LOL. Come on with the fallacious argument here... it's harmful to save someone's life because you cut them?..
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
LOL. Come on with the fallacious argument here... it's harmful to save someone's life because you cut them?..
If we look at simply the outward action. Cutting the body then there is harm. So there is subjective level. Motivation, intent. The gross activity is the same.
Yes, but this is a basic intuitive understanding that someone saving your life might need to cut and cause physical harm to get to the problem. It's much like truth can cause harm/hurt psychologically to get to the root of understanding reality and resolving more complex issues. So asking if it's moral harm when someone like a doctor cuts you to save your life is playing a devils advocate for no reason, you don't even accept that question as valid nor does anyone else. Unless you're trying to play games because you're a moral relativist or subjectivity, which I've experienced before and don;t feel like unraveling and putting right that state of confusion, lol.
Harm as used before for morality, to do no harm to others, golden rule, is to not steal various property, life, sexual preference, body safety, physical ownership of objects, personal space safety. That's basic morality. And more moral behavior beyond that has to do with other harm done, like mistreating others, being cruel, where your character and conduct is not right in how to treat others. Morality is about including the concern and consideration of others into our own self-interest, selfishness, self-centeredness, self-concern and self-importance. Basic morality is overt physical actions, but its more complex when looking at all behavior. Moral behavior maximizes cooperative survival optimization.
Thank you for the great post and for taking the time and thoughtfulness to prepare in depth replies. What I am looking at is.... is there a morality beyond good and bad? In other words, I have been studying Bhagavad Gita and it is a great discussion of just this issue. The main character is a leader and he is faced with a moral dilemma. Perhaps you are familiar with the scenario presented there. According to "duty" he is sworn to certain codes of behavior but he if he performs his duty it will mean fighting and killing in battle relatives and respected members and leaders of the society. Kind of like Hamlet. To be or not to be.. Whether it is better to oppose them and end them... kind of thing. If he goes back on his sworn duty he will be a laughing stock and have no leadership influence ever again. Branded a coward. Or in modern day terms a flip-flopper. This impasse brings him to his knees and to tears. He is forced to seek what is the highest morality. His conclusion is to depend on God. He does his duty, everyone is killed. Bhagavad gita has to be the greatest dissertation on morality ever.. Thanks for letting me look a little deeper at this dynamic and the great discussion.
If you have minute... this has to be the best translation available... free online https://prabhupadabooks.com/bg?d=1
It's better to be outcast, branded falsities by ignorant people and lose leadership, than do unjustified immoral harm to others according to social norms, codes, "laws", etc.
Check out "9th Grade Girls with Better Critical Thinking Skills than Lawyers". He mentions the obvious thing we learn by 5 years old, don't harm others hehe. Man's court "law" isn't moral law.
thanks I'll view this later. Got to go see Pops. Father's day thing.