Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
Did you see my comments about an immoral imperative? I see that as an oxymoron. If you should do something to serve justice, in my understanding of the terminology that means it has to be moral.
How do you see it?
|
My last post answered some of this, and I understand your thoughts on the moral imperative. In my gut, not using any particular technical definitions, I think that I see a real difference between concepts of "morality" and "justice" -- but I can't articulate that difference well.
For me, justice implies a sense of people being treated as they deserve, while morality has to do with treating people according to a certain code.
Thus, I think that our basic morality often constrains/limits our ability to do true "justice"
You can probably tell that the toughest course for me in college was freshman philosophy. I took the required semester and never went back -- stretched the brain too much, and I am not facile with these terms.
Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
If the act of torturing the terrorist to save the innocent people is immoral but you should do it, does that mean it is immoral but just? Immoral but the right thing to do?
How does moral differ from Just and Right (as in acting in the right and not in the wrong)?
|
See above. I would say that, in those circumstances, torture could be immoral yet just and/or the right thing to do.
Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
If the act of torturing the terrorist is not right, unjust and immoral, then how do you differentiate that act, which you should do, from torturing an innocent child for fun, which you should definitely not do? What makes one something you should do and the other something you shouldn't do?
|
While you've picked an extreme example, it seems to me that this answer inevitably falls back on people's subjective views of objective morality. Thus, it is a pretty dangerous evaluation without some bright line rules.
S_A_M
P.S. Now I am done with torture for the holidays.
