Spirituality
18 Jun 06
19 Jun 06
Originally posted by ivanhoeOkay, but perhaps an included point of view or rebuttal might help the debate more. People are more inclined to read links if they are part of a conversation.
It is useful information on the subject raised, so I guess reading the article will be beneficial to structuring your thoughts on the subject.
19 Jun 06
Originally posted by HalitoseMy difficulty in answering that question is that it's unclear what definition of "inherently wrong" we're using. "Right" and "wrong" have no objective definitions; no word does.
Would you say torturing babies for fun has nothing inherently wrong with it, but your personal preference would go against such an action?
My conscience leads me to accept utilitarian ideas of right and wrong. If right and wrong are defined according to utilitarian ideas, then I could answer your question. Alternatively, if they are defined in terms of Christianity, I could answer your question, perhaps differently, perhaps not. Then there is "right" and "wrong" in terms of Natural Rights (at least I think so), etc.
In short, you must clarify your definition of "inherently wrong" for me to be able to answer the question.
19 Jun 06
1 edit
Originally posted by StarrmanWell, maybe we should start to investigate the terms "absolute" and "universal". My stance is that moral values are universal. They stem from human nature. These values are as it where inscripted in our hearts. Others might say they are written in or on our genes.
Okay, but perhaps an included point of view or rebuttal might help the debate more. People are more inclined to read links if they are part of a conversation.
Slapping someone in the face is considered unpleasant, unfriendly and degrading by all people in all cultures. Lying, deceiving your fellowmen, will also be looked upon as negative and unwanted behaviour. Not showing respect or lying will cause feelings of enmity and unwanted rivalry and will undermine the social relations in a group of people. It will cause strife and chaos if this behaviour becomes the norm and eventually it could mean the end of the community itself and even the death of all the group-members.
Therefore showing respect to your fellowmen and speaking the truth, giving a true statement about another fellow human being in a serious matter, are instances of universal moral values. Upholding these values means maintaining the moral order, peace.
19 Jun 06
2 edits
Originally posted by ivanhoeSome people would disagree that lying is always wrong. I'd be one of them. For example, if you're a Jew being interrogated about the location of your family in Nazi Germany, telling the truth might not be the morally correct choice. This would be written into our genes I suspect; protecting the family, that is.
Well, maybe we should start to investigate the terms "absolute" and "universal". My stance is that moral values are universal. They stem from human nature. These values are as it where inscripted in our hearts. Others might say they are written in or on our genes.
Slapping someone in the face is considered unpleasant, unfriendly and degrading by all peop ...[text shortened]... of universal moral values. Upholding these values means maintaining the moral order, peace.
19 Jun 06
Originally posted by ivanhoeOkay, I can work with this for some morals, perhaps some of the core moral aspects which all cultures tend to reciprocate are so intrinsically natural that they are set in stone. However I do not believe this is true of all moral aspects. There are several (possibly the majority) of moral usages which are not the same across cultures, or even within one culture over time.
Well, maybe we should start to investigate the terms "absolute" and "universal". My stance is that moral values are universal. They stem from human nature. These values are as it where inscripted in our hearts. Others might say they are written in or on our genes.
Slapping someone in the face is considered unpleasant, unfriendly and degrading by all peop ...[text shortened]... of universal moral values. Upholding these values means maintaining the moral order, peace.
19 Jun 06
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungATY: "Some people would disagree that lying is always wrong."
Some people would disagree that lying is always wrong. I'd be one of them. For example, if you're a Jew being interrogated about the location of your family in Nazi Germany, telling the truth might not be the morally correct choice. This would be written into our genes I suspect; protecting the family, that is.
That's not what I claimed and certainly not what I meant. Please carefully reread my post with your example in mind.
19 Jun 06
Originally posted by StarrmanFor instance ?
Okay, I can work with this for some morals, perhaps some of the core moral aspects which all cultures tend to reciprocate are so intrinsically natural that they are set in stone. However I do not believe this is true of all moral aspects. There are several (possibly the majority) of moral usages which are not the same across cultures, or even within one culture over time.
19 Jun 06
Originally posted by ivanhoeWell, slavery is a perfect example; 200 years ago it was an accepted thing in western cultures, today it is abhorred.
For instance ?
Also, look at the attitudes to morals that have vanished which were previously seen to be upheld, and are now less and less so. Swearing, and nudity, for example.
Moral stances on homosexuality are changing (for the better in my opinion), equal rights for women and the disabled, racial equality etc. All these things are changing as society evolves. Sure, it's still a bad idea to kill people, but the lesser, more common moral stances are not universal at all.
20 Jun 06
Originally posted by StarrmanYou're missing the point; no one ever thought that it was morally acceptable for them to be made a slave.
Well, slavery is a perfect example; 200 years ago it was an accepted thing in western cultures, today it is abhorred.
Also, look at the attitudes to morals that have vanished which were previously seen to be upheld, and are now less and less so. Swearing, and nudity, for example.
Moral stances on homosexuality are changing (for the better in my opini ...[text shortened]... a bad idea to kill people, but the lesser, more common moral stances are not universal at all.
20 Jun 06
Originally posted by StarrmanWell, slavery is a perfect example; 200 years ago it was an accepted thing in western cultures, today it is abhorred.
Well, slavery is a perfect example; 200 years ago it was an accepted thing in western cultures, today it is abhorred.
Also, look at the attitudes to morals that have vanished which were previously seen to be upheld, and are now less and less so. Swearing, and nudity, for example.
Moral stances on homosexuality are changing (for the better in my opini ...[text shortened]... a bad idea to kill people, but the lesser, more common moral stances are not universal at all.
Not exactly. When debt replaced the monetary system, slavery was taken to a whole 'notha level.
20 Jun 06
Here is my sugestion:
There is one absolute moral. Do what is best for your society. All morals are merely based on this and change from time to time depending on the society in question. An important thing to consider is how large a society you choose to include. For example what is best for your village/tribe may not be best for your country/world population.
Many Germans at the time of Hitler believed that thier society was threatened by Jews and thus considered it morally right to correct that.
Many people have similar justifications for the wars in iraq and afganistan (That is it is OK to kill if your own society is threatened).
This is similar though more extreme than justifying lying if the truth would hurt. Another common case is the death penalty.
However many people do not follow what they consider to be the moral code. That is they do what is selfish at the expense of the society. However they will often admit that what they are doing is morally wrong.
Many politicians do what they think will benefit them personally (selfish). It is most likely that Hitler, Bush, Robert Mugabe etc all fall into this category (ie thier actions which seem morally wrong to many of us probably seem morally wrong to them but they benefit personally and thus are willing to forgo thier own moralls.
I suspect that many americans who supported the war in iraq believed it to be morally wrong but were willing to accept that in exchange for the suposed economic benefits.
Many people are much more ready to allow moraly wrong actions to take place than to commit them personally even though inaction may have an equivalent result.