Inherently wrong actions?

[ArtieE]

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.

Certainly not. Since we all inherently don't want to die it is obviously better to kill one person who don't want to die than allow him to kill ten people who also don't want to die. Better to end up with one death than ten. Why do you think we differentiate between types of killing? Because some killings are justified since it would be less detrimental for people and the society to kill than not to kill.

I say 'allegedly' because as much as I believe in such an instinct, I don't see it as certainty within scientific understanding.

Then ask any innocent victim who has faced a murderer with a gun whether they were afraid for their lives.

Your logic and reasoning is sometimes very strange but I mostly enjoy rooting out exactly where you go wrong.

 

[ArtieE]

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.

If you and your attacker are alone you should try to inflict as little harm as possible in the act of defending yourself. Anything beyond that would be immoral.

 

[Acim]

Certainly not. Since we all inherently don't want to die it is obviously better to kill one person who don't want to die than allow him to kill ten people who also don't want to die.

But we don't know that she wants to kill ten people. That is where it gets subjective.

I'm pretty sure Obama has authorized actions that lead to more than one person dying that didn't want to. Thus, at a certain level (i.e. world leader types), the numbers game because the factor. Such that Obama (or anyone supporting world leader logic) can say better to kill 3000 people that don't want to die than allow them to kill 10,000 people who don't want to die.

But key words here, IMO, are "better to kill." We just let that go in favor of the number's game, as your post is doing.
If two people meet, and one wants to kill, the other doesn't - then I think the number's game falls apart. Then suddenly, due to self defense type logic, it means the one that doesn't want to kill can kill and this is permissible/morally right. Or if say 5 people wanted to kill 1 person, it could be argued that it is better to kill the 5 to save the 1.

Better to end up with one death than ten. Why do you think we differentiate between types of killing? Because some killings are justified since it would be less detrimental for people and the society to kill than not to kill.

Just poked holes in the math. Feel I've already poked holes in the logic, but I'm sure there will be more back and forth on this point, even if not in this thread, and even if not you and I discussing it. I see killing in self defense, and the logic that entails as being able to justify pretty much all killings, under similar logic. Just gotta perceive a threat in some fashion for that to occur and you're good to go. Perhaps not in all cases, but in many.

I think we differentiate between types of killings because a) we know everyone will be killed in some fashion regardless, but we want to tally the different ways, b) we don't see killing as inherently wrong (really not possible in the physical) and instead see it as relatively wrong, and c) due to (b), we don't know any better, but feel it safe(r) to let certain people go on living as if what they did doesn't have ramifications psychologically/spiritually.

Then ask any innocent victim who has faced a murderer with a gun whether they were afraid for their lives.

This said in response to: I don't see survival instinct as certainty within scientific understanding. Appeal to emotion much?

Your logic and reasoning is sometimes very strange but I mostly enjoy rooting out exactly where you go wrong.

Lemme know when you get started, cause so far it seems like you are still driving to the ball park.

 

[Acim]

If you and your attacker are alone you should try to inflict as little harm as possible in the act of defending yourself. Anything beyond that would be immoral.

If you went with "no harm," I'd agree. To me, inflicting harm would be immoral. Perhaps inherently, or I'd like to think so. A little harm (or more), would be relatively immoral. Depends on the context, local laws as to how permissible it is.

With vigilance for Peace at work, and strong conviction in spiritual forgiveness, I would see no harm being the action called forth.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I agree that there is nothing that is inherently wrong.

Let's posit a being wholly outside of anything we know/understand. It is viewing activities of Earth with no prior knowledge of anything in particular. It knows no other beings, knows no interaction with others, knows no pain nor pleasure, has never conducted any action of its own, nor has it seen/experienced consequences of any action made by itself or others. As this being witnessed a murder, for example, what do you think it would "feel"? How would it react? Would it react? What does the activity it has witnessed mean to the being? I would assume that what it has seen means nothing... it was merely something to see.

Many people find it hard to fathom that a murder might not be "wrong" in a universal sense - and I feel it is because we are so entrenched in being human. We can't ever actually see another perspective on our plight, because we literally can't be anything else. However, simply consider the perspective of a common house fly - a murdered human literally becomes a buffet of nutrition. As in, a human dying is a good thing - to a fly.

 

[ArtieE]

Or if say 5 people wanted to kill 1 person, it could be argued that it is better to kill the 5 to save the 1.

If theoretically the only way to save one was to kill five would-be murderers then of course it's better. I'm amazed you can never see the big picture. Losing five murderers is beneficial for society and losing one innocent would be detrimental.

Just poked holes in the math.

But you have disregarded what is beneficial/detrimental for society. It's not "math" we are discussing but what is most beneficial/least detrimental for society. Losing one innocent or five murderers.

I think we differentiate between types of killings because a) we know everyone will be killed in some fashion regardless, but we want to tally the different ways, b) we don't see killing as inherently wrong (really not possible in the physical) and instead see it as relatively wrong, and c) due to (b), we don't know any better, but feel it safe(r) to let certain people go on living as if what they did doesn't have ramifications psychologically/spiritually.

I just explained to you in an earlier post why we differentiate between killings this is just incoherent.

 

[ArtieE]

Many people find it hard to fathom that a murder might not be "wrong" in a universal sense - and I feel it is because we are so entrenched in being human. We can't ever actually see another perspective on our plight, because we literally can't be anything else. However, simply consider the perspective of a common house fly - a murdered human literally becomes a buffet of nutrition. As in, a human dying is a good thing - to a fly.

It's inherently right for a fly to eat dead humans because that is in it's nature.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

It's inherently right for a fly to eat dead humans because that is in it's nature.

You only prove my point of differing perspectives leading to differing "wrong". Which means, without the proper perspective, there is no such thing as "wrong" - which I believe is the entire point of this thread. That, given the grandest of contexts, there is nothing that can be considered inherently wrong - as in wrong by default, or wrong by the nature of the act/circumstance alone - universally accepted as wrong by ALL parties. No such thing exists.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Again nobody is saying that rape is sometimes right.

I am.

 

[ArtieE]

You only prove my point of differing perspectives leading to differing "wrong". Which means, without the proper perspective, there is no such thing as "wrong" - which I believe is the entire point of this thread. That, given the grandest of contexts, there is nothing that can be considered inherently wrong - as in wrong by default, or wrong by the nature of the act/circumstance alone - universally accepted as wrong by ALL parties. No such thing exists.

The definition of inherent is: "belonging to the basic nature of someone or something". It's inherent in our basic nature to have a survival instinct so it's inherently objectively wrong to murder people by default. I don't see what people subjectively accept has to do with it. Even if all persons on the planet said that something was immoral it wouldn't become objectively immoral, it would still just be their subjective opinion.

 

[ArtieE]

You only prove my point of differing perspectives leading to differing "wrong". Which means, without the proper perspective, there is no such thing as "wrong" - which I believe is the entire point of this thread. That, given the grandest of contexts, there is nothing that can be considered inherently wrong - as in wrong by default, or wrong by the nature of the act/circumstance alone - universally accepted as wrong by ALL parties. No such thing exists.

The definition of inherent is "belonging to the basic nature of someone or something" NOT "belonging to the basic nature of everyone and everything" as it would have to be for something to be wrong for everyone and everything, universally wrong. It appears you are confusing inherently wrong with universally wrong.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

It appears you are confusing inherently wrong with universally wrong.

I don't believe this to be true. My sincere belief is that your field of vision and understanding is simply too restricted to accept an account from greater removed perspective.

The thread (as far as I understood it) was attempting to take stock of whether or not these things are inherent at the universal level. Not whether or not they were inherent to members of humanity. And I believe you also know this - which means you're just trying to remain stubborn and "correct" by your own account. But you're off base, and the fact remains that there is no human morality construct that is applicable at the universal level.

 

[viole]

I am.

Can you expand on this? Under which circumstances is rape OK?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Acim]

If theoretically the only way to save one was to kill five would-be murderers then of course it's better. Losing five murderers is beneficial for society and losing one innocent would be detrimental.

*Snipped the part out that was about me, rather than ideas up for discussion.

All of the hypothetical, strikes me as subjective rationale. Particular emphasis on "would-be," "innocent" and "detrimental." Oh, and of course "better." I see this coming down to: better to kill than be murdered. Seemingly not realizing the insane logic and inherent relativity of judgment.

But you have disregarded what is beneficial/detrimental for society.

Because I disagree that killing, under the guise of self defense, is beneficial to anyone, let alone society. Unless, one is willing to admit that a killer instinct is magically beneficial, and never detrimental.

It's not "math" we are discussing but what is most beneficial/least detrimental for society. Losing one innocent or five murderers.I just explained to you in an earlier post why we differentiate between killings this is just incoherent.

And I'm informing you that it is subjective, your reasoning. Making for relative morality, not something I could ever be seen as objectively moral. Not even remotely close to being inherent given how the world appears to permit the subjective rationalizations around "justified killing" and "not-justified."

 

[Acim]

The definition of inherent is: "belonging to the basic nature of someone or something".

My dictionary definition for inherent is: existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic

Did google search on "inherent definition" (minus the quotes), and the one (from my computer's dictionary) is first one that popped up.

Even with that disagreement, the use of "inherent" in this thread's OP, has to do with morality, or perhaps more precisely actions. You instead wish to make it about "inherent human nature." I've challenged / asked for links that back up the "survival instinct" you keep alluding to. Thus far, I have not seen that. I concede that such a nature does hypothetically exist, but is debatable. I mentioned "killer instinct" as part of that nature, and provided links, even noting that part of "survival instinct" is having a "killer instinct."

Since, you haven't so far provided links, let's just be clear that "instinct" determinations come via observable patterns of behavior in 'someone or something.' Thus, "killer instinct" is clearly observable in, I would venture to say pretty much all of physical nature. Or as I noted earlier (I paraphrase now): world appears to permit killing for all sorts of reasons such as - for food, under guise of self defense, for sport, for pleasure, and even existentially since all physical life on this planet is eventually killed (without exception). In a short phrase, the nature of the physical world could be summed up as: kill or be killed.

Though, us theological types would wish to weigh in and suggest there is another way to understand, look at this "basic nature" but that's perhaps a discussion for another thread. Yet, not so much for me if "self defense (of the violent kind)" is being justified as how objective morality is achieved.

It's inherent in our basic nature to have a survival instinct so it's inherently objectively wrong to murder people by default. I don't see what people subjectively accept has to do with it.

Addressed above, but since you're pushing survival instinct without backing it up beyond your words/opinions, thus allowing free reign of disputing the rhetoric, (as noted before) the survival instinct doesn't care what type of killing you call it. Not even a little bit. The instinct is to avoid all killing. And yet, nature as we either understand it, or experience it (perhaps both) is that we are the killers who are what we are also avoiding. I would say it's not possible to live life on this planet and not be party or directly responsible for killing in some fashion.

If killing/murder were truly detrimental to the physical world, then that detriment occurred long ago. For creationist types that occurred around time Adam took a bite out of an apple or no later than when Cain killed Abel. For most others, that occurred a few billion years earlier. Such that, it would be truly subjective at this point to rationalize how exactly any additional murders/killing are actually detrimental.

But go ahead and give it a shot, and explain how killing/murder is detrimental to nature or society at this point. I'm feeling confident that based on our understandings of either our planet or for sure the universe, that if all humans were killed/murdered, that the physical world would be just fine. If one believes in man-made global warming, the argument could be put forth that it would actually be (highly) beneficial.

Even if all persons on the planet said that something was immoral it wouldn't become objectively immoral, it would still just be their subjective opinion.

Thanks for helping to make the case for why self defense (of the violent kind) is subjective opinion and not objectively moral.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

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).

May I rehearse - and perhaps do a better job of explaining - why I think 'serving Satan' is inherently wrong, on your definition of what 'inherently wrong' means? I am advancing the claim that from God's Perspective, serving Satan is inherently wrong. Regardless of whether or not you or anyone else believes in (my conception of) God, or believes that from God's Perspective, serving Satan is inherently wrong, I am arguing that this does not stop this from being true. From God's Perspective (not my or anyone else on this Earth's perspective), serving Satan is still inherently wrong.

 

[Acim]

May I rehearse - and perhaps do a better job of explaining - why I think 'serving Satan' is inherently wrong, on your definition of what 'inherently wrong' means? I am advancing the claim that from God's Perspective, serving Satan is inherently wrong. Regardless of whether or not you or anyone else believes in (my conception of) God, or believes that from God's Perspective, serving Satan is inherently wrong, I am arguing that this does not stop this from being true. From God's Perspective (not my or anyone else on this Earth's perspective), serving Satan is still inherently wrong.

Thing is, I don't fundamentally disagree with what you are attempting to get across. I say attempting because if dealing strictly with thoughts, I can find agreement. I don't call the 'other perspective' Satan, but realize that's just theological jargon that is differing in appearance only.

But also say attempting because in this thread you are not stating what actions would constitute 'serving Satan.' And are, I think, putting forth argument that an action like rape is inherently right if serving God, and inherently wrong if serving Satan. That's a limb that when you go out on it, I'm not sure even God's perspective can support. You seem to think it can be supported so I'll let you try to explain how.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Can you expand on this? Under which circumstances is rape OK?

Ciao

- viole

Sure. When God sends one of Her Servants to rape someone as punishment/to teach them a lesson for a rape they have committed, either in this life or a previous life.

Additionally, if a community has agreed that the just punishment for a rapist is for the rapist to be raped. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Thing is, I don't fundamentally disagree with what you are attempting to get across. I say attempting because if dealing strictly with thoughts, I can find agreement. I don't call the 'other perspective' Satan, but realize that's just theological jargon that is differing in appearance only.

But also say attempting because in this thread you are not stating what actions would constitute 'serving Satan.' And are, I think, putting forth argument that an action like rape is inherently right if serving God, and inherently wrong if serving Satan. That's a limb that when you go out on it, I'm not sure even God's perspective can support. You seem to think it can be supported so I'll let you try to explain how.

So I am trying to argue that 'serving Satan' is itself an action - which can be performed in various ways - or perhaps more properly a 'family' of actions. I don't want to be tied down by arguing for this or that action being inherently wrong. As you have said above, what for me distinguishes whether an action is (inherently) right or (inherently) wrong is not the particular action per se, but whether it is performed 'for' God, for Satan, or for some other being.

See my above post (#538) for when/why I think rape can be right from God's Perspective (I am not arguing that rape is always right from God's Perspective). The first half of that argument will work also for all other instances of actions widely deemed to be horrific (including child rape). The second half of that argument will work for some instances of horrific action, but not all (e.g. not for child rape).

 

[ArtieE]

The thread (as far as I understood it) was attempting to take stock of whether or not these things

Which things?

are inherent at the universal level.

What does that mean exactly?

The OP says and I quote: "I do mean wrong regardless of geographic location or local laws." Yes there is something that is objectively wrong regardless of geographic location or local laws. For example doing something that is detrimental to survival.