"I'm not going to kill you, and in return, you're not going to kill me. All these other people aren't going to kill each other either, and now we all aren't going to kill each other, and can live happily and safely."
Someone who doesn't sign on to the treaty is uncivilized, but not a bad person per se. That doesn't mean a civilization can stand to have them around -- they'll ruin everything, because the default assumption is that all humans in a civilized area are civilized. That's what makes it a civilized area.
So, there's two ways to deal with it, either of which could work: (a) They signed implicitly on by entering the civilized area (or just by existing as a human being), so if they break the treaty, imprison them. (b) They're wild and dangerous animals (because they're not civilized) that must be exterminated or kept in the wilderness. Or maybe they're useful, so we'll let them hang around as long as they're kept under the control of their handlers.
The second makes it easier to accept the existance of morally repugnant but useful or necessary people. But either of them give an answer to the dilemma -- civilization, law, morality, etc. isn't a fixed absolute handed down from god that must be adhered to rigidly. It's a framework that was set up to make the world a comfortable place to live. If an exception, or a class of exceptions, makes things better, then it's in our power to change it.
This doesn't mean that there's no fixed optimal morality, but we have no way of knowing what it is a priori, and presumably or at least hopefully changes to our morality to make things better locally would lead us towards the optimal state.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2008-04-25 08:47 pm (UTC)"I'm not going to kill you, and in return, you're not going to kill me. All these other people aren't going to kill each other either, and now we all aren't going to kill each other, and can live happily and safely."
Someone who doesn't sign on to the treaty is uncivilized, but not a bad person per se. That doesn't mean a civilization can stand to have them around -- they'll ruin everything, because the default assumption is that all humans in a civilized area are civilized. That's what makes it a civilized area.
So, there's two ways to deal with it, either of which could work:
(a) They signed implicitly on by entering the civilized area (or just by existing as a human being), so if they break the treaty, imprison them.
(b) They're wild and dangerous animals (because they're not civilized) that must be exterminated or kept in the wilderness. Or maybe they're useful, so we'll let them hang around as long as they're kept under the control of their handlers.
The second makes it easier to accept the existance of morally repugnant but useful or necessary people. But either of them give an answer to the dilemma -- civilization, law, morality, etc. isn't a fixed absolute handed down from god that must be adhered to rigidly. It's a framework that was set up to make the world a comfortable place to live. If an exception, or a class of exceptions, makes things better, then it's in our power to change it.
This doesn't mean that there's no fixed optimal morality, but we have no way of knowing what it is a priori, and presumably or at least hopefully changes to our morality to make things better locally would lead us towards the optimal state.