Inherently wrong actions?

[ArtieE]

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 don't get your point. If we knew all the variables we could say whether capital punishment was generally objectively beneficial for society or not. Since we don't have all the variables we must just leave it to the governing bodies of societies to do what they think is objectively right.

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.

So what? There is always an objectively moral way of doing things. That we don't have enough information to know what it is doesn't stop us from trying to do what we think is objectively correct based on the information we do have.

 

[ArtieE]

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.

If that leads you to that conclusion you really should stop posting and take a break and examine your reasoning a little closer! It isn't immoral for a police man to shoot a suicide bomber before he enters an airport even though it would be immoral to shoot a person who poses no threat to anybody.

 

[ArtieE]

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.

Self defense is of course perfectly moral since you stop a person about to harm or kill you and possibly others after you. The rest of your post seems just confused.

 

[Acim]

I don't get your point. If we knew all the variables we could say whether capital punishment was generally objectively beneficial for society or not. Since we don't have all the variables we must just leave it to the governing bodies of societies to do what they think is objectively right.

I disagree that we must do this. Or agree as much as any time anyone engages in killing we must leave it to them to do what they think is objectively right.

So what? There is always an objectively moral way of doing things. That we don't have enough information to know what it is doesn't stop us from trying to do what we think is objectively correct based on the information we do have.

I feel you are misusing "objectively" here. Every conceivable action would be "objectively moral way of doing things" by how you are using this term without explaining things. I honestly see each use by you of "objectively" being better understood if replaced by "subjectively." Such that:

There is always a subjectively moral way of doing things. That we don't have enough information to know what it is doesn't stop us from trying to do what we think is subjectively correct based on the information we do have.

The "objective" I think you think makes it not open to argument, as you seem to think "objectively moral things exist" yet can't provide actions, that stand up to scrutiny, which are truly objective. More like, based on your personal feelings that such objectivity must exist. There's your 'so what.'

 

[Acim]

If that leads you to that conclusion you really should stop posting and take a break and examine your reasoning a little closer! It isn't immoral for a police man to shoot a suicide bomber before he enters an airport even though it would be immoral to shoot a person who poses no threat to anybody.

As I said, perhaps in a hypothetical, but I would disagree in actuality. I'm not aware of the many actual cases we have of police shooting suicide bombers before they enter an airport. In fact, I'm aware of zero.

Again, by this logic, the Dallas shooter was perhaps acting morally by shooting officers BEFORE they killed other black people, who he (and many others) think pose a threat to black people.

I believe overwhelming majority of people attack others based on perceived threat. Some (very few) might do it for pure pleasure. Yet even that might be seen in scheme of things as, not killing them would pose a threat to that person (i.e. they'd get arrested, perhaps for life without parole). And then there's the people amongst us who appear to enjoy a good ol' fashioned execution. Gotta get some popcorn before they finish that guy (or gal) off.

 

[Acim]

Self defense is of course perfectly moral since you stop a person about to harm or kill you and possibly others after you. The rest of your post seems just confused.

Oh, I'm fairly certain I'm not the confused one here.

Self defense is the root of immorality. The silly notion that the self is in need of defense and that this can come from hurting others. All based on the subjective perception of threat.

 

[ArtieE]

I disagree that we must do this. Or agree as much as any time anyone engages in killing we must leave it to them to do what they think is objectively right.

We can agree or disagree about anything our governments do and try to influence them of course by legitimate means.

I feel you are misusing "objectively" here. Every conceivable action would be "objectively moral way of doing things" by how you are using this term without explaining things.

Of course not. I am saying there is always an objectively moral action we often just don't know what it is.

The "objective" I think you think makes it not open to argument, as you seem to think "objectively moral things exist" yet can't provide actions, that stand up to scrutiny, which are truly objective. More like, based on your personal feelings that such objectivity must exist. There's your 'so what.'

So you don't think that if we have absolutely all variables and know absolutely everything about a situation and everything about the consequences and interactions and fed this into a computer it couldn't give us what is the objective moral beneficial action anyway?

 

[ArtieE]

As I said, perhaps in a hypothetical, but I would disagree in actuality. I'm not aware of the many actual cases we have of police shooting suicide bombers before they enter an airport. In fact, I'm aware of zero.

Again, by this logic, the Dallas shooter was perhaps acting morally by shooting officers BEFORE they killed other black people, who he (and many others) think pose a threat to black people.

I believe overwhelming majority of people attack others based on perceived threat. Some (very few) might do it for pure pleasure. Yet even that might be seen in scheme of things as, not killing them would pose a threat to that person (i.e. they'd get arrested, perhaps for life without parole). And then there's the people amongst us who appear to enjoy a good ol' fashioned execution. Gotta get some popcorn before they finish that guy (or gal) off.

You are now getting so frivolous that I decline answering this post...

 

[Acim]

We can agree or disagree about anything our governments do and try to influence them of course by legitimate means.Of course not. I am saying there is always an objectively moral action we often just don't know what it is.

Which would mean it is your belief, thus subjective. That you can't specify actions that are inherently wrong helps establish this.

So you don't think that if we have absolutely all variables and know absolutely everything about a situation and everything about the consequences and interactions and fed this into a computer it couldn't give us what is the objective moral beneficial action anyway?

I do think if we had this, it would provide for objective actions. I see this as God, and is why I do believe in inherently right and wrong, but not for actions. From the Divine perspective, there are no wrong steps in the physical path cause they are all inherently meaningless.

Seeing that no one in the physical comes remotely close to 'all the variable' and/or knowledge of it, I see it as subjective in determining which variables are worthy of selective input and which are to be disregarded as, how you say, frivolous.

 

[Acim]

You are now getting so frivolous that I decline answering this post...

I'm okay with that, seeing it is entirely on you.

 

[ArtieE]

Which would mean it is your belief, thus subjective. That you can't specify actions that are inherently wrong helps establish this.

Of course I have subjective beliefs about what is objectively moral actions. That I have subjective beliefs about what the objectively moral actions might be has no bearing or influence on what the objectively moral actions are.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Of course I have subjective beliefs about what is objectively moral actions. That I have subjective beliefs about what the objectively moral actions might be has no bearing or influence on what the objectively moral actions are.

Just a second here.

If you admit your moral reconning is 'subjective belief ' then just who is deciding what the objective stuff is? Humans like you and I one would assume?

Which would leave those judgments that they are making as also subjective, right?

 

[Sonofason]

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.

You're right.

 

[Sonofason]

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.

In America? You said as little as 100 years ago, it was "common" for girls as young as 11 or 12 to be married, but the statistics show that the average age of marriage for girls 100 years ago was 21 years of age. I guess it wasn't so common as you suggest.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005061.html

If it were common practice as you said, I believe the average should be quite a bit lower than it actually was.

But it is true that the legal age of consent in America was a lot younger back then.
"During the 19th century, the age of consent in the United States varied between 10 and 16, depending on the state and year. The age of consent was the age when it was determined that a boy or girl -- but most often, a girl -- was capable of consenting to any sexual activity. This does not mean minors often married, however. Although minors could, and still can, marry with parental consent in America, most did not marry so young."
http://classroom.synonym.com/age-marriage-us-1800s-23174.html

 

[Acim]

Of course I have subjective beliefs about what is objectively moral actions. That I have subjective beliefs about what the objectively moral actions might be has no bearing or influence on what the objectively moral actions are.

It does, to me, until you put forth a rational argument for what you precisely mean by "objectively moral." Such as examples of inherently wrong actions.

Your assertion is like saying, "my subjective beliefs about God has no bearing or influence on God's objective existence." (As if that right there establishes God's existence, as objectively known to all.)

 

[ArtieE]

It does, to me, until you put forth a rational argument for what you precisely mean by "objectively moral." Such as examples of inherently wrong actions.

We evolved a survival instinct so it is inherent in our nature that we don't want to be murdered. Nobody subjectively decided that we should have a survival instinct. Hence murder is inherently objectively morally wrong and not wrong because somebody subjectively decided it's morally wrong.

 

[Acim]

So far in this thread, the people responding to OP as if there are inherently wrong actions are, I observe, assuming that actions they consider wrong are 'always wrong' or 'wrong by definition' and not readily backing this up. Or as OP asked: really looking for any thoughts, words or actions that people think are inherently wrong and why they reach that conclusion.

I'm perhaps mistaken on the backing it up part, but am interested in taking stock of what the thread has so far put forth as (inherently) wrong. I'll do so below, and will put an asterisk by those items that I see being under contention in other posts on this thread that essentially challenges the rationale of "inherently wrong." The ones highlighted in this color are ones that I observed mentioned, but not (fully) explained why.

• Rape*
• Nurturing cruelty
• Intentionally misleading others out of personal convenience
• Killing with malice aforethought (i.e. murder)*
• Stealing*
• Arson*
• Harming others*
• Needlessly unkind
• Disbelieving God*
• Serving Satan*

I see all of these in the thread as not fully explained why they are inherently wrong. I see those that contest them, such as myself, saying they consider it relatively wrong or personally wrong. I find this important as the 'inherently wrong' crowd, when meeting contention assumes anyone that disagrees with the inherent part, must be thinking it is (inherently) right.

The counter argument to the contention of "not inherently wrong" is -in general- asserting that certain (immoral) actions are detrimental. I believe, from language in the thread, that the detriment is applicable to society (in very broad sense), or to individual life, liberty and property.

Self defense has been brought up, and is for me, a matter of debate. It does deserve to be in this thread because it can be/is used to justify some actions from the list above as (inherently) right. Such as killing another person during action of self defense is permissible/right. Which obviously means harming others via self defense is permissible/right. I truly do believe all the things from the list could be seen as permissible/right if done out of self defense. Arson for sure, stealing for sure, intentionally misleading for sure. The ones from the list dealing with cruelty/malice are the type of things I don't think are permissible under self defense type logic. But I do think that gets dicey, cause if the end result is murder and only one person walks away from the situation, no one would know what occurred but the self defender. Though evidence might convict the self defender who killed their attacker and who happens to have body limbs hacked off or is littered with say 75 rounds. Given people's beliefs around self defense though, I do think cruelty would be justified by some, seen as permissible or understanding as snap judgment from the threat of attack. Thus relatively wrong, and arguably, for some, relatively right.

As I stated in earlier post: I honestly do think that self defense (of the violent kind) is the root of the double standard at work with regards to morality.

I'd like to elaborate on the self defense aspect as I truly see that as how people are justifying for themselves/society that certain actions are inherently wrong. But I really wanted this post to be a taking stock type post, or review of the thread. I'm pretty sure I'll come back to 'self defense' in another post (or 10) as I really see it as the source of all contention on this issue (of morality/immorality).

 

[ArtieE]

I'd like to elaborate on the self defense aspect as I truly see that as how people are justifying for themselves/society that certain actions are inherently wrong. But I really wanted this post to be a taking stock type post, or review of the thread. I'm pretty sure I'll come back to 'self defense' in another post (or 10) as I really see it as the source of all contention on this issue (of morality/immorality).

I don't see any "contention". It's inherent in our nature that we want to survive and avoid getting hurt or killed so obviously it's inherently right for us to defend ourselves to try to avoid it.

 

[Acim]

We evolved a survival instinct so it is inherent in our nature that we don't want to be murdered. Nobody subjectively decided that we should have a survival instinct. Hence murder is inherently objectively morally wrong and not wrong because somebody subjectively decided it's morally wrong.

The survival instinct isn't readily observable. It's alleged and it is, to a degree, subjective. How it allegedly manifested in us isn't subjective decision making (that we know of).

I am glad to see you finally bring up an example of something/anything you consider inherently objectively morally wrong: that being murder.

IMO, the alleged survival instinct doesn't distinguish between murder and killing, or types of killing. Thus if relying on that as what makes for inherent, then all types of killing would be. The person who attacks another and faces someone who now wants them dead (via self defense) is also going to have alleged survival instinct kick in and not wish to die. Therefore, arguably (from what you are stating) it is inherently wrong to kill, even out of self defense.

I do find it (perversely) interesting that the survival instinct will ultimately fail in all known cases, ever, for persons living on this planet. As in no one is able to use survival instinct to get away from inevitable death. And the way we tally deaths in modern era is that all things are "killers" that lead to our physical death. Such as 'old age' (for lack of scientific terminology) is 'killer of many humans.' I'm currently not aware of any type of death that is never referenced with term of "killing."

I say 'allegedly' because as much as I believe in such an instinct, I don't see it as certainty within scientific understanding. Just did google search on "scientific evidence of survival instinct" (minus the quotes) and while I got some relevant hits in fashion I was hoping for, much of it is truly debatable, as if it is more ongoing hypothesis than scientific theory. I don't dispute it to level of denial because in my own self, I see it occurring some of the time (but not all the time!).

I also see it as a variation on self defense within context of this thread. Such that the alleged survival instinct could be used to justify a whole bunch of relatively immoral actions, but if done for 'sake of survival' then probably viewed, by some, as permissible.

 

[Acim]

I don't see any "contention". It's inherent in our nature that we want to survive and avoid getting hurt or killed so obviously it's inherently right for us to defend ourselves to try to avoid it.

I can agree with this, but is why I previously stipulated "that self defense (of the violent kind) is the root of the double standard at work with regards to morality"

If the instinct is used for avoidance, then likely not of the violent kind. And as I understand forgiveness to be self defense (of the sane variety), I can go along with general ideas of self defense. Just find it hard to reconcile self defense that resorts to violence/counter attack and then deem that justifiable.

I see survival instinct that attacks as representative of our killer instinct. Glad I provided links on that already.