Originally posted by 2.5: You dont save innocents by killing innocents, the moral problem is the killing.
That is one of many opinions.
What you can't do is judge morality, because there is no black and what definition of what is moral. What may seem immoral from your point of view, may not necessarily be something you'd consider immoral if you had 100% of the facts. And it may not be immoral to the other culture either.
Death is inevitable, and so is a good action to use in such thought experiments.
This is one reason why the exercise is pointless IMO, facts are intentionally left out. The reality the writer of this scenario presents is not reality at all.
Choosing who lives or dies..the ends justifying the means, these are also moral problems..
Morals, ethics, right and wrong, etc. Sure people in different cultures and at different times believe differently, they call it different things. I dont know how anyone can say for sure there is no ultimate right and wrong answer though. Why because people have different opinions? But then who to answer to would be the question. Many people believe there is no one to answer to. So it comes back to what many call religion. But I do get your point too.
This is one reason why the exercise is pointless IMO, facts are intentionally left out. The reality the writer of this scenario presents is not reality at all.
Choosing who lives or dies..the ends justifying the means, these are also moral problems..
Morals, ethics, right and wrong, etc. Sure people in different cultures and at different times believe differently, they call it different things. I dont know how anyone can say for sure there is no ultimate right and wrong answer though. Why because people have different opinions? But then who to answer to would be the question. Many people believe there is no one to answer to. So it comes back to what many call religion. But I do get your point too.
The exercise is not pointless. No more so than anyone on this forum claiming the actions of anyone other than themselves, are somehow moral or immoral.
There is no ultimate right and wrong answer, not because people have different opinions, but because what is right and wrong are variable concepts which change according tot he situation.
Killing for example, is an essential part of life. Maybe you don't directly contribute to killing other humans on a daily basis, but the choices you make do contribute to the deaths of others. You also need to eat to survive. As part of that, plants and animals must be killed. I'm sure you also probably kill insects and spiders plenty often as well. But do not those insects, arachnids, animals, and plants, also have a right to live out their natural days?
There is no ultimate right and wrong answer, not because people have different opinions, but because what is right and wrong are variable concepts which change according tot he situation.
This sentence I feel, was rebutted by my past post. As you discribe it, it is because people have different opinions. The situations change, right and wrong does not.
Originally posted by 2.5: This sentence I feel, was rebutted by my past post. As you discribe it, it is because people have different opinions. The situations change, right and wrong does not.
Right and wrong are not concrete things. You cannot prove that your view of something is moral, while an opposing view is immoral, with absolute certainty. There is absolutely no way to prove whose view is the correct view.
The difference between right and wrong, good and evil, is not an absolute thing. The reason for this isn't because people have different opinions. Rather, the reason people have different opinions, is exactly because of it not being absolute black and white.
You say killing is wrong. Is Captain America immoral then, because he was created for killing Nazis?
...You cannot prove that your view of something is moral, while an opposing view is immoral, with absolute certainty. There is absolutely no way to prove whose view is the correct view.
I agree, this is why peoples beliefs matter in regards to it in the real world.
quote
Originally posted by dobey: You say killing is wrong. Is Captain America immoral then, because he was created for killing Nazis?
We would have to get into crime, punishment, and war. No, punishing crime and protecting the innocent is not wrong.
Another aspect related to your wording is... what he was created for, and what he does may be different things.
Originally posted by 2.5: We would have to get into crime, punishment, and war. No, punishing crime and protecting the innocent is not wrong.
Another aspect related to your wording is... what he was created for, and what he does may be different things.
The origin story is that he was a kid that wanted to go to war fighting the Nazis, but was not "fit for service," and was brought into a secret military project for genetically creating a perfect super soldier; ironically, something very similar to what Hitler's reich was trying to do at the time.
We don't need to get into crime, punishment, or war. You said that killing is wrong. You said that morals are solid and do not change, regardless of the situation. So, you should be able to clearly answer whether Captain America's killing of Nazis is moral or not. There's also the moral question of genetically altering a human being for the purpose of creating a perfect soldier, but I chose to leave that out for now, since we're already talking about the morality of killing.
If what you said is true, that killing is immoral, and morality cannot change due to changing situations, then it must follow that Captain America is immoral if he kills, or has any desire to kill, for any reason.
Or are you now saying that because the situation is different, it might be ok to kill?
You say its not simple or black and white, but you seem to be trying to make it sound as if it is to argue your point.
I am saying it is not. You are saying it is. I am trying to understand how you seem to think it is, but then also think that it's ok to kill someone in certain situations.
Killing is killing, whether it is outright murder, a means of punishment upon someone whom has killed, or a means of "protecting the innocent."
If you say that killing is immoral, and that morals cannot change depending on the situation, then you must say that killing in any of these situations is immoral, no? To say that one of them is fine by your morals is to say that your earlier statement that killing is immoral, must be false, and is a proof to the idea that morals are not black and white, and your opinion of what is moral or immoral will change depending on the situation.
Originally posted by 2.5: You really dont see a difference between a person executed for a crime, a Nazi shot on the battle field, or a woman stabbed on her way home from work?
We're not arguing about whether I think killing is wrong or not. We're discussing morality and whether it is black and white, or something that changes upon the situation. I am using killing as an example that shows the latter is how the world uses morality, and not the former, which you claim morality is.
Killing is killing. If it is wrong, then it must be wrong in all cases, otherwise your statement than morality is unchanging doesn't hold up. It doesn't matter if it's the death penalty, battle, a mugging, or for food.
To say both that morality is solid black and white, and then state that killing is wrong, except in [long unending list of situations], is a logical fallacy. Both statements cannot be true.
Originally posted by dobey: We're not arguing about whether I think killing is wrong or not. We're discussing morality and whether it is black and white, or something that changes upon the situation. I am using killing as an example that shows the latter is how the world uses morality, and not the former, which you claim morality is.
Killing is killing. If it is wrong, then it must be wrong in all cases, otherwise your statement than morality is unchanging doesn't hold up. It doesn't matter if it's the death penalty, battle, a mugging, or for food.
To say both that morality is solid black and white, and then state that killing is wrong, except in [long unending list of situations], is a logical fallacy. Both statements cannot be true.
Thats what I mean about over simplifying. You are clearly doing it.
No it is not a logical fallacy.
Just because a specific situation can have a different answer from a moral viewpoint doesnt mean the moral standards changed, look at it as a category (for lack of a better word). For example. I said it before. It is moral to punish a criminal, it is not moral to punish an innocent person. Make sense?
Originally posted by 2.5: Just because a specific situation can have a different answer from a moral viewpoint doesnt mean the moral standards changed, look at it as a category (for lack of a better word). For example. I said it before. It is moral to punish a criminal, it is not moral to punish an innocent person. Make sense?
Yes it does. As was stated before, morals are dependent on the situation. You were disagreeing with that, and stating they weren't. But now your argument is that they in fact do. That is indeed a logical fallacy. For a moral to be universally true, it must be true in all cases. If you get to pick and choose when it is true or not, then it is not universally true, and therefore you can never judge if someone is violating that moral.
For example, if you say that killing is immoral, and then say it is ok to kill in some situations, then that moral doesn't hold up, because you're choosing to ignore it in that situation. If you can justify killing in some situations, then it's plausible to create justification for killing, in any other situation.
Yes it does. As was stated before, morals are dependent on the situation. You were disagreeing with that, and stating they weren't. But now your argument is that they in fact do. That is indeed a logical fallacy. For a moral to be universally true, it must be true in all cases. If you get to pick and choose when it is true or not, then it is not universally true, and therefore you can never judge if someone is violating that moral.
For example, if you say that killing is immoral, and then say it is ok to kill in some situations, then that moral doesn't hold up, because you're choosing to ignore it in that situation. If you can justify killing in some situations, then it's plausible to create justification for killing, in any other situation.
This moral set up does not change, yet covers both situations.
No, the moral setup does change. Because you cannot have 100% of all facts to determine what is criminal and what is not. Just like you can't have 100% of the facts to determine what is moral and what is not, as we already agreed.
Where do you think the "killing is wrong" moral definition comes from exactly? You clearly don't agree that it comes from the ten commandments. Those commandments don't have provisional exceptions in any legal fine print. The commandment is simply "Thou shall not kill." There is no ", except in cases where" at the end of the statement.
If it's justifiable to kill in some cases, then it's possible to create justification for any killing.
This is not oversimplification. It is logic. You cannot say something is universally true, and then immediately claim it's not true in certain situations. That is the very definition of a logical fallacy.
Where do you think the "killing is wrong" moral definition comes from exactly? You clearly don't agree that it comes from the ten commandments. Those commandments don't have provisional exceptions in any legal fine print. The commandment is simply "Thou shall not kill." There is no ", except in cases where" at the end of the statement.
If it's justifiable to kill in some cases, then it's possible to create justification for any killing.
This is not oversimplification. It is logic. You cannot say something is universally true, and then immediately claim it's not true in certain situations. That is the very definition of a logical fallacy.
In fact I do, the commandment is thou shalt not murder.
Murder and execution of a criminal are different.
You still dont understand. If you would have answered some of the questions I asked it could make more sense, or lead to a different understanding.
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 09-24-2015).]
Originally posted by 2.5: In fact I do, the commandment is thou shalt not murder.
Murder and execution of a criminal are different.
You still dont understand. If you would have answered some of the questions I asked it could make more sense, or lead to a different understanding.
I understand just fine. Killing is not immoral as long as it can be justified.
What questions did I not answer, that are relevant to defining a universal truth of morality, where situational justification does not alter whether that moral statement is true or not?
it is very likely an innocent person gets a death penalty just because they will not plea to a crime they did not do while a criminal works a plea bargain or rats out somebody else to avoid the death sentence
Originally posted by dobey: ..you cannot have 100% of all facts to determine what is criminal and what is not. Just like you can't have 100% of the facts to determine what is moral and what is not, as we already agreed.
I understand your thought process as this: that "crimes" are only understood by humans understanding of morals.
Which is what I meant when I said
quote
Originally posted by 2.5: ..people have different opinions. The situations change, right and wrong does not. Morals, ethics, right and wrong, etc. Sure people in different cultures and at different times believe differently, they call it different things. I dont know how anyone can say for sure there is no ultimate right and wrong answer though. Why because people have different opinions?
Here is something, right and wrong transcends our ideas, humans change their minds over time, right and wrong do not. Of course this is what I believe and you may believe differently.
Beliefs are important because they are what we act on. I suppose this is the whole argument.
