Allright, in English class today a group presented and said that in this certain book the point being made was that you should really go all out to stand up for what you believe in. But this was a group assigned to dissect the book for information on Ethics/Morality. I pointed out the obvious flaw in their argument by stating with their thesis that the main villian was a good individual. So they changed it to standing up for whats right. But how the hell do we know? And is someone wrong for going all out to standup for what they think is right even though the majority doesn't? I think whats immoral is anything that makes someone's life impleasent or ends that life, but that doesn't fit everything.....hardly fits anything. What do you guys think about the questions posed in the last paragraph?
Very easy... This usually works... Don't do with others what you don't want them to do with you...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Love, Nelson
That seems extremely simplistic answer, what if you don't consider a group of people like human beings? and You didn't answer are people that stand up for their beliefs always justified, who says they're wrong?
Cactus, to me what is 'wrong' is anything that does a reasonable amount of damage to another person without just cause. Just cause is, obviously, dependant on the situation. And the 'reasonable amount of damage' part means that I'm covering my ass because I think A LOT of people in today's world are WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too easily offended. And I have no sympathy for them.
Cactus, They are not wrong... they are just different... and there's nothing wrong with that. They are there to teach us something. If you refuse to listen, it's your choice... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
So a man who believes all black people should be slaughtered in painful fashion and is willing to stikc up for this belief isn't wrong?
Is not that common. We still have no real solution. Logic helps. Tyler: What a sexist statement! Are you implying that all women are easily offended! And what's with "them"? How insensitive to other cultures!
What has right or wrong ever had to do with a person or groups actions. Most times it comes down to what is acceptable or enforcable in a society.
Hi Nelson, Actually, some men would do to a woman exactly what they would want the women to do to them. The woman might not like it though! Technically, it's difficult to give a flawless, yet succinct definition of what constitutes ethical behavior in all circumstances. I typically prefer Kant's categorical imperative, though others might have found a glitch with even this definition. Despite the fact that a perfect, yet concise definition eludes us; man's major failing at ethical interaction does not stem from misunderstandings of how he should act. In the vast majority of practical cases, we know exactly how we should act. The problem lies in our failure to act as we know we ought. For example, nearly all men understand that murder is wrong, yet our prisons contain large numbers of murderers. Michael
thoth, Very true... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And there are so many people that fear being themselves and create a wrong image of themselves just to please others... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! That happens because we want to be accepted by other people. And then we pretend to be what we are not just to please others. That's why teenagers smoke or use drugs, for example. This just hides an inner felling of self-denial and self-hatred... But mostly is society that impose to us all the behaviour, all the moral values, what is right and what is wrong; all this when we are little undefendable children. Our mom and our dad punish us when we do something that is wrong for them; and reward us when we do something that is right for them. ANd their parents did the same thing. And their grandparents and great grandparents and suddenly the whole society has the same point of view... :bugeye: For example: Palestines against Israelites. Parents of Palestines say that the Israelites are evil and we must exterminate them. Parents of Israelites say that Palestines are evil and we must exterminate them. Who is right? Anyone. They are just blind by lies created by their own beliefs. This not only apply for Religion but also for the whole society. All kinds of beliefs. All kinds of rationalism (if you think you are not worth loving, for example, it's a rationalism...) What is True and what is Lie? If everyone follow others beliefs, what can we do? The only thing that we can do to free ourselves from all those lies we created in our world is by accepting being and loving ourselves just the way we are. And with intention. The Truth will set us free.:bugeye: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Love, Nelson
orthogonal, Yep! :bugeye: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! So why do we murder? Would you murder someone? Why would someone murder someone else if he or she knows it's not right? Probably because of the environment the person was created into. Or perhaps because he or she is hurt about something that happened... But, you see, there's a hidden reason... Love, Nelson
Tyler: "Hahhahahahahaa, brilliant Xev!!!" The leauge of non-brilliant people has sent me a letter protesting your post. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Nelson: If they raped or murdered somone I loved, yes.
The overwhelming majority of men do not murder under normal circumstances, well...not outright murder. Only a small percentage of men commit murder in everyday life. I'm not one of these men. Anarchical times produce yet another echelon of murderers. The mass executions and rape-camps that appeared after authority broke down in the Balkans come immediately to mind. Lynch mobs are composed of such men as well. These crimes are committed by those who under normal circumstances refrain from committing evil merely out of a fear of personal punishment. I don't number among these men either. There is a third group of men who would perhaps murder while living with extreme stress, or while experiencing intense fear. I suppose what first comes to mind is the way men act under the pressures of battle. Would I murder an "enemy" while he held his hands in the air? I don't think well under stress, though I've been told that I continue to act well. My moral autopilot appears to hold me on course even while my rational-self falls to pieces. Still, my morality has not, and I hope never will be tested in a war. Under extreme enough circumstances, even the best of us might act badly. One might conceive of a number of cases that don't fit neatly into the above three environments. I once read that a 19th century French jury would not convict a man for a "crime of passion." The example given was that of a man who returned home to find his wife in the arms of another man, and subsequently killed either one or both of them. The implication of this general acquittal is that no one expected that a man could act differently under such an emotional situation. Obviously, we take another view today. Xev admits that she would kill someone that murdered or raped a member of her family. Thinking in terms of Kant's categorical imperative, let's suppose that familial revenge killings were a universally accepted behavior. Now suppose further that someone murdered a relative of Xev's. Xev rightfully kills the murderer. But now the original murderer's brother rightfully kills Xev. So Xev's father kills this brother. Then the brother's Uncle... I'm sure you take my point. Revenge killing "La Cosa Nostra" style, only makes a wicked mess of things. This is why it's so important that we have an uncorrupted legal system to dispense fair and swift judgment. If OJ Simpson had murdered my sister and gotten off by way of his greasy "dream team" of lawyers, I admit that I'd be tempted to find him on a golf course and dispense the "justice" that our courts failed to deliver. I'd be tempted, but at the same time I understand that I'd go to the "big house" for doing so. I doubt my sister would prefer to see me rot in prison for the rest of my life, in exchange for avenging her death. As I wrote in my first paragraph, under normal circumstances most men would not commit outright murder. However, we are guilty of murder to a lesser degree. At least I am. Let me explain: Imagine a country in which a woman thought to be guilty of adultery is put to death by public stoning. Would you stand in the first row so as to get a "good shot" at her with your stones? Would you stand behind and hand stones to those who are doing the throwing? Would you drive the truck that delivered the stones to the place of execution? Would you pump gasoline into the truck which delivers the stones? Where would you draw the line of participation in her murder? At the base of this mountain, in Underhill, Vermont is a Marine Corps armament testing ground, run in conjunction with General Electric (yes, the folks who bring "good things" to life). Throughout the summer, hikers dropping by my hut invariably ask about the strange "buurrrppp" noise they hear. Once past my lame joke about it being the call of a lovesick moose, I explain that they are hearing GE's Vulcan cannon, a six-barrel, 20mm gun capable of firing 6,600 rounds per minute. This is the same weaponry used by in the past by right-wing Central American governments to slaughter their own people, courtesy of my tax dollars. I don't simply put gasoline in the truck that carries the stones. In effect, I hand the stones to the executioners. Thus I share the guilt (and an anguish) for a vast number of murders. I bear a small responsibility for each murder, yet lucky for me, no one thinks to multiply my tiny responsibility for each murder by the vast number of those whom I have a hand in murdering. It would be like trying to reconstruct a single body from the many victims of a mass murderer, by putting together a hand from one victim, and a leg of another... In his Existentialism and Human Emotions, Jean Paul Sartre wrote: "...man is responsible for what he is. Thus, existentialism's first move is to make every man aware of what he is and to make the full responsibility of his existence rest on him. And when we say that a man is responsible for himself, we do not only mean that he is responsible for his own individuality, but that he is responsible for all men." Michael
