Ethics

[Akirahito]

When I was working on my bachelor's, I mainly concentrated on Religious Theory, and in studying the origin of religion (in general) one can only come to the conclusion that morals were generated, and are independent of religion. And honestly, if you need religion in order to understand and have morals, you need a 12-step program. Never, in your life, should you have to depend on a,b, and c, just to have d.

 

[Pitiless Wanderer]

But what of people who do not think it is morally wrong to do something which the majority of the public do consider morally wrong? Some people do not have a problem with killing animals or people, and there is no question of morality concerned in their mind, yet others do not think that it is moral.

The last question you pose is basically asking if two wrongs can make a right, if, indeed, it is wrong to break the law if the law is wrong. Here I think it depends on the context.

I'd consider those people sick. They're mental cases. Im talking about your "Average" person, where average means someone who sees there is something immoral about killing a dog with a BB gun. It's sociopathic behavior in the case of someone who kills an animal or a person because they don't consider them animals or people, but rather simply "objects." To them there is no difference between a rock and a dog.

 

[derek]

I'd consider those people sick. They're mental cases. Im talking about your "Average" person, where average means someone who sees there is something immoral about killing a dog with a BB gun. It's sociopathic behavior in the case of someone who kills an animal or a person because they don't consider them animals or people, but rather simply "objects." To them there is no difference between a rock and a dog.

Well, yes...within my own value system I would consider those people sick too.

BUT, thats not to say they are objectively sick.

 

[Norsemaiden]

I'd consider those people sick. They're mental cases. Im talking about your "Average" person, where average means someone who sees there is something immoral about killing a dog with a BB gun. It's sociopathic behavior in the case of someone who kills an animal or a person because they don't consider them animals or people, but rather simply "objects." To them there is no difference between a rock and a dog.

It used to be considered that homosexual behaviour was very seriously morally wrong in this country, and it was punishable by law. But now it is considered very wrong to hold the previous opinion about homosexuals and their rights are protected by law. Sheeple can so easily be manipulated!

 

[angelofdeath9308]

I think Kant would say there are absolute morals. According to him "Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become universal law." Example: suppose that you need money for an important reason (to eat maybe), and your friend has the money you need. But you know the only way he will loan you the money is if you promise to pay him back. But you also know that you will not be able to pay him back. So you ask yourself "should I promise to pay him back, even when I really can not?" According to Kant, you should apply his universalizablity to the situation, "can I will that promising to pay something back, but not paying something back be universal law?" The answer is that since this is obviously a contradiction of logic (X and not X), that you should not. At the same time you will that promises exist, you are also willing that promises should not exist. You could also add utility to the argument; if everyone promised to pay something back, but they were really lying, nobody would believe each other anymore, and society would not be able to function.
So like I said, Kant would say that there are universal morals.
I would add that according to my atheistic view, transcendental (beyond the physical universe) ethics do not exist, but universal ethics might exist (my mind is obviously not made up on this issue yet, although I am leaning towards Kant at the moment.)

 

[jervi]

Hi all -

Does the necessary evils of Survival, fit in with the Golden Rule?
I think it does, in the bigger picture.

I don't think moral can ever be complete as a substance though.
It's a result of clear thinking (in the moment), not something pre-determined.

-Ashen