Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Snooze
When I made my comment I was thinking of governments sending defence personnel overseas to fight wars.
Childless sexual relationships between consenting siblings.
|
I think you could extend that argument to presidents ordering an air strike where there will be known collateral loss of lives. That is far less direct and is also killing in self-defense. The moral argument is consequentialism—the end justifies the means. This is the hope that the action leads to the most good for the most people, therefore, it is moral. Kant would argue that such an action could be necessary, but it wouldn’t make it moral—murder is murder. Actions stand on their own. Both are true and neither philosophy brings us to the correct answer, but this doesn’t imply that we can’t find an answer or that morals are an illusion. Returning to my point, there is a universal experience of suffering and pain that everyone experiences when they stub their toe, lose a family member, get cheated on by a partner, feel stabbed in the back, etc. Our ability to experience theses things similarly means we have the capacity to know what could hurt others and what they would want or not want. This extends to animals too. Empirically we know that there are universal expressions and emotions. We can tell when a dog is afraid, happy, sad, depressed, etc.
Age appropriate consenting siblings? What about age appropriate consenting parent and child or whatever? I understand the reasons behind the taboo. Besides potentially leading to birth defects, it often creates uncomfortable dynamics in the family and society, but in general, I don’t find this immoral. If we were bonobos then we might consider refraining from family fornications as odd, but even they look for genetic variety, as does most species, but incest in the animal kindom is not uncommon. Maybe it is telling that we have/had more states that allow people to marry their first cousin than marry a same-sex-partner (older pic):
