That’s moral relativism. A murderer values killing innocent people over not killing them, that doesn’t justify the murderer’s actions just because he is technically being “rational”.
That’s moral relativism. A murderer values killing innocent people over not killing them, that doesn’t justify the murderer’s actions just because he is technically being “rational”.
@Ace_Archist No the murder is irrational because he is forfeiting his own rights which are valuable. It is not morally relative to say it is objectively true that you must use reason to calculate the implications of your actions to evaluate if it is good or bad based on your values.
@sirtobiaswade I can calculate my values, but that says nothing about which of those values have moral implications or whether I should or shouldn’t act on those values.
@Ace_Archist Correct reason is what determines morality because that calculates what the implications are. So if rationally acting on your values, it can be moral for a soldier to shoot first when he values his country or own life above the enemy.
@sirtobiaswade What determines the morality of a thing is not the individual making the judgement, but rather an objective standard independent of the agent.
@Ace_Archist The objective standard is using reason.
@sirtobiaswade This can lead to contradiction. If A and B both value their lives more than the other, who should win in a conflict between the two? We can’t merely appeal to their use of reason.
@Ace_Archist You can prove moral foundation is individual action and not social rules another way because in solitude you must still use morality to rationally evaluate one action as good and another as bad based on your values.