Thursday, March 28, 2013

Abstract Morality V. Practical Morality

I was a little confused about how it can be morally defensible to kill for ones own sake. After speaking Dr.Silliman, I learned that morality can be abstract or practical. With this in mind, I think I can better answer on what grounds hunting in Zimbabwe is morally defensible.

Abstract morality is based on principles that are absolute. It is never adjusted under any circumstance. Under this type of morality, the people of Zimbabwe are not justified in hunting for their survival if each living entities life is considered of equal value.

Practical morality is more circumstantially based. It adjusts with situations. Under this notion, if all things posses a right to live, the people of Zimbabwe are justified in hunting for sustenance.

Please share your thoughts.

3 comments:

  1. I think these definitions provide a clear picture about human ideas about morality and the diversity of behaviors we exhibit. As far as practical morality goes, are foreigners justified for participating in trophy hunting in Zimbabwe?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I responded to your post on the link below.

    http://swaldronea.blogspot.com/2013/03/response-abstract-morality-v-practical.html

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think there are many interesting things to consider here. For instance, even if trophy hunting was understandable given the situation in Zimbabwe, is it morally justified? I would tend to say no; I think it is still morally unjustified, especially given the deaths of so many elephants who are intelligent, sentient, and inherently worth much.

    This situation reminds me of slavery; without slavery, the southern economy would have taken a very large hit, and would have sent them into uncertainty. Even if the south, however, was destined to fail if the abolished slavery, does that mean that slavery was morally justified, or rather that it was morally understandable? I think in the cases of the southern USA and Zimbabwe, the actions are understandable but not justifiable. People in both areas had/have the moral duty to try to end those practices regardless of how well the practices work and how understandable they are.

    ReplyDelete