Right, that was a metaphor meant to illustrate that ‘Morality’ can differ based on ones point of view. Whether or not humans are ‘strictly governed by instinct’ or have to live by ‘eating other sentients’ is beside the point.
Our morality need not be a zero-sum game…
That is beside the point as well. Unless you believe that the universe had a creator, who also created ‘morality’ and is the ultimate arbiter of what is ‘moral’ and what isn’t- it’s simply impossible to say what is objectively moral and what isn’t.
Human centered example 1.
Person A believes in Christianity. Person B does not.
To Person A making jokes about Jesus being ‘hammered’ or ‘really nailing it’ could be considered blasphemy, which is a sin and is immoral.
To Person B the entire concept of blasphemy is nonsense and there is nothing ‘immoral’ about such jokes in any way.
Person C agrees with Person A, but believes that anyone who blasphemes should be put to death.
Example 2.
Person A believes that Jesus would want you to do whatever is medically necessary to keep a person alive no matter how terrible their quality of life.
Person B believes that it should be up to individuals when they should be allowed to shuffle off the mortal coil and that it can be the humane option to actually help end the life of a person suffering a painful and debilitating terminal illness.
Person C believes that only God gets to determine who lives and who dies- but unlike person A they believe that any medical treatment whatsoever is immoral and a persons health should be determined by God alone.
Example 3.
Humans have destroyed the Earth, the last remnants of our species exists as a single colony aboard an interstellar spacecraft. We are on the brink of starvation, and must find a new homeworld soon. We happen upon a planet that would be just right for human habitation if it were terraformed, which we have the technology to accomplish. If we do that, the one alien lifeform on the planet, a type of bacteria, will die.
Person A rejoices that ‘The LORD’ has blessed humans with a new promised land.
Person B doesn’t like the idea of killing the first example of Alien Life so far discovered and thinks we must find a way where both Earth species and the Alien species can survive, even if taking the extra time to do so might doom humanity.
Person C believes that this planet was given to the alien bacteria by God and living on an inhabited planet is immoral under any circumstances- if we can’t find an uninhabited planet before time runs out for humanity, that is God’s will.
Example 4, same scenario as example 3, but the entire planet is teeming with complex lifeforms.
Example 5, same scenario as example 4, but there is a sentient and intelligent life form that has become the dominate species on the planet, They have a caste system based on superstition, practice slavery, and eat any of their offspring who aren’t “perfect”.
Example 6, same scenario as example 5, but the dominate species are pretty cool actually. There is still no way for humans and aliens to share the planet and we must choose between us and them.
Who is ‘right’ in each of these scenarios? You and I likely agree on the morality of many, many things- then again perhaps we do not. If you know of a way of determining the objective morality of things- I would like to know what that is.
Right, that was a metaphor meant to illustrate that ‘Morality’ can differ based on ones point of view. Whether or not humans are ‘strictly governed by instinct’ or have to live by ‘eating other sentients’ is beside the point.
That is beside the point as well. Unless you believe that the universe had a creator, who also created ‘morality’ and is the ultimate arbiter of what is ‘moral’ and what isn’t- it’s simply impossible to say what is objectively moral and what isn’t.
Human centered example 1.
Person A believes in Christianity. Person B does not.
To Person A making jokes about Jesus being ‘hammered’ or ‘really nailing it’ could be considered blasphemy, which is a sin and is immoral.
To Person B the entire concept of blasphemy is nonsense and there is nothing ‘immoral’ about such jokes in any way.
Person C agrees with Person A, but believes that anyone who blasphemes should be put to death.
Example 2.
Person A believes that Jesus would want you to do whatever is medically necessary to keep a person alive no matter how terrible their quality of life.
Person B believes that it should be up to individuals when they should be allowed to shuffle off the mortal coil and that it can be the humane option to actually help end the life of a person suffering a painful and debilitating terminal illness.
Person C believes that only God gets to determine who lives and who dies- but unlike person A they believe that any medical treatment whatsoever is immoral and a persons health should be determined by God alone.
Example 3.
Humans have destroyed the Earth, the last remnants of our species exists as a single colony aboard an interstellar spacecraft. We are on the brink of starvation, and must find a new homeworld soon. We happen upon a planet that would be just right for human habitation if it were terraformed, which we have the technology to accomplish. If we do that, the one alien lifeform on the planet, a type of bacteria, will die.
Person A rejoices that ‘The LORD’ has blessed humans with a new promised land.
Person B doesn’t like the idea of killing the first example of Alien Life so far discovered and thinks we must find a way where both Earth species and the Alien species can survive, even if taking the extra time to do so might doom humanity.
Person C believes that this planet was given to the alien bacteria by God and living on an inhabited planet is immoral under any circumstances- if we can’t find an uninhabited planet before time runs out for humanity, that is God’s will.
Example 4, same scenario as example 3, but the entire planet is teeming with complex lifeforms.
Example 5, same scenario as example 4, but there is a sentient and intelligent life form that has become the dominate species on the planet, They have a caste system based on superstition, practice slavery, and eat any of their offspring who aren’t “perfect”.
Example 6, same scenario as example 5, but the dominate species are pretty cool actually. There is still no way for humans and aliens to share the planet and we must choose between us and them.
Who is ‘right’ in each of these scenarios? You and I likely agree on the morality of many, many things- then again perhaps we do not. If you know of a way of determining the objective morality of things- I would like to know what that is.