The real question is, if the universe is being devoured/twisted beyond recognition and escape is everyone's last hope of survival, why would anyone worry about killing civilians? Might as well kill the lot of 'em who won't come with you, that way they won't need to suffer some strange, eldritch death when existence implodes.
Unless you don't Believe the Steve.
Some bullshit called morality, I think.
Morality is subjective.
Doubly so in a galaxy with non-human creatures. A society like that of the Haebi or other societies featuring high interconnection might consider the death of an individual meaningless or even necessary. Edit: Or, as seen in "The man in the High Castle", a society might come to find things like genocide and euthanasia of the sick acceptable.
For example, I might say that ensuring the survival of humanity overrides everything else, so nothing done to help humanity survive is immoral. On the other hand, being inefficient in helping humanity is the most immoral thing one can do. So from my perspective, you the Jedi are evil.
Opening up a huge philosophical debate there. Some worldviews hold that morality is not, in fact, subjective. Some hold that it simply does not exist.
But for the greater portion of the world, people hold that there is a morality that guides their actions - a morality that comes from a source greater than themselves, or any one society. The application of that universal morality may be situational, but in general they hold that morality is itself, a stable and ruling factor. So, the answer, "Morality," to the question, "why would anyone worry about killing innocents if the universe is dying?" remains valid.
I think you are proving my point. You said it yourself that different people have different morals, different views about morality. So while people may think morality is something that should be absolute, the fact that different morals exist proves that it is not.
So saying that something shouldn't be done because morality exists seems wrong to me. Saying "this shouldn't be done because it goes against my morals seems more correct.
.. unless I have completely misunderstood what those words mean in English, in which case I'm sorry about the misunderstanding.
I am arguing that the point is up for debate.
You say "morality is relative." Another says "Morality is absolute." A third says "there is no morality."
If there is no morality, then morality is neither relative nor objective. It is nonexistent.
If there is an absolute morality a0 people can and will get it wrong, and can and will deliberately go against it. Since there are many people, and many ways to get it wrong, many people each have a different view of a morality which is beyond them. this does not prove that morality is relative - only that people act in relative ways regarding it.
I am arguing that the point is open for debate.
I am not arguing a particular side. If I were, I would say morality is absolute, like mathematical truth. But like mathematical truth, there are variables, and morality is complex. This is my view. I have reasons, which I won't go into here, because philosophy, theology, science, and ethics.
If I were arguing a point, I would say that claiming morality is relative is much the same as claiming that there is no morality, only social norms, which are descriptive of behavior, rather than a rule to go by.
So to sum up:
1)saying "different people have different views of morality" does not prove that morality is relative, it only demonstrates that people are different. It has literally no evidentiary value for the discussion.
and
2) My point was that this can become a big argument, if someone who disagrees with you wishes to make it so. be careful about making absolute truth statements like that.
Author
Topic: Einsteinian Roulette: OOC and NEW PLAYER INFO (Read 2522608 times)