You seem to forget that morally justifiable does not mean morally right. Eg. Killing somebody in self-defence is not morally right, but it is morally justifiable. This is what the second definition refers to. An act that is morally wrong can never be morally right - the most that can be said about it is that is was justified. That is a conclusion that can be reached rationally, with or without dependence on social norms. As I said before, genital mutilation cannot be governed right under any circumstance. The most that can happen is that the society decides that it is morally justifiable in light of the (perceived) benefits). But does not mean that the act is right, and the decision is open to re-evaluation at any time in the future in order to determine whether the benefits still outweigh the moral wrong.
Morally justifiable? - maybe. Morally right? - no. EDIT: I didn't express myself properly. In the case of testicular cancer it is necessary to remove the testicle to save the patient. Necessity is amoral. If you were a surgeon and did so with the patient's consent, it would be a morally right. If you did so without the patient's consent, it might be morally justifiable.(right to save life + wrong to do without consent = possibly justifiable) I would argue that mutilating your own genitalia is morally wrong. It may be morally justifiable, but it's certainly not morally right. And of course, it is certainly not my business whether he does it or not. Would it help you to substitute the words "right" and "wrong" with "positive" and "negative"?
So it's wrong until it's right (but its always wrong) is what you're saying? Wow! In the case of the Prince Ablert - it's morally wrong to make an informed choice about what you do with your own genetalia? I wonder what your views on homosexuality are... I'll tell you something though...If you came in to my ward and told me that, while it's beneficial to have my cancerous balls removed, it's morally wrong...I'd slap you with my dick!
@eddtox so you are using 'justify' in the sense of 'absolve'? That would assume that there is a definable morality (such as say 10 commandments) where though real world application would result in conflicting immoral actions... hence a person is required to act immorally to gain a moral outcome.... Yet absolution is nothing but a sticking plaster used to try and hold an inadaquate or poorly defined (and therefore untrue) moral structure. There is no 'true' or 'complete' morality for the simple reason that the physical laws exist external from humanity and humanities concerns... mathematicians do not 'absolve' Non-Euclidean geometry they work within it because it is consistent and complete - all overriding moralities are and must be incomplete, inconsistent or unacceptable.
Yup...what memeroot says is correct. To make it easier for you to understand - You are a moral absolutist - You believe there are absolute moral rights and absolute moral wrongs. I am a moral consequentualist - I believe there is no moral right or wrong, only moral justification...The consequence of ones actions (or inactions) provide the justifucation, hence the term. Have fun on wikipedia...oh, and top tip: "deontology"
I am using "justify" in the sense of "warrant", meaning "to provide sufficient reason for". It is not a true moral judgement, it is a related concept used in recognition of the fact that scenarios can be so complex as to either force a morally negative act, or to render the consequences of that act less negative than the consequences of inaction or another act. I have never claimed that my moral structure is complete. But just because it is incomplete it does not mean it is irrelevant or incorrect. The 10 commandments fail, in part, because they try to provide a blanket solution for all situations. I am not arrogant enough (nearly but not quite) to presume that I can pre-empt every single moral conundrum possible.
I will ask you not to pigeon-hole me, thank you very much. There are valid points in both camps and I suspect the sweet spot is somewhere in the middle.
I've skipped a few pages of the thread so if this has been covered previously then i apologise. I think we are morally justified to eat meat so long as we meet certain criteria. Animals do not die pleasant deaths in the natural world, they fight for survival on a daily basis and die an unpleasant death at the hands of a predator or from disease or wastage. Animals do not die peacefully in their sleep. As a human if we wish to eat meat then i believe we have a moral obligation to provide that animal as quick and as stress free death as possible. If the animal is farmed it should have the highest standards of welfare. If we want to kill it we must make the life before it death as pleasant as possible. We should also endeavour to use every single part of the animal, out of respect, nothing should be wasted if we are forfeiting a life for our needs. Now another part of the equation which has not been addressed (from what i heave read so far) is what do we do with all these animals that we have stopped eating? Most of the domesticated species we rely on are now dependent on us for their survival and would not survive in the wild. Do we slaughter them all or do we set them free to watch them suffer and die? We will need the land they graze on to grow crops if we no longer eat meat. What about the areas of land not suitable for raising crops? Where i live has huge tracts of hilly land where crops wont grow but sheep and cows can find grazing. For a country (UK) that has not been self sufficient food wise since the second world war giving up that grazing land and food source seems like a stupid idea to me? The UK has some of the finest beef cattle in the world; animals that are very efficient at turning poor quality grazing into high calorie nutritious meat and make far better use of the land then we could trying to grow crops. To me not using that resource is like not taking advantage of wind energy. By not eating meat we would be placing huge strain upon our natural environment by trying to grow crops to meet dietary requirements that are easily met by eating meat. I do think that we eat too much meat though. Supermarkets have disconnected us from the source of our food and i think if people visited farms, abatoirs and butchers they would have a better understanding of where our food comes from and would not take it for granted. I understand spec's argument on morality and speciesism and as Nexxo succinctly put it all your arguments boil down to "speciesism ********". I would counter that by saying that's all "philosophy ********". Denying yourself something we need for survival and have evolved to eat and what has helped us evolve to what we are because it is philosophically wrong indicates there is something wrong with the philosophy to me
@eddtox "I have never claimed that my moral structure is complete. " but you do claim to be able to define certain things to always be right and certain things to always be wrong.. "But just because it is incomplete it does not mean it is irrelevant or incorrect." yes it does when it creates immoral outcomes. "The 10 commandments fail, in part, because they try to provide a blanket solution for all situations." and are therefore incomplete, irrelevant and thank goodness, largely ignored. "I am not arrogant enough (nearly but not quite) to presume that I can pre-empt every single moral conundrum possible." no you are just arrogant to assume that you can selectively pre-empt some of them. @Da_Rude_Baboon I largely agree - george monibot wrote a decent article on the subject. here it is http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/06/meat-production-veganism-deforestation
"Immoral outcomes based on what logic, what frame of reference?" ? the stated moral structure.... hence inconsistent....
a moral structure that is internally inconsistent is one where morally correct actions create results that are immoral viewed from the perspective of the moral structure. or A theory is consistent if there is no formula P such that both P and its negation are provable from the axioms of the theory under its associated deductive system.
