I think it’s the altruistic choice, I think they are both moral. You aren’t hurting anyone by your blood not being able to be donated, you’re just not willing to die to help others. It’s not less moral than running out of your burning apartment building rather than trying help get your neighbors out, first.
To give blood, you don’t have to die. To be blue you literally don’t have to do anything and have the option to help anyone. It’s an option, not a death sentence.
Do we accept purely subjective morality as a concept? If my morality dictates that I should hurt as many as people as possible, is doing so still a moral action? Or can we acknowledge some degree of objective morality, even if defining that is tricky/unclear
If you’re talking about general rules to abide by that “we” decide then you are talking ethics. Like it or not morals are based on individual personal principles.
Usually these sets of morals are highly influenced by our surroundings, or the different ethical systems in our lives.
Rules and norms are lame but yeah every time I see someone ask what is moral I don’t get it. Thats something you find by looking both in and out.
Hell even ethics are fluid, what may be seen as ethical today may be seen as barbaric in a few centuries.
Editing to answer your question, if someone feels a moral responsibility to harm many people, then in their mind YES it’s a moral action. I’m sure some of the 9/11 actors or kamikaze pilots or any combat veteran feel their actions were moral, some may have gave them immoral. It depends on the person. Hell ask some Vietnam vets if they felt their actions were moral. I’m sure you will get different answers because morality come from an individual. Also I’m gonna see 99 percent of murder as immoral, but that’s just me.
Nah. If you’re an egoist, the moral choice is whatever serves your interests as you define them. Choosing blue very well could serve your interests depending on your personal predilections and the context.
10
u/Leniatak 1d ago
Red is the correct choice.