celticwar17
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2011
- Messages
- 6,540
- Reaction score
- 2,524
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Yet the value of moral currency would not necessarily be monetary... in fact, it would not be monetary because economics would have no meaning in a perfectly moral world. In fact, I would say that in a perfectly moral world, proportional moral compenstation would also have no meaning. Doing the right thing is just that, Perhaps doing the right thing to compensate the doctor would be to say, "thank you for saving my life, doctor."
Hmmm, all i can say is that i disagree really. I think perfect morality can be complete selflessness in competition with wanting to do for others. So as a result these things would compete with each other in a hypothetical "economy" of one pat on the back = one hug in return. Or one treating of a wound and the treated would do something in return that is of equal significance. Yes for the Doctor just a thank you would be enough, but that is not enough for the patient, because the patient would want to morally do something in return that would equal it... or they would not accept the treatment because it is unmoral to take from others from which you can't find some equal compensation in return.
And im sorry if i was fostering the discussion, i meant to defend my question more then defending my viewpoint... if that makes sense. But what i am doing above is discussion/debate of my own opinion on what i think ideal morality is, but i know other people may think it to be different. I think it is worth discussing, because yes you have discovered that the definition of perfect morality affects the answer, but that is exactly what i want. For the differences in opinion on what morality is to affect the answer not our difference in opinion politically/ or any other reason.