Morality
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 Casual  Orpington 12 Aug 18 8.25am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Wasn’t that why Saddam Hussain was bumped off, to save people?Then ISIS etc filled the void. But morally , anyone that does more bad than good in life would surely be better off getting wiped out.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
johnno42000  12 Aug 18 8.54am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Casual
Wasn’t that why Saddam Hussain was bumped off, to save people?Then ISIS etc filled the void. But morally , anyone that does more bad than good in life would surely be better off getting wiped out. Fair point but who decides what is good and bad?
'Lies to the masses as are like fly's to mollasses...they want more and more and more' |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
chateauferret  12 Aug 18 2.02pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by johnno42000
Not so sure. What about the Hitler point and the quiz questions? Do you never murder even if it could be to save millions? Do you never steal even if it stopped a nuclear weapon falling into the hands of a total nutjob? This is the Pauline principle, which argues that you cannot do evil acts and expect good results. It differs from the Principle of Double Effect (Thomas Aquinas) in that the latter deals more with doing good things which have some bad effects as well as the good, such as putting a sick animal to sleep. Part of the problem will be how do you forecast the outcome? How would you have known that murdering Hitler in his youth would have prevented the rise of Nazism? Maybe it wouldn't have; Hitler was the figurehead of Nazism but he wasn't its sole cause. How do you know that Hitler was the one you needed to murder and not any of the thousands of other potential future Nazi leaders? Murder them all? Then you're in the same position as Herod when he massacred the innocents in the hope of getting the infant Christ.
============ |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| johnno42000 12 Aug 18 2.05pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by chateauferret
This is the Pauline principle, which argues that you cannot do evil acts and expect good results. It differs from the Principle of Double Effect (Thomas Aquinas) in that the latter deals more with doing good things which have some bad effects as well as the good, such as putting a sick animal to sleep. Part of the problem will be how do you forecast the outcome? How would you have known that murdering Hitler in his youth would have prevented the rise of Nazism? Maybe it wouldn't have; Hitler was the figurehead of Nazism but he wasn't its sole cause. How do you know that Hitler was the one you needed to murder and not any of the thousands of other potential future Nazi leaders? Murder them all? Then you're in the same position as Herod when he massacred the innocents in the hope of getting the infant Christ. The point about Hitler was just to illustrate the point. The basis of which is morally would it be justified to kill one to save many and who/what decides that morality? The 10 Commandments does not seem to allow this. Edited by johnno42000 (12 Aug 2018 2.06pm)
'Lies to the masses as are like fly's to mollasses...they want more and more and more' |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| chateauferret 12 Aug 18 2.21pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by johnno42000
The point about Hitler was just to illustrate the point. The basis of which is morally would it be justified to kill one to save many and who/what decides that morality? The 10 Commandments does not seem to allow this. Edited by johnno42000 (12 Aug 2018 2.06pm) They don't, they come from the point of view that you can't do something that breaks God's Law even if you do so with the intention of getting good results. You can't kill someone, even if you *think* there's a good reason to, because it isn't up to you who lives and who doesn't: it's up to God. If that person then chooses to something evil that is because he has gone against the Law, and it isn't your "fault" for failing to bump him off beforehand. You couldn't have known what he might or might not do. After all, as far as the WWI soldier was concerned, he will not have known whether the young Hitler would go on to be a despot or win the Nobel Peace Price. He could only do what was right in the circumstances before him based on the beliefs he held. Many more complicated situations in the modern world can't be analysed as simply and give rise to debate as to what is "right", and we can reject earlier moral values surprisingly rapidly. Look at how homosexuals were treated even say 70 years ago, for example.
============ |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Beanyboysmd 12 Aug 18 2.23pm |
|
|---|---|
|
People are only moral if it suits them, if something feels right to them, its moral, if it doesnt its immoral. If someone does something that society doesnt agree with, then its society that needs to change, not them.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| johnno42000 12 Aug 18 2.34pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by chateauferret
They don't, they come from the point of view that you can't do something that breaks God's Law even if you do so with the intention of getting good results. You can't kill someone, even if you *think* there's a good reason to, because it isn't up to you who lives and who doesn't: it's up to God. If that person then chooses to something evil that is because he has gone against the Law, and it isn't your "fault" for failing to bump him off beforehand. You couldn't have known what he might or might not do. After all, as far as the WWI soldier was concerned, he will not have known whether the young Hitler would go on to be a despot or win the Nobel Peace Price. He could only do what was right in the circumstances before him based on the beliefs he held. Many more complicated situations in the modern world can't be analysed as simply and give rise to debate as to what is "right", and we can reject earlier moral values surprisingly rapidly. Look at how homosexuals were treated even say 70 years ago, for example. I can see how something, which is criminally wrong (discrimination/persecution against a particular group), makes deciding whether the morality of whether it is right or wrong slightly easier. However I'm not sure how that stands with countries where the opposite is true ie discrimination/persecution is actively encouraged due to the law? Is that morally right for those countries or does it all come back down to the individual to decide if it is morally right for them based on their own personal morals? Edited by johnno42000 (12 Aug 2018 2.35pm)
'Lies to the masses as are like fly's to mollasses...they want more and more and more' |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Forest Hillbilly in a hidey-hole 12 Aug 18 8.39pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Depends how low you wanna take it. Do you buy FairTrade ? Or do you buy cheap ?
"The facts have changed", Rishi Sunak |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| johnno42000 12 Aug 18 9.33pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Forest Hillbilly
Depends how low you wanna take it. Do you buy FairTrade ? Or do you buy cheap ? Cheap, but I ended up as being immoral in the quiz
'Lies to the masses as are like fly's to mollasses...they want more and more and more' |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
sprites  Auckland 12 Aug 18 10.03pm |
|
|---|---|
|
If you subscribe to the theory that we're all created beings, having an ingrained understanding of right vs wrong becomes easier to fathom.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| johnno42000 12 Aug 18 10.22pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by sprites
If you subscribe to the theory that we're all created beings, having an ingrained understanding of right vs wrong becomes easier to fathom. I'd like to think I know right from wrong but there must be people who think what I think is right is wrong and what I think is wrong is right.
'Lies to the masses as are like fly's to mollasses...they want more and more and more' |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 13 Aug 18 7.39am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by johnno42000
I'd like to think I know right from wrong but there must be people who think what I think is right is wrong and what I think is wrong is right. Correct. Most brutal dictators actually believe they are doing the right thing for their people / country. Most of us like to think we are moral people but I suspect that like the politicians we despise our own morals may not hold up under scrutiny. How many of us have taken stationary from work? Paid an odd job man cash? Lied to a loved one? etc. The really moral man who practices what he preaches doesn't exist and if he did would be a real pain. He wouldn't have any friends for one thing as he would be reporting them to the police e.g. a friend mentions he was speeding or on his mobile, got to report him.
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.