Morally Justifiable.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-02-2015, 12:30 PM
RE: Morally Justifiable.
Justifying the morality of actions is a bit of an oxymoron.

If it's immoral - by whatever standards - committing the act is immoral.

The justification comes in DISREGARDING the morality and doing something anyway.

....

And frequently, that's easier than it might seem.

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-02-2015, 11:52 AM
RE: Morally Justifiable.
(20-02-2015 09:58 AM)unfogged Wrote:  I'd probably have to go to some extreme situation like "rape her or these thousand children will die slow, painful deaths" to even begin to consider it justifiable. I'm not sure what it would take for me, but at least in that situation I'd understand how somebody could see it as morally justified.
Reading your posited extreme scenario, I can't help but be put in mind of an edgy British TV series called Black Mirror. In the first episode a terrorist kidnaps a beloved British princess and threatens to kill her horribly unless, by a certain time later that very day, the Prime Minister fucks a pig on national television in such a way that it can't possibly be faked.

Spoiler alert: he ends up doing it and the "terrorist" turns out to be an eccentric "performance artist" bent on creating the ultimate performance art. The princess is released, drugged and shaken but unharmed. The prime minister's wife never sleeps with him again. Sadcryface
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-02-2015, 01:08 PM
RE: Morally Justifiable.
(23-02-2015 11:52 AM)mordant Wrote:  ...
Spoiler alert: he ends up doing it and the "terrorist" turns out to be an eccentric "performance artist" bent on creating the ultimate performance art. The princess is released, drugged and shaken but unharmed. The prime minister's wife never sleeps with him again. Sadcryface

The PM being Cameron and the pig being a metaphor for the country?

Art imitating life.

Consider

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-02-2015, 07:50 PM
RE: Morally Justifiable.
(19-02-2015 11:04 PM)ResistenceXD0001 Wrote:  I want to have an experiment in thought...... There are many things considered morally wrong in our society. I would like each of you, to try and find, in your opinion, a justifiable situation for each of the 3 things i am about to list.

1: Murder. Evil_monster

2: Theft Evil_monster

3: Rape (this one is a tough for me.) Evil_monster

Note: I don't endorse any of the 3 things i just listed.

Ill be very interested in what you guys come up with, CIAO!!

1. In the act of self-defense or in defense of another person who cannot defend them self. As long as the murder is not the instigation, but a response to an act of brutal violence with no other solution possible.

2. Of all the three this is the hardest. The only one I can think of is in the seizure of property if the property itself is stolen. Such as goods being taken by the police from a person who is found to have stolen them. Other than that, it gets very hard. The common argument is if a man is poor and steals for food, but I don't find this as compelling. I've seen stores and businesses go under because of this very problem. Is it moral to deprive a person of their livelihood, and an entire area of a good place to buy food, because a few people view their hunger as a right to steal? The best answer is, "take what you want, and pay for it." If they are willing to accept the consequences of their actions, then they should go ahead.

3. Consensual non-consent. Yes it's a thing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-02-2015, 08:30 PM
RE: Morally Justifiable.
(23-02-2015 07:50 PM)natachan Wrote:  1. In the act of self-defense or in defense of another person who cannot defend them self. As long as the murder is not the instigation, but a response to an act of brutal violence with no other solution possible.
Rolleyes
^^This is not murder. Murder is unlawful and premeditated.

2. Of all the three this is the hardest. The only one I can think of is in the seizure of property if the property itself is stolen. Such as goods being taken by the police from a person who is found to have stolen them. Other than that, it gets very hard. The common argument is if a man is poor and steals for food, but I don't find this as compelling. I've seen stores and businesses go under because of this very problem. Is it moral to deprive a person of their livelihood, and an entire area of a good place to buy food, because a few people view their hunger as a right to steal? The best answer is, "take what you want, and pay for it." If they are willing to accept the consequences of their actions, then they should go ahead.
^^Wow, couldn't disagree more. Your view of theft is very narrow and precise. While I agree someone else shouldn't suffer to alleviate your suffering, I believe your example is too narrow and doesn't consider the spectrum of situations and examples that could arise where this is morally acceptable.

3. Consensual non-consent. Yes it's a thing.
^^Again, I find your answer too off-point. This consensual non-consent is something that is agreed upon as part of a kinky relationship. I believe it's clear what the OP was pushing for when morality was given as the qualifier. No. 3 is easily the most difficult and theft is the easiest to accept. Not sure how you feel differently unless your answer to No. 3 was trivial and an easy out. But real rape is never consensual and never easier than theft when it comes to morality.

Check out my now-defunct atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-02-2015, 08:53 PM (This post was last modified: 23-02-2015 09:13 PM by natachan.)
RE: Morally Justifiable.
(23-02-2015 08:30 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  
(23-02-2015 07:50 PM)natachan Wrote:  1. In the act of self-defense or in defense of another person who cannot defend them self. As long as the murder is not the instigation, but a response to an act of brutal violence with no other solution possible.
Rolleyes
^^This is not murder. Murder is unlawful and premeditated.

2. Of all the three this is the hardest. The only one I can think of is in the seizure of property if the property itself is stolen. Such as goods being taken by the police from a person who is found to have stolen them. Other than that, it gets very hard. The common argument is if a man is poor and steals for food, but I don't find this as compelling. I've seen stores and businesses go under because of this very problem. Is it moral to deprive a person of their livelihood, and an entire area of a good place to buy food, because a few people view their hunger as a right to steal? The best answer is, "take what you want, and pay for it." If they are willing to accept the consequences of their actions, then they should go ahead.
^^Wow, couldn't disagree more. Your view of theft is very narrow and precise. While I agree someone else shouldn't suffer to alleviate your suffering, I believe your example is too narrow and doesn't consider the spectrum of situations and examples that could arise where this is morally acceptable.

3. Consensual non-consent. Yes it's a thing.
^^Again, I find your answer too off-point. This consensual non-consent is something that is agreed upon as part of a kinky relationship. I believe it's clear what the OP was pushing for when morality was given as the qualifier. No. 3 is easily the most difficult and theft is the easiest to accept. Not sure how you feel differently unless your answer to No. 3 was trivial and an easy out. But real rape is never consensual and never easier than theft when it comes to morality.

1. Well then there would be no justification. Ever. The instigation of physical force against another sentient being for any reason is wrong. Period.

2. You and I will just have to disagree on this. While I can empathize with those who seek to alleviate their suffering I don't think harming another to do so is justifiable. And theft, by definition, is harm. And while some loss is expected in any business and the loss of a loaf of bread might be negligible, it still isn't morally justifiable. EDIT: Upon reflection some distinction should be made for "freegans" which is those who take from garbage cans and dumpsters, often from supermarkets. Whether or not this qualifies as theft is questionable. I see nothing wrong with this act, those who cannot otherwise afford the food taking from what is cast off in this way. I dislike waste, and when something is discarded ownership of it is relinquished. So if this qualifies as theft it might be an exception, but this one is rather iffy in if it qualifies or not.

3. Yeah, it was an easy out. And tbh, some of the other responses were just as silly. See my previous answer, the instigation of physical force against any person is wrong for any reason.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-02-2015, 09:19 PM
RE: Morally Justifiable.
(23-02-2015 08:53 PM)natachan Wrote:  
(23-02-2015 08:30 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  

1. Well then there would be no justification. Ever. The instigation of physical force against another sentient being for any reason is wrong. Period.

2. You and I will just have to disagree on this. While I can empathize with those who seek to alleviate their suffering I don't think harming another to do so is justifiable. And theft, by definition, is harm. And while some loss is expected in any business and the loss of a loaf of bread might be negligible, it still isn't morally justifiable. EDIT: Upon reflection some distinction should be made for "freegans" which is those who take from garbage cans and dumpsters, often from supermarkets. Whether or not this qualifies as theft is questionable. I see nothing wrong with this act, those who cannot otherwise afford the food taking from what is cast off in this way. I dislike waste, and when something is discarded ownership of it is relinquished. So if this qualifies as theft it might be an exception, but this one is rather iffy in if it qualifies or not.

3. Yeah, it was an easy out. And tbh, some of the other responses were just as silly. See my previous answer, the instigation of physical force against any person is wrong for any reason.

Well, that's a little better, feels more like an honest answer now to me. With No. 2, again, I think you are being too narrow. Theft doesn't have to be as harmful/narrow as you're making it. But I'm just glad we got to the root of your real answers. Thumbsup

Check out my now-defunct atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-02-2015, 09:34 PM
RE: Morally Justifiable.
(19-02-2015 11:04 PM)ResistenceXD0001 Wrote:  I want to have an experiment in thought...... There are many things considered morally wrong in our society. I would like each of you, to try and find, in your opinion, a justifiable situation for each of the 3 things i am about to list.

1: Murder. Evil_monster

2: Theft Evil_monster

3: Rape (this one is a tough for me.) Evil_monster

Note: I don't endorse any of the 3 things i just listed.

Ill be very interested in what you guys come up with, CIAO!!


1. Murder is the unlawful intent and execution of killing someone. There is no moral justification of murder under any circumstance. There is one small exception, but under these guidelines, we fall into the semantics game of killing vs murder. That is self protection. When being attacked and all other possible outcomes have been exhausted. When killing the other person is the only option, or your or someone else's death will happen as a result of the attempted murder about to take place. That is when it is acceptable. But, killing someone is not quite the same as murder....or is it?

2. Theft is good under the right conditions and depending on the item. Let's say that a small and very violent country ran by a vicious dictator, bent on wiping all life out on the planet if they can. They acquired plans to build nuclear bombs and their soldiers are transporting the plans to a factory to set up making bombs...it is perfectly good to steal said plans from them by any means necessary. Or, if you steal stolen goods from someone who stole them in order to return them to the people who the other thief originally stole them from. OR stealing money from a drug/crime lord.....oh...wait...no...that is not moral or immoral...its just plain stupid.

3. For some unforeseen reason that all life on the entire planet is going to be wiped out, or if the fate of the human species survival depends on that man/woman being raped is somehow in some illogical way I cannot think of the only way to make it happen...go for it...otherwise...never.


My Youtube channel if anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEkRdbq...rLEz-0jEHQ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-02-2015, 09:41 PM
RE: Morally Justifiable.
(23-02-2015 09:34 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  1. Murder is the unlawful intent and execution of killing someone. There is no moral justification of murder under any circumstance. There is one small exception, but under these guidelines, we fall into the semantics game of killing vs murder. That is self protection. When being attacked and all other possible outcomes have been exhausted. When killing the other person is the only option, or your or someone else's death will happen as a result of the attempted murder about to take place. That is when it is acceptable. But, killing someone is not quite the same as murder....or is it?

You're forgetting that is must be premeditated, otherwise it's not murder. And I'll go ahead and disagree with your second sentence. It's the train experiment for me. If I saw a train out of control that is headed for ten innocent people and I could throw the switch and have it kill one person instead I would do it. So, now substitute Hitler in there. I know he is going to kill 6 million people, but if I formulate a plan to murder him and do it, I say it's morally acceptable.

Check out my now-defunct atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-02-2015, 09:51 PM
RE: Morally Justifiable.
Shadow Fox Wrote:2. Theft is good under the right conditions and depending on the item. Let's say that a small and very violent country ran by a vicious dictator, bent on wiping all life out on the planet if they can. They acquired plans to build nuclear bombs and their soldiers are transporting the plans to a factory to set up making bombs...it is perfectly good to steal said plans from them by any means necessary.


I'd like to nitpick this a bit. I don't see this as theft, so much as I see it as an act of self-defense. A vicious dictator has instigated physical force and intends to commit more. The moral action in this case is retaliation and protection. The argument could be made that once the threat of physical force has been made, and once the first act has been committed, that party has forfeited certain rights. We do not condemn a man who takes a gun or knife away from a mugger. Why is this different? The person/agent has forfeited their right to that piece of property the instant they intend to use that object for harm.

Quote: Or, if you steal stolen goods from someone who stole them in order to return them to the people who the other thief originally stole them from. OR stealing money from a drug/crime lord.....oh...wait...no...that is not moral or immoral...its just plain stupid.

On this point I would say that a thief does not gain ownership of the object simply by stealing it. They gain possession of it, and that's a very different concept. I might lend you a pencil say, but I still own that pencil. The confiscation of stolen property from a thief is therefore not theft in the same way. As to the drug lord.... eh. That's just dumb.

Quote:3. For some unforeseen reason that all life on the entire planet is going to be wiped out, or if the fate of the human species survival depends on that man/woman being raped is somehow in some illogical way I cannot think of the only way to make it happen...go for it...otherwise...never

I'm somewhat convinced this is satirical. Even in said situation I would still not say it is morally permissible strictly speaking. It might be forgivable, but that doesn't remove moral culpability. The act is still wrong, even if it is forgivable. Essentially that person becomes a human sacrifice, and that idea is revolting. Honestly if humanity comes to the point where such things are demanded I say it deserves to fade into oblivion.

This also brings up an interesting question I was wondering about that was somewhat related. If a person has an ability that others don't, are they morally obligated to use it? Let's say a man has a gift for mathematics and numbers, but finds their study dull and tedious. Does his gift obligate him to use his abilities, especially since they could give so much aid? Or is he under no obligation?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: