Open question: What do you think a normal person’s moral responsibilities are and why?

Some angles you can (but don’t have to) consider:

To themselves, family, friends and strangers?

Do you have thoughts about what it takes to make a good person or at what point someone is a bad person? (Is there a category of people who are neither?)

What do you think the default state of people is? (Generally good, evil or neutral by nature?)

Conversely do you believe morality is a construction and reject it entirely? (Even practically speaking when something bad happens to you?)

  • ddrcrono@lemmy.caOPM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Good reply. I would highlight that the specific example you gave about whether you can be justified in killing someone would be a common example in the rules vs results based ethics debate. (Deontology vs Consequentialism).

    Moral relativism is more the claim that morals are entirely dependent on a culture’s or individual’s idea of right. (Which means they would say yes to both, practically).

    • ArbiterXero@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      Fair statement, but I think it can be viewed from both pieces there.

      Rules vs results can be individually determined and separated.

      But you’re right, my example wasn’t ideal for my argument.

      I do still think that cultural values will determine whether you value “helping your neighbours” and your moral responsibility there.