Moral absolutes
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-01-2016, 01:27 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(28-01-2016 01:14 PM)Heatheness Wrote:  ...
No, I meant what I said. Animals are amoral because they don't have the capacity to moralize. Humans are still animals but they do have the capacity, so if they choose to ignore the morals already established they are immoral. If they never have had any experience in morals, that would be amoral.
...

Ah, I see what you are saying.

I read 'immoral' as an adjective... "immoral animals". Hence my correction to 'amoral'.

But I see now that meant that humans would be immoral 'as' animals (rather than 'like' animals).

Thumbsup

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
28-01-2016, 01:29 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(28-01-2016 12:32 PM)Heatheness Wrote:  Actually, what you are saying is you would choose an adult be tortured over a child being tortured. The meaning of "torture" is not a specific act, it can and has been many different acts in varying degrees. Rape is or can be torture.

I would say, it would depend on the torture for the adult and for the child.

Are you saying that there could be a situation where raping an adult is a lesser evil than torturing a child?

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2016, 01:45 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(28-01-2016 12:57 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Tsk, tsk. Putting words into my mouth is not cool, bro.

When did I ever claim unity of atheistic beliefs?

Dodgy

Sincere apologies. These discussions come up all of the time. In the last one (that I remember) you kept chiming in that the only real disagreement was that of semantics. The disagreement in case is obviously much more than semantics.

Again, my apologies.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Matt Finney's post
28-01-2016, 01:50 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(28-01-2016 01:29 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(28-01-2016 12:32 PM)Heatheness Wrote:  Actually, what you are saying is you would choose an adult be tortured over a child being tortured. The meaning of "torture" is not a specific act, it can and has been many different acts in varying degrees. Rape is or can be torture.

I would say, it would depend on the torture for the adult and for the child.

Are you saying that there could be a situation where raping an adult is a lesser evil than torturing a child?

I thought I made myself clear with this, if you didn't understand my statement I don't know how to make it more clear.

"I would say, it would depend on the torture for the adult and for the child."
and this...
The meaning of "torture" is not a specific act, it can and has been many different acts in varying degrees. Rape is or can be torture."

Are you saying all torture is the same and if so, give me the specific explanation of what torture is.

[Image: dnw9krH.jpg?4]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2016, 02:11 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(28-01-2016 01:50 PM)Heatheness Wrote:  
(28-01-2016 01:29 PM)unfogged Wrote:  Are you saying that there could be a situation where raping an adult is a lesser evil than torturing a child?

I thought I made myself clear with this, if you didn't understand my statement I don't know how to make it more clear.

"I would say, it would depend on the torture for the adult and for the child."
and this...
The meaning of "torture" is not a specific act, it can and has been many different acts in varying degrees. Rape is or can be torture."

Are you saying all torture is the same and if so, give me the specific explanation of what torture is.

No, I understood that. I'm asking a more general question and in no way implying that the torture has to be the same. I'm asking if there can be a case where a level of torture for the adult being raped would be a lesser evil than the level of (different) torture being done to the child.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
28-01-2016, 02:32 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(28-01-2016 02:11 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(28-01-2016 01:50 PM)Heatheness Wrote:  I thought I made myself clear with this, if you didn't understand my statement I don't know how to make it more clear.

"I would say, it would depend on the torture for the adult and for the child."
and this...
The meaning of "torture" is not a specific act, it can and has been many different acts in varying degrees. Rape is or can be torture."

Are you saying all torture is the same and if so, give me the specific explanation of what torture is.

No, I understood that. I'm asking a more general question and in no way implying that the torture has to be the same. I'm asking if there can be a case where a level of torture for the adult being raped would be a lesser evil than the level of (different) torture being done to the child.

Yes, I think it is possible. So many variables there, the acts themselves, the age of the child (which can be sometimes be subjective, a 5yrs old is not the same as a 15yrs old) and age or maturity or mental stability of the adult (I use adult as opposed to woman because anyone can be raped). Too many options to make a specific call.

Now, if you said would I choose rape over allowing someone to hurt/torture a child that would be different but I am not everyone and what I could handle and what someone can handle is not the same. I wouldn't give it a second thought but I have lots of experience with bad behaviors in others so my ability to cope comes from knowledge of self and what being a victim can mean.

[Image: dnw9krH.jpg?4]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2016, 02:44 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(28-01-2016 01:45 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  ...
Again, my apologies.

Accepted.

Thumbsup

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
28-01-2016, 03:10 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(28-01-2016 02:32 PM)Heatheness Wrote:  
(28-01-2016 02:11 PM)unfogged Wrote:  No, I understood that. I'm asking a more general question and in no way implying that the torture has to be the same. I'm asking if there can be a case where a level of torture for the adult being raped would be a lesser evil than the level of (different) torture being done to the child.

Yes, I think it is possible. So many variables there, the acts themselves, the age of the child (which can be sometimes be subjective, a 5yrs old is not the same as a 15yrs old) and age or maturity or mental stability of the adult (I use adult as opposed to woman because anyone can be raped). Too many options to make a specific call.

In that case there is a conceivable situation where rape could be the most morally correct choice. Yes, it would have to be extreme circumstances where all the options are bad but this is why I do not agree that "do not rape" is a moral absolute. The morality of every action is situational. Luckily for most of us those extreme situations are rare and we have the luxury of treating things like "do not rape" as if they were absolutes.

Quote:Now, if you said would I choose rape over allowing someone to hurt/torture a child that would be different but I am not everyone and what I could handle and what someone can handle is not the same. I wouldn't give it a second thought but I have lots of experience with bad behaviors in others so my ability to cope comes from knowledge of self and what being a victim can mean.

I do not disagree with any of that. Choosing to submit to an immoral act to prevent another immoral act is not itself immoral. It can even be admirable.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like unfogged's post
28-01-2016, 08:32 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(28-01-2016 03:10 PM)unfogged Wrote:  In that case there is a conceivable situation where rape could be the most morally correct choice. Yes, it would have to be extreme circumstances where all the options are bad but this is why I do not agree that "do not rape" is a moral absolute. The morality of every action is situational. Luckily for most of us those extreme situations are rare and we have the luxury of treating things like "do not rape" as if they were absolutes.

I disagree on the rape being the most morally correct choice. It might be the less heinous choice but it is never moral. Your words were "lesser evil" I acquiesce to evil, though I don't believe in evil, because I consider you chose that for want of a better word but I will not agree to more or less moral. Both are immoral and that one is more or less heinous might be true, neither are the more or less moral. IMO

[Image: dnw9krH.jpg?4]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-01-2016, 12:13 AM (This post was last modified: 29-01-2016 12:17 AM by DLJ.)
RE: Moral absolutes
(28-01-2016 08:32 PM)Heatheness Wrote:  ...
I disagree on the rape being the most morally correct choice. It might be the less heinous choice but it is never moral. Your words were "lesser evil" I acquiesce to evil, though I don't believe in evil, because I consider you chose that for want of a better word but I will not agree to more or less moral. Both are immoral and that one is more or less heinous might be true, neither are the more or less moral. IMO

My 2 pennies-worth, if you don't might my intrusion...

The word 'absolute' implies a scale. Scale implies gradients.

Absolutely Immoral ------------------------- Morally Neutral ------------------------- Absolutely Moral
-------------------------<------------ Less Moral -------------> <------------ More Moral ------------->-------------------------

Any scale requires an axiology or framework e.g. temperature.

I think you are using Human Well-being as that axiology and you are placing certain acts i.e. rape on the far right of the above diagram.

A nihilist (such as Matt or myself) would argue that given that the universe (or multiverse) doesn't actually give a shit about human well-being (or anything else) it's all kinda meaningless and there are therefore no absolutes.

To avoid the Emo pitfall of despondency, i.e. to find meaning in this mean and meaningless world where life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short", where one accepts nihilism as an 'is', one has to say "Fuck it! How are we best going to live together before the Big Crunch / Heat Death / (pick your preferred end-theory)"... let's invent some 'oughts'.

These 'oughts' have been argued since before Plato (when rape wasn't such a big deal btw ... just property damage) and will continue to be argued over, I hope, until a god shows up or the universe dies.

One can say that rape is objectively wrong but only once a scale of right/wrong (or good/evil or nice/nasty or pleasure/pain etc.) has been established and even then without the benefit of gods or hindsight, we don't actually know for sure.

Who knows, if a male T-rex hadn't been turned on by the smell of his best mate's mate and had his way with her, he might have noticed that small mammal hiding the grass who was our great-great-great... great-great-grand mother.

Again, who knows, maybe in the long run, the planet might have been better off had that mammal been lunch.

Now there's a cheery thought.

Undecided

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like DLJ's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: