Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
So how do you tell "good" from "good"? If A does X and B does X, it looks the same to those of us on the outside. We don't know why A did X or why B did X. Maybe they're not sure of their motivations themselves. Is it possible that the X that A did is "good" and the same X that B did is not?
Goes to motive. Check criminal law for details..
Two men A and B commit the same act X of dropping a bowling ball on your foot.
A did X on purpose. B did X by accident.
A's act was wrong. B's act wasn't wrong. But it wasn't right therefore either.
Exactly. He doesn't have to DO good; he only has to BE good.
Being nice to your neighbor and talking to them is doing good. Not doing anything is simply not doing anything.
What's the difference between "doing evil" and doing nothing? Sometimes it's wrong to do nothing and sometimes it's wrong to do something. You can't leave doing nothing out of the equation.
Motivation again. One isn't motivated not to kill. One just doesn't do it because they have no motivation to kill. But to kill you have to be motivated. As I said before, an act is moral or immoral according to motivation. And people don't neglect to do things out of motivation.
We're talking about morality, not self-congratulation. If you didn't kill anybody today, you didn't act immorally; therefore you acted morally.
We're talking about self-congratulation for moral action. And that's why nobody claims credit for not doing things. Because it's not a moral act to do nothing.
Yes, given that circumstance. That's what relative morality means. Right is relative to the circumstances.
Relative morality says what you chose to do is only right for you. In other words, no moral principle exists to justify it. If you generalize to saying it was right given my circumstances, you're saying it is right for anyone under those circumstances. And that makes you an absolutist. Thus the OP..that noone can really be a moral relativist, otherwise what's the point of moralizing/idealizing your action? You universalize the moment you morally judge something. Which means you say my action was more than just my preference or rational choice. That it was the right thing to do. "Right" meaning right for anyone placed in your same situation.
If that was true, there would be no such thing as guilt, no such thing as conscience - and morality wouldn't work at all.
People wouldn't feel guilty or have a conscience if they believed their actions were obligated to an objective principle? How does that follow? Ofcourse people feel guilty for not following principles. What other way is there TO feel guilty?