Inherently wrong actions?

[Sonofason]

They are not objectively supposed to want to die. Something has overridden their OBJECTIVE survival instinct which is why we stop them, regard them as ill and sometimes medicate them. What is objectively right doesn't depend on their subjective feelings.

I think we stop them because if they kill themselves, they cause pain to others.

I believe we have not only evolved to avoid physical pain, but we have also evolved to avoid emotional pain as well. If not, I seriously doubt we would experience emotional pain. Therefore, it must be objectively wrong to cause emotional pain to others as well.

However, we could come up with some defensible and justifiable reasons perhaps to intentionally cause pain to others. For example, suppose we catch a rapist who seems to be utterly without remorse with regard to his inherently wrong action of raping people. It is quite possible that by subjecting this person to severe physical or emotional pain, he might see the error of his ways, and recognize that causing pain to others is wrong. It would not be that causing pain to a rapist is the right thing to do, but it may be a case where we can say the end justifies the means.

 

[Acim]

That is the problem."Good" and "right" are synonyms for "moral". What is good and right for the society is per definition the moral thing to do. Always. What is moral is not up for discussion because that is always what is good and right for the society and never what is detrimental. What is moral isn't relative or subjective because that is always what is beneficial.

What is "always beneficial" is subjective. Perhaps you're willing to go out on a limb and provide an action that you see as inherently right, and stop beating around the bush with general terms?

If people are discussing what is moral and one person says "I subjectively think what is moral is what is good for the society" and another person said "I subjectively think that what is moral is what is detrimental to society" that would be a contradiction in terms. What is subjective isn't what is moral but the different opinions people have about what is beneficial."Morality" doesn't equal what is beneficial for society. The definition of "morality" is "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour." "Moral" = beneficial.

You are clearly adding the beneficial, but really I'm okay if we accept that. Now, do you care to express what actions, if any, are inherently wrong and/or which ones are inherently right?

 

[ArtieE]

OK so, given the overpopulation of some countries like china and india, it would be 'moral' to exterminate 95% of them. gotcha.

It hasn't occurred to you that there are many other more practical and useful ways of dealing with overpopulation than exterminating the surplus?

OK so given black people are 15% of the american population committing 85% of the violent crime, exterminating all black people is 'moral'.

It hasn't occurred to you that there are more practical and useful ways of fighting crime than exterminating all black people?

 

[Acim]

How would I know which sources you specifically refer to? Just give me the LINKS!

Alright, here are the ones I found from p.1 of my previously noted search:

- Human behaviour: Killer instincts | Nature.com
- Are We Hardwired to Kill? | DiscoverMagazine.com
- Killer Instincts | Economist.com
- Killer Instinct | PBS.org

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

It hasn't occurred to you that there are many other more practical and useful ways of dealing with overpopulation than exterminating the surplus?It hasn't occurred to you that there are more practical and useful ways of fighting crime than exterminating all black people?

Sure, but that wasn't the argument. I gave examples as per your statement.

Perhaps you need to reword your premise.

 

[ArtieE]

I think we stop them because if they kill themselves, they cause pain to others.

We stop them because objectively they are not supposed to kill themselves. Alive they are a resource that might increase the survival chances of the society.

I believe we have not only evolved to avoid physical pain, but we have also evolved to avoid emotional pain as well. If not, I seriously doubt we would experience emotional pain. Therefore, it must be objectively wrong to cause emotional pain to others as well.

That is correct. Emotional pain can lead to them killing themselves which is detrimental to both them and society.

However, we could come up with some defensible and justifiable reasons perhaps to intentionally cause pain to others. For example, suppose we catch a rapist who seems to be utterly without remorse with regard to his inherently wrong action of raping people. It is quite possible that by subjecting this person to severe physical or emotional pain, he might see the error of his ways, and recognize that causing pain to others is wrong. It would not be that causing pain to a rapist is the right thing to do, but it may be a case where we can say the end justifies the means.

That would be immoral because citizens in a society can't take it upon themselves to inflict pain on whoever they choose as it would be detrimental to the society.

 

[Acim]

I would say it depends on whether context is considered. For example, killing is certainly not always wrong, but killing an innocent person merely for enjoyment is always wrong.

I agree that it is wrong. But I see it as relatively wrong. Though perhaps more thorough discussion on "innocent" and "enjoyment" would help to persuade me. I personally see killing a human as always wrong. So, I might be easy to persuade, if you think about it. I don't think it'd be hard for any killer to make case (in their mind) that person wasn't (exactly) innocent, and then just gotta mask enjoyment factor for apparently some to say, "well, done in the manner you did it, I can see it as right."

Like guy who just killed Dallas police wouldn't have claimed they were innocent, nor do I think he took enjoyment in it. I think as (ex) soldier, he saw it as 'moral duty.'

 

[Sonofason]

We stop them because objectively they are not supposed to kill themselves. Alive they are a resource that might increase the survival chances of the society.That is correct. Emotional pain can lead to them killing themselves which is detrimental to both them and society.That would be immoral because citizens in a society can't take it upon themselves to inflict pain on whoever they choose as it would be detrimental to the society.

I did not mean to suggest that individual citizens of a society ought to have a right to take it upon themselves to inflict pain on a person who otherwise appears to be incorrigible with regard to his immoral actions. But society as a whole can and does inflict pain on certain individuals within the society in order to correct their immoral behavior. And it sometimes works. Neither did I suggest that inflicting such pain on immoral people ought to be considered moral. But we can and do sometimes engage in immoral behaviors because of the notion that the ends justifies the means. And that may sometimes be the case. As I said, a lesser of two evils is still evil, but a lesser of two evils can and sometimes does benefit individuals and society rather than allowing the greater of the two evils to persist. We engaged Hitler in World War II. Confronting Hitler resulted in his death. I thank God that we took the actions that we did, and I thank God Hitler is dead.

Not everyone that we keep alive or allow to live benefits a societies chances of survival. Hitler was one of those people in my opinion. But his death has benefited society, and the chances of survival of a great number of people.

 

[ArtieE]

Yes, I think so. We do not evolve for any particular purpose whatsoever. Pain receptors, and therefore avoidance of pain is the instinct that via evolutionary processes exists in our physiology. It is an accidental consequence that this genetic physical process came into existence (unless of course it was designed by a designer). We evolved a physiological process which causes us to avoid pain. That genetic and physiological process of avoidance of pain inadvertently contributes to our ability to survive. It was not an intended consequence that pain receptors ought benefit our ability to survive, unless of course those processes was designed by a designer. Our design is to avoid pain. It may or may not be the case that this design was purposefully intended to benefit our survival.

Pain serves the purpose of alerting us to danger, injury or illness so we can do something about it before we sustain further injuries or die. Pain serves the purpose of increasing our chances of survival.

"Self-preservation is a behavior that ensures the survival of an organism.[1] It is almost universal among living organisms.[citation needed] Pain and fear are parts of this mechanism. Pain motivates the individual to withdraw from damaging situations, to protect a damaged body part while it heals, and to avoid similar experiences in the future."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-preservation

I think your conclusion correct. Since it wasn't our subjective opinion that organisms should be born with a physiology which causes us to avoid pain, it would be objectively wrong to desire and purposefully cause injury and harm to ourselves. That would be going against the design.

It would be going against how we evolved.

Furthermore, because we have the ability to experience pain, and because we know that we ourselves designed to avoid it, it is therefore also morally wrong to purposefully cause injury and pain to others.

Agree except for the design bit.

 

[ArtieE]

I agree that it is wrong. But I see it as relatively wrong. Though perhaps more thorough discussion on "innocent" and "enjoyment" would help to persuade me. I personally see killing a human as always wrong.

What is actually wrong about killing a human is that the human dies. We loose one human. Killing a human is wrong unless it's to prevent other innocents from dying.

 

[ArtieE]

I did not mean to suggest that individual citizens of a society ought to have a right to take it upon themselves to inflict pain on a person who otherwise appears to be incorrigible with regard to his immoral actions. But society as a whole can and does inflict pain on certain individuals within the society in order to correct their immoral behavior.

The purpose of the justice system isn't to inflict pain on certain individuals in order to correct their immoral behavior. The justice system is trying to put them where they can't do harm to innocent citizens, try to make them good members of society and let them out, and if that doesn't work put them to work doing something beneficial for society.

And it sometimes works. Neither did I suggest that inflicting such pain on immoral people ought to be considered moral. But we can and do sometimes engage in immoral behaviors because of the notion that the ends justifies the means. And that may sometimes be the case. As I said, a lesser of two evils is still evil, but a lesser of two evils can and sometimes does benefit individuals and society rather than allowing the greater of the two evils to persist. We engaged Hitler in World War II. Confronting Hitler resulted in his death. I thank God that we took the actions that we did, and I thank God Hitler is dead.

That was self defense which is perfectly moral.

 

[Sonofason]

Pain serves the purpose of alerting us to danger, injury or illness so we can do something about it before we sustain further injuries or die. Pain serves the purpose of increasing our chances of survival.

"Self-preservation is a behavior that ensures the survival of an organism.[1] It is almost universal among living organisms.[citation needed] Pain and fear are parts of this mechanism. Pain motivates the individual to withdraw from damaging situations, to protect a damaged body part while it heals, and to avoid similar experiences in the future."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-preservationIt would be going against how we evolved.Agree except for the design bit.

I understand you disagree with the design bit, but that is only because, at least it appears to be the case that you do not believe in a designer. Does this mean that you do not believe that the human body has a design? Supposing we wanted to create other human beings, without cloning, and without existing DNA, but fabricate new human life forms that are the same as ours. Would there not have to be a design? Does the human body have no design?

 

[ArtieE]

I should have edited my last post to clarify...because it is more complex than all of that. If we could kill someone without causing them pain, that is still wrong, because killing someone causes pain to others.

What is wrong about killing is that 1. The person dies which is pretty detrimental to him... 2. The society looses a potential valuable member which is detrimental to the survivability of the society.

It is the same reason everyone tells me its wrong to condemn or ridicule a homosexual. It causes him pain. While I might consider such behavior wrong, while such behavior may indeed be wrong, condemning someone for it, or ridiculing them for it causes them pain, and that is wrong to do. But I digress...that is for another thread.

People can be or do whatever they like as long as what they are and do isn't detrimental to the survivability of the society.

 

[Sonofason]

What is actually wrong about killing a human is that the human dies. We loose one human. Killing a human is wrong unless it's to prevent other innocents from dying.

If there are exceptions to the wrongness of killing another human being, such as "except to prevent other innocents from dying, then killing other human beings is not objectively wrong, but is relative and purely subjective. I think you are wrong here. I think killing other human beings is always wrong. While I have not come across an easy solution to this problem, I think it may be reasonable to say that all killing is wrong, not just the killing of other human beings.

 

[ArtieE]

I understand you disagree with the design bit, but that is only because, at least it appears to be the case that you do not believe in a designer. Does this mean that you do not believe that the human body has a design? Supposing we wanted to create other human beings, without cloning, and without existing DNA, but fabricate new human life forms that are the same as ours. Would there not have to be a design? Does the human body have no design?

We could theoretically design a human body to our specifications from the ground up but we have no reason to believe that our bodies were designed in such a way. We could also theoretically design and build a mountain like Mount Everest from the ground up but there is no reason to believe that the original Mount Everest was designed.

 

[ArtieE]

If there are exceptions to the wrongness of killing another human being, such as "except to prevent other innocents from dying, then killing other human beings is not objectively wrong, but is relative and purely subjective.

No it isn't. Since we have a survival instinct it is objectively right to avoid as many deaths as possible. If you have to cause one death to avoid ten it would be objectively right to do so. Just think of all those people who have sacrificed themselves for others since one death is better than many.

 

[Sonofason]

The purpose of the justice system isn't to inflict pain on certain individuals in order to correct their immoral behavior. The justice system is trying to put them where they can't do harm to innocent citizens, try to make them good members of society and let them out, and if that doesn't work put them to work doing something beneficial for society.That was self defense which is perfectly moral.

If the purpose of the justice system isn't to inflict a certain form of pain on someone, such as a denial of freedom, which is of course considered to be extremely painful by many people, how exactly is the justice system "trying" to make them good members of society? Does not allowing someone to do harm cause them to become good members of society? What happens to the immoral person when you restrict his freedom is that he feels the pain and consequence of his actions. If that person is allowed back into society, he may refrain from those immoral actions because he doesn't wish to experience the pain that is associated with a loss of freedom.

I will not deny that self defense is not morally wrong, but I think it is a great leap to suggest that self defense is moral and good. I think I would stop at justifiable.

 

[Sonofason]

We could theoretically design a human body to our specifications from the ground up but we have no reason to believe that our bodies were designed in such a way. We could also theoretically design and build a mountain like Mount Everest from the ground up but there is no reason to believe that the original Mount Everest was designed.

So if there is no design to the human body, and no design to Mount Everest, what do you call that something that I am calling design.

 

[Sonofason]

No it isn't. Since we have a survival instinct it is objectively right to avoid as many deaths as possible. If you have to cause one death to avoid ten it would be objectively right to do so. Just think of all those people who have sacrificed themselves for others since one death is better than many.

I don't know Artie. There is something we're not really considering here, and that is justice. If for example someone like Hitler goes about killing as many Jews as he can find, which we know is morally wrong, we can say that He deserves to die. I'm not sure I would call that good, but it is justice, and he'd be getting the just punishment for his sins.

Is justice equivalent to moral?

 

[ArtieE]

If the purpose of the justice system isn't to inflict a certain form of pain on someone, such as a denial of freedom,

Denial of freedom isn't to inflict pain but to avoid that these people inflict pain on others.

which is of course considered to be extremely painful by many people, how exactly is the justice system "trying" to make them good members of society?

Ask the justice systems what they do to rehabilitate prisoners.

Does not allowing someone to do harm cause them to become good members of society? What happens to the immoral person when you restrict his freedom is that he feels the pain and consequence of his actions. If that person is allowed back into society, he may refrain from those immoral actions because he doesn't wish to experience the pain that is associated with a loss of freedom.

Of course incarceration might have a positive effect but the purpose of incarceration isn't to primarily inflict pain it's to avoid that the prisoner inflicts pain on others.

I will not deny that self defense is not morally wrong, but I think it is a great leap to suggest that self defense is moral and good. I think I would stop at justifiable.

If it's justifiable it's not immoral.