Who's to say who's wrong and who's right. (bite me English pedants)
I often like to argue this out with Hitler as my example, but to update my arguments, lets use a more recent example, Osama Bin Dead fine with everyone?
Subjective morality pretty much is defined as being the state wherein both parties each performed actions from a moral base that was ultimately righteous to them and viewed the opposing party as having defiled their moral system. On asked who would I personally side with during the american war on terror, my response would pretty much be fence sitting and as a group, we're generally frowned upon and used by wannabe politicians to incite feelings of false pretentious patriotism among generally non-intelligent patsies (the general public)
Neither was right, neither was wrong. One saw it as destruction of amoral living and an attack on proper Islamic values and the other as protecting their civil rights (by invading a desert nation). Might I interject to add that this kind of "protection of values" was the same reason the US got into the Vietnam war, even speaking against of which is tantamount to the greatest crime in the US.
Now i don't intent to give you a history lesson, I'm sure you've read about it (not really, you're a bunch of unread dumb-asses), but let me bring some real world perspective to this.
If you're at work and you work in an office, there's at least a 50% chance you suspect of at the least, ONE person that you think has either slept her way to a higher position or even into the company to begin with. This person generally wouldn't be your quintessential brain, but more a street smart person. This I gather, is generally frowned upon.
How immoral is it really though. These are people who mostly aren't genetically designed to absorb knowledge and store it like most MBA grads, why shouldn't they use whatever IS genetically given to them. Are there REALLY rules in a war? This life IS a war and if you're going to cry about it being unfair, don't play!
My last example is kinda anti climatic in a way, but here goes.
I'm generally a nice guy, incapable of taking advantage of people. Or am I? My work depends on how efficient I am in getting the best deals and being a general smooth talker of sorts (which is why I suck at my job). So here, my morality allows for me to take advantage of people? Is that because I believe they, by being in the business have acknowledged that they've understood the rules of the lack of it in this game? So that means, I cannot by virtue take advantage of the innocent right? Wrong again. If I didn't, what I sell is fluff. Unneeded luxuries in a country where most people cant afford ONE square meal a day. I get to see charts of how we've penetrated "regional markets" and how many "consumers have been converted" to "consume our content", fully aware that the 15 or more bucks they paid for my product could've bought someone a meal.
In fact, lets turn this to you. You're educated right? are at a computer right now? wearing decent clothes? Whats the thing you've wanted most in life? Or second most? lets make a list of 20 things you can buy if you had a million bucks. Are you REALLY going to buy all those things with the knowledge that somewhere entire villages are dying off for the lack of basic drinking water?
Are you such a nice person after all? You're a horrible person right? But you yet manage to squeeze in a drink on weekends, buy shoes, go and watch a movie at a very overpriced theater and pay what was once the price of gold for a meal for two. How? Subjective morality. That's right to you.
And to the people in the poor dying village, sticking you up at knife point, stealing your shoes and selling them for ONE square meal per person in their family is morally right, it keeps them alive.
Strange world we live in? You betcha.
No comments:
Post a Comment