Ahh! This is Great Extended Discussion !
It is all a blur to me now I think I am just an ('ist' )
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TBM")</div>
I&#39;m certainly not a moral objectivist. (It is moral objectivism we are talking about here, no?) But, I wouldn;t classify myself as a utilitarian either. I would tend to be a political utlitarian and pragmatist, but when it comes to morality, I&#39;m pretty much a complete subjectivist - simply put. I don&#39;t believe in any moral system, whether utlitarian or objective, and I think that such systems are inherantly dangerous.[/b]
There almost has to be some form of moral system, has to be.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("Me")</div>
Atheism, totalitarianism, Christianity socialist and more. (*although I still claim no label) - I feel it is dangerous.[/b]
I certainly agree with you there.

Can&#39;t you conclude that an only true Objectist view could come from atrificail intellegance? As I described earlier, how many of us can truly out our own subjective twist out of any given situation. (I often think objective reasoning cannot have an accurate outcome with concern to judgment or morality.
It has to have some subjective view, as we as humans are inclined to judge character. On the other hand, an objective view is needed for proper judgment to oppose the ideology that us humans have.
Emotion tells us one thing and reason tells us another.)

But all that aside, before I even loose sight of my origianl thought are this.
This process of the "greatest good" is something that has always been there. Now as our cultures are ever changing then so to does the charachteristics of each lable.
A few scenarios I had thought up - maybe not the best, but hey.
  • Becuase I had read a book on the life of the eskimos, is why this idea probalby came to mind.
    In their culture it is a very cut throat type of lifestyle, if you will. What I am leading to is, that if they have a female child they simply put the newborn out to freeze. Why. They cannot afford to feed another (body?) that cannot fulfill the needs that a male could provide.
Is this wrong?
We obviously live in a different environment. But take into consideration this.
If you are having a baby and your ultra sound indicates that the child will be classified as retarded. Objectively this newborn would become a drain on society. For the greater good of all society, would it not be best to abort this child?
(playing god -I know) But that is true Objectivism to me.
It mingles, every so closely to utilitarianism.

-It is a fight about morality and logic. (would you throw a fatally injured person of of a lifeboat to save the others?) to me that is a decisive - yes. Easily said behind my keyboard)
I guess science would conclude me as damaged. Damage to the (VMPC to be precise. The ventro media cortex something or other. < Not sure on that one

Some say it is sensible and some say it is ruthless. I guess because every one&#39;s judgment can very soo much, this could never have a conclusive outcome.
But it IS dangerous. If morality comes form the brain and not some transcendent reason or a god.
It is only our conscience we have to argue with. Once we make piece with our conscience decision it can lead to atrocities, as pj&#39;s quote pointed out.

I have more to add but this is a bit long winded now.