Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

PURPLE

0 (0%)

ALERT

0 (0%)

(I need suggestions is what I'm saying.)

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 0

[RedKing]

Because morality is an external factor...

What external factor? From where?

Well...for many people, from religion. I.e. they've been instructed since childhood in what is right and wrong, and many people uncritically accept that value system with a minimum of critical thought as to the underlying reasons why.

A generally accepted division between the two is that morality is a system of what is right and wrong in some kind of objective sense...

What makes you think that right and wrong are objective? Can you demonstrate that it is?

Again, if your morality is derived from religion, then you believe there is an objective truth to this system of right and wrong. Its not merely "I believe this is wrong", it's "It's wrong. Period." Otherwise, you wind up in moral relativism where you have to permit anything because someone might disagree with you.

A soldier killing people in a war to save his homeland. Legal and ethical, but possibly immoral if you have the uncompromising stance on the taking of human life.

Would not my own uncompromising stance come from within, and, therefore, by your definition, an ethical matter?

That's entirely possible. I'm not the best person to try and explain this stuff. And even for philosophers there's a very fuzzy line between the two. Especially since ethical codes usually derive from some sort of shared or commonly accept moral code.

For instance, ethics codes for lawyers cover trying to make sure that the lawyer is not cheating, stealing or taking advantage of their clients. Why? Because preying on the weak is wrong (a moral judgement).


From that, I suppose another way of thinking of is is that ethics are the practical implementation of morals, outside of a legal framework. (i.e. if you shouldn't do it, it can still be unethical even without a law against it). In this scenario, you have a situation which is illegal and immoral, but depending one's own personal values, may be an ethical gray area.

[Zangi]

Depends on how much I really 'love' the person.

More Love = More Desperation = Less Ethics

[Fenrir]

Was a sarcastic statement on my part.

Oh, I am sorry. It went right over my head.

If you are trying to say that medicine is not usurping God's domain over life and death because it does not have 100% success rate, I would point out that murders do not have a 100% success rate either, so killing the man would not be usurping God's domain.

Well...for many people, from religion. I.e. they've been instructed since childhood in what is right and wrong, and many people uncritically accept that value system with a minimum of critical thought as to the underlying reasons why.

So, how do we know what system of morality is the right one? We are here debating it, so we must think that there is one.

Otherwise, you wind up in moral relativism where you have to permit anything because someone might disagree with you.

Moral relativism does not require that you permit anything, it just means that morality is relative. It does not mean that no system of morality should go unchecked or unchallenged by anyway.

HASTY POST, DID NOT ADDRESS ALL POINTS. APOLOGIES.

[MorleyDev]

Original question:  The death sentence exists for one reason: To claim revenge upon the criminal for the victims and those who know the victims. The idea is the revenge is supposed to keep society as-a-whole sane in a cruel and insane world, to give people a sense true justice has been carried out. It's not a deterrent, that's for sure. With that said, I say you're probably better off killing the man since I suspect blood will satisfy more of the public.

I'm not supporting or condemning the death penalty here, just saying what I think it's intentions are and what should be done to keep true to them.

New: There exists two concerns if you kill the man and get away with it (as I assume this situation guarantees?): You may be destroyed with guilt, or you may be destroyed with lust for more blood (if you find you quite like killing someone). In this ideal concept where you truly love the person, isn't that the logical perversion of what true love is? Being willing to completely destroy yourself to save that one person? Probably not, you're committing murder selfishly to keep someone you love around to keep yourself happy without consulting their wishes on the subject.

The philosophy of the selfishness or selflessness of love and just relationships in general is something I could write a rather long essay on xD Would I do it? I can't imagine ever loving someone so strongly so as to risk destroying myself. Maybe one day my cold black heart will grow three times the size, but for now...I can't comprehend this situation in the first place.

I don't think any sense of right or wrong is what keeps people in check most of the time. It's what we like to think keeps us in check, when really we just know if we do actions that hurt others and don't watch our own backs, we're gonna get stabbed in them. It's not that the action is wrong, but that we know the consequences for the wrong action will come back to hurt us. Any system or morals that allows punishments that manage and limit the mutually destructive cycles of action and reaction is valid in my eyes.

[RedKing]

Was a sarcastic statement on my part.

Oh, I am sorry. It went right over my head.

If you are trying to say that medicine is not usurping God's domain over life and death because it does not have 100% success rate, I would point out that murders do not have a 100% success rate either, so killing the man would not be usurping God's domain.

Well...for many people, from religion. I.e. they've been instructed since childhood in what is right and wrong, and many people uncritically accept that value system with a minimum of critical thought as to the underlying reasons why.

So, how do we know what system of morality is the right one? We are here debating it, so we must think that there is one.

Otherwise, you wind up in moral relativism where you have to permit anything because someone might disagree with you.

Moral relativism does not require that you permit anything, it just means that morality is relative. It does not mean that no system of morality should go unchecked or unchallenged by anyway.

HASTY POST, DID NOT ADDRESS ALL POINTS. APOLOGIES.

Problem being, if you challenge another system of morality, all you have to challenge it with is that your own system contradicts it. Without an objective place to stand (or at least the belief that your system is objectively correct), it's your word against theirs.

One of my college profs pointed out the problem with moral relativism this way:

"I believe that there is a leprechaun in the corner who talks to me."
Everyone agreed that this was OK.
"The leprechaun just told me to shoot you."

Moral relativism is easy until the rubber hits the road.

[Fenrir]

Problem being, if you challenge another system of morality, all you have to challenge it with is that your own system contradicts it. Without an objective place to stand (or at least the belief that your system is objectively correct), it's your word against theirs.

You are arguing that morality is not relative merely because you would not be able to have some objective, logical reason with which to convince others that the morality you perceive is correct. Just because it would be handy does not mean that it exists.

It is not really a matter of your word against theirs. Assuming you know that, since morality is relative, when you say that what they are doing is wrong, you mean that it is wrong according to you, and, when they say that it is wrong according to them. Now, assuming again that there is no objective morality, you are under no obligation to accept what they are doing, and you are under no obligation to adhere to any kind of moral code in your efforts to make them conform to your view of right and wrong, so, obviously, if trying to convince someone that what they are doing is wrong, you would not mention the fact that morality is relative, and you might appeal to their empathy or whatever, but, if they do not relent, you would be perfectly justified in using force to stop them.

“We would have no way to win an argument with someone that has conflicting views,” really does not mean that that there is such a way. That is an appeal to consequences.

One of my college profs pointed out the problem with moral relativism this way:

"I believe that there is a leprechaun in the corner who talks to me."
Everyone agreed that this was OK.
"The leprechaun just told me to shoot you."

“Moral relativism is wrong, because it means I get to SHOOT YOU whenever I feel like it.”

Well, all right, the Leprachaun told you to shoot me. I do not like it, but that does not mean that there is some objective reason that you should not do it. Yes, you do have objective leave to shoot me. What of it? I also have no objective obligation to like it or tolerate it.

Moral relativism is easy until the rubber hits the road.

I think it easier than you think it is, but ease does not imply correctness anyway.

If you are going to argue for some objective moral code, you will need to provide the observations and logic that would lead to those morals. You can not say that something exists in an objective fashion without evidence or reasoning.

[Leafsnail]

No, I couldn't.  In a practical sense, the man probably has loved ones.  I don't think there's any way to justify putting his loved ones through such grief.

If we were to impose a condition that "The man has no loved ones"... then... well, I still wouldn't.  Nothing but selfishness would be the motivation for killing someone else to save my loved one.

[Fenrir]

If we were to impose a condition that "The man has no loved ones"... then... well, I still wouldn't.  Nothing but selfishness would be the motivation for killing someone else to save my loved one.

This would imply that you think your desire to save a loved one is selfish. Do you think so?

[Leafsnail]

To save a loved one at the cost of someone else's death?  Yes.  Selfishness in its purest form.

[Fenrir]

I'm sorry, but you seem to have dodged the question. My point is that something can only be selfish if the motivation is selfish. As your motivation is to save a loved one, if you consider the act to be selfish, it can only be because saving a loved one is selfish.

I am heading out for a golfing lesson, so I shall need to read and respond to your next reply later.

[Leafsnail]

In a way... I suppose so, yes.  A lot of things we do on a day to day basis are "selfish".

What I should have specified is that selfishness is generally only bad when you're harming other people with that motive.  There are some possible exceptions, but I don't think murder can ever be one of them.  I think the standard usage of "selfish" reflects this (something you do which is for your own interests and which harms others) even if its definition technically expands further.

[Zrk2]

The underlying flaw with this argument ^ is that you assume selfishness is inherently immoral, which is at best closeminded and at worst patently false.

I would not kill him because I believe that it is immoral to violate the rights of others, no matter how big of an ass he is. As such, I expect others to act in the same fashion towards me, do unto others as you would have others do unto you. One of the few things in the bible I agree with.

[Criptfeind]

I would not kill him. Because I believe the prime factor here is it is not his fault if the loved one died. It is the medical condition. He could save them, but refusing to save some one is not the same as killing them yourself.

[Leafsnail]

The underlying flaw with this argument ^ is that you assume selfishness is inherently immoral, which is at best closeminded and at worst patently false.

Inherently immoral when you're harming others.  This goes back to the Golden Rule (which corresponds to the Bible quote), which I think is a pretty good basis for morality.

[Realmfighter]

I would kill the man. There is no real justification that most people would accept, but when it comes down to it, if the man dies (And I get away Scot free, a reasonable assumption as that is a major event that should have been noted if it were to happen) the effect on my life is much less then if my loved one dies. By letting him live, my life gains nothing, and by killing him I get to keep my loved one with no downsides, assuming I don't suddenly find myself giving a shit.