Just something I thought about while watching this movie. Jake G. didn't really save the initial universe he was in, just an alternate one. Should the gov't care about saving lives in an alternate universe?
I think the whole multi-universes is BS, so I guess I wouldn't care.
It's been a while since I saw the film, but, IIRC the group running Colter managed to use Colter's identification of the bomber to prevent him setting off the second bomb (so it was all considered a huge success, etc). Colter went back the last time in order to save the people on the train in an alternate universe (or maybe it was all in his head?) In any case, it wasn't the govt that was interested in saving lives in the alternate universe, it was Colter - he did care.
shareJust something I thought about while watching this movie. Jake G. didn't really save the initial universe he was in, just an alternate one. Should the gov't care about saving lives in an alternate universe?
[deleted]
Your username is perfect for that comment.
share"Moral Obligation" is an oxymoron.
For something to be moral, you have to decide, whether it's right or wrong. You decide your morals. If someone else decides your morals, there are no morals, there's just automated, robotic following of your programming.
Moral can never be an OBLIGATION, because if it's obligation, you HAVE to do it, and thus, you don't have a choice between good and evil. For it to be truly MORAL, you have to be able to be free to choose between good and evil, and still choose good, even if evil yields no negative (for the lack of better word) consequences for you.
People love using this kind of terminology, because it creates a knee-jerk sub-conscious reaction; "Hey, we have a MORAL OBLIGATION to help the weak!".
Wouldn't work quite as well to say "Hey, we have a moral obligation to help the rich and powerful!"
How can you ever really have a 'moral obligation' anyway? If you do something out of guilt, shame, or because you'd get in trouble if you didn't, there's nothing moral about it. It's selfish all the way.
This is why no one has 'moral obligation' to do or not do anything. They have free will. That's why they can freely choose. What good is 'forced good'?
('Moral Obligation' is basically the same as 'Forced Good')
Good without a CHOICE is worthless as something moral. Sure, it may still help others, and it can still create a relatively good and stable environment, but if you don't have a choice, and everyone is forced to be good, then that goodness is manufactured and artificial, it's not real.
Only if you have a free choice between good and evil, and you still choose good, has your goodness value, morally and ethically speaking.
By the way, why is 'moral obligation' a phrase, but 'ethical obligation' isn't?
Do people ever even ponder about the difference between those two?
If you help someone because of goodness of your soul, you are not obeying some obscure 'moral obligation', you are just being your true self, and letting your natural goodness express itself. If you are helping someone, because you THINK you have some kind of 'obligation' (moral or otherwise), you are not really being good, you are just being a selfish brat, trying to avoid bad consequences to yourself.
To be good, you have to be good - thinking about 'moral obligations' isn't going to cut it. There are no shortcuts to goodness.