“Don’t hurt people” is not definite enough to be a workable ethic. Various people are hurt in different ways for different reasons and to different degrees. I came across a picture of a poster on the net carried in a demonstration which read “We condemn freedom of speech that hurts other people’s feelings!.” How can we reasonably know what will hurt another’s feelings? What is fine for one is hurtful for another both physically and psychologically. And would any reasonable person refuse to hurt a Hitler, a monster who is out to hurt or massacre others? In our society reasonable people would resist such a monster and try to hurt him in every possible way. Also. the ethic of ‘do unto others what you would want them to do unto you’ is also not workable. I love flowers and love it when people send me flowers as surprise gifts. My neighbor, OTOH, has a serious allergy to flower pollen. If i were to follow that ethic of doing unto others what I want then to do unto me and send my neighbor flowers I would hurt my neighbor. The best ethic I’ve come across is Hillel’s ethic of ‘do not do unto others what is hateful to yourself.’ By NOT doing things that are repugnant o oneself there’s a far greater chance of a general agreement on any particular negative behaviour.
The problem with moral relativity is that it is assumed that other people agree on the big issues, such as theft and murder being immoral Well, not necessarily so. Calvin proclaimed that all moral systems are equally valid, but what about someone whose system permitted sadistically beating other people to within an inch of their lives just because the victimizer felt like it? Would Calvin then agree that the one out to bludgeon him is also justified under his system?Would Calvin be willing to be a martyr for his stand on moral relativity? I doubt that. And here’s the kicker – moral relativists consider valid all other systems – until they are confronted with someone who’s out to seriously hurt them and they they will backpedal and say certain things are innately immoral. Moral relativity doesn’t work because there are all too many sociopaths and psychopaths out there who feel morally justified in hurting others.
“Don’t hurt people” is not definite enough to be a workable ethic. Various people are hurt in different ways for different reasons and to different degrees. I came across a picture of a poster on the net carried in a demonstration which read “We condemn freedom of speech that hurts other people’s feelings!.” How can we reasonably know what will hurt another’s feelings? What is fine for one is hurtful for another both physically and psychologically. And would any reasonable person refuse to hurt a Hitler, a monster who is out to hurt or massacre others? In our society reasonable people would resist such a monster and try to hurt him in every possible way. Also. the ethic of ‘do unto others what you would want them to do unto you’ is also not workable. I love flowers and love it when people send me flowers as surprise gifts. My neighbor, OTOH, has a serious allergy to flower pollen. If i were to follow that ethic of doing unto others what I want then to do unto me and send my neighbor flowers I would hurt my neighbor. The best ethic I’ve come across is Hillel’s ethic of ‘do not do unto others what is hateful to yourself.’ By NOT doing things that are repugnant o oneself there’s a far greater chance of a general agreement on any particular negative behaviour.