Originally Posted by
Logic
Since there is no way to get a hold on objective truth, how exactly do you determine when to take an action, specifically an act of war or military intervention (since that's what a lot of our examples have been about)? You are saying there are gradations of objectivity ("as objective as possible"), so how do you know when your perspective is objective enough to warrant the violence of warfare?
Reason.
Do you have an alternative?
It's not like there are a whole lot of methods we can employ to determine truth of a proposition.
Again i want to emphasize that not involving yourself in a situation is a decision, and is no more exempt from moral evaluation than involving yourself in a situation.
So I think we actually agree in general, but I'm trying to look at specifically how we decide our reasoning is sufficient.
By seeing it work elsewhere, maybe?
Not to change the topic too much, but consider this. Hypothetically, what if this is what the woman to be executed believed? Would that change anything? If she really believed her execution was in her best interest, does that affect the responsibilities others might have to "save" her - because in this case, to her, what others might perceive as saving, she would see as condemning to eternal damnation.
If changing her perspective is not an option, than by all means let her die.
If she is receptive to different ideas and can be convinced of implausibility of her beliefs, than that would be a more altruistic solution
i think.