Jump to content

Redross, Examples Of What Is Immoral


KT45
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm just curious. I have no desire to debate you but just to know your thoughts. In another post you said

Like I've said before, societal laws and moral laws are different (even though morals are derived from the need for a sustainable society). And yes, I do think everything is black and white: an act is immoral or it isn't.

 

Can you tell me what you think if the following act is immoral or not? No explaination is needed unless you see fit.

 

my definitions come from dictionary.com. Please base what you feel is immoral or not based on these definitions and not your own.

 

Abortion - Also called voluntary abortion. the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.

 

Hazing - To initiate, as into a college fraternity, by exacting humiliating performances from or playing rough practical jokes upon.

 

Slavery - The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household.

 

Lying - a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.

 

Stealing - To take (the property of another) without right or permission

 

fighting - to engage in battle or in single combat; attempt to defend oneself against or to subdue, defeat, or destroy an adversary.

 

cheating - An act of cheating; a fraud or swindle

 

adultery - voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than his or her lawful spouse

 

Hate - to dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward; detest

 

Envying - a feeling of discontent or covetousness with regard to another's advantages, success, possessions, etc

 

Greediness - excessively or inordinately desirous of wealth, profit

 

gluttony - excessive eating and drinking

 

suicide - a person who intentionally takes his or her own life.

 

doctor assisted suicide

 

masochist - the act of turning one's destructive tendencies inward or upon oneself.

 

Torture - the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.

 

Sacrifice - the offering of animal, plant, or human life or of some material possession to a deity, as in propitiation or homage.

 

Animal Abuse

 

Animal testing

 

Corpral Punishment of kids (Spanking)

 

Beastiality - sexual relations between a person and an animal; sodomy

 

Raising animals soley for the purpose of slaughtering for food

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus, that's a lot of stuff. I won't elaborate too much for now, but if you would like further explanation on some of my choices I'd be happy to give it. By the way, thanks for your interest in my thoughts!

 

Abortion - to quote one of my professors, 'there is no good reason not to abort'. Fetus' do not have moral status so any action performed on them is amoral.

 

Hazing - depends. If the person being hazed knew there was hazing before they joined the organization, then it is amoral. If the hazing was forced upon them (as in some armies) then it would be immoral.

 

Slavery - obviously immoral, unless they're black (just kidding!)

 

Lying - immoral

 

Stealing - obviously immoral

 

Fighting - if consentual or in self-defence, then amoral. If one initiates force without due provocation then it is immoral.

 

Cheating is the same as lying

 

Adultery is immoral in the sense that it's lying, but if the wife consents I see no problem with it.

 

Hate - nothing wrong with it. Think, say, write whatever you want

 

Envy - again, nothing wrong with it

 

Greediness/gluttony - nothing wrong with either

 

Suicide - amoral

 

Masochism - do whatever you want to yourself

 

Torture - if inflicted on someone without moral status, amoral. Otherwise, immoral

 

Sacrifice - if the person is willing, amoral. Otherwise, immoral

 

Animal abuse/testing - I despise both of these. Highly immoral

 

Spanking - within reason, it's ok

 

Beastiality - if it doesn't hurt the animal (if it's a horse or something with a huge vagina) then go for it. If having sex with it will kill or hurt it (in cases of rabbits or cats) then immoral

 

Slaughtering animals for food - depends how the animals are treated. I have a problem with veal, but other than that I'm ok with it.

 

Oh, I don't want a flood of responses from other people bashing me about certain choices in this thread. If you want, start another thread or PM me out of respect for Taylork45 and his thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again this is just discussion

Hazing - depends. If the person being hazed knew there was hazing before they joined the organization, then it is amoral. If the hazing was forced upon them (as in some armies) then it would be immoral.

What about if it is a rite of passage to reach adulthood? (Like on Roots) fWhat if they the victim decides they no longer wish to go through with the hazing but is forced to continue under fear of some threat (from pain to ridicule)

 

Slavery - obviously immoral, unless they're black (just kidding!)
What if it is willing? Like the family needs money so they sell there daughter into slavery and she willingly agrees to be a slave for life.

 

Stealing - obviously immoral
I know this sounds stupid but what about in sports. Stealing a ball, base etc? To be even lamer what about stealing kiss, fries, ideas?

 

Torture - if inflicted on someone without moral status, amoral. Otherwise, immoral
Does the degree of torture come into play? When does someone lose moral status?

 

Animal abuse/testing - I despise both of these. Highly immoral
Does this include so called 'lesser' animals like insects, fish etc?

 

Spanking - within reason, it's ok
can you elaborate on this one please

 

Lying - immoral
Why isn't magic, illusion considered lying even though it's purpose is deceit?

 

Here some more :HaHa: .....

being a traitor - One who betrays one's country, a cause, or a trust, especially one who commits treason.

 

assisted suicide

 

prositution - The act or practice of engaging in sex acts for hire

 

humiliation - The act of humiliating; degradation

 

withholding information (almost lying)

 

seducing - (two definitions) - n 1: enticing someone astray from right behavior 2: an act of winning the love or sexual favor of someone

(I'm trying to get the definition so that it is different than just inticitng attraction. I guess it's causing attraction with an motive other than attempting to establish a relationship or a sexual encounter. Mostly for other gains like taking someone elses partner/spouse just to see if you can.)

 

brainwashing - a method for systematically changing attitudes or altering beliefs, originated in totalitarian countries, esp. through the use of torture, drugs, or psychological-stress techniques

 

sexual harrassment - unwanted sexual advances. (this is immoral to me. But I'm not sure it's immoral when the person doesn't know they are committing sexual harrassment.)

 

scaring - Serving or intended to frighten people

 

imprisioning animals

 

threatening

 

desertion - like deserting a family or the military

 

pedophilia - I ask because it's difficult to determine the line between adult and child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hazing - any act forced upon an individual that causes the individual undue pain is immoral

 

Slavery - then it would be working. A slave implies unwilling

 

Stealing - Really? Bringing up baseball in a moral discussion?

 

Torture - the degree does not come into play. Someone loses moral status when they commit an immoral act

 

Animal testing - this includes all sentient animals

 

Spanking - a few spanks is ok. black eyes and scars are not

 

Lying - the 'victims' are being willfully deceived. I don't think you're actually serious about this discussion with your ridiculous examples.

 

I'm not going to answer your new topics until you explain how you can justify placing baseball and pedophilia in the same ethical discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not going to answer your new topics until you explain how you can justify placing baseball and pedophilia in the same ethical discussion.

This thread was based off of when you called morality black and white. It's basically hard for me to comprehend this method of thinking cause I see things mostly in areas of grey and rarely ever in black and white. To understand your mode of thinking I just basically asked situational question based on morality.

 

In order to do this I asked about different cases of morality. Like for stealing I use obviously ridiculous examples such as baseball. I chose this one becuase it was the first thing that came into my mind when thinking about a case where stealing isn't immoral. There are more I could possibly think of though.

 

I also wanted your thoughts on more serious matters of morality like pedophilia. Why include it with a weaker topic of morality such stealing in baseball? Basically just to learn. I admit I could have probably asked both cases in a more serious tone and I apologize. But the only reason I stick around on this site period is to learn different ideas than the ones feed to me as a christian. Question like how do non christians choose their morals always seem to pop up for me. So basically I'm asking just to learn and I didn't mean to insult your intelligence.

 

Torture - the degree does not come into play. Someone loses moral status when they commit an immoral act
You said that lying is an immoral act. Therefore they lose moral status. Should they be subjected to any degree of torture as well. The punishment doesn't seem to fit the crime

 

From your responses I'm guessing you figure that "cruel and unusual punishment" isn't immoral right?

 

(-EDIT- I just like to clarify that I believe in situational absolutes when it comes to morality. In most situations there are black and white answers about whether an act is morally right or morally wrong. Even so in other situations there are grey areas)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the 'cruel and unusual' punishment topic I haven't figured out yet. I'll admit, I still need to find a way to differentiate between lesser crimes and severe ones.

 

The reason I think in black and white is that I usually think in the hypothetical, the 'big picture' if you will. I think that something is either immoral or it isn't; wrong or not, regardless of context.

 

I will respond to your other examples tomorrow. It's late where I am and I'm tired. I'm glad you weren't insulting me or taking me along for a ride.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that an action is violent or not creates a differentiation between severe crimes and lesser ones.

 

Theft and perjury are non-violent offenses yet should not be condoned. In cases where a violent purposeful action has not occured, a "3 strikes" system could be in play where repeat offenders are given harsher strictures and punishment for their action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will respond to your other examples tomorrow. It's late where I am and I'm tired. I'm glad you weren't insulting me or taking me along for a ride.

Alright. Yeah I'm not taking you for a ride I'm just trying to learn. I just figured that the tone of the conversation wasn't as serious by your comments like....

 

Slavery - obviously immoral, unless they're black (just kidding!)

 

After hearing that I guess I went into an informal discussion mindset without realizing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that an action is violent or not creates a differentiation between severe crimes and lesser ones.

 

Stealing and Dishonesty are non-violent offenses yet should not be condoned. In cases where a violent purposeful action has no occured, a "3 strikes" system could be in play where repeat offenders are given harsher strictures and punishment for their action.

 

Ja, but I still think there should be some way to differentiate them from the rest of society; maybe branding?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ja, but I still think there should be some way to differentiate them from the rest of society; maybe branding?

 

 

Tattoo?

 

Of the mushroom kind?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that an action is violent or not creates a differentiation between severe crimes and lesser ones.

 

Theft and perjury are non-violent offenses yet should not be condoned. In cases where a violent purposeful action has not occured, a "3 strikes" system could be in play where repeat offenders are given harsher strictures and punishment for their action.

Asimov, I believe that sexually related crimes should be in the same category as violent crimes even though they may not cause physical harm. The punishment should be just as severe though. Is it reasonable to think this way? Does the punishment fit the crime in this case?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that an action is violent or not creates a differentiation between severe crimes and lesser ones.

 

Theft and perjury are non-violent offenses yet should not be condoned. In cases where a violent purposeful action has not occured, a "3 strikes" system could be in play where repeat offenders are given harsher strictures and punishment for their action.

Asimov, I believe that sexually related crimes should be in the same category as violent crimes even though they may not cause physical harm. The punishment should be just as severe though. Is it reasonable to think this way? Does the punishment fit the crime in this case?

 

Sexual offenses are violent offenses.

 

Ja, but I still think there should be some way to differentiate them from the rest of society; maybe branding?

 

 

Tattoo?

 

Of the mushroom kind?

 

Ja, with a massive cock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will respond to your other examples tomorrow. It's late where I am and I'm tired. I'm glad you weren't insulting me or taking me along for a ride.

Alright. Yeah I'm not taking you for a ride I'm just trying to learn. I just figured that the tone of the conversation wasn't as serious by your comments like....

 

Slavery - obviously immoral, unless they're black (just kidding!)

 

After hearing that I guess I went into an informal discussion mindset without realizing it.

 

Point taken. I do take this thread seriously (except when I reply to Asimov, although, what he's doing in this thread is beyond me) and I understand where you're coming from. I'll get back to you tomorrow regarding the other topics in the thread, just wanted to make this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was going to go into some kinda counter-situation kind of thing with you but I decided not to. It'll just lead to a debate which I'm not up for at the moment. So instead of that I'm going to generalize why most people don't consider morals absolute. As you have probably seen here most will try to say something that is usually considered immoral and say it can be moral or amoral in certain situations.

 

They usually do this by making the immoral behavior somehow altruistic or assisting in self-preservation. They usually make the immoral act altruistic by giving some over the top, or highly improbable example like "If I don't do X act the world will die". Or they do some an example most people can relate to such as "If I don't do X act, my children or family will die". Or they might do a selfish example like "If I don't do X act, I will die".

 

These extreme examples are used to put people in the mindset that it would be immoral NOT to do an immoral act. These examples might also be used to show conflicting morals. One such example can be a mother who has made it her moral obligation to protect her children. Lets say her children are on the brink of death with starvation. Lets paint this character into a corner so she is faced with the immoral act of just letting her children die, and the immoral act of stealing food. Some would consider it immoral not to steal the food. Others would say that it is immoral to steal the food and that she should let her children die assuming she took every possible morally acceptable action to save her children.

 

This is how I feel most people think when it comes to absolutes. One side thinks one way and the other side doesn't agree. This is why many feel absolutes are subjective. Some people feel fetus' have moral status and some people don't which is why abortion such a hot topic. I guess for me when it comes to the example like I gave above (mother and starving kids) I'd probably see the mother as immoral. My reasoning for doing so would probably be illogical since I can't think of a reason to feel that she is immoral for not stealing. It's probably some hardwired thinking that we are supposed to at least attempt to "preserve the species". I don't know and I can't explain it.

 

When it comes to things like self-preservation I feel that the act is still immoral. I could see myself stealing food so I won't die so that I can fulfill the basic desire to save my own hide. It doesn't make the act right morally but in the end I don't see myself caring.

 

Well I guess my question is can you see yourself doing an immoral act for altruistic purposes or for self-preservation purposes? Should you be consider immoral even if the act save yourself or the lives of others? If you are left with the choice of the greater of two evils (conflicting immoral acts) should you still be considered immoral? Can morals really conflict? Should the mother in my example be punished for saving the lives of her children?

 

Hopefully your response should cover a wide array of any counter example I could think of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was going to go into some kinda counter-situation kind of thing with you but I decided not to. It'll just lead to a debate which I'm not up for at the moment. So instead of that I'm going to generalize why most people don't consider morals absolute. As you have probably seen here most will try to say something that is usually considered immoral and say it can be moral or amoral in certain situations.

 

They usually do this by making the immoral behavior somehow altruistic or assisting in self-preservation. They usually make the immoral act altruistic by giving some over the top, or highly improbable example like "If I don't do X act the world will die". Or they do some an example most people can relate to such as "If I don't do X act, my children or family will die". Or they might do a selfish example like "If I don't do X act, I will die".

 

These extreme examples are used to put people in the mindset that it would be immoral NOT to do an immoral act. These examples might also be used to show conflicting morals. One such example can be a mother who has made it her moral obligation to protect her children. Lets say her children are on the brink of death with starvation. Lets paint this character into a corner so she is faced with the immoral act of just letting her children die, and the immoral act of stealing food. Some would consider it immoral not to steal the food. Others would say that it is immoral to steal the food and that she should let her children die assuming she took every possible morally acceptable action to save her children.

 

This is how I feel most people think when it comes to absolutes. One side thinks one way and the other side doesn't agree. This is why many feel absolutes are subjective. Some people feel fetus' have moral status and some people don't which is why abortion such a hot topic. I guess for me when it comes to the example like I gave above (mother and starving kids) I'd probably see the mother as immoral. My reasoning for doing so would probably be illogical since I can't think of a reason to feel that she is immoral for not stealing. It's probably some hardwired thinking that we are supposed to at least attempt to "preserve the species". I don't know and I can't explain it.

 

When it comes to things like self-preservation I feel that the act is still immoral. I could see myself stealing food so I won't die so that I can fulfill the basic desire to save my own hide. It doesn't make the act right morally but in the end I don't see myself caring.

 

Well I guess my question is can you see yourself doing an immoral act for altruistic purposes or for self-preservation purposes? Should you be consider immoral even if the act save yourself or the lives of others? If you are left with the choice of the greater of two evils (conflicting immoral acts) should you still be considered immoral? Can morals really conflict? Should the mother in my example be punished for saving the lives of her children?

 

Hopefully your response should cover a wide array of any counter example I could think of.

 

This is exactly the problem most people have with moral philosophy; they're too swayed by emotion instead of morality. Sure, it would be horrendous for the mother to let her children starve but, as long as it wasn't done with the intent to kill them via starvation, it would not be immoral. After all, she's going to die from starvation too due to circumstances beyond her control.

 

You're combining a lot of issues and trying to make them one. 1) You're assuming altruism is possible 2) the moral act and what I would do in certain situations are two different things and hold no relevant relation to one another. 3) Morals can't conflict 4) She should be punished for stealing. Punishing someone for saving a life is ridiculous

 

By the way, what the hell is a subjective absolute? I believe morals are subjective in that they don't actually exist in the world (in the way that gravity or people exist) but this is much different than believing morals are relative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is exactly the problem most people have with moral philosophy; they're too swayed by emotion instead of morality. Sure, it would be horrendous for the mother to let her children starve but, as long as it wasn't done with the intent to kill them via starvation, it would not be immoral. After all, she's going to die from starvation too due to circumstances beyond her control.

Thanks this clears things up a bit. I guess your saying no matter how extreme the situation the act is still immoral. Like if for some reason I had to resort to cannibalism and killed someone who was on the brink of death anyway, even though the act might seem reasonable for the situtation it is still immoral correct?

 

You're combining a lot of issues and trying to make them one. 1) You're assuming altruism is possible
interesting, are you saying it doesn't? Explain please.

 

3) Morals can't conflict
What about assualting someone to save their life? Like purposefully injurying someone to save them from a fatal injury. Would it even be assualt in this situation? I can give an example if need be

 

By the way, what the hell is a subjective absolute? I believe morals are subjective in that they don't actually exist in the world (in the way that gravity or people exist) but this is much different than believing morals are relative.

When I say subjective absolute I mean that morals values differ from person to person, but to a particular entity, those morals are absolute or set.

 

Few more questions,

Can self preservation be considered a moral?

 

I was thinking about reading Ayn Rand's book Atlas Shrugged which I guess shows her views of Objectivism. Have the ideals of Objectivism changed significantly since she died? If you read the book would you recommend it?

 

-EDIT-

I would also like your thoughts on vigilantes. Since the person is attacking people who have no moral status then is he immoral?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are correct; the extremity has no influence over the morality/immorality of an act.

 

Altruism is not possible. There is no truly selfless act, although that's not to say there are no good acts or acts of generosity.

 

Morals don't conflict. It wouldn't be assault if you hurt someone by sticking an IV into their arm to save their life. Seriously, can we stay away from the absurd questions?

 

People's conceptions of morality may differ from person to person, but morality does not.

 

Self-preservation is not a moral, it is a motivation for all human action.

 

Me and Asimov have had many arguments when talking about Objectivism because he always uses it in the Randian sense and I always use it in the traditional philosophical sense. Regarding morality, the two senses are very different. Asimov could answer the question regarding her objectivism better than I could.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking about reading Ayn Rand's book Atlas Shrugged which I guess shows her views of Objectivism. Have the ideals of Objectivism changed significantly since she died? If you read the book would you recommend it?

 

It does, but if you want a non-fictional aspect of it you should read her non-fiction.

 

They haven't changed at all. I'd recommend reading anything by Ayn Rand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no further questions and I think I appreciate Objectivism a little more. Thanks for your responses. I'll study Objectivism on my own and pm either you or Asimov if I have questions. I'll be sure to pick up Ayn Rand's books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no further questions and I think I appreciate Objectivism a little more. Thanks for your responses. I'll study Objectivism on my own and pm either you or Asimov if I have questions. I'll be sure to pick up Ayn Rand's books.

 

Cool, but I urge you to read into the difference between Randian objectivism and moral objectivism. Again, thanks for being interested in my thoughts, and remember, there are other ways to think of morality than their application to everyday life.

 

As an aside, what do you believe after all of this? Where does morality come from? What makes an act immoral?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an aside, what do you believe after all of this? Where does morality come from? What makes an act immoral?

I did this without looking anything up so bear with me. Morality basically comes from social contracts. These contracts are used to protect both parties from violating each others persons or property. When one party breaks this contract they lose moral standing.

 

Now I know my definition is far from correct. It doesn't even cover immoral acts like lying or cheating. This is why I'm going to study it further. Am I way off? Should the definition of morality only fit in the basis of societies (my definition doesn't put society into the equation)?

 

Oh and you skipped this question I asked before.

I would also like your thoughts on vigilantes. Since the person is attacking people who have no moral status then is he immoral?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.