Heres where im going to stop you because ive seen this arguement trotted out again and again and i hated it so much i read a freaking book about the whole issue to clear it up for me. Its called the moral landscape.Daystar Clarion said:
Its about determining through logic and sociatal gain what is morally right or wrong independant of cultural or social bias, a true jugde of what is right based on the most arbitrary "good" or "bad" done. Now of course you can focus on those two words back there because THEY are constants rooted in our social sphere and thus are as bias as anyone elses opinion. Of course what we can do is set ourselves two ends of a spectrum. One end is where everyone is suffering as much as they humanly can all the time. And one is where no one is suffering ever. Of course suffering being fairly relative this raises issues, but we are going to assume pain is bad as is being stolen from.
Of course its fair to say that handing over to the proper authorities causes less suffering than beating a child in the street while people watch. Its also noted that sadistic pleasure like that gained by those watching and laughing doesnt factor into our reasoning here, its VERY counter intuitive to society and also damaging to actively show an aversion toward empathy with others.
Thus independant of what my culture says i can legitimately say that, based on many options, the one chosen here was willingly causing more suffering than any other easier option that could have been taken, and thus is wrong.
A quote from the book is a woman who was questioned:
"If a society said, by culture, not by religion, dictated that every third child must be blinded at birth what would you say?"
The woman said:
"No one can tell them they are wrong".
I dispute that womans claim just as i dispute yours.
