have in choosing the right tool for the job? You don't need morals to tell you that allowing everyone to do what they want as long as they don't harm anyone else's ability to do what they want is a reasonable way to maximize satisfaction and limit alienation in a particular society. If my personal beliefs require me to fuck children or kill people based on some obscure mechanism that only i understand, is it a moral judgment to not allow me to kill or fuck children? Or is it simply a function of a society who prioritizes various freedom set A over freedom set B because a very persuasive argument can be made as to why freedom set A allows for and encourages a more functional society?
You can call this a moral decision, but to me doing so is about as meaningful as claiming that my decision to use a philips head screwdriver rather than a flathead is a moral decision. Frankly, it misses the point. There is an important qualitative distinction here between "live and let live" and "live and don't judge others for killing or mutilating people for relatively harmless crimes". What i find interesting is that i some people who argue for direct action rather than nonjudgmental understanding when it comes to terrorism turn around and argue for nonjudgmental understanding rather than direct action when it comes to various culturally endorsed atrocities. I guess it all depends on whether the victim is some teenager in iran or some businessperson in new york.
Edit-
Does anyone else see the blatant hypocrisy in trying to convince someone that they shouldn't attempt to impose their values on someone else?