Pages:
Author

Topic: Discussion about ethics and morality, split from "Should miners collude to steal funds from wallet confiscated by US government?" - page 3. (Read 1934 times)

sr. member
Activity: 364
Merit: 250
Morality is universal (independent of time and space), just like universal is law of gravity or Archimedes law. Morality is provable rationally (using logic) and empirically (using observations and experiments).
The law of gravity doesn't say "you shouldn't do x", it just is.
If you want to go against it...well you can't.
And while you can give a false prophecy by doing math wrong, you cannot go against it. If you put 1+1 balls in a box, you will have 2 balls in that box. You cannot end up with 3 or 1.
  
I don't see anything similar with morality, you can do stuff that is considered "immoral".


Quote
It is morally wrong to initiate violence against humans or threaten them to use violence. Initiating violence or threatening to use one contradicts the property law (you own yourself). Noone should initiate violence against you. Neither should you do it against others.

It is also morally wrong to steal properties from other humans.
You are already mixing in your own opinion and bias.
Why do you assume there is such thing as property for humans?
We could have a society in which nobody owned stuff, it is possible. (I'm not trying to argue if that's a good idea or not)

Why do you only include humans? What about animals? What about plants?
What about the violence we have to do in order to eat and survive?
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
Born to chew bubble gum and kick ass
But rationality is based on one's own morals.

Rationality is based on one's morals? Where did you get it from?
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
Born to chew bubble gum and kick ass
Morality is objective (like math, physics, etc.). Term morality have unfortunately been acquired by weirdos, preachers and idiots.

You are stupid

Would you care to explain?
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
Born to chew bubble gum and kick ass
Okey, answer this question and show me how you conclude it rationally and/or empirically.

Is it morally wrong to kill one (innocent) person to rescue 100 others?

It is morally wrong to initiate violence against humans or threaten them to use violence. Initiating violence or threatening to use one contradicts the property law (you own yourself). Noone should initiate violence against you. Neither should you do it against others.

It is also morally wrong to steal properties from other humans.

---------------------

Coming back to your fantastically misleading question:  have you ever been in a situation requiring such a decision from you? No, you were not! And you will never be. It is always morally wrong to kill innocent person. How would you feel if someone killed you (just because you happened to be innocent)?
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
Born to chew bubble gum and kick ass
I think you may have these backwards, as I have often heard others on here refer to "morality" as something defined by governments and religious types (Moral majority, godly morals, etc), and "ethics" be something that is more objective and logical, without caring what someone's opinion of it is at the time.

It is the other way round.

Ethics is what is perceived good and noble by people living in a certain geographical area in a given specific time.

Morality is universal (independent of time and space), just like universal is law of gravity or Archimedes law. Morality is provable rationally (using logic) and empirically (using observations and experiments).

Yeah, I know it is a bit confusing; analogy:
- communists and other freaks acquired term ''anarchy''; during tens of years media convinced people that anarchy is (violent) chaos.
- politicians acquired scientific term ''law'' (laws exactly describe the world around us; laws are rationally and empirically provable) and convinced us that their coercive regulations are laws too, just by labeling their regulations as laws!
- religious freaks acquired term ''morality'' (we all heard BS phrases like ''religious morality'', etc in our lives) and deformed its universal meaning.
sr. member
Activity: 364
Merit: 250
Okey, answer this question and show me how you conclude it rationally and/or empirically.

Is it morally wrong to kill one (innocent) person to rescue 100 others?

That depends on you philosophy. In my opinion it is morally wrong to kill an innocent person, unless the person agrees to it voluntarily, because you do not own that person or person's life. It is not yours to take. A communist however might say it is okay to do so 'for the common good'.

Exactly my point, it differs from person to person.

Quote
However if someone advocates this, I would like to suggest something in return. Did you know that you can save approx. 7 lives with your organs? Please get a valid donor card, drive to the hospital and slit your troth.
That's a fair point, obviously our own survival instinct is too strong for anyone to agree to this (or 99.999% of all people).
Does that make everyone a hypocrite who would claim that sacrificing one (someone who cannot be the one claiming it) to rescue, let's go bigger 1 million?
Would it change anything if the person to be sacrified is guilty of something?
I don't know.  
Saying you may not harm anyone seems like the easy way out, but there are quite some situations that will prove this too be far more complicated.
Luckily most of us won't have to make such difficult decisions though.

Quote
Ah, but wait.

First you have to determine if any of those 7 lives might have been saved by some other organ donor if the 1 person didn't follow your instructions.
Then you have to determine if the remaining lives saved will contribute as more to the common good throughout their entire remaining lives as the 1 person would have contributed.

If not, then they should be allowed to die, so that the 1 person can provide for the common good.

Also you could still rescue more people while being alive and then be an organ donor after that to rescue even more.
But we are also limiting "common good" to "keep more people alive", which isn't necessarily good. (e.g. overpopulation).
^^


hero member
Activity: 728
Merit: 500
In cryptography we trust
- snip -
A communist however might say it is okay to do so 'for the common good'.

However if someone advocates this, I would like to suggest something in return. Did you know that you can save approx. 7 lives with your organs? Please get a valid donor card, drive to the hospital and slit your troth.

Ah, but wait.

First you have to determine if any of those 7 lives might have been saved by some other organ donor if the 1 person didn't follow your instructions.
Then you have to determine if the remaining lives saved will contribute as more to the common good throughout their entire remaining lives as the 1 person would have contributed.

If not, then they should be allowed to die, so that the 1 person can provide for the common good.

 Grin

Ah yes of course, but we can always elect someone to determine that for us   Tongue
legendary
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1035
What is morally right or wrong can differ from person to person, while what's legal cannot so much.

Morality is objective (like math, physics, etc.). Term morality have unfortunately been acquired by weirdos, preachers and idiots.

It cannot differ from one person to person (killing, stealing raping were morally wrong for your and my grandparents 1000 years ago and are morally wrong now for you and me). Ethics (from which the statist and religious laws and regulations are derived) changes over time (raping was ethical and legal a few thousand years ago).

I think you may have these backwards, as I have often heard others on here refer to "morality" as something defined by governments and religious types (Moral majority, godly morals, etc), and "ethics" be something that is more objective and logical, without caring what someone's opinion of it is at the time.
legendary
Activity: 3472
Merit: 4794
- snip -
A communist however might say it is okay to do so 'for the common good'.

However if someone advocates this, I would like to suggest something in return. Did you know that you can save approx. 7 lives with your organs? Please get a valid donor card, drive to the hospital and slit your troth.

Ah, but wait.

First you have to determine if any of those 7 lives might have been saved by some other organ donor if the 1 person didn't follow your instructions.
Then you have to determine if the remaining lives saved will contribute as more to the common good throughout their entire remaining lives as the 1 person would have contributed.

If not, then they should be allowed to die, so that the 1 person can provide for the common good.

 Grin
hero member
Activity: 728
Merit: 500
In cryptography we trust
Okey, answer this question and show me how you conclude it rationally and/or empirically.

Is it morally wrong to kill one (innocent) person to rescue 100 others?

That depends on you philosophy. In my opinion it is morally wrong to kill an innocent person, unless the person agrees to it voluntarily, because you do not own that person or person's life. It is not yours to take. A communist however might say it is okay to do so 'for the common good'.

However if someone advocates this, I would like to suggest something in return. Did you know that you can save approx. 7 lives with your organs? Please get a valid donor card, drive to the hospital and slit your troth.
sr. member
Activity: 364
Merit: 250
Okey, answer this question and show me how you conclude it rationally and/or empirically.

Is it morally wrong to kill one (innocent) person to rescue 100 others?


sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
Born to chew bubble gum and kick ass
What is morally right or wrong can differ from person to person, while what's legal cannot so much.

Morality is objective (like math, physics, etc.). Term morality have unfortunately been acquired by weirdos, preachers and idiots.

It cannot differ from one person to person (killing, stealing raping were morally wrong for your and my grandparents 1000 years ago and are morally wrong now for you and me). Ethics (from which the statist and religious laws and regulations are derived) changes over time (raping was ethical and legal a few thousand years ago).


e.g. two people in the same state can have different opinions on if gay marriage is morally wrong, but they cannot on if it's legal (or they are just wrong xD).

We are probably having disagreements over definitions. Can you define ''morally'' and ''legal''?


I certainly could call it (owning gold) morally wrong.

Can you prove owning gold (chemical element) is morally wrong? What harm do you do to others by owning it? This sounds like an arbitrary opinion to me.


If you say "xy isn't morally right" it's expressing your opinion, not stating a fact.

No, I am stating a fact (objective, provable rationally and / or empirically).
Pages:
Jump to: