Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="hamishspence" data-source="post: 4388471" data-attributes="member: 41555">the exalted Deeds answerThe answer in Exalted deeds was that choosing to commit an evil act, even to save the lives of thousands, meant &quot;a fundamental shift in the balance of the cosmos&quot;&nbsp; and the morality should not be treated as a commodity to be sacrificed, not even for the lives of others. &nbsp;However, this might not seem like a great way to resolve the problem to some: especially when taken to the &quot;save the universe&quot; level.&nbsp;If I remember rightly: Kant held that lying was always evil and should never be done, not even if peoples lives are at stake. It is not too hard to think of ways in which this view might be argued against, from white lies, to spying, to lies when living under a tyranny, etc.&nbsp;you can do the same with most acts.&nbsp;At the same time, defining an act as not evil if done to save others, can lead to the justification of unpleasant things. E.g. in fantasy, sacrificing individuals to a monster to prevent it from razing the city. &nbsp;So, my argument is: you cannot just chuck one or the other standard of judging things out: both standards must be used. the needs of the group, as well as more traditional moral views. &nbsp;Which is why, at least according to Bernard Crick, in preface to The Discourses, Machiavelli used both standards, and did not simply throw one out, and writes that morally wrong acts can be excusable (but that does not make the acts any less morally wrong)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="hamishspence, post: 4388471, member: 41555"] [b]the exalted Deeds answer[/b] The answer in Exalted deeds was that choosing to commit an evil act, even to save the lives of thousands, meant "a fundamental shift in the balance of the cosmos" and the morality should not be treated as a commodity to be sacrificed, not even for the lives of others. However, this might not seem like a great way to resolve the problem to some: especially when taken to the "save the universe" level. If I remember rightly: Kant held that lying was always evil and should never be done, not even if peoples lives are at stake. It is not too hard to think of ways in which this view might be argued against, from white lies, to spying, to lies when living under a tyranny, etc. you can do the same with most acts. At the same time, defining an act as not evil if done to save others, can lead to the justification of unpleasant things. E.g. in fantasy, sacrificing individuals to a monster to prevent it from razing the city. So, my argument is: you cannot just chuck one or the other standard of judging things out: both standards must be used. the needs of the group, as well as more traditional moral views. Which is why, at least according to Bernard Crick, in preface to The Discourses, Machiavelli used both standards, and did not simply throw one out, and writes that morally wrong acts can be excusable (but that does not make the acts any less morally wrong) [/QUOTE]

Verification