Inherently wrong actions?

[ArtieE]

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.

A design is designed by a designer. We or Mount Everest wasn't.

 

[Sonofason]

Denial of freedom isn't to inflict pain but to avoid that these people inflict pain on others.Ask the justice systems what they do to rehabilitate prisoners.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.If it's justifiable it's not immoral.

Our justice system which includes the incarceration of those who have committed immoral acts finds it's name rooted in the word justice, which means, the process or result of using laws to fairly judge and punish crimes and criminals. You see, it is a punishment. While taking these immoral people off the streets may indeed prevent them from committing further atrocities, I believe the primary reason for this institution is to punish offenders for their crimes, which inflicts pain, which everyone desires to avoid, which hopefully results in conformity to good and moral behaviors.

 

[ArtieE]

Furthermore, we here ideas about "the lesser of two evils". Committing an act that is the lesser of two evils may indeed be the best course of action given a particular situation. By no means however is committing a lesser evil ever good. It is still evil.

Committing the lesser of two evils is the moral thing to do.

 

[Sonofason]

A design is designed by a designer. We or Mount Everest wasn't.

Okay, I suppose in some contexts the word is physiology. Perhaps in other contexts it could be our genetics or evolution if you will. But none of these words necessarily exclude a designer. No one can be certain that there is no design to the human body or the universe for that matter. So far, all of our beliefs regarding this matter are purely subjective.

 

[Sonofason]

Committing the lesser of two evils is the moral thing to do.

Artie, would you rape an 8 year old girl to save my life?

 

[ArtieE]

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?

That I haven't given much thought so I won't comment.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Prophet Mohammed married a 6 year old girl and consummated at 9. Many use this as an angle to attack Islam, but in reality this was common practice at the time. Was the society itself immoral?

How about the Spartans? We all know what they got up to with young boys. We're they immoral as a whole as well?

 

[ArtieE]

Artie, would you rape an 8 year old girl to save my life?

That question is too simplistic. There are three people involved here. Would you give your life to avoid the rape of an 8 year old girl?

 

[Sonofason]

Prophet Mohammed married a 6 year old girl and consummated at 9. Many use this as an angle to attack Islam, but in reality this was common practice at the time. Was the society itself immoral?

How about the Spartans? We all know what they got up to with young boys. We're they immoral as a whole as well?

I am not necessarily doubting that what you've suggested was common practice, but I am curious as to why you believe this. What is your evidence? Please don't go searching for evidence right now to formulate your response. I want to know what evidence you have right now that makes you believe that it was common practice for a man to consummate a marriage to a girl of only 9 years of age. If what you say is true, it very well may be that the entire society was immoral. According to my standards, which you can say are subjective, that society was indeed immoral if what you have said is true.

 

[Sonofason]

That question is too simplistic. There are three people involved here. Would you give your life to avoid the rape of an 8 year old girl?

Yes, in theory, I would. That would be the right thing to do. If I did not, the reasons for me not doing so would be purely selfish. I have already suggested that I would try to prevent a rape if I could. Acting is such a way could surely result in my own death, yet I would indeed do all I could to prevent the rape.

 

[ArtieE]

Yes, in theory, I would. That would be the right thing to do. If I did not, the reasons for me not doing so would be purely selfish. I have already suggested that I would try to prevent a rape if I could. Acting is such a way could surely result in my own death, yet I would indeed do all I could to prevent the rape.

That is what I would have counted on so I wouldn't have raped the girl to save your life knowing you wouldn't have wanted me to.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

I am not necessarily doubting that what you've suggested was common practice, but I am curious as to why you believe this. What is your evidence? Please don't go searching for evidence right now to formulate your response. I want to know what evidence you have right now that makes you believe that it was common practice for a man to consummate a marriage to a girl of only 9 years of age. If what you say is true, it very well may be that the entire society was immoral. According to my standards, which you can say are subjective, that society was indeed immoral if what you have said is true.

Mostly the islamic 'hadiths' I have read, and through sermons by Muslim scholars and imams, but also through other various historical documents.

Even here, in the West, child brides were pretty common as little as 100 years ago..girls as young as 11 or 12.

My point is that the mores of a society are always tied to and reflect that society. They historically change with the times.

 

[Acim]

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.

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.

(Feeling need to repeat myself since "innocent" isn't being defined and used to further your point.)

 

[Acim]

That was self defense which is perfectly moral.

Please explain.

 

[Acim]

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.

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.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.

Considering (governing bodies of) society will engage in premeditated killings (aka capital punishment), that kind of flies in the face of what you are purporting here. It's seems you are using the term "society" as if it is inherently innocent.

I believe, have observed, people taking pleasure in idea, or act of, capital punishment. If later learned it was done in error (person wasn't actually guilty of alleged crime), general response is - oh well, stuff happens. Governments will routinely go along with logic of killing (so called) innocents during time of war (collateral damage) as necessary and acceptable.

Since the beginning of human society, I would venture to guess that actions which would plausibly be classified as "detrimental to the survivability of the society" have only occurred about a billion times.

 

[Acim]

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.

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 wanted to respond to first quote, but I see it (my response) as a bit off topic from what this thread is about. I'll just note that I disagree with assertion of "no reason to believe." Yet, do find that rhetoric convenient and applicable to idea of sacrifice. There is possibly no reason to believe a) it is actually a sacrifice and b) that causing one death will for certain avoid other deaths. Thus, clearly not 'objectively right' to do so.

 

[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.

If you have no other choice committing the lesser of two evils is the moral thing to do.

 

[ArtieE]

Please explain.

Explain what?

 

[Acim]

If you have no other choice committing the lesser of two evils is the moral thing to do.

Perhaps in a hypothetical, but I would disagree in actuality.

What your assertion is saying, as I see it, is: if you have no other choice, committing the lesser of two immoralities is the moral thing to do. Which necessarily leads to conclusion that acting in immoral ways is (sometimes) moral.

 

[Acim]

Explain what?

Why you see self defense as (perfectly) moral.

Though perhaps less necessary to explain if you agree with what post #499 is saying: that acting immoral is (sometimes) moral.