Moral Quandary
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-10-2012, 11:25 AM
RE: Moral Quandary
(20-10-2012 11:23 AM)Funtheist Wrote:  
(20-10-2012 09:39 AM)CopperFish Wrote:  First, their actions are most likely not destined to contribute to their well-being. I think keeping the secret and suppressing their new feelings is likely to have some negative consequence on their psychologies that could rub off on those around them. This burden that they will have for the rest of their lives is most likely not a positive experience for them.

It says in the question that this is not true, that they were fine afterwards. You are changing the question.

This.

Ambulatory habitation detritus.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2012, 12:21 PM
RE: Moral Quandary
It depends, how hot was the sister?








For the record, I thought my own joke was so funny I lawled all over the place!

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dark Light's post
20-10-2012, 12:30 PM
RE: Moral Quandary
(25-08-2012 01:06 PM)Anjele Wrote:  There is a publication written by a relative of mine and in the caption, she says, "here I am with my sister, who is also my cousin". Get the fuck outta here.

I have a friend in this predicament. Her dad had children with his first wife and then remarried his wife's sister as wife number two and had kids. The kids are siblings and cousins, no incest.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2012, 02:16 PM (This post was last modified: 20-10-2012 02:23 PM by CopperFish.)
RE: Moral Quandary
(20-10-2012 11:23 AM)Funtheist Wrote:  
(20-10-2012 09:39 AM)CopperFish Wrote:  First, their actions are most likely not destined to contribute to their well-being. I think keeping the secret and suppressing their new feelings is likely to have some negative consequence on their psychologies that could rub off on those around them. This burden that they will have for the rest of their lives is most likely not a positive experience for them.

It says in the question that this is not true, that they were fine afterwards. You are changing the question.

To everyone who feels "icky," that is because you have a very strong repulsion toward incest built into you by millions of years of evolution. Which does beg the question to Christians, why would anyone think incest is morally wrong if we all were descended from Noah, who must have practiced incest for many generations? Most of our morality is built in, pre-programmed by evolution, but much is also programmed by society.


There are versions of this question where it is more open ended whether anything bad came of it or not. If we are to believe that "nobody was hurt by their actions" means no one was ever or could ever be hurt, including John and Sara, then this is a very unrealistic scenario for anyone who knows anything about keeping secrets or suppressing one's feelings. But assuming nothing bad could possibly come of it and the two were able to somehow remain perfectly unchanged by their new connection and commitment to never do it again, then they did nothing wrong. But there still doesn't seem to be a whole lot of reason to emphatically say that they did something right either. Even if it is completely without consequences, are John and Sara really being the best people they can be? Is using family members as a means of satisfying short term sexual desires our best behavior? I don't think so.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2012, 02:29 PM
RE: Moral Quandary
(20-10-2012 11:04 AM)Vosur Wrote:  I find questions about whether or not something is morally or ethically correct redundant. Why? Because both of them are completely subjective.

This is not true.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2012, 02:32 PM
RE: Moral Quandary
(20-10-2012 02:29 PM)CopperFish Wrote:  
(20-10-2012 11:04 AM)Vosur Wrote:  I find questions about whether or not something is morally or ethically correct redundant. Why? Because both of them are completely subjective.

This is not true.
Care to elaborate on why you disagree?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2012, 02:43 PM
RE: Moral Quandary
(20-10-2012 02:32 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(20-10-2012 02:29 PM)CopperFish Wrote:  This is not true.
Care to elaborate on why you disagree?

Our actions can have real measurable affects both positive or negative on people's physical, psychological, and social well being. We can explain these effects scientifically. I think this is quite obvious. As long as we know there are actions we can take that tend to lead to more positive outcomes and actions that can lead to more negative outcomes, then we have admitted that there are right and wrong answers to moral questions. The outcome of John raping and then murdering his sister (as the most extreme example) is objectively wrong in terms that we should all value (i.e. human well-being). That something wrong occurred here should not be subjective.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2012, 02:51 PM
RE: Moral Quandary
(20-10-2012 02:43 PM)CopperFish Wrote:  Our actions can have real measurable affects both positive or negative on people's physical, psychological, and social well being. We can explain these effects scientifically. I think this is quite obvious.
Indeed, it is.

(20-10-2012 02:43 PM)CopperFish Wrote:  As long as we know there are actions we can take that tend to lead to more positive outcomes and actions that can lead to more negative outcomes, then we have admitted that there are right and wrong answers to moral questions. The outcome of John raping and then murdering his sister (as the most extreme example) is objectively wrong in terms that we should all value (i.e. human well-being). That something wrong occurred here should not be subjective.
It shouldn't be subjective, but it is. There are people who do not value the well-being of other humans, who would even go as far as endorsing John to murder and rape others.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2012, 03:15 PM (This post was last modified: 20-10-2012 03:28 PM by CopperFish.)
RE: Moral Quandary
[/quote]It shouldn't be subjective, but it is. There are people who do not value the well-being of other humans, who would even go as far as endorsing John to murder and rape others.[/quote]

I would say that people like that simply have nothing to contribute to a conversation on morality, as they seem to miss the point entirely. I think that if we could study their brains, we'd be able to find something amiss. Then there are people who would not endorse rape, but on intellectual grounds argue that right and wrong, well-being, positive and negative, etc. are all social constructs and therefore have no real meaning. But so too is health. Health to me doesn't seem to have any real meaning prior to or independent of the people who have defined it. The definition of health (and even more specific things like hypertension) is always changing and will keep changing. There might even be some crazy people who think our definition of illness is just another state or style of health. And of course there are people who don't share or goals of health (anti-vaccinationists) just as there are people who don't share our moral goals. But all of these things don't invalidate healthcare or mean we shouldn't try to continue improving it, or that anything goes when it comes to treating an illness. I see morality in the same way. There is going to be controversy in both realms, but that doesn't mean there are not truths to be found in medicine and morality as long as both relate to actual states of human well-being.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2012, 03:40 PM
RE: Moral Quandary
(20-10-2012 03:15 PM)CopperFish Wrote:  I would say that people like that simply have nothing to contribute to a conversation on morality, as they seem to miss the point entirely.
That's an opinion, not an argument. That being said, there are different guidelines that can be used to determine whether or not an action is bad. From what I understand, yours appears to be the well-being of humans. You see, the problem here is that this is not the only guideline that can be used to determine what is morally good and bad.

(20-10-2012 03:15 PM)CopperFish Wrote:  I think that if we could study their brains, we'd be able to find something amiss. Then there are people who would not endorse rape, but on intellectual grounds argue that right and wrong, well-being, positive and negative, etc. are all social constructs and therefore have no real meaning. But so too is health. Health to me doesn't seem to have any real meaning prior to or independent of the people who have defined it. The definition of health (and even more specific things like hypertension) is always changing and will keep changing. There might even be some crazy people who think our definition of illness is just another state or style of health. And of course there are people who don't share or goals of health (anti-vaccinationists) just as there are people who don't share our moral goals. But all of these things don't invalidate healthcare or mean we shouldn't try to continue improving it, or that anything goes when it comes to treating an illness. I see morality in the same way.
Physical health can easily be measured and determined using the knowledge we have gathered in the fields of biology and medicine. It's far from being subjective. Mental health, however, would be a different story.

(20-10-2012 03:15 PM)CopperFish Wrote:  There is going to be controversy in both realms, but that doesn't mean there are not truths to be found in medicine and morality as long as both relate to actual states of human well-being
Morality as tool to determine if an action is good or bad, based on it's impact on human well-being is your view of it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Vosur's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: