Part two "So in my opinion Xander in this story instinctively did the morally right thing." Two notes on that: who decides what is right and wrong? Again the society. But every society has it's own set of rules. In one society a same sex relationship is called wrong, in another hitting your wife is right (if she broke society rules), in another sitting with your legs crossed "like a women" as a man is wrong, in another it is wrong to wear a yellow dress with purple shoes. The list goes on. (And yes I chose totally different examples used in different societies: from the small microcosm of your friends circle to the macrocosm of a state. And again yes, I used "right" and "wrong" in a broader sense of the words.) And what is morally or morality? "A sense of behavioral conduct that differentiates intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and bad (or wrong)" that "refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores that distinguish between right and wrong in the human society" (Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality))? Well, I'd say yes and this would mean that again society tells you what is (morally) right and wrong. The thing is: a society - be it a small or big one - cannot function without a fixed set of rules. So we have to accept them (or change them or go to another society). But these rules are still debatable. Some countries do have the death penalty, others don't. Does it help anyone? Will the victims of a killer come alive because now the killer is killed? No. Will the surviving dependants of the victims feel better? That's something only they can answer. Does the crime rate drop because of the "threat" of the death penalty?... And so on. Yes, "eliminating a threat makes us feel safer". I agree. But is it justifiable to "eliminate them" because they are not "worth the time, energy, effort and cost required to make them safe" for the society? Who are we that we can decide who and what is valuable? Who decides about the worthiness of a life? How do we value a life? Is the life of someone that broke a rule - any rule - not as valuable as someone that lived his whole life according to the rules? Do we not all at one time in our life break a rule (staying out past curfew, surfing the net while working and so on)? But then, if we all do it, when does the droping of the "life value" begin? And how do we measure this threat to the safety? If we cannot say for sure what will happen, how can we even say it will be a threat? "Do nothing" is out of the question, I agree. But that gets us back to the question: If we have to treat them, how do we treat them? And here does the infinite loop start again.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Yah! He's dead.... ?
Date: 2010-07-13 08:23 am (UTC)"So in my opinion Xander in this story instinctively did the morally right thing."
Two notes on that: who decides what is right and wrong? Again the society. But every society has it's own set of rules. In one society a same sex relationship is called wrong, in another hitting your wife is right (if she broke society rules), in another sitting with your legs crossed "like a women" as a man is wrong, in another it is wrong to wear a yellow dress with purple shoes. The list goes on. (And yes I chose totally different examples used in different societies: from the small microcosm of your friends circle to the macrocosm of a state. And again yes, I used "right" and "wrong" in a broader sense of the words.)
And what is morally or morality? "A sense of behavioral conduct that differentiates intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and bad (or wrong)" that "refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores that distinguish between right and wrong in the human society" (Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality))? Well, I'd say yes and this would mean that again society tells you what is (morally) right and wrong.
The thing is: a society - be it a small or big one - cannot function without a fixed set of rules. So we have to accept them (or change them or go to another society). But these rules are still debatable. Some countries do have the death penalty, others don't. Does it help anyone? Will the victims of a killer come alive because now the killer is killed? No. Will the surviving dependants of the victims feel better? That's something only they can answer. Does the crime rate drop because of the "threat" of the death penalty?... And so on.
Yes, "eliminating a threat makes us feel safer". I agree. But is it justifiable to "eliminate them" because they are not "worth the time, energy, effort and cost required to make them safe" for the society? Who are we that we can decide who and what is valuable? Who decides about the worthiness of a life? How do we value a life? Is the life of someone that broke a rule - any rule - not as valuable as someone that lived his whole life according to the rules? Do we not all at one time in our life break a rule (staying out past curfew, surfing the net while working and so on)? But then, if we all do it, when does the droping of the "life value" begin? And how do we measure this threat to the safety? If we cannot say for sure what will happen, how can we even say it will be a threat?
"Do nothing" is out of the question, I agree. But that gets us back to the question: If we have to treat them, how do we treat them?
And here does the infinite loop start again.