PDA

View Full Version : Ethics



DementalyRanged
September 3rd, 2004, 08:37 AM
By your moral standards, is it ethical to move into an area controlled by other person, ignore their rules, and try to take something away? Justify your possition.

HappyLady
September 3rd, 2004, 09:05 AM
By your moral standards, is it ethical to move into an area controlled by other person, ignore their rules, and try to take something away? Justify your possition.

It would depend on the situation. If my 3 yr old is in her bedroom (area she has control over) playing with scissors (her sister has been known to leave kiddie scissors within her reach and if the older one can play with them the younger one thinks she can, too), and I take them away (ignoring her rule that she is capable of playing with them), then, by my moral standards, I have helped her and not harmed her.

If both kids are fighting over who gets the remote control, I feel it is within my moral right to remove the remote control and shut the TV off.

If we're talking about the grander scheme of things, I don't think anyone has the right to appoint herself "Mom" unless given that privelege by her children.

In essence, it is difficult to create an ethical and moral position out of what you have posed without adding in the multitude of factors. Follwing this analogy, the world is full of little sisters, big brothers, big sisters, and little brothers. Sometimes they all get along and it's blissful, but most times they are competing against each other vying to ride "shotgun." The first one who calls it, gets the big chair.

Spartacus
September 3rd, 2004, 09:10 AM
By your moral standards, is it ethical to move into an area controlled by other person, ignore their rules, and try to take something away? Justify your possition.

If the person was a criminal, their rules immoral...then yes. It is not only ethical...but it would be unethical not to..... :D

Dionysus
September 3rd, 2004, 09:34 AM
It would depend on the situation. If my 3 yr old is in her bedroom (area she has control over) playing with scissors (her sister has been known to leave kiddie scissors within her reach and if the older one can play with them the younger one thinks she can, too), and I take them away (ignoring her rule that she is capable of playing with them), then, by my moral standards, I have helped her and not harmed her.

Yeah but, it's not really HER room. It's the room that was assigned to her. You have the executive authority. So it really doesn't depend on the situation (not in this scenario anyway...).


If both kids are fighting over who gets the remote control, I feel it is within my moral right to remove the remote control and shut the TV off.

Ditto


If we're talking about the grander scheme of things, I don't think anyone has the right to appoint herself "Mom" unless given that privelege by her children.

I won't even try to understand this one...


In essence, it is difficult to create an ethical and moral position out of what you have posed without adding in the multitude of factors. Follwing this analogy, the world is full of little sisters, big brothers, big sisters, and little brothers. Sometimes they all get along and it's blissful, but most times they are competing against each other vying to ride "shotgun." The first one who calls it, gets the big chair.

So you don't believe in moral absolutes?

HappyLady
September 3rd, 2004, 09:37 AM
So you don't believe in moral absolutes?

I don't believe anyone on this Earth should appoint themselves the enforcers of moral absolutes.

That doesn't mean I don't believe in moral absolutes.

Zhavric
September 3rd, 2004, 09:45 AM
By your moral standards, is it ethical to move into an area controlled by other person, ignore their rules, and try to take something away? Justify your possition.

I can't tell if you're talking about the Iraq invasion or the Muslim head-scarf thing in France. ;?

Dionysus
September 3rd, 2004, 09:47 AM
I don't believe anyone on this Earth should appoint themselves the enforcers of moral absolutes.

That doesn't mean I don't believe in moral absolutes.

Maybe not with this post, BUT:


In essence, it is difficult to create an ethical and moral position out of what you have posed without adding in the multitude of factors. Follwing this analogy, the world is full of little sisters, big brothers, big sisters, and little brothers. Sometimes they all get along and it's blissful, but most times they are competing against each other vying to ride "shotgun." The first one who calls it, gets the big chair.

I see "it is difficult", "multitude of factors", "sometimes", "most times"...

So which is it? Always or sometimes?

Spartacus
September 3rd, 2004, 09:56 AM
I don't believe anyone on this Earth should appoint themselves the enforcers of moral absolutes.

That doesn't mean I don't believe in moral absolutes.


Let's throw away the police and judicial system...everyone for themself! ;?

DementalyRanged
September 3rd, 2004, 10:12 AM
A clarification of the question: all participents are to be considered adults, and no rules violate any ethical considerations.

HappyLady
September 3rd, 2004, 11:43 AM
Maybe not with this post, BUT:



I see "it is difficult", "multitude of factors", "sometimes", "most times"...

So which is it? Always or sometimes?

In relationship to it being ethical to move into someone's space and overide their policies, I do not think there is a moral absolute regarding that issue. Regarding moral absolutes, in general, I believe they exist.

HappyLady
September 3rd, 2004, 11:44 AM
Let's throw away the police and judicial system...everyone for themself! ;?

The police and judicial system are not self-appointed.

KevinBrowning
September 3rd, 2004, 12:16 PM
By your moral standards, is it ethical to move into an area controlled by other person, ignore their rules, and try to take something away? Justify your possition.
Yes, if their rules are unethical. Of course, one must believe in absolute morality, or else it is just everyone's equally baseless opinions competing.

Spartacus
September 3rd, 2004, 12:24 PM
I don't believe anyone on this Earth should appoint themselves the enforcers of moral absolutes.

That doesn't mean I don't believe in moral absolutes.


And Iwill still disagree with you. All that is necessary for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing...


Where is this whole thread going anyway?

Dionysus
September 3rd, 2004, 12:57 PM
In relationship to it being ethical to move into someone's space and overide their policies, I do not think there is a moral absolute regarding that issue. Regarding moral absolutes, in general, I believe they exist.

Help me understand this one. It sounds like you are saying some morals are absolute as a matter of fact, but some are not absolute as a matter of fact. How can one moral be a fact and another not be a fact? Morality in many cases appears to be driven by cultural norms and accepted practices. This does mean I agree with some of these things, simply that they are acceptable to the cultures that practice them.

William Graham Sumner was able to present in his book "Folkways" that the morals we adopt are not based on a set standard of right and wrong but rather that our sense of morality is driven strictly by our training and upbringing. What may be right in one culture will be wrong in another culture, and vice versa. Some examples:

Bigamy - In some cultures a man can have many wives (Currently Islam and in the past King Solomon, The wisest man in the Bible).

In Tibet a woman is encouraged to have many husbands.

Infantcide - Some Eskimo tribes allowed deformed babies to die by being exposed to the elements.

Patricide - In the Fiji Islands, aged parents were killed.

In many places in Europe adultery is encouraged in the form of swinging. In just as many poorer cultures, stealing is accepted and encouraged.

So either morals are absolute or they are not, or at least it appears that way. Your thoughts?

Fyshhed
September 3rd, 2004, 01:04 PM
Morals are established by the resident majority. The majority changes over time, morals change over time. Culture contributes to such things, and religion. If a resident majority shares a common culture or religion, the morals will be common. If this situation remains constant over time, the morals will remain constant over that amount of time. If America became 95% Muslim tomorrow morning, you would notice a distinct moral shift.

That said, I believe various immoral actions are necessary to define the relevance of morality. Some people must be allowed to slip through the cracks and be bad people, or else there would be no incentive to be good. Regardless of the standards. Therefore, if a country's population in its entirety worshipped Satan, a single God-fearing/worshipping person will be a criminal for his or her actions and attitudes. Kindness is not taken lightly in a world of pain and sin. ;)

HappyLady
September 3rd, 2004, 01:38 PM
Help me understand this one.

I believe there are two different kinds of moral standards. There are moral standards that are derived from cultural practices (bigamy, polygamy, animal sacrifices, etc...) But there are some morals that are spiritually derived. By "spiritual" I am not necessarily referring to God, but more an inherent respect for the self. Some people could credit evolution, some people credit it to God. I prefer to refer to it as spiritual standards.

In these moral absolutes, I believe are moral standards like not stealing and not killing. I believe these are two morals that always fall into "right" and "wrong." It is always wrong to steal. It is always wrong to kill. Now, society largely disagrees with me. But all of this stems from the big spiritual moral standard that is pretty much found in all cultures and religions. And that is, "Do unto other as you would have done to you." (psychological issues aside.) It doesn't mean that we are culturally wrong to steal (if my kids were starving, I'd steal to feed them. If someone attacked me, I'd defend myself and feel justified in doing so.) But I believe it means that we are spiritually immoral if we do such things whether culturally justified or not.

Dionysus
September 3rd, 2004, 03:53 PM
I believe there are two different kinds of moral standards. There are moral standards that are derived from cultural practices (bigamy, polygamy, animal sacrifices, etc...) But there are some morals that are spiritually derived. By "spiritual" I am not necessarily referring to God, but more an inherent respect for the self. Some people could credit evolution, some people credit it to God. I prefer to refer to it as spiritual standards.

In these moral absolutes, I believe are moral standards like not stealing and not killing. I believe these are two morals that always fall into "right" and "wrong." It is always wrong to steal. It is always wrong to kill. Now, society largely disagrees with me. But all of this stems from the big spiritual moral standard that is pretty much found in all cultures and religions. And that is, "Do unto other as you would have done to you." (psychological issues aside.) It doesn't mean that we are culturally wrong to steal (if my kids were starving, I'd steal to feed them. If someone attacked me, I'd defend myself and feel justified in doing so.) But I believe it means that we are spiritually immoral if we do such things whether culturally justified or not.


Thank you, Mr. President.


Just kidding. :lol:


I hear what you're saying, I just don't think there's much to substantiate it.

KevinBrowning
September 3rd, 2004, 06:48 PM
What may be right in one culture will be wrong in another culture, and vice versa. Some examples:

Bigamy - In some cultures a man can have many wives (Currently Islam and in the past King Solomon, The wisest man in the Bible).

In Tibet a woman is encouraged to have many husbands.

Infantcide - Some Eskimo tribes allowed deformed babies to die by being exposed to the elements.

Patricide - In the Fiji Islands, aged parents were killed.

In many places in Europe adultery is encouraged in the form of swinging. In just as many poorer cultures, stealing is accepted and encouraged.

So either morals are absolute or they are not, or at least it appears that way. Your thoughts?
No. What is CONSIDERED wrong in one culture, may be considered right in another culture. That does not mean that it is wrong or right. The only measure of an action's morality is if it is consistent with God's Law.

Fyshhed
September 3rd, 2004, 07:45 PM
No. What is CONSIDERED wrong in one culture, may be considered right in another culture. That does not mean that it is wrong or right.
It means it's wrong for those who want it wrong and right for those who want it right.


The only measure of an action's morality is if it is consistent with God's Law.
"I believe..."
you forgot the "I believe." Until you can substantiate that with anything other than hope and faith, don't state facts.

Apokalupsis
September 4th, 2004, 12:33 AM
By your moral standards, is it ethical to move into an area controlled by other person, ignore their rules, and try to take something away? Justify your possition.
Since we are dealing with our own personal moral standards here, and no rules violate any ethical considerations (as per your last post), then I would say no...it is unethical to "move" into an area controlled by another, ignore their rules, and take something of theirs away.

This appears to be a violation of space, and stealing of property. With my limited understanding of the scenerio given, I would say, that such an act would indeed, be unethical.

I see no need to justify that unless necessary as it appears pretty self-explanatory.

Galendir
September 4th, 2004, 12:45 AM
Of course, one must believe in absolute morality, or else it is just everyone's equally baseless opinions competing.

The only measure of an action's morality is if it is consistent with God's Law.* Sigh *
I wonder what inclines you to so audaciously display such ignorance and lack of reflection by making comments such as these.

Apokalupsis
September 4th, 2004, 12:47 AM
What is your evidence, that he hasn't come to such a conclusion without reflection? How about refuting (or at the ver least, challenge) the argument instead of throwing up an ad hom?

Milorad
September 4th, 2004, 11:39 AM
What's wrong with baseless opinions competing anyway? -- on a large enough scale, that could actually yield more than acceptable results. At least acceptable enough to service those with the competing baseless opinions.

Until such time as basis can be provided, what else is there? -- or is there a proven basis for absolute morality that is about to be unveiled here, in a post which quotes mine?

Zhavric
September 7th, 2004, 04:45 AM
By your moral standards, is it ethical to move into an area controlled by other person, ignore their rules, and try to take something away? Justify your possition.

I certainly hope this thread isn't about my leaving DF.net and coming over here. If it is, please PM me and we'll speak further.

DementalyRanged
September 9th, 2004, 05:20 PM
In relationship to it being ethical to move into someone's space and overide their policies, I do not think there is a moral absolute regarding that issue. Regarding moral absolutes, in general, I believe they exist.
It is moral to wander into a stranger's home, rearrange their furniture, and leave?

mrs_innocent
September 9th, 2004, 05:22 PM
For some strange reason, I doubt that has anything to do with morals, but decency...

Apokalupsis
September 9th, 2004, 05:24 PM
Since morality prescribes what ought to be, and what not ought to be...it is the case, that one ought not to wander into a stranger's home, rearrange their furniture, then leave (assuming there are no extenuating circumstances).

KevinBrowning
September 9th, 2004, 05:29 PM
* Sigh *
I wonder what inclines you to so audaciously display such ignorance and lack of reflection by making comments such as these.

It displays neither. My rejection of "relative systems of morality" does not mean I am ignorant of them. I have reflected upon it a great deal. It is obvious to me that "relative morality" is a contradictory term. Morality is by definition an absolute system, or else it is nonsense.

KevinBrowning
September 9th, 2004, 05:32 PM
It means it's wrong for those who want it wrong and right for those who want it right.

No, it means their perception of it is as being right or wrong. One's perception of an action does not make it right or wrong; it was right or wrong before the person even considered it.



"I believe..."
you forgot the "I believe." Until you can substantiate that with anything other than hope and faith, don't state facts.

There is an implied "I believe" before anything I say that is not a "proven fact."

DementalyRanged
September 9th, 2004, 06:18 PM
Since we are dealing with our own personal moral standards here, and no rules violate any ethical considerations (as per your last post), then I would say no...it is unethical to "move" into an area controlled by another, ignore their rules, and take something of theirs away.

This appears to be a violation of space, and stealing of property. With my limited understanding of the scenerio given, I would say, that such an act would indeed, be unethical.

I see no need to justify that unless necessary as it appears pretty self-explanatory.
Your entire justification is "appears self explanitory"? I asked for justification. If you don't want to answer the question, there is no need to reply.

Zhavric
September 9th, 2004, 06:27 PM
Your entire justification is "appears self explanitory"? I asked for justification. If you don't want to answer the question, there is no need to reply.

Just assume that I've typed something horribly flippant and let's continue.

Are you going to flesh out your original question?

Fyshhed
September 9th, 2004, 06:32 PM
No, it means their perception of it is as being right or wrong. One's perception of an action does not make it right or wrong; it was right or wrong before the person even considered it."
Kevin, dispense with the "uh huh" "Nuh uh" arguments. We all know you believe that morality is standard because of God. That's obvious by now.

The argument I am making is that for different cultures there are different gods, and therefore different mandates. Unless you can argue for a position to make your god any truer than theirs, subjectivity remains.

DementalyRanged
September 9th, 2004, 06:37 PM
Just assume that I've typed something horribly flippant and let's continue.
Assume you are flippant? Ok, if that's what you want.


Are you going to flesh out your original question?
It's an abstract question. It covers everything from rearraging funiture, to theft, to the Iraqi war (assuming you accept the old Iraqi government laws as not violating any ethical constraints).

I'm curious to see how people interpret the question and justify their answer.

Apokalupsis
September 9th, 2004, 07:14 PM
Your entire justification is "appears self explanitory"? I asked for justification. If you don't want to answer the question, there is no need to reply.
You seriously want to know why it is wrong to break into someone's home, violate their space, then steal their property?

Let's just start with the elementary: it's illegal.

Fyshhed
September 9th, 2004, 07:17 PM
You seriously want to know why it is wrong to break into someone's home, violate their space, then steal their property?

Let's just start with the elementary: it's illegal.
Why do laws make morality? Consider laws in pre-invasion Iraq. Those were moral by your standards?

Apokalupsis
September 10th, 2004, 12:03 AM
I never claimed "laws make morality". Laws however, are often based upon moral principles. Stealing from others, is one. It is not only a moral law, but also a legal matter.

As far as it being moral to invade Iraq, there are plenty of other threads that discuss this ad infinitim. This thread is in the philosophy forum, not current events or international affairs. I have no interest in yet another discussion of Iraq...especially in this forum.

Fyshhed
September 10th, 2004, 10:32 AM
I never claimed "laws make morality". Laws however, are often based upon moral principles.
I don't intend to debate the legitimacy of different peoples' morals, and I don't intend to debate the specific differences in theistically-based moralities. But my example was that Islamic laws are based on Islamic morals. Some are similar to Christian ones, some are different. My argument was intended to display relative morality in the sense that many Christians believe morals come from God's mandate. This is the case with any theistically-influenced government, not just Western Christian ones.

KevinBrowning
September 10th, 2004, 11:06 AM
Kevin, dispense with the "uh huh" "Nuh uh" arguments. We all know you believe that morality is standard because of God. That's obvious by now.

The argument I am making is that for different cultures there are different gods, and therefore different mandates. Unless you can argue for a position to make your god any truer than theirs, subjectivity remains.

I understand your argument, and I reject it. Different cultures have worshiped different gods, but that does not make them real gods. Similarly, different cultures have considered different actions to be moral, but that does not make them moral. We have two opposite viewpoints about morality, and that is why it is an "uh-huh, nuh-uh" argument. You view morality as a system humans invent, I see it as a system God created, which humans sometimes follow and understand and sometimes do not.

Fyshhed
September 10th, 2004, 11:37 AM
I understand your argument, and I reject it. Different cultures have worshiped different gods, but that does not make them real gods. Similarly, different cultures have considered different actions to be moral, but that does not make them moral. We have two opposite viewpoints about morality, and that is why it is an "uh-huh, nuh-uh" argument. You view morality as a system humans invent, I see it as a system God created, which humans sometimes follow and understand and sometimes do not.
Good to see we understand each other, but what you see is exactly what others see for their respective religions. There is no real difference... can you at least produce some viable reason to choose the Christian God over other gods that does not provoke a justified spouting of crying foul words like "indoctrination," and "meme?"

Apokalupsis
September 10th, 2004, 12:34 PM
I don't intend to debate the legitimacy of different peoples' morals, and I don't intend to debate the specific differences in theistically-based moralities. But my example was that Islamic laws are based on Islamic morals. Some are similar to Christian ones, some are different. My argument was intended to display relative morality in the sense that many Christians believe morals come from God's mandate. This is the case with any theistically-influenced government, not just Western Christian ones.
I agree with this, but it is irrelevant. The question was asked: "Why is X wrong?" [inferred justification] It was responded to "Because it is illegal to do." The nature of morality has been discussed in other threads. This thread only concerns itself with "Is X wrong?" as set up by the first post.

Fyshhed
September 10th, 2004, 02:51 PM
I agree with this, but it is irrelevant. The question was asked: "Why is X wrong?" [inferred justification] It was responded to "Because it is illegal to do." The nature of morality has been discussed in other threads. This thread only concerns itself with "Is X wrong?" as set up by the first post.
Which is why I'm saying
"X is wrong here because it is illegal." "Y is wrong there because it is illegal. However, X is not illegal here, so it is right."

HappyLady
September 10th, 2004, 02:52 PM
It is moral to wander into a stranger's home, rearrange their furniture, and leave?

No. You have imposed yourself on their personal space without their permission when there was no danger to them present. That is immoral. Don't take something for yourself (in this case, their personal space,) that does not belong to you. (It's one of the Ten Commandments. ;) )

Fyshhed
September 10th, 2004, 02:52 PM
I agree with this, but it is irrelevant. The question was asked: "Why is X wrong?" [inferred justification] It was responded to "Because it is illegal to do." The nature of morality has been discussed in other threads. This thread only concerns itself with "Is X wrong?" as set up by the first post.
Which is why I'm saying
"X is wrong here because it is illegal." "Y is wrong there because it is illegal. However, X is not illegal there, so it is right."

KevinBrowning
September 10th, 2004, 02:56 PM
Which is why I'm saying
"X is wrong here because it is illegal." "Y is wrong there because it is illegal. However, X is not illegal there, so it is right."

Do I hear an echo, Fyshy?

Galendir
September 10th, 2004, 03:35 PM
No. You have imposed yourself on their personal space without their permission when there was no danger to them present. That is immoral. Don't take something for yourself (in this case, their personal space,) that does not belong to you. (It's one of the Ten Commandments. ;) )Except that the source of the Ten Commandments is the same source that has God commanding his chosen ones to go do this very thing, and much nastier things at that. It seems that God considers his laws rather flexible and contingent upon circumstances-which makes those who would argue that these laws constitute moral absolutes appear a bit comical.

Apokalupsis
September 10th, 2004, 03:39 PM
Which is why I'm saying
"X is wrong here because it is illegal." "Y is wrong there because it is illegal. However, X is not illegal here, so it is right."
Nope. X in this case, is VERY specifc. The question is of a very specific instance...NOT a general moral.

X = is it wrong to go into a stranger's home and steal their property

X is wrong in every society that has ever existed and currently existed. One of the reasons why it is wrong...is because it is illegal to do so.