Replies

Moral relativism at its finest. For instance, we have a man a woman and a baby living outside of society ion a mountain.
That's still a society, of a sort. By raping the baby, he is likely to create feelings of hatred in his wife. Plus he's hurting the baby. Both of these things are counter-productive for the continued survival of him and his society. So, in that society, his actions are harmful and, therefore, wrong.

Questions of morality do seem to break down when you look at smaller & smaller groups in isolation. If these were the last three people on Earth, then it'd be kind of moot to say that his actions were immoral. But here we are, looking at this family from afar, and discussing them. Which means we're here too. Which means there's still a society that exists.

The other problem with moral discussions like this is, the definition of what we're discussing is nebulous. Are we talking about which rarefied, abstract principle should apply in the hypothetical situation? OK. But aren't we also thinking (but not saying out loud) how we'd react to such a situation ourselves and not feel guilty about our reaction? IMO that's a valid question too - and is related to the first one.

So: If it's a question of how should I mark my Platonic Scorecard of Morality, it's easy to check the "evil" box. Hey, this morality business is easy, ain't it!

What if they're the last three people on Earth? Then there's no society to speak of. So it's more like every one for theirself. Morality, in the sense of an overriding set of principles that people should follow that may go completely against their immediate desires, doesn't quite apply. It's a category error.

But let's add a bit of reality to the scenario: If the news leaked out of a totally isolated family where the father raped his baby & threw his wife into the volcano, I'd be revulsed. But there'd be nothing I could do about it except verify to myself that that is a terrible code to live by, and vow to denounce the act to anyone else who brings up the news story.

If I was hiking up the volcano (but it was totally isolated, so somehow I'm an Xtreme long-distance hiker - um, OK (?)) then I'd feel justified in shooting the man. But if I didn't pack a gun, then would I feel justified in knifing him? Well, yes - morally justified, but then I'd have to actually grapple with him, and odds are he's bigger than me. So then the question really is, would I feel good about myself if I simply slinked away, or would I feel guilty then? Here it's a judgement call.

Now, if the family isn't so isolated - if the police find out about them & arrest the father, then they weren't so isolated, were they? They're part of our society whether they like it or not. In this case I would support his prosecution & support the death penalty, etc. Or if I came upon the family, I'd whip out my cellphone & bravely call 911...

Aside from the pristine, logical working out of the moral calculus to arrive at a rarefied judgement of this hypothetical, there is our natural empathy, which forces us (if we're not a sociopath) to feel the revulsion at hearing of the rape & murder. Why do we feel, indirectly, the baby's & mother's pain? It's because moral principles are so important to our thriving as human beings, that they have been bred into us thru natural selection. The process started even before humans were on the scene, since chimpanzees & even monkeys have some sense of fairness & empathy (though not nearly as much as we have).

Sorry for the disjointed thoughts... My parting question is: Are you really concerned about the hypothetical situation of an isolated family, or are you more concerned about what kind of moral principles you need to ensure a secure & resilient base for a life-affirming society?