Questions on Morality... What's your take?

**The Fishy** · 01-23-2008 05:28 PM

I've been thinking a lot lately about people's different moral codes and thought asking a few of my main questions would make for an interesting discussion. I am using somewhat extreme examples. If anything is too personal, of course leave it out.

1. What's the wickedest act that opposes your personal perception of morality (e.g. if you value human life above all else this wicked act would probably be murder)? Why?

2. Would you commit this wicked act, the one that opposes your morality in the strongest way possible, to save someone else from it (e.g. If you value human life above all else and the most wicked act you can think of is muder, would you kill to save someone else from murder)? Why?

3. Would you commit the same act as in question 2 for utilitarian reasons (e.g. kill to save a lot of people from being murdered)? Why?

. . .

I hope it makes interesting discussion. It'll probably fall flat on it's face, but hey. I very much look forward to people's replies.

Edit: The above examples were all for specific things (e.g. murder, lying, etc) and as I've gotten mostly non-specific values/acts I've decided to add a list of examples of what to do if the act that offends your morality the most is non-specific. Here are the list of questions for that situation:

1. Same as before.

2. Would you do something that is in your eyes extremely immoral to save someone else from something that is as harmful as your act is immoral?

3. Would you do the same immoral act as in question 2 for utilitarian reasons (e.g. would you do that same act to save a group of people from harm)?

I hope that clears things up.

**tkdyo** · 01-23-2008 06:00 PM

well, you covered my moral code right there.

you already said, all I need is the why

1. humans are the same species as me, nothing hurts me more than seeing one of my own destroyed or dissappear. Nothing can remake that person and nothing can bring them back, it makes it so sad.

2. I feel when someone tries to kill others out of contempt or for power or whatever, they have lost their humanity. Because not killing someone I consider a basic human feature, and so they have lost it and it is like killing a beast.

3. Last, same as above.

**Serkat** · 01-23-2008 06:01 PM

Originally Posted by The Fishy

1. What's the wickedest act that opposes your personal perception of morality (e.g. if you value human life above all else this wicked act would probably be murder)? Why?

On the basis of a values list I once put up, the worst would be...

Restricting someone's liberty on the basis of irrational lies by means of disrespectful psychological pressure and physical violence.

translates to

- Religious and otherwise dogmatic terrorism
- Totalitarianism and fascism
- Extremely bad parenting
- Scientology

etc.

2. Would you commit this wicked act, the one that opposes your morality in the strongest way possible, to save someone else from it (e.g. If you value human life above all else and the most wicked act you can think of is muder, would you kill to save someone else from murder)? Why?

Those aren't really acts...
Physical violence is probably justifiable in many cases though. It really depends on the situation (e.g. international/national, law, danger etc.)

3. Would you commit the same act as in question 2 for utilitarian reasons (e.g. kill to save a lot of people from being murdered)? Why?

Well, I would kill Hitler but I wouldn't use irrational lies like he did.

**Mystic7** · 01-24-2008 04:58 AM

1. What's the wickedest act that opposes your personal perception of morality (e.g. if you value human life above all else this wicked act would probably be murder)? Why?

Disease. Not being comfortable. Dis-ease.

3. Would you commit this wicked act, the one that opposes your morality in the strongest way possible, to save someone else from it (e.g. If you value human life above all else and the most wicked act you can think of is muder, would you kill to save someone else from murder)? Why?

Spreading disease to save disease. Sounds like, that I am legend movie or resident evil. The virus gets out of control. The only way to beat it is to find the cure to what was suppose to be the cure. I would find the cure in order to save someone from the disease.

3. Would you commit the same act as in question 2 for utilitarian reasons (e.g. kill to save a lot of people from being murdered)? Why?

In your questions of logical morality, you are very focused on murder. Yet the cause of murder is disease. The cause of corruption, disease.

**The Fishy** · 01-24-2008 06:22 AM

Please review my first post, Mystic. Muder/value of life is merely a good (albeit exaggerated) example I used to explain my question. I am not very focused on murder at all.

Of course, if there is no way to answer a question, there's no way to answer it. So don't answer (unless there is some answer you could give reasonably). I should undoubtedly add an example of a non-specific value/wicked act to explain. Alas, I have had no time.

Hope that cleared things up for you, Mystic.

Edit: I've edited the first post.

**The Fishy** · 01-24-2008 02:38 PM

Originally Posted by Mystic7

Disease. Not being comfortable. Dis-ease.

Spreading disease to save disease. Sounds like, that I am legend movie or resident evil. The virus gets out of control. The only way to beat it is to find the cure to what was suppose to be the cure. I would find the cure in order to save someone from the disease.

In your questions of logical morality, you are very focused on murder. Yet the cause of murder is disease. The cause of corruption, disease.

Now THIS will be an interesting discussion. I mean that genuinely.

Care to elaborate on "the cause of murder is disease. The cause of corruption, disease,"? That's very vaugue, although I'm sure that if you explained it it would be interesting to hear about. Seeing as you put the definition of "disease" as "Not being comfortable," to me the above quote makes no sense at all. Please explain.

**Mystic7** · 01-25-2008 02:28 AM

Originally Posted by The Fishy

Care to elaborate on "the cause of murder is disease. The cause of corruption, disease,"? That's very vaugue, although I'm sure that if you explained it it would be interesting to hear about. Seeing as you put the definition of "disease" as "Not being comfortable," to me the above quote makes no sense at all. Please explain.

Your right I am wrong. That should satisfy your question.

**The Fishy** · 01-25-2008 12:08 PM

Originally Posted by Mystic7

Your right I am wrong. That should satisfy your question.

That's right, all I wanted was for you to say "you're right" so that I would win!
Congratz if you can tell me what I'm supposed to be right about, or what you're supposed to be wrong about.

Is that supposed to be the point of discussion? Arguing with someone until you bully them into saying that you're right? What sort of discussion is that?

Now I said that I was being genuine and I thought, hey, do I need to write more so that he doesn't take it the wrong way? and then I said, nah, I'm being paranoid, it's perfectly clear.

Obviously not. I didn't write that post to laugh at you, to flame you, or to browbeat your admittedly pathetic response. I asked you, nicely, to elaborate because I didn't understand your point of view, and I want to understand it. But if you aren't going to give your opinion, why did you even post?*

*Again, genuine. I don't understand replying to a topic you have no intention of discussing.

**Mystic7** · 01-31-2008 04:24 AM

Originally Posted by The Fishy

Is that supposed to be the point of discussion? Arguing with someone until you bully them into saying that you're right? What sort of discussion is that?Now I said that I was being genuine and I thought, hey, do I need to write more so that he doesn't take it the wrong way? and then I said, nah, I'm being paranoid, it's perfectly clear.Obviously not. I didn't write that post to laugh at you, to flame you, or to browbeat your admittedly pathetic response. I asked you, nicely, to elaborate because I didn't understand your point of view, and I want to understand it. But if you aren't going to give your opinion, why did you even post?*

Why do you ask such silly questions as 'is that suppose to be the purpose of our discussion'. Why can't you think what your suppose to be discussing? I shouldn't have to think for you.

Your response doesn't make sense. If I posted, that is my opinion. It's hard to satisfy your non existent question when you think I'm not expressing an opinion at all.

If my post is 'admittedly pathetic'. Then I have done wrong, and you are right. That is the only thing to satisfy your claim of lack of understanding about me not expressing my opinion, but posting something anyway. If this seems ridiculious, it is. But you have left me no choice.

**Grod** · 01-31-2008 04:34 AM

Psst, The Fishy.... Mystic is what we like to call a "troll".

**Mystic7** · 01-31-2008 04:44 AM

Mystic is what we like to call a "troll".

Just stick to name calling eh...

**Cyclic13** · 01-31-2008 05:06 AM

Well mystic, as someone who takes no sides I do have to say that you tend to see problems that aren't there, create mountains out of mole hills, and get into petty disputes with people more than most here.

Whether or not that is intentional is for you to decide. I enjoy some of your posts so I was disappointed to see that in more recent weeks your post content has declined, and your anger risen. That's just my 2 cents for what it's worth...Peace.

**The Fishy** · 01-31-2008 05:52 PM

Originally Posted by Mystic7

Why do you ask such silly questions as 'is that suppose to be the purpose of our discussion'. Why can't you think what your suppose to be discussing? I shouldn't have to think for you.

Your response doesn't make sense. If I posted, that is my opinion. It's hard to satisfy your non existent question when you think I'm not expressing an opinion at all.

If my post is 'admittedly pathetic'. Then I have done wrong, and you are right. That is the only thing to satisfy your claim of lack of understanding about me not expressing my opinion, but posting something anyway. If this seems ridiculious, it is. But you have left me no choice.

Ok. First:

" Why do you ask such silly questions as 'is that suppose to be the purpose of our discussion'. Why can't you think what your suppose to be discussing? I shouldn't have to think for you. "

Oh, bravo! Very carefully misinterpreted. In fact, 1. my question was "what sort of discussion is that? (in response to "Is that supposed to be the point of discussion? Arguing with someone until you bully them into saying that you're right?" ), not " What's the point of our discussion?".

I was asking a (rhetorical, but I'll explain later in the post) question on what the point of discussion in general is, not what this discussion is about. That is obvious. Thank you for the flames about how you're not going to do my thinking for me (Quote: "I shouldn't have to think for you. ") which were entirely innappropriate consider what my question actually was.

Now, that was a rhetorical question, in a sense. You'll remember my question was:

" Is that supposed to be the point of discussion? Arguing with someone until you bully them into saying that you're right? What sort of discussion is that? "

And since to me, is obvious that the point of discussion isn't to beat your opponent down with flames, it was meant rhetorically. Of course, if you think that IS the point of discussion, 1. that would explain a lot as, from what I've seen, you try and browbeat people with flames until they give in, or browbeat them in other ways. That's how I see some of your posts. My opinion could of course be totally wrong. However, I am sure I'll find some posts to back this opinion up, erronous as it may be. I strongly advise against you trying to win on this count. See Grod's post.

And 2. I would genuinely like to find out what you think you gain from the type of flaming "discussion" mentioned above (unless of course you DON'T believe that sort of discussion is productive, in which case 2. at least is void. 1. was more of a comment).

Okay.

" Your response doesn't make sense. If I posted, that is my opinion. It's hard to satisfy your non existent question when you think I'm not expressing an opinion at all. "

I assume this was in reply to:

" I asked you, nicely, to elaborate because I didn't understand your point of view, and I want to understand it. But if you aren't going to give your opinion, why did you even post? "

I asked you nicely (Quote: "Care to elaborate on "the cause of murder is disease. The cause of corruption, disease,"? That's very vaugue, although I'm sure that if you explained it it would be interesting to hear about. Seeing as you put the definition of "disease" as "Not being comfortable," to me the above quote makes no sense at all. Please explain. ") to elaborate because I didn't understand (Quote: " That's very vague... ") your point of view (which was (Quote: " the cause of murder is disease. The cause of corruption, disease. ").

In reply, you said " Your right I am wrong. That should satisfy your question. " as if I was only interested in being right, and as if I was browbeating you (seeing as I wasn't doing either I considered this offensive, but it's of no account right now). This does not explain your opinion on " the cause of murder is disease. The cause of corruption, disease, " at all but is merely an attempt to antagonise me. Therefore I wrote " But if you aren't going to give your opinion, why did you even post? ".

"If I posted, that is my opinion" - neither " Your right I am wrong. That should satisfy your question. " which, for aforementioned reasons and the ones I'll go into shortly, doesn't express an opnion on what I was asking and nor does " the cause of murder is disease. The cause of corruption, disease, ", not to a understandable extent, as it was vaugue. This vaugueness is the reason I am asking what you meant.

Now, for the masterpiece in this collection of half-baked attempts to flame me, here is my reply:

First.

" If my post is 'admittedly pathetic'. Then I have done wrong, and you are right. That is the only thing to satisfy your claim of lack of understanding about me not expressing my opinion, but posting something anyway. If this seems ridiculious, it is. But you have left me no choice. "

1. " If my post is 'admittedly pathetic'. Then I have done wrong, and you are right. " That may be so, but I wouldn't judge patheticness by right/ wrong standards unless such patheticness was a disguise for a barrage of flames against an innocent fish. It is worth pointing out that you are confusing the issue here too - in "your admirttedly pathetic response" I was critizing the vaugueness of " the cause of murder is disease. The cause of corruption, disease, ".

2. Again, confusing the issue, " Then I have done wrong, and you are right. "-wise. Here, you're talking about the rightousness (or lack of it) in writing a pathetic response, as if that was the original issue. Again, congratz if you can tell me what you're supposed to be wrong about, or what I'm supposed to be right about the FIRST time you mentioned it, in post 7, where you wrote it as a reply to me asking elaboration on a vaugue point of view.

3. " That is the only thing to satisfy your claim of lack of understanding about me not expressing my opinion, but posting something anyway. "

It's just not funny. How long did you take trying to recontruct the entire meaning of everything I said (don't bother answering that)??????
I claimed lack of understanding about " the cause of murder is disease. The cause of corruption, disease, ", and said that you didn't express your opinion when you made that " Your right I am wrong. That should satisfy your question " comment. Here you're trying to make it sound as if I claimed lack of understanding a critizised you in this paticular way (about not expressing your opinion) when replying to the same point in the discussion.

4. " If this seems ridiculious, it is. But you have left me no choice. " How about, instead of saying something with no meaning that implies that I'm not interested in your opinion except to flame it, you elaborate on your answer to my question (my question was what does " the cause of murder is disease. The cause of corruption, disease, " mean)???

I would still love to know your opinion on my original question which was what does " the cause of murder is disease. The cause of corruption, disease, " mean. I really mean that. But if you are only going to either flame me or try to manipulate what I've said, feel free to get the hell out of my thread.

**THE_SPIRIT** · 01-31-2008 09:47 PM

I feel that murder is the strongest act against the human nature, as i feel that, by taking another life you will not gain anything from that, unless your a spirit.

if i were to see somone about to be murdered, i would hope, i would have the strength to intervien, and to kill them if necesarry.
i would mabey take my own life for the sake off hundereds of others, but the situation hasn't arrose.

**M-Cat** · 01-31-2008 10:36 PM

Originally Posted by The Fishy

3. Would you commit the same act as in question 2 for utilitarian reasons (e.g. kill to save a lot of people from being murdered)? Why?

That's called casuistry. Just thought I'd post that big fancy word.

**superlox3** · 01-31-2008 11:00 PM

1. The wickedest act as I see it is robbing someone of something they are proud of. Claiming their work as your own, taking the rewards for their work; in all, stealing what can never be regained.

This is because the feeling that you get when you find that all you worked so hard for is gone, that someone has taken it, creates hate towards that individual. Eventually this hate leads to hate against the people that the person hangs out with. Then it leads to hate against the look or grouping of the person. And finally it ends with the hate towards entire religions, races and classes. And then this hate spreads to other people. This is the worst kind of hate, for it destroys lives of innocent people on mass.

2. It probably depends. If someone is attacking my friends or family; and there is nothing to do but fight back then I would fight back as necessary. I wouldn't try to kill them, or even harm them; I would try to detain them until a safe resolution can be attained.

If one of my friends or family were to be committing suicide and the only way to stop them was to remove their freedoms and chain them to the bed; then I would do that until they could calm down and I could help them understand that there are other ways.

So I believe that the answer is yes, I would do immoral things for the greater good; but only to a certain degree.

3. Yes, I believe I would do the same types of things to save a group of people from harm. Although I would still only do these things withing a certain degree of morality; and I wouldn't actually do anything too extreme.

**Abra** · 02-01-2008 03:58 AM

1. Killing another conscious being is the most serious crime I think is possible for a single person (because a single person cannot retrograde civilization to the bronze age, no matter how convincing that last Die Hard movie looked).
2. This is an absurd scenario. Murder to save someone else from having to murder? Why not prevent the would-be murderer from murdering?
3. In what situation would I have to murder to save many? I can only think of murdering a person for national defense, which is perfectly acceptable and logical to me.

**Taosaur** · 02-01-2008 04:27 AM

This question posed an interesting challenge for me, as my morals are based on a kind of generous pragmatism--essentially I act selfishly but with a very broad notion of self-interest, understanding that what's good for the world is good for me, and what's bad for the world is bad for me. The concept of "wickedness" or the worst possible act is a little foreign to that framework, but here's what I came up with:

1. Suffering. I might have said inflicting suffering, but it's not possible to do so; one suffers or not. I'm not sure I can convey this clearly, but I'm not saying that it's "our fault" when we suffer due to death, injury, violation or betrayal, but only that one must have been suffering beforehand in order for that suffering to be exacerbated by events. What's more, all "wicked" acts have their roots in the perpetrator's habits of suffering, so whether murder, rape, theft, or betrayal, all begin with suffering.

I think it's clear how 2 & 3 don't apply in this case; one can't suffer to ease suffering, one can only free oneself from suffering.

**The Fishy** · 02-01-2008 08:49 AM

Originally Posted by Abra

1. Killing another conscious being is the most serious crime I think is possible for a single person (because a single person cannot retrograde civilization to the bronze age, no matter how convincing that last Die Hard movie looked).
2. This is an absurd scenario. Murder to save someone else from having to murder? Why not prevent the would-be murderer from murdering?
3. In what situation would I have to murder to save many? I can only think of murdering a person for national defense, which is perfectly acceptable and logical to me.

If you think an answer to a question would be silly in any way (bearing in mind that these are hypothetical situations) this is what you should do...

"Edit: The above examples were all for specific things (e.g. murder, lying, etc) and as I've gotten mostly non-specific values/acts I've decided to add a list of examples of what to do if the act that offends your morality the most is non-specific. Here are the list of questions for that situation:

1. Same as before.

2. Would you do something that is in your eyes extremely immoral to save someone else from something that is as harmful as your act is immoral?

3. Would you do the same immoral act as in question 2 for utilitarian reasons (e.g. would you do that same act to save a group of people from harm)?

I hope that clears things up."

Btw, Abra, the bold was for people to see it, as I can't edit my first post for some reason and but it in there

**MidnightQueen** · 02-01-2008 06:01 PM

1. Since children are innocent and haven't had a chance to experience the world yet, I think that hurting children sexually, physically, or mentally is the worst possible thing you could ever do. Especially to take the life of a child. (And I don't mean abortion, 'cause I have a different view on that. I mean after they've already been born.)

2. It depends on who that other person is. If it's someone I know like my family or a friend, then I would. But if it's a complete stranger, then I would not. If it was another child... I would not soil my own hands. I would have to pick the least of the greater sins, so to speak.

3. I think I would. I think that the groups' needs need to be served first before the individual in this case.

**Kacper** · 02-01-2008 06:07 PM

I've promised The Fishy to toss in my two cents, so here they are.

First of all, in our conventional way of thinking of good and evil we tend to mix the ethics with the morality. To some they are the same; to me they're not. Morality has strong cultural basis - what is considered immoral in one culture is accepted in another. There is, however, a set of universalia that we all abide with, consciously or not, for as long as we are sane. This is what ethics is concerned with. We humans are born with an ethical code of sorts; it's basic article, if it can be called that, would read "thou shalt not kill". Every sane human individual unconsciously steers out of the situation when he or she is forced to kill anyone. Sociopaths have no problem with this, but then, they are not sane. That's why the U.S. Army devised a training system to break this natural pattern of behavior.

The second article reads: "Thou shalt help another human being in need." It needs no explanation; it needs neither learning nor memorization. I've read in the newspaper about a teenager who saved a person from a burning house, just because he happened to be passing by. The town authorities called him a hero; he didn't bother with that. He admitted that he did it without thinking about what he was doing - it just happened.

Mike Huckabee said in one of his speeches that "Human nature is essentially selfish". Not so; we become selfish only when our nature becomes corrupted with culture. That's an important point.

When we abide with the laws and customs the culture imposed on us, we're cut from our human nature which - being what it is - transcends cultural barriers. When we see a person in need we go on and help him; when faced with conflict we avoid killing the opponent, all this provided we are sane. But crippled individuals don't think this way; they think, for example, that killing a person from a different background - ethnic, cultural, religious - is fine, because it's sanctioned by their own culture. This is the way to lose track of the ethics, to lose our freedom and to lose our humanity.

And that's my opinion, if anyone cares.

**Mystic7** · 02-02-2008 01:17 AM

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Well mystic, as someone who takes no sides I do have to say that you tend to see problems that aren't there, create mountains out of mole hills, and get into petty disputes with people more than most here.

Whether or not that is intentional is for you to decide. I enjoy some of your posts so I was disappointed to see that in more recent weeks your post content has declined, and your anger risen. That's just my 2 cents for what it's worth...Peace.

Interesting observation you have there. It's worth more than some other peoples 2 cents. But I don't know about anger, that's a bit strong. I'm not perfect that's for sure.

**Mystic7** · 02-02-2008 02:28 AM