Is it ever OK to steal? Katrina vs 8th commandment

[nightflight]

Until one is placed into a life and death, or worse, life without the necessities to sustain life situation, you don't know what the fuck you are capable of doing.

 

Quit the platitudes of "I'd NEVAH" do "something".

 

If it is a choice of having water and food to sustain life and there is none other to obtain for all the gold and guns you have stashed, "stealing" those items otherwise left unsecured is the prudent thing to do.

 

When action is over and you are safe, back on feet, and life is back to whatever may be normal, making amends and paying your "tab" with store management is always an option.

 

Gotta remember folks, its the best option to not to get caught in the disaster zone if at all possible.

 

Piss fucking poor timing to deside minutes into a disaster that your lack of planning needs to be fine tuned.

 

Have a plan, set aside the materials you need to bugout. Own a firearm that you KNOW how to use. Have a place to go. Have your 36-hour bag or box ready.

 

Be responsible for yourself, as the folks from emergency.gov.org don't give a flying fuck about you, save that if you live the disaster, you'll be a drain on their resources.

 

When it happens, be prepared to do what-the-fuck-ever-it-takes to ensure you and your immediate family and circle are able to viably survive.

 

Anything else is sophistry and philosphical whining and bullshit, things that can wait to be talked about long after you and family are safe.

 

A few hours of preparedness helps ensure that you aren't some sheep waiting and bleeeeeeating for rescue..

 

k, Freeman and wolf, L

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

What should be in the 36 hr bag? I bought a backpack, water purification tablets, and bug repellant. What else should I put in there? Is there dried food or something?

[white_raven23]

What should be in the 36 hr bag?  I bought a backpack, water purification tablets, and bug repellant.  What else should I put in there?  Is there dried food or something?

 

Depends very much on your environment.

 

The 36 hour bag (or bug-out bag) is not meant for long term survival. This is not your stash (you need one of those too). This is the bag meant to get you to YOUR stash (as opposed to the lovely and effective shelter systems provided by gov'mentals. See NO stadium to know what I mean). You will find that very few emergency situations happen when you are conveniently close to your stash. That's what the bag is for. It goes damn near everywhere with you (I keep mine in the car).

 

Someone earlier mentioned that 36 hours was not sufficient, but I think they were rolling the 36-hour bag and the stash into one concept. You have to be real though. No way can you carry two or three weeks of provisions on your person. First it's too much for effective mobility. Second, everyone who sees you know you've got lots of shit they can kill you for.

 

The best 36 hour bag is a backpack. One that you can easily strap to yourself and possibly even hide under a big coat. Depending on where you live, you might need 2 bugout bags. One each for the opposing seasonal extremes in your area.

 

I think the easiest way to figure out what you need (as opposed to some list in a book, though those are good to look at too) is to spend your entire weekend (48 hours) away from home, with a car full of what you think you need. A good camping trip will do it. The main activity for the trip is hiking. Try to hike all day. Make a note of everything you use on the trip, Including clothes. Make a second note for all the things you didn't use. And a third note for everything you really needed but didn't bring.

 

The two useful notes (you know which ones) are going to mostly be things intended for the bugout bag. Try to pare it down more (needs go in the bag, not wants). And find compact representations of everything on the list.

 

Remember this bag is meant to get you to your stash. It is necessities only. If you can make the bag itself look like total crap, all the better. Avoid camo, or military looking stuff. You don't want to look noticably any different from the rest of the poor screaming souls around you, or they will take your shit.

[Guest Joseph]

What should be in the 36 hr bag?  I bought a backpack, water purification tablets, and bug repellant.  What else should I put in there?  Is there dried food or something?

 

http://www.survival-center.com/dl-list/dl11-ess.htm

 

{Edited for length and content...}

1. A MAP of the area you will be hiking, canoeing, or camping should be detailed enough so that you can find man-made items like trails, unimproved roads, power lines, etc., and natural features such as rivers, streams, hills and other terrain land marks that will guide you. A U.S Geological Survey Topographical map has all of these features and more. For an index to topo maps in your home state contact: U.S. Geological Survey, Map Distribution Section, Federal Center, Box 25286, Denver, CO 80225; (303) 236-7477. A 365 page book titled, The Map Catalog, (Every kind of map and chart on Earth and even some above it), is available from: High Country Enterprise, P.O. Box 746, Saguache, CO 81149; (719) 655-2432.

 

2. A map without a COMPASS is almost useless unless you possess a sixth sense in direction finding. I prefer the liquid filled "Silva" or "Suunto" compasses. These have straight edges that are useful in plotting bearings. Military lensatic compasses are more bulky and don't have a clear base making map reading through the compass impossible. With both map and compass you should be able to "orient" the map by lining up magnetic north on the compass with the magnetic north arrow printed on the map. Once you do this, you'll be able to identify terrain features and plot your course.

 

3. Be sure that the FLASHLIGHT you bring doesn't have a switch that is easily turned on and off. ...bring a spare bulb and spare alkaline batteries just in case.

 

4. ...SUNGLASSES

 

5. EXTRA FOOD and WATER. Water purification tablets might help you use other water sources. As far as food, some hikers throw cans of sardines or tuna fish into their packs knowing that they wouldn't eat it unless there was an emergency. Normal trail foods (dried fruits, nuts, and granola) should be eaten at regular intervals to resupply the body with energy. Pemmican is one of the most concentrated high energy foods you can carry.

 

6. Once again, the EXTRA CLOTHING you bring is determined by the time of the year and the weather. ...but if you will be in extreme mountain conditions, a bivouac sack, insulation pad, and a winter sleeping bag may be the only thing that will save you should the weather go bad. In normal conditions you should at least throw a metalized space blanket into your kit. This with a poncho can be used to rig up an improvised lean-to shelter. Tape the space blanket to the poncho for support, tie the poncho to trees to form a lean-to and then build a fire in front. The space blanket will reflect the heat of the fire back on to you.

 

7. Expensive WATERPROOFED MATCHES have always seemed a little too gimmicky for my taste. Strike anywhere wood matches are a lot cheaper and can be stored in a waterproof container such as an empty plastic 35mm film can.

 

8. FIRESTARTERS. In this category you can include a regular paraffin candle (store inside a plastic bag so it doesn't melt in your pack), commercial firestarter tablets, Sterno, or my favor ite - Hexamine tablets that are available at most Army/Navy surplus stores. Hexamine tablets won't evaporate like Trioxane Fuel Bars do when the wrapper is ripped, and come six tablets to a small cardboard tube.

 

A firestarter is used only when conditions make it difficult to start a fire. Preparation is the key to fire building. You need plenty of kindling sticks or pieces of wood split thin with your knife to make the larger diameter branches catch. Most people begin their fires with inadequate supplies of tinder and kindling and are frustrated when they can't get a three inch thick log to catch fire.

 

9. A POCKET KNIFE is your most important 10 essentials item. Among other things it helps in first aid, food preparation, and fire building. As long as you have a knife you can make fire. Striking steel on any flint-like rock will produce sparks that can catch fire in carefully prepared tinder and kindling - materials you have gathered and prepared using the knife. More elaborate versions of pocket knives contain a treasure chest of useful tools: saws, tweezers, scissors, screwdrivers, awls, toothpicks, can openers, etc A good Swiss Army knife will bring out the MacGyver in all of us. Don't forget this item!

 

10. A FIRST AID KIT really isn't one item but a collection of items that can contain the bare minimum of bandaids, aspirin, and iodine or on the other extreme contain suture kits, chemically activated cold packs and prescription drugs. This is where you will have to really do some customizing and personalizing. I store my first aid items in a plastic Zip Loc bag so that I can see everything inside and protect them from the weather. Along with an assortment of bandaids, gauze pads, and Steri-Strips, are the following: insect repellent, sunscreen, lip balm with SPF 21, triple antibiotic ointment, small bottle of Hibiclens Surgical Scrub, Aspirin, Diasorb tablets for diarrhea, Actifed (decongestant), Bonine (motion sickness), and Benadryl (antihistamine). Other items that are helpful are: a needle for splinter extraction, moleskin or Spenco Second Skin for blisters, Ace bandage, small needle-nose pliers, single-edge razor blades, and Calamine cream for insect bites.

 

These are the bare bottom needs. The better prepared the better you are.

 

Oh, almost forgot:

 

{...from same sit...}

The "11th" item of the 10 essentials most people carry is toilet paper. Other "essentials" I bring include: an Air Force type signal mirror, 50 feet of parachute cord, mini-Leatherman tool, and plastic fluorescent marking tape for trail marking. You might want to add a pocket signal flare and other items such as a smoke generator for signaling.

 

If you ever go anywhere tell more than two people where you are going (specific as possible), when you will be there, and exactly when you plan to get back. Also make certain that you have a "check in time" so they know if/when you are over-due. Under such circumstances as a bad fall and/or injury you can go past the golden hour before anyone even knows you are missing. Another great rule of thumb is to never hike, climb, surf, scuba, et al. alone.

 

Learning CPR and First Aid should be primary on anyone's list. I have been in a crowd of people when someone goes "out" like a light and been the only person to react. It is a sad state of affairs that the majority of the US is nothing but sheep today.

 

There is the "top 100 list" out there someplace but I'm too lazy to look it up, it goes far beyond the top 10 item list of course and is for more long term survival purposes.

 

I got over it and added this in an edit:

 

"THE BIG LIST"

 

http://www.survival-center.com/dl-list/dl14-asg.htm

 

There is NOTHING like having a good knife, medium size. I've always thought that I could get fire and food with nothing but a good hardy sharp knife. It wouldn't be easy, I'd hate to be in that situation, but the most valued thing to me in any "kit" that I make is a good knife and that is why I always pack a few of them (one could break or get dropped in a river or other unplanned loss).

[Amethyst]

Try have supplies on hand for five to seven days.

 

Ditto.

 

I've got enough canned food to keep me alive for a week. We don't get hurricanes in MN, but we do get blizzards in the winter. Not that I'm terribly worried, and I'll eat the soup up anyway.

 

I would also add an extra blanket, depending on where you live and the time of year. Also, any extra medication you may need, even if it's OTC stuff. I would also add a book to read to keep myself calm, and lots of extra batteries for a flashlight.

[Guest Joseph]

Fyrefly wrote:

So you're calling me a moron all because I was raised with some decent morals?

 

You do not have decent morals. Far from it you are no better than the absolutist nazi views of past peoples who would not question their world views strict morality systems simply because they were taught not to. You are akin to the very moron who runs this country who on the news could not understand the difference between a looter and someone taking food for survival.

 

You do not have decent morals, nor do you operate under a functioning morality system. Your world view is binary, and thus is flawed because of the relative continuum based reality you live within. Things are not absolutely good nor absolutely evil, things are good based upon point of view and bad/evil based upon point of view. Circumstances and justifications exist for almost any action you can think of including some of the most horrific. Because your world view does not allow for such an understanding you are as a child looking into a black and white picture who lives in a world of color. You can not make sense of thousands of things because you can not fit them into your world system.

 

I would suggest you look beyond your enculturated biased and utterly moronic moral system and unto perhaps a more relativistic system of morality. One that works on levels beyond "black and white" or perhaps "good and evil." Because you can not classify all actions as one or the other, neither does reality fit into such a shoe-horned ideological stance.

 

You do not practice decent morals standards. You practice a moral system that is doomed to fail you repeatedly, one inwhich you would label the innocent as guilty of a crime, and one inwhich egotism runs rampant upon your mind. It would do you greatly to look beyond such injustice ideas and toward a moral system that rightly describes the world you exist within.

 

That's rich. That's really fucking rich. Are you going to call the other person who voted the same as me a moron as well?

 

Asshole.

 

If they voted for Bush then yes I would.

As for me being an asshole I suppose that I came off as one, but at least I'm not the moron with the binary moral system in a relativistic continuum based reality.

 

You Poor Idiot.

 

Just to clarify my point, I will use a simple example.

 

Temperature is discussed by a child as "hot and "cold." The adult knows that "hot" and "cold" do not in reality exist. Temperature runs along a continuum. While 98F is hot to many humans, it may not be to another species. In fact if a human was getting out of a hot steam, 98F might actually feel cold relative to the temperature he came from. This relative continuum based reality is the existence we are under. It works for almost anything you can think of. Light and the degree of it is along a continuum. What is "bright" for one person may simply be due to their exposure level at any given time. That we have "bright" and "dark" is not actually what exists. Light exists along a relative continuum, in varying degrees. "Bright" doesn't even really exist but is a term used by us as a concept of "this amount of light is uncomfortable." But "bright" for a concept is not set in stone, it is a relativistic term also based upon the continuum. Take for example if you just came out of a dark movie theatre. What is bright to you is not bright to someone who has been outside all the while.

 

Morality follows such a relativistic continuum system as well. In order to have an absolute statement about a given act we would need to describe every single point of view and bring them down to a single viewpoint and then have that viewpoint be the soul viewpoint. Such is not possible in a world of biased viewpoints, enculturated viewpoints, and imperfect knowledge viewpoints. Moral systems which attempt to place binary values upon reality fail completely in their description of what exists.

 

For example: A mother is with child. She has cancer. She can take the cancer treatment and save her life (killing the child) or she can not take the cancer treatment and have the child (killing herself as the cancer will then be too far along). Under a binary moral system you have a shutdown. A gray area which should not (and thus can not) exist. Under such a moral system, they ignore such instances outright because it can not be classified. Under a moral relativistic continuum based moral system it is simply put that the mother's life comes before any fetus life and it is the mother's choice to determine which life she wants to continue. Under such a system the relative evil of each act, and the relative good of each act is taken into concideration before any act is judged...and the decision of the woman is held to be a relative correct action, no matter which she chooses due to it being her body.

 

There are various points inwhich a binary moral system fails. The above is just one example. The Ten Commandments were not written on a binary scale nor were they meant to be placed in such a moral world view. The law reads, "thou shalt not murder" under original translation. The "absolutist" idea of "not kill" was a mistranslation of the King Jame's version. Due to this example, the absolutist (binary moralist) has a problem even claiming that the Biblical record calls for a binary moral system....because it does not.

 

Morality is a relativistic continuum based system in order to work in our relative reality as presented to our minds by our language systems (which many times attempt to instill a binary thought system due to language's biases: hot/cold, up/down, left/right). What if I told you that "up" does not even exist? Don't believe me? Point "up." Now, think of a person on the exact opposite side of the Earth at this moment. Which way is up? Do you have the egotism within you to claim that only your "up" is the correct "up?" If not I have just demonstrated that concepts are built upon relative viewpoint...and you just moved beyond a binary system into a world view which will fit much more easily into reality as it is presented to us.

[Kalidasa]

Ever speed?  Ever go through the yellow light when you could have stopped?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't have my licence, hence I don't drive. But even if I did, I wouldn't do either.

 

And Joseph/Clergicide? Fuck both of you. I don't come here to be insulted.

[Guest Joseph]

I don't have my licence, hence I don't drive. But even if I did, I wouldn't do either.

 

And Joseph/Clergicide? Fuck both of you. I don't come here to be insulted.

 

Well, you might not come here for it but it sure is fun to freely supply it for you...

 

Oh, and [sarcasm]nice response to any of my arguments....[/sarcasm]

 

[white_raven23]

And Joseph/Clergicide? Fuck both of you. I don't come here to be insulted.

 

Joseph's piece above yours was a really good one. Very well thought out. I don't think he's trying to insult you, merely point out a different point of view. His post was meant to provoke thought and consideration. A challenge to see a wider view beyond moral absolutes.

 

You may not come here to be insulted, but we learn the most about things we like the least.

 

Moral absolutes have a nasty "dark side" to them. It is wise to consider that now before life events force you to make that consideration later. It could make future decisions easier to live with, you never know.

[Clergicide]

I don't have my licence, hence I don't drive. But even if I did, I wouldn't do either.

 

And Joseph/Clergicide? Fuck both of you. I don't come here to be insulted.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well fuck you and everyone who thinks like you.

 

You didn't bother to refute my observation, so I have to assume you would allow, or at least think you would allow, another to die to avoid stealing. You should read Joseph's post again, as it was an excellent discourse on moral relativism. You will find situations in life that are not black and white, you may even find choices that require you to choose the lesser of two evils. Put the banana down for a sec and really think about the examples he presented. I will even present a couple more:

 

Read the news paper and check out the courts section and try to find two cases where people committed the same crime. I suspect you will find that in a great many cases, though the case was the same, the judgement was very different. Ask yourself why that is.

 

America was founded by law-breakers. All of the founding fathers were guilty of high treason. Had the British ever arrested them they'd have been sent back to England for a, likely horrible, public execution. In your myopic view of morality there doesn't seem to be any room for that sort of revolution. But you must clearly see where British law had to be abandoned for the liberty and happiness of the colonists, they were acting on their own higher sense of morality. And if you can't, then may God render you sterile.

 

I have a feeling that even though your brain seems to stall-out on questions like this, if you were ever put in a situation that required you to compromise your misguided morality in order to do a greater good, you would do so.

[☆ TexasFreethinker ☆]

Things are not absolutely good nor absolutely evil, things are good based upon point of view and bad/evil based upon point of view.  Circumstances and justifications exist for almost any action you can think of including some of the most horrific. 

I think there are moral absolutes, however they are applied to each situation based on its circumstances. It is the cirumstances, not a personal point of view, in my opinion, that determines whether or not any specific act is moral.

 

In other words, it's too broad a statement to say that "stealing is immoral". Instead you must take a look at the circumstances around a specific act of stealing to determine whether or not it was moral. And, point of view (assuming that means an individual's personal opinion that could be based on any number of factors) should not come into play. Instead, there are moral principles that must be applied that will determine the morality or immorality of the specific act.

 

You can get into trouble by saying that point of view is what determines morality, because everyone has a different point of view. However, there are principles to which most people can agree, such as "it's wrong for someone who has plenty to take something they don't need", or "it's ok for someone who needs something to survive to take it as long as they're not taking it from someone else who needs the same thing to survive." These principles are at a much more granular level than "thou shalt not steal". When these principles conflict in a situation, fair and impartial judges can make determinations about the morality of an act.

 

Using principles such as these, each specific action taken by an individual can then be judged to be moral or immoral.

[Guest Joseph]

I think there are moral absolutes,

 

Name a single one.

 

After you have spent the greater part of a day and/or week trying to conditionalize a statement in order for it to become "absolute" in all given circumstances of that act, then you will realize that there are no absolutes and all acts are relative and are judge relatively.

 

For this very reason, law is inherently injust [it can not take account for all circumstances surrounding any given act] and must be guided by thinkers who look above it to gain a sense of what the spirit of it [law] meant to bring about.

 

however they are applied to each situation based on its circumstances.

 

An absolute is not applied relatively. Then you fall back into a philosophical oxymoronic statement.

 

Circumstances are judged relatively, we even conceptualize our world in a relative way due to the language systems we use. When we see a given act we do not see it outside of time and space and without reflecting upon other acts, that a given action was inherently evil. We say that a supposed act was more or less evil/good than another act. For such reasons our laws are extremely broadly written and are then brought into specific focus by the courts. You should not kill, becomes you should not murder, becomes conditionalized by more circumstances than I care to count (self defense, protecting an innocent third party, fleeing felon using deadly force to escape, and so on and so forth). For every single supposed "absolute idea" given to mankind it is nothing more than a relative viewpoint based idea which has been conditionalized so that the majority of humans agree with it. Whether in fact it is an absolute is not the case (it isn't)...unless you mean to base you idea of morality upon social majority rule, scarey.

 

Most people think that the moral systems can be very easily described and yet forget the complexity of situations that present themselves in our reality. Think for instance that we would normally choose to save the "most life" in any given natural disaster. Now you are given the case inwhich you can save a 1000 of one people or 100 of another. Instantly we decide to save the 1000, because that is 900 more lives to be saved. But what of the quality of life that you save? What if the 100 are people who benefit mankind while the 900 are serial killers? Who then decides which is the correct group to save? You? Me? The government? Is 900 serial killers death worth it to save 100 productive citizens? What if the 100 is all male and the 900 is half and half. Reverse that, the 100 is half and half and the 900 is all male? Is survival of the species to rule morality also? How many conditionalizations would it take to gain a viewpoint which we can agree upon?

 

How do you relate such ideas together in order to gain a moral stance?

Philosophical Moral Relativity because there are no moral absolutes to pull from.

 

Many Christians (and other faithful for that matter) attempt to place absolutes upon our reality. I have yet to read a single one that held especially in light that their own guidelines are not absolutes. None follow the entire levitical law through some way of saying that an absolute law can be over-ruled later on by their man-god. By definition an absolute law would stand forever. Many even do not realize the relative nature of the ten commandments. Remember that the ten commandments found in the KJV version are mistranslated.

 

It is the cirumstances, not a personal point of view, in my opinion, that determines whether or not any specific act is moral.

 

I want you to realize how silly a statement that is, and just so you will "get" it I will type it as a proof:

 

-It is the circumstances

-not personal view

-in my opinion (AKA: from my point of view)

-that determines whether or not any specific act is moral.

 

Your statement destroyed itself.

Very funny.

 

In other words, it's too broad a statement to say that "stealing is immoral". Instead you must take a look at the circumstances around a specific act of stealing to determine whether or not it was moral.

 

Once you take into account the "circumstances around a specific act of stealing" in order to "determine whether or not it was moral" I would like to know exactly what absolute rule you used in order to judge these circumstances and/or if you simply would relate the surrounding circumstances to other events and/or ideas you hold and then apply your biased personal viewpoint to it in order to make a judgement call...which in the end is not absolute by any degree but merely a personal opinion, like all morality is.

 

And, point of view (assuming that means an individual's personal opinion that could be based on any number of factors) should not come into play.

 

Please explain to me very clearly how you remove personal opinion from an opinion based relative system?

 

Instead, there are moral principles that must be applied that will determine the morality or immorality of the specific act.

 

No there are not.

 

There are personal opinions which are applied egotistically as moral absolute statements without actually being moral absolutes by people who can not either conceptualize and/or will not address the relative reality they exist under. This does not make their moral systems absolute, does not mean that moral principles exist any more than another person's biased ideas, nor does it mean that their principle is any more or less moral than another person. In order to make a value judgement upon a moral standard you must pick a world view and judge it from within that world view, and by doing so you have taken a side and by doing so are inherently biased (as all world views are due to social enculturation).

 

That you see a given act as immoral is not because of some moral principle being applied, it is because you made a personal value judgement from within your relative world view, nothing more.

 

An absolutist might say that anyone who burns children alive should be killed.

 

As a US citizen you have been responsible (by your tax dollars) of burning hundreds of thousands of children to death in war.

 

By such reasoning under an absolutist code, you should be killed.

 

Under a relative system, "screw you...we are the strongest, shut up or die.

Might may not make right, but might wins and writes the history books and thus defines the "relative right."

 

If you want to get down to the simplest of terms, nature, there is no rule other than might wins ("might" could be strength, an adaptation, and/or ability to out-think or out-plan, and more).

 

Our moral systems are nothing more than evolved supersitions which attempt to instill in us a sense of social mind (pack mind) so that we get along in groups. It is a move of this very mind from "self identity" to "pack identity" which allows for self sacrifice in order to protect the group. That these have been written down in our language systems just goes to show the failures of these systems to actually describe our reality. They are nothing more than assumed axioms without basis, but then again what isn't?

 

I challenge anyone to attempt to create a moral system without assumed axioms, I do not think anyone here could beat Kant...and even he had to have them.

 

But I do not wish to destroy all moral systems, merely to demonstrate the utter relative nature of any which you decide to use.

 

You can get into trouble by saying that point of view is what determines morality, because everyone has a different point of view.

 

And every single person on the Earth (and any sentient self aware social life elsewhere) has different ideas about morality due to their different points of view. That we agree upon some moral standards does not make them absolute in nature, in humanity, or even over social ideas. In fact, most laws of the US would not work in other places while Islamic law would fail horribly in the US. If moral absolutes exist then why such differing ideas of justice which are based upon nothing more than enculturation? Such a fundamental thing, "justice," you would think that mankind could come to an over-reaching idea about it, and we can't.

 

The Christian claims I have to believe in a murdered son who vicariously died for me in order to have salvation.

 

From my point of view, this is an attrocity commited by mankind and allowed by their god, that of the killing of an innocent man. My sense of justice does not allow another to take my place nor would I ask him to do such, nor would I allow such. Nor would I allow the idea that temporal actions be held against me eternally...their entire system is based upon injustice.

 

Morality is nothing but relative viewpoint based, my viewpoint of this topic is not absolute nor is theirs. Mine is based upon reason and logic more-so than accepting blind-faith demands of a supposed god, but that is for another discussion entirely.

 

However, there are principles to which most people can agree, such as "it's wrong for someone who has plenty to take something they don't need",

 

Conditionalized statements just go to prove my point more-so than disprove them. You are attempting to draw up an absolute idea based upon a relative language system by conditionalizing us all into a single viewpoint. Thus under such actions you have demonstrated my point...which is that only when there is "one viewpoint" could an absolute exist. Saddly mankind does not agree with you. The rich have plenty of money, and they continue to take more and more. And it is not only seen as moral in America, it is the standard by which everyone is judge (success).

 

or "it's ok for someone who needs something to survive to take it as long as they're not taking it from someone else who needs the same thing to survive."

 

I disagree entirely with your statement here.

If it is between my family and your family guess which one I would be taking from and giving to?

 

If it is between me and you, who would I be taking from and giving to?

 

Thus, from my point of view, survival dictates that it is entirely moral that I take from someone who needs something to survive in order to protect my own survival. Otherwise I would simply have to make the decision to roll over and die (which I'm certain some may as self sacrifice does take place).

 

These principles are at a much more granular level than "thou shalt not steal".

 

Your principles only hold so long as you aren't the one starving, needing air, and/or fleeing a burning building. At such a point I doubt you would be thinking about taking a place in line from another person and/or eating the last fruit cup buddy.

 

When these principles conflict in a situation, fair and impartial judges can make determinations about the morality of an act.

 

Show me a fair and impartial judge, and I'll eat him.

We are inherently biased by our society, our laws, our lives, our religions, our world views, our cultures.....impartial my ass.

 

Using principles such as these, each specific action taken by an individual can then be judged to be moral or immoral.

 

UNDER A BIASED POINT OF VIEW WHICH LEADS US TO NOTHING MORE THAN PHILOSOPHICALLY RELATIVE MORALITY SYSTEMS BASED UPON THE CONTINUUM BASED REALITY WE EXIST WITHIN.

 

Your morality system is like a ladder without sides. Perfectly fine until you try to see what is holding up the ends, then you realize the arbitrary nature of it all as it crashes around you.

 

Here is the morality system that most live by:

 

For me and mine I will attempt to do what I believe is a relative good in my intentions, despite what that means for others of other peoples/species.

 

Prove me wrong.

[☆ TexasFreethinker ☆]

I think there are moral absolutes

 

Name a single one.

 

I think you missed my point. It's true that there are few, if any, moral absolutes that can be condensed into a concise commandment, but any specific act with its accompanying circumstances can be judged to be moral or immoral, and it should not depend on a personal point of view to make that determination - that's what makes it an absolute.

 

One moral absolute that might be condensable and applicable to all situations is "gratuitous torture of a human (torture for no purpose but the pleasure of the torturer) is morally wrong". Another moral absolute might be "rape of a baby by an adult is morally wrong", although I'd be open to hearing of circumstances that you think would make either of these moral.

 

Aren't you suggesting a moral system where one single act by a person at a point in time can be judged by some to be moral and by others to be immoral? In other words, aren't you suggesting that to determine that any act is moral just requires finding someone with the "right" point of view?

 

The science of morality is a fairly new field, but already there are some good ideas such as Firth's Ideal Observer Theory. His theory and others are based on the concept of moral facts that can be applied to individual circumstances by an observer who is fully informed and completely unbiased. Of course those are qualities that no person will ever hold fully, but provide a mechanism for judging which acts are moral and which aren't.

 

Your statement destroyed itself.

Very funny.

<snip>

Prove me wrong.

 

Why the bravado and insults? Is this not something that you can discuss in a civil manner without attempting to belittle what others say or resorting to demands to be proven wrong? This is an area of science that is fairly new and there are many competing ideas about the development of a secular morality within a scientific framework. We should be able to discuss those ideas without taking offense at what others may think.

[Clergicide]

One moral absolute that might be condensable and applicable to all situations is "gratuitous torture of a human (torture for no purpose but the pleasure of the torturer) is morally wrong".  Another moral absolute might be "rape of a baby by an adult is morally wrong", although I'd be open to hearing of circumstances that you think would make either of these moral.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

gratuitous torture of a human: If the act took place in an S&M parlor with consenting adults.

 

rape of a baby by an adult: Insanity/Retardation in the adult would possibly negate their own morality, the objective observer would see it as immoral. In a cult or religious environment if this was considered a sacrement then they certainly wouldn't find it immoral.

[☆ TexasFreethinker ☆]

gratuitous torture of a human: If the act took place in an S&M parlor with consenting adults.

 

rape of a baby by an adult: Insanity/Retardation in the adult would possibly negate their own morality, the objective observer would see it as immoral.  In a cult or religious environment if this was considered a sacrement then they certainly wouldn't find it immoral.

I'll reword the first to be more clear on what I meant. "Nonconsensual gratuitous torture of a human."

 

As for the second, I don't think that insanity or retardation of the adult involved would make the act moral. It could be a mitigating circumstance that would remove or diminish the punishment handed out. And the religious sacrament example helps illustrate what I'm saying. If morals were based on points of view, then anything could be made moral since you'll always be able to find someone with that point of view. With moral absolutes, tho, that's not the case. It wouldn't matter that a religious group thought it was moral to rape babies - the act would still be immoral based on the Ideal Observer Theory.

[Guest Joseph]

I think you missed my point.  It's true that there are few, if any, moral absolutes that can be condensed into a concise commandment, but any specific act with its accompanying circumstances can be judged to be moral or immoral,

 

Only from a personal viewpoint. Which is relative and biased. And arbitrary. NOT absolute in nature what-so-ever.

 

...and it should not depend on a personal point of view to make that determination - that's what makes it an absolute. 

 

Your premise does not support your conclusion. When you draw up your "concise commandment" all you have done is attempt to generate within mankind a singular viewpoint, which never really exists. And thus such a viewpoint is never an absolute statement of morality, but is relative to a person accepting the viewpoint you are attempting to force upon them by the conditionalizations you have used.

 

Your proofs only demonstrate the existence of relative viewpoints and an attempt to reduce those viewpoints through conditionalizations. By doing so you do not support absolutes at all, but relative viewpoints which you attack in order to force a singular viewpoint which in fact do not exist. The only absolutes that might exist is a singular guy born alone on an island by himself who never, ever meets another person. What he says, does, and thinks is an absolute. Until/when he meets another person of course. Then his ideas are nothing more than one of two...and NOT absolute in nature what-so-ever.

 

One moral absolute that might be condensable and applicable to all situations is "gratuitous torture of a human (torture for no purpose but the pleasure of the torturer) is morally wrong".

 

Gratuitous toreture of a human is many times carried out by people for pleasure. S&M comes to mind but I think another poster pointed that out. Needless to say all you are doing is proving my point for me. You are attempting to conditionalize your relative statement to the degree that a reasonable person of like social and/or religious background might agree with you that your point of view is moral. That you even get me to agree that a given act is "moral" from my viewpoint is meaningless. UNLESS of course you are of the school of thought that believes that morality is dictated by the majority rule. That would in fact be immoral from my standpoint, and the argument therefore falls a part on itself, a relative statement of built up conditionals which attempt to decrease the various viewpoints to a singular viewpoint and by some form of magic claim an absolute is created/generated while ignoring the thousands of other variables and viewpoints which might exist.

 

Another moral absolute might be "rape of a baby by an adult is morally wrong", although I'd be open to hearing of circumstances that you think would make either of these moral.

 

Sure, lets say you are under the religious system of the worshipers of Magog. While they didn't rape their children they did make them pass through the fire alive (which killed them). Under their system of morality it was a relative blessing upon the child to die for their god under such a sacred act. That you see this as "immoral" relative to your moral system means little in the end...it merely means that you were not enculturated into that system and are judging it from a different system of morality. It does not mean that their system is less or more moral than yours or yours is more or less than theirs. It is arbitrary lines drawn upon axioms which in actuality do not exist.

 

I'll give you a modern day example.

People sit in their holy places and eat the flesh and drink the blood of a man each Sunday. It is a highly sacred and holy act, one which you can not even take part in unless you follow that respective church's creed. From within this system it is a highly holy and extremely venerated act. From without it is a barberic act of human cannibalism and the veneration of the torture of a man unto death and then feasting upon his flesh and blood.

 

Which of these viewpoints of this act is absolutely right? Moral? Just?

Who gets to decide and why does that person get to make such an "absolute" claim or is it simply egotism on either side that allows them to label the actions of "another" as a relative evil from their viewpoint and by such call/label it deviant?

 

Aren't you suggesting a moral system where one single act by a person at a point in time can be judged by some to be moral and by others to be immoral?

 

Again, any given act is moral and immoral based on viewpoint.

 

Burning children alive would seem to be immoral and most people would stand up and say "that is something a person should be put to death for."

 

America's entire population would need to be put to death if such an absolutist ideal were accepted.

 

Let us take an example from history.

 

From the viewpoint of America, the events of 9-11 and the fall of the world trade center was one of the gravest events of our history. The deaths of relative innocents in a war they were not even involved in done by religious fanatics for a false god.

 

From the viewpoint of an average Muslim, the events of 9-11 and the fall of the world trade center was one of the greatest victories against the great Satan there has ever been. The deaths of pagans and infidels guilty of sending their soldiers to exploit their lands and rule their people from far away in the name of the most High and Holy God Allah.

 

Which viewpoint do you take?

Why?

Which is the correct viewpoint?

 

Say you die and you meet Allah?

You'd feel pretty fucking stupid wouldn't you?

 

Say you die and you meet the Hebrew God of the Jews.

You'd feel pretty fucking stupid wouldn't you?

 

Viewpoints are not something to base a moral system upon...but it is all we have. And that is why there is no such thing as a non-continuum based moral system. They are all arbitrary lines drawn in the sand, meaningless outside vast focusing variables and specific viewpoints with large/enormous histories, cultural, biographical, religious, and/or other things which cause bias.

 

In other words, aren't you suggesting that to determine that any act is moral just requires finding someone with the "right" point of view?

 

Yep.

 

We come upon a world inwhich sex for the male of the species is extremely painful (some even die during it). It is socially acceptable that women rape men in this world in order to have children. The Christian missionaries take off and go to tell the "absolute idea" that rape is "always wrong" and within a few tens of years the culture is destroyed. After a few hundreds of years...the entire population of a once great world are almost totally gone.

 

Who was wrong in this event?

Why?

Why did you say that?

What if genocide is ok because nature allows for it?

Who are you to decide that genocide is wrong? Would you practice genocide in a war order to protect the future of mankind from people that would practice genocide?

 

You see, I know that my moral system is illogical at the foundation and make no qualms about it. At the foundation of my belief system is to hold intolerance for any world system that has intolerance as its foundation. In realization that my world view and moral system is based upon axioms that do not hold up to intense investigation I really do not care...because there is no other world view that is not based upon the exact same relative arbitrary axioms.

 

The science of morality is a fairly new field,

 

Science of morality?

You pulled that out of your ass.

There is no science of morality unless you are talking about philosophy perhaps. But of course it isn't testable and since it is little more than might wins in the end, whatever world view has the most "power" at any given time wins. Whether it is in fact moral or immoral is based upon whether you were raised in it or not.

 

...but already there are some good ideas such as Firth's Ideal Observer Theory.

 

Yes, much like Kant's "GOD demands it."

 

Nothing more than an appeal to false power. There is no such thing as an Ideal Observer and anyone making such a claim is fooling themself.

 

His theory and others are based on the concept of moral facts that can be applied to individual circumstances by an observer who is fully informed and completely unbiased.

 

You just proved my point for me, thank you.

 

Of course those are qualities that no person will ever hold fully, but provide a mechanism for judging which acts are moral and which aren't.

Why the bravado and insults?

 

It's more funny that way.

 

Is this not something that you can discuss in a civil manner without attempting to belittle what others say or resorting to demands to be proven wrong?

 

Look, all I'm saying is to prove me wrong. You have not and in fact most of what you say has only demonstrated my point that we live in a relative continuum based reality, and thus our moral systems based upon a relative language system are nothing but arbitrary relative systems which are in fact based upon arbitrary axioms.

 

This is an area of science that is fairly new and there are many competing ideas about the development of a secular morality within a scientific framework.

 

Look, science does not have morality.

Science does not even allow for morality.

Evolution does not follow it.

The natural order does not follow it.

Survival of the fittest does not follow it.

 

In fact, science does not even seek morality within any given act, it seeks quantifiable facts. Little more. Ethics are imposed upon science by man, but science does not provide ethics our evolved supersitions from an evolutionary pack mind do.

 

We should be able to discuss those ideas without taking offense at what others may think.

 

I take no offense, as a relativist, it's all good (and bad).

[Vigile]

Joseph,

 

I find your take on this issue quite fascinating and well thought out. What resources did you use to cull your knowledge on this subject?

[Guest Joseph]

I have been up all night, couldn't sleep.

I have edited this as best I could on no sleep.

I HOPE that at least you can figure out what I meant to say, if not, please ask me to clarify a mis-typed point...as I am almost postive there are more errors but I can't fix'em now.

 

Joseph,

 

I find your take on this issue quite fascinating and well thought out.  What resources did you use to cull your knowledge on this subject?

 

Well, in college I took a few philosophy classes that pretty much turned my black and white world of absolutist ideals on its head. I then read some of Kant's ideas about the "good lie" or perhaps a better phrasing is "on the supposed right to Lie because of philanthropic Concerns." (Stole that from the front cover of a book I own, heh.) Immanuel Kant attempts to hide absolute ideals within his moral system while at the same time acknowledging the "good lie." Anyone can see that this collapses in on itself in the end, but since no man has invented a system that does not (at least I have never read one) I can't hold it against Kant very much can I?

 

If there is zero retribution after death, and/or we do not exist after death, and the only thing that is the rule is "might wins" then morality is a figment of our respective imaginations tied to each man's development of a social mind alone which was more than likely forced into our mem-set by evolution. A pack is better at getting food and larger amounts of it. Of protecting young. Social orders must form within these packs or they would not be a cohesive functioning group...anarchy would sneak in and the group would quickly be destroyed. Ranking systems emerge and the pack defines the leader(s) and then a class system develops. So on and so forth and then even more complex morality is invented (eating customs and other). And it doesn't even take humans to see this. The average wolf pack has a working social order, a class structure, and even meal-time rules which the group follows (the alpha male eating first).

 

Those that do not develop a strong social mind will look to violate the order of the pack and break any and all laws they feel the reward outweighs the risk and/or that they can get away with. Thus you see why crime exists. Also, morality seems tied to a sense of fairness and empathy. We can readily spot a cheater and force them to comply because our minds seem setup to seek them out. Empathy probably developed due to having to care and protect young...and extrapolated from there to even the elderly in more (relatively) "advanced" species. I put advanced in quotes because it is such an arbitrary term to use. I should say "those more like us" instead of "advanced" which seems egotistical.

 

Abolutists are dangerous for some very important reasons. They have convinced themselves that their viewpoint of a given situation is applicable to all similar situations. This is extremely dangerous. It is the Pro-lifer that attempts to claim that all abortion is murder. Or the Pro-Choicer who claims that all abortions are the mother's right to choose (harder to disprove but I can think of at least one example). They fail to see middle ground, the gray areas, which are extremely easy to see if not blinded by ego.

 

That is why the public opinion polls tend to follow the Bell curve, because extremists and fanatics are blinded by their own personal egos...and many times do not realize what they are asking for. The Pro-Life groups do not realize that if the laws they want were placed on the books, it would be the exact form of government described in their own Revelation: one which can command you to do something to your body. Scarey really. Who would think that the people who actually believe in the "Anti-Christ" would be playing directly into his hands with their fascist ideals?

 

You asked for good books and I have rambled long enough. Any college books on morality, relative morality, philosophical relativity, and perhaps (though it is a VERY hard read), Immanuel Kant's Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals. (My copy was translated by James W. Ellington.)

 

But you really want to know where I got my viewpoint that morality is relative from? Comparing arbitrary morals to the arbitrary Temperature scales. The arbitrary divisions we place in it as a continuum. Think about if I tell you 98 degrees? How hot is that? SURE??? What if I was thinking in Celsius or Kelvin or Fargieheit? (spell? on all those?) Scale means everything doesn't it? And who setup that scale? Why him? And why that progression between the numbers?

 

Morality's continuum is much like the temperature except most do not realize the utter relativity of an act until you force them to realize it.

 

A small child of 3 walks toward a village and a man pulls a gun and shoots the kid in the head...dead.

 

The man should be killed for his crime right?

 

The child was infected with ebola and the soldier was saving lives by his action.

 

To kill a child isn't always wrong. It is wrong from a given perspective which is altered by thousands of variables many of which go unknown to most people. That is why trial by media is so freaking disturbing...the media rarely gets all the facts, gets the facts right, and tells the whole story.

 

When we say an act is "evil" what we really mean is "that act is more evil than another one I know or can think of." Relativity. When we say it is "fucking hot" what we really mean is "it is hotter here than another place I have been or heard of."

 

I hate (totally) coconut cake. I like chocolate cake or something else, perhaps cheesecake. Had I been raised on an island, with only coconut cake (or something like that) I wouldn't even know I hated it...no comparison.

 

I heard once that sex is like pizza, when it is bad it is still pretty good, and when it is good, it is real good. I think that given any morality system it is just as "honorable" as any other...why? How can I say such a thing in light of the utter horrors that mankind has done to other people up through time in the name of kings, gods, ect? Because I am not so egotistical in my own viewpoint of my arbitrary morality system....nor do I attempt to think that my morality is absolute in nature. And here is the important thing: under any moral system the same exact "sins" of any other system are present. Nazis are terrible right? They simply wanted to wipe out a given race and exploit that people for profit. Anyone in America paying attention to Guatanemo Bay Prison Rights abuses and/or Iraq lately? Are not the rights stated to exist for all men? Did the founders of our constitution mean them to end because of national origin? Perhaps. But was that moral? Was their allowance of slavery moral? Keeping women from voting? Why? Why not? What made you say that? So, you do not really agree with the Constitution or Declaration of Independence at all....you just agree with parts of it. How droll. How.....relative.

 

In a hundred years or so people might read what I wrote and say "that man had no moral system" and they would be wrong...I have one, it is just relative to yours, and you will judge my system from your own, and by doing so have done an injustice because of the philosophical flatland that exists between moral world views. Had you looked at my moral system from my point of view...it works. As if I looked from yours, yours works. Now, which is the correct one? Who has the most guns and/or will/ability to control the other one? Heh. That was a joke. Might doesn't make right....it just tends to win and write the history books.

 

Even if you are to compare two moral systems, you are doing so from within another 3rd system, and by doing so it is all relative arbitrary lines you are drawing. America thinks it is so grand in freedoms while over the past couple hundred years we have put into power and/or supplied billions into the hands of some of the gravest persons in human history. How can I make such a claim under a moral relativist perspective and remain logical?

 

I can't.

 

The thing that you should keep in mind.....neither can you.

Sorry for any errors, I hope I caught the major ones...

[Clergicide]

I'll reword the first to be more clear on what I meant.  "Nonconsensual gratuitous torture of a human."

 

As for the second, I don't think that insanity or retardation of the adult involved would make the act moral.  It could be a mitigating circumstance that would remove or diminish the punishment handed out.  And the religious sacrament example helps illustrate what I'm saying.  If morals were based on points of view, then anything could be made moral since you'll always be able to find someone with that point of view.  With moral absolutes, tho, that's not the case.  It wouldn't matter that a religious group thought it was moral to rape babies - the act would still be immoral based on the Ideal Observer Theory.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well what you're doing is not creating a moral absolute, but reducing the number of scenarios in which these events could appear moral. Accepting that nothing is impossible but only improbable, I would forward that if raping a baby would save the planet from certain destruction it would be the moral thing to do. This, though a rediculous premise, is a premise no less.

 

If morals were based on points of view, then anything could be made moral since you'll always be able to find someone with that point of view.

Bingo!! ding ding ding ding That's absolutely correct!! Like the value of gold, morals are only what we think they are.

[Vigile]

I'd like to see what you can do when well rested. Thanks, this is great. I find myself agreeing with a great deal if not most. I've come to similar conclusions, but admittedly not as thoroughly thought out. If you believe as I do that we face only nothingness after death, it is hard to come to a conclusion that stands in strong oposition.

 

 

They fail to see middle ground, the gray areas, which are extremely easy to see if not blinded by ego.

 

 

 

And this sums up why most are not able to fully grasp the idea of relativity and a myriad of other things.

[☆ TexasFreethinker ☆]

Well what you're doing is not creating a moral absolute, but reducing the number of scenarios in which these events could appear moral.  

My primary argument is that any SINGLE action carried out by a person at a specific point in time can be judged to be moral or immoral based on the circumstances, not on points of view.

 

With the two broader scenarios I gave I am suggesting that it may be possible to come up with some moral absolutes at a higher level than individual acts - in other words some scenrios where you don't have to know all the other circumstances to determine whether or not the act is moral.

 

I would forward that if raping a baby would save the planet from certain destruction it would be the moral thing to do.

I don't think that it's right to say raping the baby would be the moral thing to do in this circumstance. It might be that you'd choose to "take one for the team" by committing an immoral act to save the planet. Or, it could be a test by whatever force was telling you that you had to rape a baby to save the planet. They might really just want to know how moral you are - would you refuse to participate in their immoral act (destroying the planet) by committing an immoral act that they've asked you to do.

 

Bingo!! ding ding ding ding  That's absolutely correct!!  Like the value of gold, morals are only what we think they are.

If morals are only what we think they are, or are only our point of view, then what's the use of having another term ("morals")?

 

Isn't it redundant to say "This is moral" when what you really mean is "this is what I currently think is the thing to do", "or this is what they currently think is the thing to do"? Why do we even need the concept of morality if that's the case?

[spamandham]

Isn't it redundant to say "This is moral" when what you really mean is "this is what I currently think is the thing to do", "or this is what they currently think is the thing to do"?  Why do we even need the concept of morality if that's the case?

 

There are two aspects to morals as far as I can tell. First is ethics; a code of guidelines to follow that typically work to keep you out of trouble without the effort of analyzing each scenario. The second is community standards, which is what most people are talking about when they use the word 'moral' I think.

 

Neither are absolute.

[Reach]

TF, I'm sorry to see that no Christians have seen fit to visit this thread and cast their vote, whether or not they take the time to post.

 

I wonder if their voting would not follow the same pattern as the ex/non-Christians.

[Guest Joseph]

My primary argument is that any SINGLE action carried out by a person at a specific point in time can be judged to be moral or immoral based on the circumstances, not on points of view.

 

We are in a court-room and a man says he did not rape a woman and the woman says that he did. Since he is charged with drugging her the rape was not by physical force but may have been done while she was asleep. There is no physical evidence that they had sex because he used a condom (perhaps, it is her claim) and there is zero vaginal tearing which is common in most rapes.

 

Now, under the circumstance how do you judge whether an immoral act took place outside a point of view. Let me make this extremely easy for you:

 

IN ORDER TO MAKE A CLAIM ABOUT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF AN EVENT YOU HAVE ALREADY TAKEN A POINT OF VIEW.

 

So your argument is at fault from the get go.

 

With the two broader scenarios I gave I am suggesting that it may be possible to come up with some moral absolutes at a higher level than individual acts

 

And it has been demonstrated (in all points you have mentioned) that point of view is the primal concern before you can assert a moral position.

 

- in other words some scenrios where you don't have to know all the other circumstances to determine whether or not the act is moral. 

 

I am uncertain what you mean here.

"scenarios where you don't have to know all the other circumstances" seems that you are judging an event without necessary information, and thus could be at fault due to lacking important information to make a moral claim.

 

"to determine whether or not the act is moral" is not really the argument at all. The only thing we as humans can say is not "this is moral" or "this is not moral." We relate any given circumstance to another and the only thing we are really saying is "this circumstance here is less/more moral than another I know/heard/seen."

 

No action happens in a vaccum neither is any act inherently evil. An act is judged as "moral/immoral or good/evil" based entirely on relating to other events similiar to it, and even that judgement is biased and not absolute once taken as it is based upon personal enculturated socially biased viewpoints of the judgement maker...not a single point of which is absolute by any definition.

 

I don't think that it's right to say raping the baby would be the moral thing to do in this circumstance.

 

So you would say that it is a moral act to not rape a baby and allow 6 billion lives to perish?

 

Sorry, I do not see you as making a moral claim.

 

If six billion lives can be saved by the raping of a baby, then the baby is the lesser evil of a given event. I hear you saying "ah ha!, it is a lesser evil not a moral act."

 

That means you walked right into a philosophical trap. What you might fail to realize is that under a relative viewpoint, the terms "lesser evil" equals in totality "moral action." Because there is no action which is absolutely good or absolutely evil, all acts (no matter what you name) is merely less/more evil/good than another.

 

While you might not agree that to rape a baby to save six billion lives (plus all animal life as well I suppose) should be labeled as "a moral act" it doesn't really matter. Because that is (once again) your personal opinion, not absolute in nature, and really just demonstrates the relative nature of morality once again. That you do not agree with me on this point would in fact demonstrate my point of the relative nature of morality more-so than if you agree. Also, if you happen to agree with me that "lesser evil = moral act" then it still does not prove a moral absolute has been created, it merely means that two biased people have come to a reasonable conclusion from within a given world view which is relative to their current moral standards...again, nothing of which is an absolute in nature.

 

It might be that you'd choose to "take one for the team" by committing an immoral act to save the planet.

 

It is not an immoral act to rape a baby if you are saving six billion lives plus all other life on Earth. It is perhaps a "lesser evil" which in fact is exactly equal to a "moral act" under moral relativity since all acts are nothing but more/less evil/good. There are no absolute goods or evils, all acts you do are like raping the baby to save the world...good from one point of view, evil from another.

 

Or, it could be a test by whatever force was telling you that you had to rape a baby to save the planet.  They might really just want to know how moral you are - would you refuse to participate in their immoral act (destroying the planet) by committing an immoral act that they've asked you to do.

 

If God exists, then Christianity could be this exact type of test. The Hebrew God places rules which state that eating blood and flesh is an abomination to Him while to be a Christian you must practice symbolic (or actual) cannibalism to be a Christian during the ritual of communion. Taking the above reasoning, the religion of Christianity could be a test of mankind to see how immoral mankind can become relative to the commands given the Jews by the God YHVH. And thus Christians are actually the "doomed" persons because they would stoop to doing a relative evil in service to a false god.

 

Relative to this stance, a Christian has no more proof nor knowledge of their salvation than does the atheist.

 

If morals are only what we think they are, or are only our point of view, then what's the use of having another term ("morals")?

 

Because terms reduce the complexity of an idea. We can use the term "moral act" to mean "an act I agree with as being culturally, religiously, and/or socially acceptable from my point of view." Because it takes so long to express that idea the term "moral" was invented. Language systems invent terms to reduce complexity over time and older languages have even broader meaning to terms (so they cover more ground by speaking fewer terms).

 

Isn't it redundant to say "This is moral" when what you really mean is "this is what I currently think is the thing to do",

 

Only if you say both in the same sentence is it redundant, LOL!!!

 

..."or this is what they currently think is the thing to do"?  Why do we even need the concept of morality if that's the case?

 

We need it so that our socially acceptable superstitions that lead us to adopt/adapt to a social pack mind will continue to exist. Otherwise there would be anarchy. The reason law does not mean morality is because law is "guided by morality" but many times is controlled by the powerful who use it in an exploitive fashion over the less influential of a people. Thus we have "morality" and we have "law" because while the law might reflect a small portion of morality under it, many times morality is not found under the law. Concepts exist in a relative continuum based reality because we assign meaning to them NOT because that meaning is intrinsic or inherent. Also, many concepts over-lap in meaning due to the complexities of a language system.

[Clergicide]

My primary argument is that any SINGLE action carried out by a person at a specific point in time can be judged to be moral or immoral based on the circumstances, not on points of view.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

My response was presenting circumstances, saving the world, that would judge the single action, raping a child, to be the moral thing to do. Potentially. The action itself can never be made moral but, as you indicate, the introduction of circumstance can.

 

The problem is, in order to judge this, as Joseph said, one must have a point of view.

 

Perhaps a less toxic example would be better. Let's say it was murdering 1 person to save 10. If we went with straight mathematics, the answer is obvious. But the moral dilemma is: Do I have the right to kill a person, even if not doing so would cost 10 others their lives?

 

Action: Murder 1 person (the action alone is of course immoral)

Circumstance: Save 10 people (very moral)

 

Answer: You need someone with an objective point of view to weight the action and the circumstances to render a judgement.

[Guest Joseph]

My response was presenting circumstances, saving the world, that would judge the single action, raping a child, to be the moral thing to do.  Potentially.  The action itself can never be made moral but,

 

The action is made moral by the justification of what the gains are.

 

If an act can not be made moral by the gains it garnishes, then there are no acts which are moral outright. (Neither would there by contrast be acts which are immoral.)

 

...as you indicate, the introduction of circumstance can.

 

Since the entire ability to label (even arbitrarily) an act as moral or immoral is based in totality upon viewpoint relative justifications, all acts are therefore moral or immoral based upon circumstances surrounding them.

 

The problem is, in order to judge this, as Joseph said, one must have a point of view. 

 

Perhaps a less toxic example would be better.  Let's say it was murdering 1 person to save 10.  If we went with straight mathematics, the answer is obvious.  But the moral dilemma is:  Do I have the right to kill a person, even if not doing so would cost 10 others their lives?

 

Of course you do but do you have the guts to do it would be the hard point.

 

Also, we would have to go beyond numbers to make an actual justification work. We wouldn't want to kill a nun to save ten serial killers per se.

 

If in all honesty you would not have a right to save 9 people from death by taking one life then you are by definition an immoral person by allowing 9 people die that shouldn't have (only nine lives are saved even though 10 are listed because because ONE is going to die in either even).

 

There is the old story about whether if you could cure cancer but you had to kill one person to do it would you?

 

It really is not a hard question to handle under relative morality systems. The reason such questions are difficult is that many persons attempt to apply their faulty absolutist ideals to such a situation [which outright defies that absolutes exist due to causing one to see the "lesser evil(s)" principles found within a relative world, which we exist in.]

 

Action: Murder 1 person (the action alone is of course immoral)

 

If you were to stop here and say only that you were going to murder someone, then of course the act is immoral by the relative conditionals built into the word "murder."

 

However, if this act is tied to the saving of ten (actual nine) other lives then you can not stop part-way through the entire premise to make a moral judgement unless you want to make a false claim. To do so is like trying to say how big a house is without seeing all four sides. It would be an illogical statement, unless of course you are saying that you can take an immoral act + a moral act and result in a moral act. Which seems extremely destructive on a reasoning level.

 

The point I am trying to make here is to state the "entire idea" as one statement. Then and only then can a moral judgement be made relative to the entire idea, which is what one must have in order to make a correct relative judgement.

 

Otherwise if you were to stop part way through the judgement is at fault (incomplete information being the reason).

 

Circumstance: Save 10 people (very moral)

 

I think that the action is the entire statement "He had to murder a single life to save ten lives." To stop at "he had to murder a single life..." ignores the surrounding circumstances of the act entirely and leaves one with (what actually becomes) a false conclusion.

 

Answer: You need someone with an objective point of view to weight the action and the circumstances to render a judgement.

 

No, since no objective point of view can be found within mankind, all you really need to find is someone of close social and/or political and/or religious and/or cultural background in order to find agreement upon moral issues which are in fact not absolute in nature. Again, any "judgement" made about any action is not absolute in nature but is in fact relative entirely. All actions are both good from a given viewpoint and evil from another (and visa versa).