Today marks the sixth edition, of “The Pondering Column.” Here I will discuss, reader questions, regarding morals, philosophy and belief.
Today’s question, asked anonymously is, “Is it ethically incumbent on humans, at the end of their lives, to have made the world a better place or is just doing no damage good enough?”
The question poses several very interesting quandaries. To begin, as the (hopefully) rational beings we are, we can assert almost indubitably that it is ethically wrong to do bad, damage, harm, or anything synonymous with these terms.
However there is a rather protrusive caveat, bad things are often done with good intentions, or with a greater goal in mind.
For example, if a soldier kills an enemy, the act of killing could still be considered wrong, but it is done for a greater good. That would make killing, specifically in this scenario an overall, good act. But which side is doing good and which bad?
Unfortunately, this leads us to the debate over relativity and objectivity.
For the sake of your Sunday morning, and all the trees across the world, we will forgo addressing that portion of this discussion. I digress.
What we can conclude thus far, is that it is most certainly “ethically incumbent” on humans not to do bad.