How do we judge moral dillemmas?

[slave2six]

When faced with a moral dilemma, what is the best basis for coming to a decision about right and wrong?

Do religious pronouncements hold the same weight, more weight, or less weight than decisions arrived at outside of the religious realm. Here are three moral issues to consider:

1. Is slavery morally good or bad?
2. Is homosexuality morally good or bad?
3. Is physician assisted suicide morally good or bad?

Please provide an answer to all three questions and then explain whether you arrived at your position(s) because of your religious beliefs or because of some other basis.

 

[Storm]

When faced with a moral dilemma, what is the best basis for coming to a decision about right and wrong?

Reason, with consideration given to instinct.

Do religious pronouncements hold the same weight, more weight, or less weight than decisions arrived at outside of the religious realm.

It depends. I would hope religious leaders use reason, within the context of theology, to arrive at moral decisions. Assuming they do, their pronouncements carry more weight for their followers.

1. Is slavery morally good or bad?

Bad. It violates human rights.

2. Is homosexuality morally good or bad?

Neutral, just like every other orientation. Honesty, however, is virtuous.

3. Is physician assisted suicide morally good or bad?

Eh... it depends on the situation, of course, but generally, I would say good. There's no good in forcing someone to suffer pointlessly. We as a society routinely deny our parents a mercy we wouldn't hesitate to extend to our dogs. I don't get it.

I would call any of the above dilemmas, though.

Please provide an answer to all three questions and then explain whether you arrived at your position(s) because of your religious beliefs or because of some other basis.

My religious beliefs of course have some influence, but none of my answers are dogmatic.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

I am usually want to consider answers to moral quandary by considering which event/choice has as consequence the greatest benefit to as many people (the converse of reducing as much human suffering as possible must also be true since that is functionally equivalent to benefitting) as I am able to reasonably take into account. This usually means that I stop my considerations at the level of my community or country, but certain things need to be considered only from the level of a family or from that of the whole world.


I base my above statement of absolute morality on two separate fundamental values: my own well being and the preservation of my effect on the world. Society is the engine of the latter and I am ultimately the best judge of what is most comfortable/pleasurable to me. Ultimately my beliefs on the matter are what seem most true and reasonable to me. Is this my "religion?" I suppose the answer to that question is that it is in fact a part of it, but not the whole of it.



1) Before I can answer this question I would need to ascertain the nature of circumstances germane to the issue of slavery. First) I need to know whether we are talking about the enslavement of an individual or group of persons or the practice of slavery as a societal institution. Second) I need to know how a person or persons is treated under this hypothetical slavery (either in general for institutional slavery or at the level of the individual in the case of a single person or group of persons). Third) I would need to know the circumstances under which this person became a slave.

At the level of the individual slavery is not a necessary evil; simply being "owned" by someone else does not intrinsically cause harm and need not result in aggregate harm to the person in question (if the slavery is voluntary or a punishment for crimes committed, would result in the slave's or society's benefit in some way; like freeing their family from debt or preventing further reasonable harm to others, and the slave is treated in a manner not dis-similar to a hereditary servant; courteously, healthily, etc in the case of voluntary slavery or a prisoner in the case of punishment). But at the level of society slavery tends to encourage various depredations as those lacking human dignity tend to be the target of greater/more abuses. As such institutional slavery tends towards immorality.

If slaves are treated in a harmful manner, then slavery is immoral.

If slaves are acquired against their will in a manner that is also inconsistent with principles of justice and societal harmony, then slavery is immoral. I am functionally equating "enslavement" with immorality in this case.


2) At the level of individual human behavior homo-sexuality is no more immoral than any other sexual orientation. At the level of a society homo-sexuality would only become immoral if it were so prevalent and selective that it would interfere with the preservation of the human species. Thus it would be fair to state that it is not morally bad or good (the circumstances under which it would be wrong are so remote as to be moot).

3) Physician assisted suicide is the more easy question for me to answer in my particular framework. Is the action in question causing more harm than good? So long as individual practice in general results in more benefit than harm (ameliorates more suffering than it causes), then societally this would make physician assisted suicide a morally good institution. And so long as the physician assisted suicide ameliorates more suffering than it causes, then the individual act would be morally good. Thus, so long as the physician reserves this particular act for those cases where the person in question is in tremendous pain and the families in question do not wish to prolong the suffering, then the act is necessarily morally good.

The "problems" start when you introduce the variable of human beliefs inconsistent with the premise of reducing human suffering as much as possible. So if the family doesn't wish to allow this particular action (while warranted by the level of human suffering in question) because of their beliefs (I.e. suicide regardless of form is immoral) there can be problems. If the family protests, then as a societal institution I believe you would have to value the family's decision since doing otherwise would engender harm to human relations. I would like to believe that in general family's could be convinced by their suffering family member so long as the practice was legal and the need was great, but that need not always be the case in order for the practice's general good to be established given a certain exacting set of restricting circumstances (overwhelming pain, greatly shortened expected life-span, etc).


I try to consider quantity of life and quality life and to do so in a way which maximizes human good. Anything else is dross before that maxim including what any book or person says on the subject.


MTF

 

[whereismynotecard]

When faced with a moral dilemma, what is the best basis for coming to a decision about right and wrong?

Do religious pronouncements hold the same weight, more weight, or less weight than decisions arrived at outside of the religious realm. Here are three moral issues to consider:

1. Is slavery morally good or bad?
2. Is homosexuality morally good or bad?
3. Is physician assisted suicide morally good or bad?

Please provide an answer to all three questions and then explain whether you arrived at your position(s) because of your religious beliefs or because of some other basis.

Okay. First off, I don't believe anything is moral or immoral. Those words are just used to describe what certain religions or cultures have decided is good and bad, but in no way describe any universal set of rules of right and wrong. While I don't believe in right and wrong/moral and immoral, I do have personal preferences on what is okay and not okay mostly based on how I would feel if in a similar situation. For instance, I don't think rape is okay, because I wouldn't like to be raped. I think smoking marijuana is okay, because if I wanted to smoke it, I wouldn't like for it to be illegal. I think stealing from big corperations is okay, because if someone stole something from me, and it was so small that I didn't notice, I wouldn't even know, so I wouldn't care.

Now to answer the three questions, I will respond based on what I think is mean/nice and whatnot, but do not claim that any of the three are either right or wrong on a grand scale, as these are just my own personal opinions and I don't expect everyone to agree.

1. Slavery:
I think slavery is mean. I wouldn't want to be a slave, so I
don't think anyone else should be forced to be one either.

2. Homosexuality:
I think homosexuality is okay. While I don't ever want to engage in sex of any kind, if I did decide to, and I were in love with someone of the same gender as myself, I would find it to be okay for me to have sex with her. As long as both parties consent, sex is okay, in my opinion.

3. Euthanasia:
I think euthanasia is okay as long as the person requesting it is terminally ill. Suicide is really depressing, because the person who ends his or her life is leaving behind all of their family and friends to deal with the sadness they are causing. I don't think anyone should kill themselves unless they are completely miserable and will die anyway only after being miserable constantly for the rest of their life. For instance, if someone has a horrible and painful illness which is certain to kill them, and they want to end their own suffering, I think they should be allowed to.

All of these answers were arrived at by my own opinion, since I don't follow any sort of religion.

 

[MSizer]

"I don't believe anything is moral or immoral. Those words are just used to describe what certain religions or cultures have decided is good and bad, but in no way describe any universal set of rules of right and wrong."

- Whereismyotecard

I disagree. I certainly think that religious dogma gets in the way when trying to evaluate an action on the basis of morality, and I certainly agree that religious organizations have used this to their benefit, but I am convinced that morality has a certain universality (not necessarily absolutism).

Houser and Singer did a bunch of studies where they compared peoples' answers across different cultural backgrounds given hypothetical moral dilemmas, and people answered unanimously, no matter what their background was. Furthermore, they couldn't give an argument for many of their choices, they just felt it. This suggests that we are hard wired for morality in some way.

Of course I believe that since we have the ability to reason, we can also override our instinctual tendancies (although religious dogma often encourages people to ignore that responsibility completely).

 

[Kerr]

Is slavery morally good or bad?

As I see it, this is not a dilemma. The concept of owning another person is morally wrong.

Is homosexuality morally good or bad?

Have yet to see any reason why this would be a moral dilemma, or why it has anything to do with morality.

Is physician assisted suicide morally good or bad?

This is a bit more of a dilemma, but I am not sure I like it.

 

[linwood]

When faced with a moral dilemma, what is the best basis for coming to a decision about right and wrong?

The standard I use is one of violation.
Does the act violate anyone?
To what degree?

Do religious pronouncements hold the same weight, more weight, or less weight than decisions arrived at outside of the religious realm.

Most religious moral standards don`t use my standard of violation so they`re pretty worthless to me ethically.

Is slavery morally good or bad?

Slavery would seem a pretty serious violation to the slaves person so it`s immoral.

Is homosexuality morally good or bad?

Homosexuality is amoral as it in itself has no impact on anyone"good or bad".

Is physician assisted suicide morally good or bad?

The concept in general can be moral.
I believe in practice it can be morally implemented.

 

[TheKnight]

When faced with a moral dilemma, what is the best basis for coming to a decision about right and wrong?

I believe that the best way to do this would be to examine what God desires of us and to act accordingly.

Is slavery morally good or bad?

Slavery can be immoral when used inappropriately, but slavery is not inherently immoral. Our ability to preform hard labor for payment can be either used or abused. Slavery, at least in my religious system, is nothing more than being a servant. For instance, if a person wanted food and shelter, they could become a slave. Or if they were unable to provide food and shelter for their children, they could sell their children into slavery.

Slavery should not entail inhumane punishments or a superiority complex on the part of the slave-owner.

Is homosexuality morally good or bad?

Like the above question, sexuality can be immoral when used inappropriately, but sexuality is not inherently immoral. From my perspective, use of sexuality in any circumstance that is not two unrelated married people of the opposite sex when the woman is not on her period is an inappropriate use of sexuality. That being said, homosexuality would be an inappropriate use of sexuality and is therefore immoral.

Is physician assisted suicide morally good or bad?

Our ability to effect the lives of others (for the good or the bad) is not in itself a moral ability. However, when used inappropriately, it can be. Suicide is murder and therefore assisting suicide is like assisting murder.

Please provide an answer to all three questions and then explain whether you arrived at your position(s) because of your religious beliefs or because of some other basis.

I arrive at these conclusions based on my religious beliefs. I do not believe that our reason is sufficient enough to determine whether or not an action is moral.

 

[Amill]

I believe that all religious and "objective" moral standards are still subjective. One chooses which path of "truth" and morals to follow, so there is still a subjective decision made. So I do not believe religious morality holds more weight than naturally derived morality.

If you believe that morality is objective then you must believe that it is a matter based on authority alone, right? And that god could have made the morals whatever he wanted them to be. He could have made murder the norm, and even praised people for it. Is there a reason he chose to make it immoral, for the most part, to harm other people? Is there a reason he made us empathetic towards people and things we care about? If there is a reason for doing so(such as the human species surviving for more than a year), then the issue no longer needs an authority behind it, and we can come to the same conclusions based on the same logic.

I believe that any intentional and unnecessary physical and mental harm towards other humans and animals to be wrong. I don't consider inflicting pain for survival to be unnecessary, so I don't have a problem with people defending themselves and eating meat. I also believe that all humans are equal and that it's wrong to try and prohibit others from pursuing happiness when it isn't impeding on anyone elses.

So when I look at moral dilemmas, my judgement comes down to whether or not there is intentional and unecessary harm done, and whether or not someone's unharmful happiness is being restricted or taken away. Slavery would obviously fail and homosexuality is fine. Assisted suicides....well if the patient would like for his/her suffering to end earlier, I believe it should be up to the patient, as long as they are mentally capable of making the decision.

 

[Smoke]

When faced with a moral dilemma, what is the best basis for coming to a decision about right and wrong?

I don't suffer from moral dilemmas. That is, I don't ever find myself in a situation where I have to think about what is the right thing or the wrong thing to do. The older I get, the less weight I give to theoretical ethics.

Do religious pronouncements hold the same weight, more weight, or less weight than decisions arrived at outside of the religious realm.

Generally less, because they generally rely on submission to authority, which doesn't seem to me to be morally persuasive.

Is slavery morally good or bad?

I wouldn't like to be a slave, and I don't know anybody who would like to be slave.

Is homosexuality morally good or bad?

It's very good for me. The question seems to me to have no moral value at all, though. It's like asking whether being tall is morally good or bad.

Is physician assisted suicide morally good or bad?

There are times it seems to be the merciful thing.

Please provide an answer to all three questions and then explain whether you arrived at your position(s) because of your religious beliefs or because of some other basis.

Other.

 

[conradxiong]

Okay. First off, I don't believe anything is moral or immoral. Those words are just used to describe what certain religions or cultures have decided is good and bad, but in no way describe any universal set of rules of right and wrong.

Don't you think 'happy' and 'sad' are universal emotions? For me it's very simple. Doing something that will result in the unhappiness of someone else is not moral. Sometimes you don't have a choice, but it always ends in an inner-conflict for me.

I don't need religion or culture for me to know that if I travel the world and come across a diverse group of individuals; enslaving them, stealing their cat or burning down their house is not going to please them.

Homosexuality is fine, as long as nobody is being hurt.

Euthanasia is fine, when the person wants to die. Of course, friends and family are going to be sad, and this goes against when I say, " Doing something that will result in the unhappiness of someone else is not moral". However, friends and family are going to be sad when the person dies anyway, so why not reduce the overall level of 'unhappiness', by assisting the suicide and putting someone out of their misery?

Finally, slavery is immoral. For the same reasons that everyone else has mentioned.

 

[logician]

It's interesting the question "Is abortion morally good or bad" was not asked.

 

[Storm]

It's interesting the question "Is abortion morally good or bad" was not asked.

I think it's questionable at best, but the lesser evil.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It's interesting the question "Is abortion morally good or bad" was not asked.

Now that's an original topic we definitely need a thread for.

 

[Storm]

I would call any of the above dilemmas, though.

It's too late to edit this, but it was supposed to read "wouldn't."

 

[MSizer]

On the topic of homosexuality, I would argue that it produces pleasure for certain individuals, so it is morally good.

 

[TheKnight]

On the topic of homosexuality, I would argue that it produces pleasure for certain individuals, so it is morally good.

You have also stated that you think that cruelly executing meat for the sake of eating is morally wrong. However, it produces pleasure for certain individuals? Does that make it good? Touching little boys produces pleasure for certain individuals. Is that morally good also? What about cutting people into pieces? That may produce pleasure for certain individuals, is that morally good too?

 

[Kerr]

You have also stated that you think that cruelly executing meat for the sake of eating is morally wrong. However, it produces pleasure for certain individuals? Does that make it good? Touching little boys produces pleasure for certain individuals. Is that morally good also? What about cutting people into pieces? That may produce pleasure for certain individuals, is that morally good too?

Guess there is a difference between a "victimless crime" and a crime where people actually get hurt .

 

[TheKnight]

Guess there is a difference between a "victimless crime" and a crime where people actually get hurt .

Oh yeah, I forgot, no one gets hurt when people disobey traffic laws....

 

[Storm]

Oh yeah, I forgot, no one gets hurt when people disobey traffic laws....

While MSizer's argument wasn't very good, neither are your comparisons persuasive. As you point out, all these things hurt someone. Homosexuality hurts no one.