Unconditional surrender...?

[Nearly Sane]

And as a general musing surely were we able to establish 'objective' morals then that really would make all discussion futile because well they would be objective? It's the very subjectivity of how we are that allows for discussion.

[Outrider]

And as a general musing surely were we able to establish 'objective' morals then that really would make all discussion futile because well they would be objective? It's the very subjectivity of how we are that allows for discussion.

The Earth is objectively not flat... discuss

O.

[Nearly Sane]

The Earth is objectively not flat... discuss

O.

Leaving aside that we are effectively using objective here as synonym for intersubjective, and leaping over hard solipsism, it ties in with my musing - what worthwhile discussion is there on whether the Earth is flat?

[Steve H]

My three issues with utilitarianism, in a complex world:
1 - intent counts for nothing
2 - what you feel increases happiness might feel to someone else to do no such thing
3 - how can you accurately determine how much happiness a given action brings about, given the near-infinite number of consequences that result over time from even the smallest intervention in a system

O.

1 - irrelevant.
2 - we can make some reasonably accurate assumptions: murder, rape, dishonesty and cruelty reduce the sum of happiness; honoesty, kindness, generosity increase it.
3 - see 2. Note that I said rule-utilitariansm, in which our acts are according to our rules, and our rules based on utilitarianism. We don't have to weigh up the utilitarian pros and cons of each act before performing it.

[jeremyp]

It was accepted, but I doubt it was even universally acceptable then

It was acceptable to the society that did it.

Acceptable is a more universal notion than merely accepted, which is about time and place (and perhaps even individuals).

Is it acceptable to eat meat?

[jeremyp]

Which mean that you, just like me, think that human sacrifice is not acceptable (i.e. now) and was never acceptable (i.e. in the past).

For something to be acceptable or accepted, there has to be a person or people to do the accepting.

You're just using this whole line to retroactively apply moral standards that we have now to people in the past.

You still haven't answered my question: how would you punish the sailor?