[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Ethics question (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 2/6/2014 4:54:10 PM EDT
|
If someone commits an act that they genuinely believe to be good, right, just, and moral, but in reality the act was immoral, the act of a tyrant or thug, and causes harm to a person who has done nothing to deserve said harm.....is the act good or bad?
Or, better yet, pushing a bit further......let's say they die in the middle of the act. Should we mourn the loss of someone who died doing something they thought was good, or stand in line to pee on their grave to celebrate the death of yet another tyrant? |
|
Ambiguous Relativism.
ETA- you said believe to be good but then reality is immoral(bad) taking the undefined reality to be the rational, logical truth I would say the persons beliefs are in error as beliefs are not constrained to rationality, logic, facts, evidence, or anything else but themselves.. So those who have been bothered may piss on his ignorance and interfering while those who benefitted mourn Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Everything is a matter of perspective.
Is it immoral for the father of a starving child to steal in order to feed his children. Sure, but say he didn't steal and the child starved. Is it not immoral to let a child starve when you know you could steal food to feed him? Just a thought, maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Makes me think of the movie John Q (great movie Btw). Basically a story of a father who commits a crime to save his sons life. I think another question could be this, can am immoral act have a beneficial impact? Societies in general knows what is moral and what is not. However, we will always have gray areas. |
|
Quoted:
If someone commits an act that they genuinely believe to be good, right, just, and moral, but in reality the act was immoral, the act of a tyrant or thug, and causes harm to a person who has done nothing to deserve said harm.....is the act good or bad? Or, better yet, pushing a bit further......let's say they die in the middle of the act. Should we mourn the loss of someone who died doing something they thought was good, or stand in line to pee on their grave to celebrate the death of yet another tyrant? The 9/11 hijackers believed that they were doing the work of god and that they were just and right. Are you celebrating them or do you condem them? |
|
in my ethics class we went over this alot. a long time ago greeks did funeral pyre's while some tribes in north africa cannabalized the dead to absorb their knowledge/wisdom/power/soul. the greek thought the tribes were monsters for eating them, and the tribes thought the greeks were extremely disrespectful for burning their loved ones. now i will say there are plenty things are there that are normalcy for folks i don't agree with. like female circumcision in africa, just downright awful. but there it's a common practice and an accepted way of life. in a pure ethical standpoint, while some people do things i think are barbaric, it may be common practice and widely accepted to their people and who am i to tell them they are awful beings. i still believe in common law though, there are still things that are wrong no matter which tribe/faction/or nation you're associated with. so when it comes down to anything like murder's or sacrifices, that's just wrong on any account. that was probably my favorite class. |
|
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences. -C.S. Lewis |
|
Quoted:
I think OP is talking about no knock warrants ?? This is going to be a veiled thread justifying the murder of Police Officers who enforce laws the OP doesn't agree with. Everyone who disagrees with the OP will be a hater of freedom, seeking to oppress peaceful dopers who just want world peace. Weak. |
|
Quoted: Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences. -C.S. Lewis that kind of reminds me of movies like I, Robot. robots want to protect the humans because they cause so much self destruction and have to resort to keeping them under lock and key. i agree with the quote by Nietzsche. |
|
There are three levels of morality.
The lowest is governed by personal gratification and punishment. You will break any rules to enrich yourself. You will obey any rule only to avoid punishment. The middle is a set of rules that allow the local community, tribe or society to get along. We eagerly obey laws because we believe it allows us to thrive in close company of large populations of others even though it's not always right. For example, we drive withing the speed limit. The highest level of morals is knowing and practicing what is right or wrong, regardless of the consequences. |
|
This is too much a complicated question to be yes or no.
Like many things in life there is a spectrum. I would say such an act is bad, but I don't condemn him as much as I would someone who intends harm. I'd also weigh the amount of harm inflicted on the individual, and the expectation to know better on the enforcer. |
|
Quoted:
If someone commits an act that they genuinely believe to be good, right, just, and moral, but in reality the act was immoral, the act of a tyrant or thug, and causes harm to a person who has done nothing to deserve said harm.....is the act good or bad? Or, better yet, pushing a bit further......let's say they die in the middle of the act. Should we mourn the loss of someone who died doing something they thought was good, or stand in line to pee on their grave to celebrate the death of yet another tyrant? I don't believe morality to be relative or subjective; quite the opposite on both counts. If an act is bad then its performance is bad no matter what the intent of the man who does it. There is only one Truth, and when it comes to the moral aspect of the Truth, a man either conforms with it or he does not. Now, certainly one can limit condemnation to a degree if evil intent was not in their hearts, but evil is still evil; harm is still harm; bad is still bad; wrong is still wrong. I'm curious, though, if you have someone in particular in mind as you ask this question. |
|
Quoted:
Everything is a matter of perspective. Is it immoral for the father of a starving child to steal in order to feed his children. Sure, but say he didn't steal and the child starved. Is it not immoral to let a child starve when you know you could steal food to feed him? Just a thought, maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Makes me think of the movie John Q (great movie Btw). Basically a story of a father who commits a crime to save his sons life. I think another question could be this, can am immoral act have a beneficial impact? Societies in general knows what is moral and what is not. However, we will always have gray areas. Not even the Church considers such an act immoral. Recall what Cardinal Fringe said during the harsh winter in Germany that followed WWII, that stealing just enough coal to ensure one's survival if that proved to be necessary was no sin. |
|
Quoted:
If someone commits an act that they genuinely believe to be good, right, just, and moral, but in reality the act was immoral, the act of a tyrant or thug, and causes harm to a person who has done nothing to deserve said harm.....is the act good or bad? Or, better yet, pushing a bit further......let's say they die in the middle of the act. Should we mourn the loss of someone who died doing something they thought was good, or stand in line to pee on their grave to celebrate the death of yet another tyrant? Pretty easy to invoke Godwin's law. May Nazis thought they were doing mankind a lot of good. One example. |
|
Quoted:
This is going to be a veiled thread justifying the murder of Police Officers who enforce laws the OP doesn't agree with. Everyone who disagrees with the OP will be a hater of freedom, seeking to oppress peaceful dopers who just want world peace. Weak. Quoted:
Quoted:
I think OP is talking about no knock warrants ?? This is going to be a veiled thread justifying the murder of Police Officers who enforce laws the OP doesn't agree with. Everyone who disagrees with the OP will be a hater of freedom, seeking to oppress peaceful dopers who just want world peace. Weak. Morally speaking, under certain circumstances, it is not necessarily murder. Legally speaking, it may well be another question (although certainly there are circumstances in which such an act would not legally be murder, either, in many States). A killing is either morally justified or not. Whether the person wears a uniform or badge, or has official authority, or not, is really immaterial to such a judgment, as right is right and wrong is wrong; it is not relative to what the person's job is. No person is immune from the capacity for wrongdoing justifying the use of force against him, even if his wrongdoing is on behalf of the state; of course, that such circumstances arise can say a lot about the state in question, and history shows that many states have asked men to commit acts justifying ordinary citizens using force against them; one can also find cases of persons entrusted with power engaging in personal wrongdoing which justifies the same. Ultimately, it all comes down to the specifics of any situation. |
|
Ethics and morality questions require an examination of subject's perspective, and also the core-values in the observer making the assessment.
I have known people that harp about ethical considerations, yet turn right around and take a kick-back every chance they get. Simply because they were brought up in a culture where this was considered acceptable. Ethics and morality are personal decisions based upon an individual's core-beliefs and cultural exposure. Where we go wrong is trying to enforce that standard upon others with differing values, cultures, and belief-systems. In short, we each follow our own individual code of conduct. Expecting someone else to abide by any standard is foolish, even if mutually-agreed upon. |
|
Quoted:
Ethics and morality questions require an examination of subject's perspective, and also the core-values in the observer making the assessment. I have known people that harp about ethical considerations, yet turn right around and take a kick-back every chance they get. Simply because they were brought up in a culture where this was considered acceptable. Ethics and morality are personal decisions based upon an individual's core-beliefs and cultural exposure. Where we go wrong is trying to enforce that standard upon others with differing values, cultures, and belief-systems. In short, we each follow our own individual code of conduct. Expecting someone else to abide by any standard is foolish, even if mutually-agreed upon. Quoted for posterity. This, fellow arfcommers, is leftist tripe that has been successfully foisted upon otherwise good-intentioned people. There is right and there is wrong. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted for posterity. This, fellow arfcommers, is leftist tripe that has been successfully foisted upon otherwise good-intentioned people. There is right and there is wrong. Quoted:
Quoted:
Ethics and morality questions require an examination of subject's perspective, and also the core-values in the observer making the assessment. I have known people that harp about ethical considerations, yet turn right around and take a kick-back every chance they get. Simply because they were brought up in a culture where this was considered acceptable. Ethics and morality are personal decisions based upon an individual's core-beliefs and cultural exposure. Where we go wrong is trying to enforce that standard upon others with differing values, cultures, and belief-systems. In short, we each follow our own individual code of conduct. Expecting someone else to abide by any standard is foolish, even if mutually-agreed upon. Quoted for posterity. This, fellow arfcommers, is leftist tripe that has been successfully foisted upon otherwise good-intentioned people. There is right and there is wrong. Exactly. Moral Relativism IS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS! |
|
Quoted: Quoted for posterity. This, fellow arfcommers, is leftist tripe that has been successfully foisted upon otherwise good-intentioned people. There is right and there is wrong. Quoted: Quoted: Ethics and morality questions require an examination of subject's perspective, and also the core-values in the observer making the assessment. I have known people that harp about ethical considerations, yet turn right around and take a kick-back every chance they get. Simply because they were brought up in a culture where this was considered acceptable. Ethics and morality are personal decisions based upon an individual's core-beliefs and cultural exposure. Where we go wrong is trying to enforce that standard upon others with differing values, cultures, and belief-systems. In short, we each follow our own individual code of conduct. Expecting someone else to abide by any standard is foolish, even if mutually-agreed upon. Quoted for posterity. This, fellow arfcommers, is leftist tripe that has been successfully foisted upon otherwise good-intentioned people. There is right and there is wrong. Good intentioned people are not necessarily good in result or value. For there to be a right and a wrong there must be a set of values, a value or belief system or even desired outcomes or goals. |
|
Quoted: Exactly. Moral Relativism IS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS! Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted for posterity. This, fellow arfcommers, is leftist tripe that has been successfully foisted upon otherwise good-intentioned people. There is right and there is wrong. Exactly. Moral Relativism IS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS! |
|
Quoted:
Because the loss of control and order is dangerous, even if we must base the order on fallacy, constructs, dogma, dharma or doctrine... Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ethics and morality questions require an examination of subject's perspective, and also the core-values in the observer making the assessment. I have known people that harp about ethical considerations, yet turn right around and take a kick-back every chance they get. Simply because they were brought up in a culture where this was considered acceptable. Ethics and morality are personal decisions based upon an individual's core-beliefs and cultural exposure. Where we go wrong is trying to enforce that standard upon others with differing values, cultures, and belief-systems. In short, we each follow our own individual code of conduct. Expecting someone else to abide by any standard is foolish, even if mutually-agreed upon. Quoted for posterity. This, fellow arfcommers, is leftist tripe that has been successfully foisted upon otherwise good-intentioned people. There is right and there is wrong. Exactly. Moral Relativism IS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS! How was morality developed? |
|
Quoted:
Social/cultural evolution. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Because the loss of control and order is dangerous, even if we must base the order on fallacy, constructs, dogma, dharma or doctrine... How was morality developed? So then was morality created? Or has it always existed and we have just come to realize it through our development? I see morality as being what has set us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom, once we has a species had a developed neo cortex we began to work and communicate which allowed us to become the dominant species. |
| Neither morn nor celebrate. It is sad a man died (if this is what I think op is referring to) his family left alone. He made the tyrants choice that resulted in his demise. They were morally wrong (in the no announce door kick) Had they used common sense and cooler heads prevailed he would still be alive. It is like watching those wing suit guys, when they get killed I am indifferent. If you play stupid games long enough someone wins the prize (no knocks are a weapons grade kind of stupid game, especially over a few plants) |
|
Quoted: So then was morality created? Or has it always existed and we have just come to realize it through our development? I see morality as being what has set us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom, once we has a species had a developed neo cortex we began to work and communicate which allowed us to become the dominant species. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Because the loss of control and order is dangerous, even if we must base the order on fallacy, constructs, dogma, dharma or doctrine... So then was morality created? Or has it always existed and we have just come to realize it through our development? I see morality as being what has set us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom, once we has a species had a developed neo cortex we began to work and communicate which allowed us to become the dominant species. Created yes, but not all out of mans intent or design, some must be just consequences of circumstance, happening and results, trial and error, discovery, default, dumb luck, etc... like other evolutions. Wouldnt morality be a product, consequence or symptom (one of many) of what sets us apart from animals and not the thing that sets us apart? The single thing I can think of that sets us apart from animals is human intellect and all these other things are products, results of our intellect no? It could be that our intellect has just turned basic behaviors of survival (the basis of morality that has existed?) into more complex things like moral constructs, philosophies, religions, politics..as it has done with everything else we do.. Look at human food recipes and how they have evolved from the basics that animals eat to methods of preservation, farming, breeding livestock, cultivating plants into more edible and more easy to grow species, to products being refined for purpose, efficiency.. from necessity to indulgence.. Get Both?  |