This is a good question. Having a documented set of rules to follow is only one half of the pie. The other half consists of our moral emotions. A person who can feel neither empathy nor guilt will not abide by any set of rules, whether it be absolute or relative, divine or mundane. Of course, each person feels his or her moral emotions with varying intensities. A person with healthy moral emotions will feel guilt when they do something they know is wrong.I think it is. At least as much as not killing flawed babies is. How can you have a concern for all when/if the situation occurs that one person's interests are directly in conflict with another's? In other words, to say "concern for the well-being of all" doesn't mean anything more than what every politician will say come election time. We know this doesn't mean anything, don't we? What is the operating principle that causes us to have a concern for all? Do you/humanists have one?
I know you're speaking hypothetically, and your point was a good one.I may misinterpret what it says, or through carelessness miss entirely what it says, but I won't twist it. I realize it's only my word but I do wonder if you think I am "twisting" its meaning since that's a charge that implies intent. If this is how you view it, well OK, but it's really not the case.
If only it were that simple. A single sentence is meaningless without the definitions for each word involved. The definitions are meaningless without experience to tie them to. Even your reply is evidence that a single sentence does not suffice, judging by the number of questions you had. All the answers to your questions can be considered necessary information to understand the sentence. There is a pyramid of education required before any single sentence has enough potency to serve as a principle rather than a rule.I think it can be contained in a single sentence.
Well, no. It tells us how our ethical values may be derived, but it doesn't answer any of the questions you've posed. There is also a grey area, where interests collide. Even though interests vary over time, we still need wisdom on how to arbitrate contrary interests that are equal on the surface. I think the equal consideration of interests may very well be implied, since it's opposite - unequal consideration of interests - obviously doesn't work.Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. So what do you take this sentence to mean? Is it not an absolute guiding principle?
Oops, I'm guilty.Actually what I am most unsure about here is that you are aware you are talking about rules while I am talking about principle.
I see religious morality as a set of rules rather than principles. Rules are set by outside agencies to compel you to do what they think is right, while principles are internally motivated, by understanding the consequences of your actions as they relate to the principles. In religion, the thought of an omnipotent power constantly watching over you and judging you is an external motivator, even if it may be delusional. It's the age old question, how will you be judged when you stand in front of the gates? With a manifesto, you take an oath to abide by the principles because you understand the inherent reciprocity in following them. Even though I understand the difference between the terms, I may get lazy and mix them up. Feel free to correct me.
I've never heard of systems kill. What does it refer to?Yes, every act can be justified using absolute morality just as, I'll add, it can be justified through use of its more flexible cousins:"Systems kill."