chaz wyman wrote:
Clearly in extreme case there are issues that can twang the heart strings due to the most base of human instincts. But human society has examples of being able to overcome even the most strong emotional and instinctive reaction.
Ask yourself if you could spend $10 a week to ensure that a baby was not punched would you do it? And if not is this any different from punching the baby yourself? Because you have the power to stop a baby being punched right now by sending $10 a week to the RSPCC.
Thus we are all complicit in baby punching.
There are many anthropological examples of morally justifiable infanticide.
So whilst I would never punch a baby - I know that this is not an absolute universal moral principle.
Okay, point made. There is moral relativism. You would never punch a baby...even if it were suffering.
I can't imagine being able to punch a baby in any circumstances. This is an emotional fact - I don't pretend it is a moral position.
However, in your hypothetical situation, where we could pay $10 to ensure a baby was not punched would mean that a few babies would probably be punched if everyone didn't contribute.
NO, what makes you say that? Very odd.
In that case, I opt for punching anyone who extorted money from individuals who wanted to prevent baby punching...
So when a member of the RSPCC rings your door bell and asks you for a contribution, you would punch them in the face? Have I got that right?
or any individual who actually punched a baby.
SO you are saying that punching a baby is morally equivalent to getting money out of people to prevent baby punching? Have you made some typing error here?
And since there is not an absolute universal moral code in your hypothetical, should I be free in doing so if it is what I want to do?
An absolute moral code is of no relevance as such a thing does not exist.
But if you want to punch a baby and it is in my personal power to stop you I'd drop down on you like a sack of shit, and would support any law that would punish you for trying to punch a baby.
The absence of moral absolutes is no licence to behave as you see fit. I'm a bit puzzled why you think so.
PS. Please review your last post in detail I think you have made an error in meaning.