phyllo wrote:Then it's exactly the same as people having different ideas about morality.And, given that there are not likely to be two situations that exactly overlap, we are not likely to get the same reactions when these folks are questioned about the trips.
So it's not really about the dichotomy that you have proposed - is/ought.
And if people can agree that "fastest" is in fact the best in a particular context, then they can also agree that a specific moral criteria is the best in a particular context.
I'll either grasp this crucial point I think that you think you are making here or I won't.
The reason people think that flying is the fastest is that, in fact, it is the fastest. Regardless of the reason for the trip. If you want to get there the fastest you fly. At least until they invent, say, a "beam me up Scotty" technology in which you are disassembled in New york and then almost immediately reassembled in LA.
Whereras, while people might agree on a particular moral criteria if the purpose of the trip was to kill someone, what happens when others refuse to accept that criteria and propose a conflicting one instead? Either sanctioning the killing or not.
Why one and not the other, if only because some might agree you were justified in killing him and others might insist that you were not. Which "form of morality" can in fact be demonstrated to be "objectively best"?
Note to others:
Seriously, what important point is he making here that I keep missing? Objectively, flying is the fastest way to make the trip. And that's true for everyone. That's a fact. In this day and age anyway.
But if the purpose of the trip is to kill someone, how do we arrive at this same objective assessment when different people come to very different conclusions regarding whether this killing is morally justified?