SIR HERDERP PRESIDERP SDO
Legendary Shinobi 🐸
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2012
- Messages
- 39,759
- Reaction score
- 7,032
"People live their lives bound by what they accept as correct and true. That's how they define "reality". But what does it mean to be "correct" or "true"? Merely vague concepts… their "reality" may all be a mirage. Can we consider them to simply be living in their own world, shaped by their beliefs?"
This is one of Itachi's most famous quotes, it deals with the issue of subjectivity and moral relativism concerning the meta-ethics of moral judgment, by meta-ethics, it pertains to the question whether an act or belief is universally right or wrong or whether the moral act itself is relative to each person, the latter, which he adheres to, pertains to the futility of the adjudication of moral acts through the standards of universality because there exists none.
The moral relativist claims that there are no absolutes, that there is always vicissitudes in morality, take for example cannibalism, in the past it was seen as a duty and a moral good, while today's standards view it as barbaric, the "ought" in this matter is not something inherent within the individual, but rather, relative to the explanation of "ought" through the instruction of duty and paradigmatic concepts.
Take for example Itachi massacring his clansmen, in the perspective of a Shinobi, it is the duty of a Shinobi to act for the greater good of his village. In killing his parents and his clan, the greater good is achieved, which is the sustaining of the peace of the Shinobi world, in another's point of view however, this is mere butchery, that killing by any reason is mere extenuation of the immoral act of murder. The indication of correctness or "ought" for Itachi is the dissatisfaction of a particular unit (The Hokage, Danzo, The Village Elders) its' difference to ethical solipsism is that Itachi is in agreement with them, that it is for the greater good of Konoha and of the Shinobi World
Itachi's actions are also within the paradigmatic belief of rightness or wrongness of an act in terms of consequences and not personal sentiments. Some would have held that although it's lamentable to have Itachi perform the act, yet the balance in the long run leads to the greater good. One could argue about the inherent unknowable consequences of acts, that the assignment of a precise utility value to an act is an impossibility, since whether Itachi killed his clan or not, the war or the ensuing bloodbath would've still occur, however despite the non-foreseeability of the ensuing war, the moral impulse of utilitarianism which is the correct application of the rational principle of the act concurrent to the moment it was committed justifies its' execution, that the immediate beneficence of Itachi killing the Uchihas is that which valuates his actions.
This is one of Itachi's most famous quotes, it deals with the issue of subjectivity and moral relativism concerning the meta-ethics of moral judgment, by meta-ethics, it pertains to the question whether an act or belief is universally right or wrong or whether the moral act itself is relative to each person, the latter, which he adheres to, pertains to the futility of the adjudication of moral acts through the standards of universality because there exists none.
The moral relativist claims that there are no absolutes, that there is always vicissitudes in morality, take for example cannibalism, in the past it was seen as a duty and a moral good, while today's standards view it as barbaric, the "ought" in this matter is not something inherent within the individual, but rather, relative to the explanation of "ought" through the instruction of duty and paradigmatic concepts.
You must be registered for see images
Take for example Itachi massacring his clansmen, in the perspective of a Shinobi, it is the duty of a Shinobi to act for the greater good of his village. In killing his parents and his clan, the greater good is achieved, which is the sustaining of the peace of the Shinobi world, in another's point of view however, this is mere butchery, that killing by any reason is mere extenuation of the immoral act of murder. The indication of correctness or "ought" for Itachi is the dissatisfaction of a particular unit (The Hokage, Danzo, The Village Elders) its' difference to ethical solipsism is that Itachi is in agreement with them, that it is for the greater good of Konoha and of the Shinobi World
Itachi's actions are also within the paradigmatic belief of rightness or wrongness of an act in terms of consequences and not personal sentiments. Some would have held that although it's lamentable to have Itachi perform the act, yet the balance in the long run leads to the greater good. One could argue about the inherent unknowable consequences of acts, that the assignment of a precise utility value to an act is an impossibility, since whether Itachi killed his clan or not, the war or the ensuing bloodbath would've still occur, however despite the non-foreseeability of the ensuing war, the moral impulse of utilitarianism which is the correct application of the rational principle of the act concurrent to the moment it was committed justifies its' execution, that the immediate beneficence of Itachi killing the Uchihas is that which valuates his actions.
