Ethical and Moral Dilemmas

[Zairak]

Okay... I am going to start making 2-3 topics a week in here, since apparently this place is rather boring lately.

So, I'll start off with these questions:

Should it be considered ethical to perform an immoral act if you did it for a good reason, such as serving the greater good, saving something dear to you or simply to help somebody in need, among other things?

For that matter, how should we define morality and ethics? Should there be absolute Do's and Do not's, or can there be some leeway in the final judgment?

Discuss.

[AllisonWalker]

The answer is easy if you follow the Ten Commandments.
IMO

[Xanadu]

and if you don't?

[gwtyler1985]

my first response is this rant.

thank you for saying "the greater good." i just love when people say that, especially when they have countries to manage. let me just ask you "the greater good" for who? the greater good has been bastardized into an excuse to perform the most reprehensable actions. hell during WWII, the whole holocaust bit was supposedly for "the greater good" of germany, who pretty much viewed them like wasps view hispanic people, while we weren't any better with internment camps for japanese immigrants; also for the "greater good" of our nation. and then there was the red scare, a partisan witch hunt where people were accused of being communists, leading to the imprisonment and execution of political opposers, for the "greater good" of our nation to combat communism. all through the ages, people have been saying "for the greater good" in attempts to sway the people like giant cults (more people should see this. it's even a song that's been distributed around the world for a game). basically it's follow me and we'll get rid of people who disagree "for the greater good".

well my questions to you are what's so good about it and who is it really good for?

EDIT: and by that i mean the greater good

[Xanadu]

my first response is this rant.

thank you for saying "the greater good." i just love when people say that, especially when they have countries to manage. let me just ask you "the greater good" for who? the greater good has been bastardized into an excuse to perform the most reprehensable actions. hell during WWII, the whole holocaust bit was supposedly for "the greater good" of germany, who pretty much viewed them like wasps view hispanic people, while we weren't any better with internment camps for japanese immigrants; also for the "greater good" of our nation. and then there was the red scare, a partisan witch hunt where people were accused of being communists, leading to the imprisonment and execution of political opposers, for the "greater good" of our nation to combat communism. all through the ages, people have been saying "for the greater good" in attempts to sway the people like giant cults (more people should see this. it's even a song that's been distributed around the world for a game). basically it's follow me and we'll get rid of people who disagree "for the greater good".

well my questions to you are what's so good about it and who is it really good for?

EDIT: and by that i mean the greater good

exactly
Christians do things for "the greater good" but only for themselves
same with most any religion, and government
morals and ethics should be personal, we're not the same and don't think alike

[gwtyler1985]

The answer is easy if you follow the Ten Commandments.
IMO

sorry to break it to you, but those don't cover these situations.

[Zairak]

Well, when I said the 'greater good', I was primarily thinking of the classical situation, wherein you are faced with the choice of killing one person for the good of the entire world.

Though, if you want to think of it in those other terms, that is fine too.

[AllisonWalker]

sorry to break it to you, but those don't cover these situations.

"Thou shall not murder".

Don't kill innocent people.
That covers your "greater good". If you are harming people who aren't directly involved in something (like in a war, most women and children), leave them be.

[darkarcher]

exactly
Christians do things for "the greater good" but only for themselves
same with most any religion, and government
morals and ethics should be personal, we're not the same and don't think alike

Please be careful with overly-generalized statements as they become the basis for needless mudslinging.

[Xanadu]

Please be careful with overly-generalized statements as they become the basis for needless mudslinging.

oh well if someone inclined about it I would have elaborated
I am only typing with one hand as "something" (not sure what) cut my hand and its hard to type with it

[AllisonWalker]

I don't think morality is that hard to understand.

[Xanadu]

no but people should be able to choose their own morals, not have a book tell them that, or a person or a bunch of people

[AllisonWalker]

Why?

[gwtyler1985]

Well, when I said the 'greater good', I was primarily thinking of the classical situation, wherein you are faced with the choice of killing one person for the good of the entire world.

Though, if you want to think of it in those other terms, that is fine too.

oh, you're talking about a villian or a martyr. well my opinion on villians in the real world is that they're just going to fall inevitably. the only reason some people want to be a part of that fall are because they are directly affected by them (which is fair. those affected have my permission to go nuts. more power to individuals seeking revenge.), or if they just want their name to be more public. for example, i hurt someone, i get caught and shot. or alternatively, i kill people and have money. i either get killed by someone else, or i'm arrested and publicly executed in another country while my assets are siezed and redistributed to government officials in that country.

and in this day and age, if you are trying to die for a cause, that's suicide. if you are killed while sitting down after acomplishing something that's being a martyr. if you get the hell out of wherever you are after accomplishing something, that's actually hurting the establishment that you are against.

[Xanadu]

Why?

because we're not slaves
we're individualistic by nature and should be able to have that right
no one has the right to tell us what to believe, how to act or what to think

[AllisonWalker]

Some people need it or live on being told what to do. If everyone thought for themselves, there would be complete anarchy.

[gwtyler1985]

"Thou shall not murder".

Don't kill innocent people.
That covers your "greater good". If you are harming people who aren't directly involved in something (like in a war, most women and children), leave them be.

ah, but throughout history, people have been practicing the greater good by turning in there neighbors to be killed on suspicion. and if not killed, then imprisoned for 30 years. the whole point of the "greater good" is making a sacrifice for society to continue, be it money, assets, or people.

[AllisonWalker]

^That's unethical.

[Xanadu]

Some people need it or live on being told what to do. If everyone thought for themselves, there would be complete anarchy.

true but we need to know, not just push it on everyone

[gwtyler1985]

and because my replies are taking too long to type, i'm just going to leave the really obvious stuff to everyone else.

[gwtyler1985]

what are we pushing now? is it religion?

[AllisonWalker]

Know what? And push what?

[gwtyler1985]

are we going on another crusade? i'm about 1000 years too late for the last one

[gwtyler1985]

^That's unethical.

of course it' unethical. but we do it "for the greater good". the phrase is thrown about more that "hi, how's it going?"

[Xanadu]

Know what? And push what?

know who needs morals given and who can discover and make their own

[Xanadu]

are we going on another crusade? i'm about 1000 years too late for the last one

BIBLE FIGHT!!

[AllisonWalker]

Stop with the Bible, Xanadu. No one's talking about Christians except you.


And if everyone makes up their own morals, what about the sociopath who has none?

[Xanadu]

Stop with the Bible, Xanadu. No one's talking about Christians except you.


And if everyone makes up their own morals, what about the sociopath who has none?

the bible fight was a joke
as I said, some need morals given to them
some can find them on their own

[AllisonWalker]

So why are some people "special" and others not? That's unfair.

[gwtyler1985]

then they are imprisoned for life with no chance of parol. that's more of "the greater good"

EDIT: the sociopath, not the "special" people. for them it really depends on what you mean. if you mean "special" people, then yes, most of them are put up for life in institutions to be "taken care of". if you mean people with special privelages, then they just have some sort of leverage

[Xanadu]

So why are some people "special" and others not? That's unfair.

cause they don't know
they're messed in the head
some people need to be steered in the right direction, and some don't
I have morals and want mine, not yours or anyone elses
you have yours and feel the same I assume

[gwtyler1985]

an obvious example would be the concept of mafia. they are allowed to do what they do because it would be hazardous to society to stop them.

ok, i'm just gonna stay out for a while. i can't seem to get replies in at the right time.

and xanadu, i think they meant special as in privilaged, not special as in "special"

[Xanadu]

and xanadu, i think they meant special as in privilaged, not special as in "special"

makes some sense
I've made my point
peace out y'all

[Zairak]

Mm...

I am not judging here or anything, but usually when you're discussing things, you want to try and express your full ideas on the matter. That's not to say that you cannot say a lot with a single line, but it makes the discussion somewhat difficult if you reply too quickly.

[gwtyler1985]

oh darn, now i've got to talk more

[AllisonWalker]

Yes, privilaged.

Maybe I think your "morals" are horrible and need educating.

If everyone has their own set of morals, you'll still have anarchy.

[gwtyler1985]

but with long speeches, by the time you post, you're on another page

[Xanadu]

Yes, privilaged.

Maybe I think your "morals" are horrible and need educating.

If everyone has their own set of morals, you'll still have anarchy.

well it doesn't matter to me if you or anyone here doesn't like them
they are mine and make me who I am

[Zairak]

Yes, but if everybody stops just writing quick statements to get their point in before others write quick statements to get their point in, you will have time to fully elaborate.

It worked perfectly fine in here for years, I promise.

[gwtyler1985]

i think what she meant was deciding for yourself exactly what you define as good and bad, and how bad. most people come up with similar answers, but on the philosophical side, their completely different

[AllisonWalker]

Maybe what you are is wrong.

People who are wrong generally don't think they are until re-education.
Someone could think rape is right, or pedophilia. Does that make it right? A normal person wouldn't.

[Xanadu]

i think what she meant was deciding for yourself exactly what you define as good and bad, and how bad. most people come up with similar answers, but on the philosophical side, their completely different

I know what she meant

[AllisonWalker]

Zairak, I hate reading long novellas on people's opinions.

[MrsSallyBakura]

Should it be considered ethical to perform an immoral act if you did it for a good reason, such as serving the greater good, saving something dear to you or simply to help somebody in need, among other things?

The first thing that people need to know before answering this question is the difference between ethics and morals.

Ethics define what's appropriate in a particular social system, whereas morals are more personal and religious.

So I think that blurring the two can sometimes be confusing... it all depends on the situation, really, and what's considered ethical or unethical.

For example, say that there was a man who has enough money to pay for your car insurance. Without the car, you can't take the kids to school and you can't drive yourself to work. There are no buses nearby because you live in a rural area. However, the man will only give you that money if he witnesses you going somewhere with a lot of black people and shouting racist comments.

That kind of behavior is both immoral and unethical in and of itself. The people would be very angry at you if you decided to go with it. They probably wouldn't believe you if you told them that you were doing it for money for your car and that you were desperate... heck that might even make them angrier.

This probably isn't the best example because the consequences for doing such a thing 'for the greater good' are right there. But at the same time, just because you get something good out of it, it doesn't mean that the act itself was wrong.

Unethical/immoral acts are separate entities, really. A cause and an effect are not one and the same. There is a reason why the two are separate.

I believe that you don't get off easy for something you did wrong just because something good happened because of it. There's always room for apologies and forgiveness, however.

For that matter, how should we define morality and ethics? Should there be absolute Do's and Do not's, or can there be some leeway in the final judgment?

Discuss.

There should be absolute do's and do not's, but sometimes circumstance and ignorance and such get in the way so we have to adjust our 'final judgment,' whatever that means.

[Xanadu]

Maybe what you are is wrong.

People who are wrong generally don't think they are until re-education.
Someone could think rape is right, or pedophilia. Does that make it right? A normal person wouldn't.

I am not some sort of horrible person who hurts people or does bad things.
re-education? you make it sound like I murdered someone
I did nothing wrong, I voice some different opinions you don't like but I am not hurting anyone
I may not be perfect, but people like me, I'm a good person

[MrsSallyBakura]

You guys...

No bickering about personal matters. Stay on topic.

[AllisonWalker]

I'm not talking about you personally. If I was authority and thought your beliefs were wrong, does that give me the right to change them? You said some people should be told.

[MrsSallyBakura]

On. Topic. Now.

Or I'll start deleting posts.

[AllisonWalker]

We are on topic.

If everyone could be in control of what their ethics were, no country in the world would need rules. There always has to be an authority figure, be it religious or secular, to set, enforce, and control the masses and keep them from anarchy.

That's my point.

[gwtyler1985]

Maybe what you are is wrong.

People who are wrong generally don't think they are until re-education.
Someone could think rape is right, or pedophilia. Does that make it right? A normal person wouldn't.

oh thx for bringing this up. so you are more ok with re-educating everyone into a single mindset? this is a great example of "if you don't agree with me, then we'll have to remove you." i'm not saying that imprisoning someone who has commited murder isn't ok, but the term "re-education" isn't really good. i would prefer it if you people would just trust that i find it wrong to go against most societal norms and not force my mind into submission.
most murders are commited out of passion. most peole don't just go around killing people for fun.
and addressing your examples though, pedophilia and rape are serious offenses. but the only sure fire way to ensure everyone is safe from being raped is to either brainwash the public into viewing all sex as a sin (again) or to take away from people's liberties.

[AllisonWalker]

I'm using "re-education" because it's what Communist China calls it.
Or A Clockwork Orange.

So you are more ok with re-educating everyone into a single mindset?
No, but it does keep the peace.

Peace doesn't always equal freedom.

[gwtyler1985]

I'm using "re-education" because it's what Communist China calls it.

there's a reason why the government has been able to get people to hate china's government.

EDIT: the american government. in america.

[AllisonWalker]

I do think there should be set rules everyone must follow, regardless on their personal feelings on the subject. That's the only way to allow society to work.

[gwtyler1985]

yes, and that's the way government and society work. and they work to protect the majority of freedoms of the people involved in said society.

personally, i would like to say this is going to be a very long thread with quite a few deviations that go into religion and politics and every other forbidden ground of conversation. however, i would appreciate it if the moderators would either not touch any of these posts or remove the thread, because if they just deleted some posts, then this discussion would then lose all of it's luster.

[Zairak]

Yeah uh.

Relgions and Politics really shouldn't be forbidden ground. Just don't throw fits about people having different opinions than yours.

[MrsSallyBakura]

however, i would appreciate it if the moderators would either not touch any of these posts or remove the thread, because if they just deleted some posts, then this discussion would then lose all of it's luster.

Don't tell the moderators what to do.

We won't remove those kind of "forbidden ground" posts. We haven't in the past unless they include personal insults or break some other kind of forum rules.

You're new here. Maybe you're not new to the Internet, but you are new here, so please don't assume that the moderators are going to throw hissy-fits over "controversial topics." We won't. Every place is different and I know I would appreciate it if you would just go with the flow with how this forum works.

Now... back on topic... for realz.

[killshot]

I am of the opinion that morals do not exist. There is no way to really know what is right or wrong so any guesses to what is moral is just that, a guess. Even if you are a Christian, you cannot possibly know the will of God so any attempt at a universal standard of morality holds no more water than any other moral code. Different cultures have developed different ways of interpreting morality. Can anyone truly make the claim that any one morality is superior to another? If so, what gives your system of morality any more authority than the morality of another?

Ethics, on the other hand, are necessary to survive as a society. Even if we all agree that morality is arbitrary, we still need to develop a moral code to live by. We call this moral code "ethics". Nietzsche wrote that fear is the mother of morality. I'm certain that everyone has heard of the golden rule, correct? Nietzsche posits that it is not the desire for kindness that makes people treat others with kindness, but the fear of being wronged that makes us treat others with respect. For example, we as people do not want to be killed, so we make a social agreement not to kill for fear of being killed ourselves. Similarly, we do not steal for fear of being stolen from. Ethics is derived from the fear of being mistreated. As we advance as a society, more and more situations are created that require a more complex system of ethics. Many philosophers argue as to what the best code of ethics is. For instance, should we follow the belief of utilitarianism which attempts to do the most amount of good for the most amount of people, or should we let people decide for themselves what is best for them and live with the consequences? It is difficult to say which code of ethics is best to follow. It is best to maintain a working knowledge of ethics and take multiple views of ethics into consideration.

[AllisonWalker]

. Even if you are a Christian, you cannot possibly know the will of God
The Bible.

[killshot]

The Bible.

The bible is a book. Anyone can write a book.

[AllisonWalker]

The bible is a book. Anyone can write a book.

But if you're a Christian, you know much of it is the will of God. Not directly, but it's there.

[killshot]

But if you're a Christian, you know much of it is the will of God. Not directly, but it's there.

How?

[MrsSallyBakura]

But if you're not a Christian (which killshot isn't), then it's a bit of a moot point.

Just saying.

@killshot: If you believe in God, and you believe that Jesus is His Son, and you believe that the Bible is the Word of God, then... that's how. It's faith, really.

You have to believe in some sort of God before you can believe whether or not the Bible is actually true. Since you don't believe in God, like I said, it's a moot point.

[Eia]

WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOOOOAAAAA

This thing is so off topic it's not even funny. Allison? Xanadu? Gwtyler? Re-read the first, original, post and make intelligent arguments from there, not based on the first one-sentence gut reaction you or someone else thought of.


Back to the original subject...

I'm of the belief that two wrongs do not make a right. If you need to do something you find morally wrong in order to bring about a right, that right usually ends up corrupted by the actions taken to achieve it, thus lessening its effect or negating it altogether.

There are some instances, I believe, when there are definite "rights" and "wrongs." However, those are few and far between. Most of life's moral decisions exist in shades of gray, which is when the truly difficult decisions arise. What is right for one person in one situation will not be right for all people in the same situation, or that one person in all situations.

[AllisonWalker]

Zairak's question wasn't clear enough to begin with.

That's why I'm pretty much done with this, because the actual question is pretty uninteresting to me.

[gwtyler1985]

WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOOOOAAAAA

This thing is so off topic it's not even funny. Allison? Xanadu? Gwtyler? Re-read the first, original, post and make intelligent arguments from there, not based on the first one-sentence gut reaction you or someone else thought of.

this is part of the original discussion. you just got here after everyone else had already voiced their ideas. just because we interpret things differently doesn't mean that we're off topic.

now...

the bible may not be the direct word of god, but following it and a lot of christian beliefs isn't a bad idea. i believe that most of the teachings of the bible and christianity are useful in deciding how to lead a relatively good life. i view most of their rules as guidelines to help me in deciding what's best. for example, the ten commandments that allison brought up at the beginning of the thread bring about an effect similar to the "fear" that killshot alludes to ("thou shalt not kill", "thou shalt not steal", "thou shalt not give false testamony"). there's also quite a bit that would prevent disasters that are commonplace in today's society, like the belief in the seven deadly sins. for example, gluttony is overindulging in consumption simply out of pleasure (like eating fast food, smoking, or drinking). however, when you eat too much, you get fat and die, if you drink too much, you get drunk and your brain and liver turn to crap, and too many drugs will mess with your body's chemical systems and make you very unstable (like those bombs from die hard 3. if you still don't get it, wiki it). another thing is the commandment "thou shalt not have any idols". this can equate to making any object or earthly entity the most important thing in your life (like xbox). this commandment would then be a defense against people taking advantage of you (like selling you defective xbox 360s). case and point, most of the "rules" set down by religions were suggested first as guidelines in order to help prevent most of the problems that we see in society today. however, i'm not saying that these should be made into law. i'm merely saying what i believe to be where religious morals and societal ethics meet.

EDIT: this took a while to type in a way that addresses the original question, takes other ppls posts into account and makes a very valid point. so please, don't go trying to spark pointless arguments off it or flame it. that would be mean.

[AllisonWalker]

There's a reason why Moses is protrayed above the Supreme Court. The Ten Commandments have influenced everything in western law, regardless if you're Christian or not.
There are laws about death by manslaughter and how to deal with them, laws about stealing and the definition of stealing, and everything else important for the people of that time period to know and enforce to keep their civilization stable. Although most of those laws are too out-of-date to be enforced now, they have shaped every western society after it.

It's very clear about "two wrongs don't make a right" and "the greater good."
"An eye for an eye", that's what it enforced and how our laws work today.

[gwtyler1985]

It's very clear about "two wrongs don't make a right" and "the greater good."
"An eye for an eye", that's what it enforced and how our laws work today.

i've already said all i want to say about "the greater good" for today. but i do disagree with the the belief "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth". i'm more of a "an eye for an eye makes the world blind" and "turn the other cheek" kind of guy.

[darkarcher]

Zairak's question wasn't clear enough to begin with.

Sure it was. Sometimes people just go off topic in order to rant against something.

Anyway, as far as morality in the sense of means and ends, I'm sort of in the same boat as Eia.

When it comes to a moral dilemma, there is rarely any absolute single maxim which a person can use to determine their actions. Rather, it is a combination of multiple worldviews as well as the individual's previous experience with similar scenarios.

Anyway, back to Eia's view that I was talking about, there is some sort of ethical standpoint...I believe it's from Kant...called the Persons as Ends rule. It states that a person should never be used simply as a means to an end. In any situation where you use some person as a means, you must also treat them as an "end", meaning that you recognize a person as having inherent value and that they are worthwhile for your actions to benefit them as well. While this is not all-encompassing, when paired with Judeo-Christian and/or Western ethics and morality, it gives a stronger shape to what might be the "right" action in any given situation.

Sometimes, however, a decision isn't so easy. If one were to take a look at Zairak's given classical ethics thought experiment, the person in question would need to evaluate what kind of impact the death would achieve or prevent, as well as how certain those results are. For all you know, you might kill a man whose life would not have actually caused any harm due to incorrect assumptions. At the same time, you might release a man who goes on to kill others or become a clear detriment to society.

It's hard to formulate some sort of general rule for these things, though. It is much better dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

[darkarcher]

And yes, this thread has become derailed. The topic of discussion is moral justification of actions in view of results, and how views upon that subject affect the existence of universal right and wrong.

Please stay on topic.

[gwtyler1985]

Zairak's question wasn't clear enough to begin with.

Sure it was. Sometimes people just go off topic in order to rant against something.

can you guys plz not bicker about that? you're both approaching this issue from very valid directions.

EDIT: please be civil.

[Eia]

Anyway, back to Eia's view that I was talking about, there is some sort of ethical standpoint...I believe it's from Kant...called the Persons as Ends rule. It states that a person should never be used simply as a means to an end. In any situation where you use some person as a means, you must also treat them as an "end", meaning that you recognize a person as having inherent value and that they are worthwhile for your actions to benefit them as well. While this is not all-encompassing, when paired with Judeo-Christian and/or Western ethics and morality, it gives a stronger shape to what might be the "right" action in any given situation.

I agree with this sentiment. Oddly enough, I have not heard of that standpoint by Kant before, and I thought I had studied the man.

Also, I do not believe that morals and ethics have anything to do with certain religions, per say. There are just certain beliefs that a group or society at large hold and live their lives by. The most common moral system in the Western World just happens to be based on the Judeo-Christian beliefs of right and wrong.

[darkarcher]

can you guys plz not bicker about that? you're both approaching this issue from very valid directions.
It's called a debate. It happens and should be promoted, not repressed.
I agree with this sentiment. Oddly enough, I have not heard of that standpoint by Kant before, and I thought I had studied the man.

Also, I do not believe that morals and ethics have anything to do with certain religions, per say. There are just certain beliefs that a group or society at large hold and live their lives by. The most common moral system in the Western World just happens to be based on the Judeo-Christian beliefs of right and wrong.

I may have remembered the wrong name, but it was one of four maxims that some person espoused.

[grimfang999]

Overall Ethics, laws and morals are the form instinctive survival has become in the sentient mind.

Lets look at a pack. They will fight other packs, yes, but usually over terratory or something similar. Inside the pack they have a pecking order. they have the "Alpha male", the "Alpha female" and all the pack follow them. They will fight if they irritate one another, or over mates when its breeding season. However it is rare that one will kill another of their kind for no good reason.

This is the survival of species and instinctive law. Its part of the meaning of life. To grow, protect the pack, keep the species surviving, and have offspring to continue your species.

as we have become sentient, it would seem we have lost this pack unity. We did form the pecking order, known as the kings and nobles, but we no longer live in such unity. as well as that, the natural code of laws has faded, and commonly we are given laws by people we dont even know to avoid blind murder for no reason but irritation.

due to our disolvation of instinctive law, and the sheer sizes of our civilisations, it becomes more and more difficult to enforce these man-made laws. Those who do not develop a sense of obedience through upbringing, philosophy or fear, may attempt to kill.

so, it is correct that law is not true ethics, but it is because to some people true ethics is lost.


now, i am going to bring up a dilemma which my friend once asked me during religious education:

lets say you had a nuclear bomb and were in new york. there was a villen in new york who was going to kill off the entirety of mankind. You are on the other side of town and only 1 minute left before the disaster, which will be triggered by this enemy, and will not if hes dead. will you detonate the bomb?


when he asked me this i tried other routes but they could not be taken. it was then either kill 10 million people with your own hands or allow the entirety on mankind to die. Morally most people would try not to do it, because of several reason:

1) the only instincts left intact in terms of pack survival: to keep oneself alive.
2) On top of this its harder if you have sense enough to still have the natural law o racial survival
3) religion: killing those people would be murder, and muder is a sin, and their soul may be eternally be punished.

However, using logic, while the first one is fair enough, by killing some you save all, which is in proportion a small sacrafice. In addition, self-sacrafice and saving more that what was lost would be considered good in a loving Gods eyes, thus you may be blessed rather than cursed for this.


Now im going to bring it into more political and a bit more of a different approach rather than of native, but will tackle another issue in ethical philosophy.

"an eye for an eye" has appeared in this conversation a few times, often in the other way which Ghandi put it. Now, this is morally right. However, human rights has taken this new saying and taken it too far in an effort to improve it. you go and murder, you get 20 years in jail. "Human Rights" have made these jails comfortable. is this punishment? or is this rehabitation?

sure, in areas with capital punishment crime rates are worse. In the case of death for crimes, im far against it, both spiritually and morally. first off, from the common point of view killing someone for murder means you are a murderer yourself, and should be punished.
Secondly, if you are religious or spiritual, and believe in repention, then killing them off immediately gives them no chance to repent. Here i am not talking about that pathetic catholic belief of confession, I speak of realising what you have done and taking it to heart, and truely feeling sorry for it. This gives the chance for the soul to learn and move forward and not be eternally punished. Nobody deserves that in my eyes unless they have commited genocides.

so, in this case, the desire to improve ethical code of laws has actually weakened moral values. people do not fear imprisonment, and so commit crimes. they are then released early in commonplace, with learning little.

overall, ethical codes could then severely damage moral codes, so maybe ways to alter their views in a different sort of puunishment might be necessary



im not even sure if my argument is about morals and ethics anymore, but ive enjoyed writting about it untill it has given me a headache.

[Fat1Fared]

Sally

The first thing that people need to know before answering this question is the difference between ethics and morals.

Thank god you said this, shame you got the description of morals sideways, you don’t need bloody religon to be moral and its really arrogant to say do <facepalm>

Morals can be taken from religion for some (key word) people, but that is not the only way they work or only thing to derive from.

but for sake of clarity and structure, will come back to this later

Killshot

I am of the opinion that morals do not exist. There is no way to really know what is right or wrong so any guesses to what is moral is just that, a guess. Even if you are a Christian, you cannot possibly know the will of God so any attempt at a universal standard of morality holds no more water than any other moral code. Different cultures have developed different ways of interpreting morality. Can anyone truly make the claim that any one morality is superior to another? If so, what gives your system of morality any more authority than the morality of another?

=For once killshot, I disagree with you, not in way most do, but in a more pedantic way, I do not believe morals are set, factual, or determined thing by any means, but I do believe they exist as a state of mind and in that way exist in same way something like love exists, not real par-say, but our mind makes it dispositionally real, a feeling based on belief (and belief can exist without religion, but religion cannot exist without belief, before someone says that I just countered my prior comment,)

AllisonWalker

There's a reason why Moses is protrayed above the Supreme Court. The Ten Commandments have influenced everything in western law, regardless if you're Christian or not.

Great, and so did lot of other things which have a lot more fundamental and important influence, such as the enlightenment theory, political doctrine of democracy (coming from greek theory in most, and then greatly expanded in western world by Romans and then, even later superpowers like Britain and French in early enlightenment) The British Civil War, War in general, Raise of Economic states….etc, (PS also Solomon could said to be more of influence than commandments themselves)
-If the ten commandments were enough to live by, I wouldn’t be paying 60,000 pounds to learn English Law, instead I would just get a library pass for 50p and rent bible for 10minutes, then put on silly wig and all be set

PS Also there is a reason most modern societies explicitly remove state from religion, because history has proved time and time again, when mix the two, only ends badly
It's very clear about "two wrongs don't make a right" and "the greater good."
"An eye for an eye", that's what it enforced and how our laws work today.


Maybe in your county, but here we actually try to make law more about protection of both citizen and anti-social citizen, as try to give both lives within there beliefs, and instead of punishment, we try educate them why law is like it is for all. Punishment is not used massively if for no other reason than how ineffective it is, as only furthers their marionalisation from wider society.

Ok now time to actually tackle this point itself

Zairak

For that matter, how should we define morality and ethics? Should there be absolute Do's and Do not's, or can there be some leeway in the final judgment?


Not to critise here as this is beautiful question, but think this needs answering first, because otherwise headless chicken may as well answer this (probably give more clarity than most answers here, alas if only overmind were still alive) what are morals and ethic’s? well first lets state that Law is never morals or ethic’s, the law is about Balancing economic value against social value (very primitive and inadequate answer there, but do for removing the law, as come back to that later, when I bring in the case of the very famous English Legal Case of Dudley and Stevenson, though may end up doing that tomorrow, however it perfectually shows the conflict the law has with both this argument of greater good as well as moral ones)

=Secondly Religion is not Morals or Ethic’s, well not that par-say core anyway, they are a form or derivation of them.

However basically I will lazy and quote others for what morals and ethic’s are

Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") has three principal meanings.
In its "descriptive" sense, morality refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores that distinguish between right and wrong in the human society. Describing morality in this way is not making a claim about what is objectively right or wrong, but only referring to what is considered right or wrong by people. For the most part right and wrong acts are classified as such because they are thought to cause benefit or harm, but it is possible that many moral beliefs are based on prejudice, ignorance or even hatred. This sense of term is also addressed by descriptive ethics.
In its "normative" sense, morality refers directly to what is right and wrong, regardless of what people think. It could be defined as the conduct of the ideal "moral" person in a certain situation. This usage of the term is characterized by "definitive" statements such as "That act is immoral" rather than descriptive ones such as "Many believe that act is immoral." It is often challenged by a moral skepticism, in which the unchanging existence of a rigid, universal, objective moral "truth" is rejected.[1]


Ethics are:- (this is not greatest one could probably find, but will do good)


My ethics are the rules or standards governing the conduct by which I live my life and make all my decisions. One of the best ways of thinking about ethics is to take a quick look at what you believe and then think about how you would react when those beliefs are challenged.

Your ethics govern your thought process so that when a problem arises or you need to try and work your way through a situation your solution is based on your ethics. So exactly where do these comes from?

What are ethics? Where do they come from? Ethics are not born in a vacuum. Ethics are more like a jigsaw puzzle that is thrown together over time, that when complete makes up who you are and what you believe. From our earliest days of life, we start to learn from those around us. These learned behaviors add to the traits that we are already born with and help to shape us into the person we will become. As part of this learning process, we develop what will become our norms.

Norms are our everyday way of looking at how the world around us works and helps us to understand our place in the world. Norms also govern how we react to different situations and problems that arise around us. These are our ethics; the things we learn as we grow that govern the rest of our lives.


So what could say, is that ethics are the personal application of Morals, IE morals are social construct given too you, and then ethic’s are what you personally make of them, however this would be little too simple to be full answer and would overstate the link between the two, as making a direct link, rather than positional one, when this not always the case as one’s ethic can be a complete rejection of the world around them.
This is why ethic’s are so ill defined (and mostly placed in theories or doctrines of their own) and one of the reasons I use the rather ineloquent quote, as proves the point, ethics are mostly a personal thing about your boundaries of “right” and “wrong” while morals are the codes of “society” which give you social construction of “right” and “wrong”. (anyway, get this point or did I go too circular with it?)

-Should it be considered ethical to perform an immoral act if you did it for a good reason, such as serving the greater good, saving something dear to you or simply to help somebody in need, among other things?

Ok. Tomorrow will put more legal and theoretical answer to this, tonight just put own primitive beliefs, as got to be up for debating tourment at 7am.

=To me, on very basic and elementary level, the greater good is never good reason, as the greater good is normally very ultilarian belief and as Benthian and Chadwick both proved (all be it, by mistake as believers of the ideology) it ends up being more, the greatest good for the strongest number, now if we ignore the fact that the idea in my opinion of ignoring the minorities problems in place of the majorities problems is fundamentally flaw system on its own, this system of only powerful number get what want, is even more irrepresenable as means all but the elite get screwed and that leads to oppression and abusment, which leads to disgruntlement and generally to my ethical believes, wrong. Also this can then led to rebellion and war, which only creates more despair and disgruntlement, but that is going way to far into it, the point can lay one step back, where the possibilities are endless and all but 1% of those possible results are negative and normally the good ones take the straining of logic that even holy himself would chuk at, to work.

Now moving away from a theoretical idea of social rectitude to even more fundamental level and dare I say it personal one.

This argument, even if it does work on a social level (which Generally doesn’t, but I will go more into that tomorrow when bring back in the law of Necessary and bizarrely the law of contract (who would think that would come into ethics and morals lol)) it can never be judged in a way to work on a personal one, because by the omission of being personal there is no way to make a balance objective test to judge it by, because there is no reasonable level of what it is, as the people will all look at different things to make it work by.

-Lets take the age old example, you are ordered to kill a man, and if do not, 10 others will die. Now what can this be judged by?

=Well, at first may say, kill the 1 to save the 10, works as nice and simple maths sum at lest, but humans are not so unproblematic and straightforward as primary school maths, sadly.

=I mean what if this man is in fact someone who is about “socially” acceptable as can generally be defined. He gives millions to charity, takes in orphans, reads to sick kids, builds free hospitals (yes no this man doesn’t exist, don’t be pedantic) and the ten hostages are in fact Phedoithiles? Well let the ten die, they had their chance right? But doesn’t make you judge jury and executor, who are you make such a judgment, sure the intrinsic values may seem in place here, but can it really be that simple, to you, these people are still people and can you really define them by one bad act, no matter how irreprehenable that act may appear to your personal ethical code and your societies moral code.

-Well lets add three more examples/questions in to further this:-

1=What if these 10 phedoifiles were your close family?
2=Who are you to say your beliefs are right ones? (what if these people come from land where phedolifa is accepted ethical norn and in fact only by your standards their wrong? Who are you to down their cultures cross overs with your own?)
3=Just because people make what is considered by wider society, I moral breach, does not mean cannot “change” or even that they like it, most phodoifiles exactly give themselves up, rather than get caught and ask to locked away for rest of their lives, because hate (and when I say hate, I mean to point of scidual) themselves and would give anything (including for males, their little Joey’s) to get rid of their problems. So if these people are willing to try and become “more moral” to your social way of thinking, does it not make you in fact the worse person to rob them of that change, as a person is not judged souly by their “mistakes” but the way they then go into deal with those “mistakes” and in this way it could be construed your simply simple lesser evil, just became the greater one. (now I could go on even further here, but I feel such act would be redundant now, as the point is made and so sum up:-

In my “opinion” the greater good cannot work for 3 reasons:-

1=Too simplistic and determistic
2=It is unpractical to human nature, even on larger human and social scale
3=Finally there is no way to properly judge and use its application

-However now going completely contradict myself and ask these questions (which try best to answer tomorrow) if this is so, why did:

1=The House of Lords allow hundreds of people to go unvindicated after the Hillbourgh disaster, dispite their Lordships stating that these people had fair claims?

2=Why is the defense of duress allowed as complete defence to everything in English law, other than murderer, attempted murderer and treason

3=Why were the doctors in Re-A allowed the defence of Necessary, but not Dudley and Stevenson?

-Like said, will answer this in my “massively” undereducated opinion tomorrow, but anyone who has any knowledge on what on about, feel free to add points in before hand, night all

[Zairak]

Hmm... seems the last question died down, so I will make a new scenario here:

There is a woman in labor at the Hospital. C-Sections have not been invented. There were complications during the labor and, if the baby is delivered, the woman will die. However, if the doctors kill the child, they will be able to deliver the dead child, and the woman will live.

So, the question is, should the woman live or should the child? Why do you think so?

[LiftedShadows]

Well, I guess a big part of thinking through that argument is whether or not you are willing to accept the alternative form of medicine, such as C-sections having been considered/developed before safe abortions.

To me, that seems a little unlikely, and therefore is part of my problem thinking through the problem. There is also the problem of certainty. Your problem poses that the woman WILL die if the child is delivered and that the woman WILL live if the child is killed, which seems extremely concrete, and also poses a problem for me.

However, if I were to simply accept these factors, and also accept the factors that there is NO other possible options (which is also odd), I feel it would still be the doctor's job as sworn protectors of life to try to deliver the child alive and hope that the mother lives. I understand that there are the concrete life-death parameters set, but I have issues accepting those. Maybe I'm just being narrow-minded.

Sorry, but that's my best shot.

[grimfang999]

ask the woman, let her decide.

but if she is irrational or in some way irresponsive at the time then I would say save the woman, a child can be remade in a sense, the woman has a husband and friends already. more grief shall be done if the woman is dead. plus, the child may have issues due to a lack of a mother to guide them

[MrsSallyBakura]

Well, I guess a big part of thinking through that argument is whether or not you are willing to accept the alternative form of medicine, such as C-sections having been considered/developed before safe abortions.

To me, that seems a little unlikely, and therefore is part of my problem thinking through the problem. There is also the problem of certainty. Your problem poses that the woman WILL die if the child is delivered and that the woman WILL live if the child is killed, which seems extremely concrete, and also poses a problem for me.

However, if I were to simply accept these factors, and also accept the factors that there is NO other possible options (which is also odd), I feel it would still be the doctor's job as sworn protectors of life to try to deliver the child alive and hope that the mother lives. I understand that there are the concrete life-death parameters set, but I have issues accepting those. Maybe I'm just being narrow-minded.

Sorry, but that's my best shot.

I don't think you're being narrow-minded. Couldn't have said it better myself. I don't believe in those kind of concrete life-death parameters either, as they themselves are narrow and all-assuming. And if I'm correct, they're also logical fallacies...

[Fat1Fared]

Lifted, sally, you both seemed to have missed the point of Zairaks question and then given it a answer which is too narrow to that intent and wide to its needs (not narrow minded because your considering things so that is misuse of that term and not even wrong conclusion par-say, as I suspect to many poeple your answer is an acceptable one on personal level of that sort) but you need to understand, Zairaks basic facts are not actually necessary to your consideration par-say, other than to give a clearer personal message to what is fundamentally an arbitraty question of what is the greater evil, when only evils are possible, so going into the doctors responsibility, other medicial options..etc and basically expanding the question itself with other if questions, is not what this requires, as this questions works if facts where that a man with gun says he will shoot someone if the baby is not aborted and there is no way to stop him.

=The facts in of themselves are not what matters par-say, they are merely form of clarification, what matters is ether mother or baby die, which you choose? (yes may seem to insensitive for practical life, but here what need to do:-

=This is why I brought up the case of Dudley and Stevens, because real case with real example of how these questions can be judged. It involved 3 sailers and a cabin boy who were ship wrecked on a dead island. They appeared to have no hope of escape until the next trading ship pasted, which as far as they knew, wouldn't be for another 3 weeks at least and they were starving to death, so two of the sailers Dudley and Steven's both killed and ate the cabin boy, while the third did refuse, as it coninsided they were actually saved a further 8 days later and science at time felt they could have survived 10, but this was luck and so if we take a step back as the law did when judging them, and look at the facts as they saw it at the time of their act, did they truly do something evil, because as far as all 4 knew at time, they were all going to die, so deicded to kill the weakest member to survive, (now as not got time to go into all law on this, as shakey as it ended, I will leave you to mull those facts and what you personally make of them)

=Another case is the case of Re A, where doctors separated a pair of conjoined twins, knowing that to separate them would kill one straight off, but if left them joined, it was theory based that they would both die about 6 months later,

[MrsSallyBakura]

Lifted, sally, you both seemed to have missed the point of Zairaks question and then given it a answer which is too narrow to that intent and wide to its needs (not narrow minded because your considering things so that is misuse of that term and not even wrong conclusion par-say, as I suspect to many poeple your answer is an acceptable one on personal level of that sort) but you need to understand, Zairaks basic facts are not actually necessary to your consideration par-say, other than to give a clearer personal message to what is fundamentally an arbitraty question of what is the greater evil, when only evils are possible, so going into the doctors responsibility, other medicial options..etc and basically expanding the question itself with other if questions, is not what this requires, as this questions works if facts where that a man with gun says he will shoot someone if the baby is not aborted and there is no way to stop him.

I more-or-less believe that maybe Zairak's example wasn't the best, because there really are more choices you can make than what were offered in the question, really. I think the best kind of example to give in this situation would be a more realistic one, without putting too many limitations on what you can do. Otherwise it's more tempting to find other solutions rather than just going with what's being brought to the table. Know what I mean?

=This is why I brought up the case of Dudley and Stevens, which involved 3 sailers and a cabin boy who were ship wrecked on a dead island. They appeared to have no hope of escape until the next trading ship pasted, which as far as they knew, wouldn't be for another 3 weeks at least and they were starving to death, so two of the sailers Dudley and Steven's both killed and ate the cabin boy, while the third did refuse, as it coninsided they were actually saved a further 10 days later, but this was luck and so if we take a step back as the law did when judging them, and look at the facts as they saw it at the time of their act, did they truly do something evil, because as far as all 4 knew at time, they were all going to die, so deicded to kill the weakest member to survive, (now as not got time to go into all law on this, as shakey as it ended, I will leave you to mull those facts and what you personally make of them)

Under their circumstances, no, I would not hold judgment against them. As terrible as that is, they were only doing what they thought was best for the majority of people.

[grimfang999]

could you guys stop being picky and answer the question. its either save the baby or save the mother. Pick using logic, thats all. There is a saying I learned in business studies, which sounds or reminds me of lemons, but it means everything equal, and its form means only one variable is different this situations the same. You got the necessary info, use what you have to get the answer

[Fat1Fared]

I think grim pretty much summed it up there, Sally though I do see your grievances with such a arbitrary questions of life and death (if look at my main post, I spent 3 paragraphs explaining why cannot decide life questions on completely arbitrary basis) but Zairak's question is not meant to be taken in such an expansive and persative light, he wants you to judge it on the simple and limited merits of the facts given, because the overal facts do not matter, just the arbitrary questions of life and death in greater v lesser evil context and so though you may dislike the idea of being forced to think "inside" the box and pick the answer to more arbitrary basis, that is what this question is about and adding in if's only serves to needlessly convolute that question in way which is not actually tackling problem given

-This is why I brought up real life cases, because then the facts cannot needlessly convoluted with ifs as basically are what are.

=Though I do find it very interesting that in both your views the professional world has gone against you

[LiftedShadows]

I understand that, as I said, I may appear to be...irritating, what with me nitpicking at the issues I have with the question. For that, I do apologize.

However, I feel I still stand by what I said before. You may not like that I am being "picky," as grimfang put it, and I am sorry if it is annoying, but I am sticking with what I said.

[grimfang999]

I do often be picky myself with these questions, but thats normally because my friends never says "there are no other options but these" or doesnt explain the complete scenario. However, I just to point out that this question is very direct. stick by your point freely, I just want to see what you would decide in that scenario without any alternate routes