This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please
enable JavaScript
in your browser.
Live
PTR
Beta
Classic
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Morality
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
hatman555
You DO think that morality is subjective. Most of your opinions are supporting the fact that you think morality is different between people. Were as you would make the quick choice of 1 death is better than 5 deaths
No I think certain things are objectively right or wrong depending on the situation and the reasons for doing them. Killing for example, killing a small defenseless child is objectively wrong, killing a deranged sadistic serial killer who's murdered hundreds of people and won't stop until he's caught? Justifiable homicide.
Ah but there it is. If morality was truly objective, then it would be based on each situation, and we would both agree that killing that person is Justifiable homicide.
But morality IS subjective, because you in your example you say "won't stop until he is caught." So you catch him and then kill him? I don't believe in the death penalty. I believe that some crimes are so heinous that the person should be given life in prison, I believe that some people are so twisted that they should be committed, but I would not say that they deserve to die.
When you say "Justifiable homicide" what I think you are trying to present us with is the situation that if you had the means to kill that person, before he pushed a button on a bomb to kill 100 other people, would you do it? I would. I don't think everyone would, because just like some people couldn't make the choice between having 1 person die and having 5 people die, I don't think they could make that choice either.
Morality is clearly subjective.
Another people would never be able to make that choice because to them they would feel responsible anyways for the 1 death. They would say "Who are they to choice who lives and dies?" were you say "1 death is always better than 5". That's the inherent problem with the example.
You don't have time to not make a decision tho, remember that. You need to act immediately or everyone dies.
I'm sorry are we misunderstanding the example? I'm talking about you making an active choice to let a group of 5 people die, or to let a 1 person died instead. It's your choice, but if you don't choice, the larger group of 5 people will die. Some people would say that lack of action is a choice, I'm saying that its not, 5 people are going to die, that sucks, it has nothing to do with you, but you can save them, if you let another person die instead.
Cheers,
Hat
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
I hate the "agree to disagree" statement. At the end of the day we might walk away disagreeing, sure I get that, but debate me a little more about it before you just shrug off what I'm saying with such a blasé response.
Eating a person in both those examples was not a "kill or be killed" situation. You are
not
letting the person die so that you can stay alive. They are dead, you did everything you can to save them, and now 1 week later and you doing the last thing you possibly can to stay alive. You are not looking at them face, and while you do what needs to be done, you are probably crying in sadness.
Letting someone else die so that you can live is Immoral, but that's not the situation here.
Cheers,
Hat
I'm not shrugging it off intentionally Hat, it's just there isn't much more I can add to that: I don't feel even when you rationalize it, you are wiping out the moral question to it.
Post by
hatman555
I'm sure if one of you're loved ones was the victims, you wouldn't be so merciful.
I think this is more proof that situations can redefine morality for a person, or break their morality. Morality is still subjective, because its my loved one, you would not feel the same, thus subjective.
To answer the question though, and maybe it will delve a little deeper into why I don't believe in the death penalty. It it was my loved one, and he was caught, I would not kill him. "After all, there are things *so* much worse than death!"
And what if he gets out and keeps killing? Do you feel it would have been morally right to let him live still?It was not my morals that let him escape. My moral choice not to kill him takes into account escape, and I would feel bad that he did and was able to kill again, but if caught again, I would lock him up again.
Ya in that case, it's pretty obvious that the only thing to do is let 1 die for the rest
Obvious choice for you, but not everyone can make that choice.
Cheers,
Hat
Post by
hatman555
I'm not shrugging it off intentionally Hat, it's just there isn't much more I can add to that: I don't feel even when you rationalize it, you are wiping out the moral question to it.
I was more putting pressure on you because you compared the situation to "kill or be killed". I think we can both agree that clearly its not that situation at all.
If you still think its immoral to eat a dead person to stay alive, then that's your morality. I'm fine with that.
Cheers,
HAt
Post by
Adamsm
I was more putting pressure on you because you compared the situation to "kill or be killed". I think we can both agree that clearly its not that situation at all.
If you still think its immoral to eat a dead person to stay alive, then that's your morality. I'm fine with that.
To me, that's where a lot of the moral issues come unglued, because it's always dealing with someone else who will possibly have a completely different world view(as seen all through out the thread here) then yourself; heh like you said, my moral view is that even when it comes to saving your own life eating another person is immoral. I have no idea what I would do in a situation like that, and if I would break my own moral code or not.
As others know here, I'm a follower of Wicca and I do my absolute best to never break the creed of 'Do what you will, but harm none'.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
asakawa
@Adamsm
So in this scenario of having to eat someone to survive why is it immoral to eat them? Is it different if they gave you permission on their death bed? Is it different if they actively give up their life in order to give you their body as food?
Is the act of eating human flesh itself an immoral act which is never changed by any circumstances?
Personally I would find it fairly disgusting but my issues with it aren't moral ones.
@Soldrethar,
Judaism teaches "an eye for an eye" while Christianity teaches "turn the other cheek". You may believe neither of these (I believe in neither of those philosophies). Where's the objectivity?(##RESPBREAK##)16##DELIM##asakawa##DELIM##
Post by
pikeyboy
On animal ethics. I do not eat meat, as I detest the taste and smell of it. I do cook meat for others. I don't believe that it is wrong to kill and eat other animals. I think that the ethical question comes in when dealing with the issue of respect. If animals are let lead as close to a natural life as possible, are given the best treatment possible, and then killed with minimal fuss and pain, then fine. All life feeds on life.
Modern industrial farming and fishing I disagree with. I would also prefer ancient grassland habitats properly grazed than a monoculture monsanto soybean field. Another issue is the fact that resources that could be used to feed people are fed to animals. Let's just say that meat and fish should be expensive, and a luxury item, if they are to be obtained ethically. We should treat it with the respect it deserves.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Morality isn't just about your view on other people's actions, it is also your view on the consequences as well.
Post by
asakawa
@Pikeyboy
My big issue is that I'm basically wanting to be supplied a good moral reason for doing something that I want to do so that I can stop worrying about it. I don't think that's a very good basis for an internal ethical debate but in all (slightly embarrassed) honesty that's what it comes down to.
I can't help but keep coming back to this idea of being civilised - of growing up as a civilisation. So, it's not long ago that slavery was thought to be perfectly ethical (it is condoned in books people otherwise look to for morality even now) but now we're more civilised and we know better. We've moved on.
In years (decades, centuries) will we look back on this barbaric time where people ate animals with disgust and disdain?
I just can't think of a good reason why not >.<(##RESPBREAK##)16##DELIM##asakawa##DELIM##
Post by
Adamsm
@Adamsm
So in this scenario of having to eat someone to survive why is it immoral to eat them? Is it different if they gave you permission on their death bed? Is it different if they actively give up their life in order to give you their body as food?
Is the act of eating human flesh itself an immoral act which is never changed by any circumstances?
Personally I would find it fairly disgusting but my issues with it aren't moral ones.
To me it is; even with permission, I'd still see it as an immoral situation. I just don't see eating another person, even if it saves your life, as a moral choice.
Post by
asakawa
Okay but why? I think it was a film I saw recently suggested that the way we treat our dead is what separates us from animals. I don't really buy that personally but is that where you're coming from? Do you believe the body is more than the sum of its matter after someone is dead?
Post by
Squishalot
Asakawa - why do we bury our dead normally? Where is the logic in taking up valuable farming / residential spacewith cemetaries?
Post by
Adamsm
Okay but why? I think it was a film I saw recently suggested that the way we treat our dead is what separates us from animals. I don't really buy that personally but is that where you're coming from? Do you believe the body is more than the sum of its matter after someone is dead?
Partially...or maybe I've just been raised up on the legends here in Canada about what happens when you eat the flesh of other humans(Wendigo).
Alright honestly, to me, it's just about what you are doing: you are consuming another living sentient being. That just doesn't sit well with me.
Post by
asakawa
@Squish
When I say I don't really buy it, I mean that it seems like an oversimplification that was used in a film for a cool line for a character. I was simply using it as an example to try and get the ball rolling.
@Adamsm
But they're neither sentient nor living at that point.
I wonder, tangential to, perhaps, both of these conversations. What about eating dogs or cats? Why do people feel that eating dogs is different to eating pigs or sheep?(##RESPBREAK##)16##DELIM##asakawa##DELIM##
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
@Adamsm
But they're neither sentient nor living at that point. Doesn't remove what they used to be.
Post by
hatman555
@Adamsm
But they're neither sentient nor living at that point. Doesn't remove what they used to be.
So are you a vegetarian?
Hat
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.
© 2021 Fanbyte
