Inherently wrong actions?

[columbus]

The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.



.

So if a woman aborts her child it is murder? Abortion is extremely illegal in Saudi Arabia.
Or do you have a subjective opinion about which laws people should be held to? Suppose Ted Cruz had been elected President and his Supreme Court appointment overturned RoevWade. Would you then agree that abortion is murder?
Tom

 

[Acim]

Morality would be relative if we have no knowledge or forethought on how it may affect yourself and others in the future. Consequences are not relative. Ignorance from not realizing the full consequences is an excuse in convenience. For the most part we know better.

What do you mean when you say "consequences are not relative?"

Justifying killing as permissible because it is done in self defense tells me we don't know better. Also makes it clear that we don't believe killing (other humans) is inherently wrong.

 

[Skwim]

So if a woman aborts her child it is murder? Abortion is extremely illegal in Saudi Arabia.

Then under Saudi law I imagine it would constitute murder.

Or do you have a subjective opinion about which laws people should be held to?

Which laws I think people should be held to is irrelevant. If a law says X is murder, and someone commits X then they've committed a murder under that law.


.

 

[columbus]

Then under Saudi law I imagine it would constitute murder.

Which laws I think people should be held to is irrelevant. If a law says X is murder, and someone commits X then they've committed a murder under that law.


.

So,
Are we agreeing that murder is a vague term with no objective meaning?
And that your use of the words "unlawful" and "premeditated" was irrelevant, because nobody knows what they mean either?
And that if Donald Trump got Roy Moore a seat on SCOTUS, the meaning of the word murder would change?
Tom

 

[Skwim]

So,
Are we agreeing that murder is a vague term with no objective meaning?

Which words in my definition don't you understand?

They're all in the dictionary.


.

 

[Acim]

Let's pretend for a moment that there is no God. And lets pretend that human beings do not exist. And just for a moment, lets also pretend that no other life exists either. Is there anything wrong with rain falling from the sky? Is there anything wrong with volcanoes erupting? Would it be wrong for an asteroid to collide with the earth? Would it be wrong for the Sun to explode? I will assume that you have answered "no" to each of these questions. You see, for something to be inherently wrong, there must be a sentient being capable of perceiving it. This sentient being doesn't have to know that what has taken place is wrong necessarily, it only needs to perceive an unsuitable or undesirable condition. After all, wrong is defined as " an unsuitable or undesirable manner or direction".

If my intention is to travel north on the highway, and I mistakenly go south, I will hopefully soon realize that I have made a "wrong" turn. I had intended to go north. Me going south does not suit my intentions. I am moving in an undesired direction. I'm going the wrong way. Going south when I want to go north is inherently wrong. Why? because I want to go north. To go in the wrong direction is wrong, assuming my intention is to go in the right direction.

Actually, I see it as relatively wrong. Cause if you kept going south, you'd eventually get to your destination. Probably get there quicker if you went the other way.

Still leaving God out of the equation, the rightness or wrongness of something is purely subjective, and is a matter of each sentient beings personal perspective on the matter. What you think is right, I might think is wrong. So the bottom line here is about consequences. Most decent people on the planet believe that rape is wrong. If you think its okay to rape someone, that's fine...do what you think you must do, but there will be consequences if we catch you. And the consequences would be a whole lot worse if I catch you. But that's just because I don't believe in mercy. No one deserves it, so I'm not giving it.

I fully agree that rape is relatively wrong. I'm not sure how many times I need to repeat this. Noting that it isn't necessarily inherently wrong doesn't mean it is inherently right. It does mean that there could be cases where it is seen as not wrong. IMO, the topic is tricky to discuss because of the emotional baggage. I currently see, even in this thread, the way around it as simply noting certain situations do not make for rape. And because it hinges on consent, I think that does make for relative wrongness rather than inherent. Apart from this thread, if someone asked me "rape - wrong or right" - I'd go with wrong. There wouldn't be a stipulation about inherent or relative, unless that was what is also up for discussion. Because of degrees of rape, and because of ongoing questions I have around consent, if I were to stipulate it, it would be along lines of 95% of the time, I see it as wrong. Possibly less if certain parameters (namely around consent) were tightened.

There are numerous actions and even thoughts that are inherently wrong. Why? Because I say so. You see, when it comes to judging other people, I have the last word. Unless you would like to invoke a God. In that case perhaps I'll defer the last word to Him. But nevertheless, I will judge you and everyone else based upon my own personal subjective feelings, and it makes no difference if you think I'm right or wrong.

That's fine. Thanks for helping establish wrongness as relative to what you say, and whether or not you are present.

 

[Acim]

So = that all people consider something wrong all of the time everywhere? Or = that all people should consider something wrong all of the time everywhere?

The latter.

Though I detest the word "should."

 

[columbus]

Which words in my definition don't you understand?

They're all in the dictionary.


.

Lets start with unlawful.
In an area that ISIS controls are their opinions the law?
Tom

 

[Acim]

This is just all very confused.

The Golden Rule is not a causal law. It is a moral precept.

I see it, experience it, understand it as a causal law. I used to see it as a moral precept only. Then I became aware.

To claim that there are no inherently immoral or unethical acts is called nihilism, which isn't a moral thesis worthy of discussion.

Really? Nihilism subscribes to idea of relative wrongness?

Without an appeal to a god, I'm unclear on what makes for absolute / inherent wrongness for any rational thinker? I don't think it can be strictly consent, otherwise everyday I experience absolute wrongness. Miracle I'm still alive.

 

[Acim]

The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

Obviously, unlawful (or lawful) is what makes it relative. Countries that, via governmental policy, kill homosexuals are, I'm pretty sure, engaged in lawful premeditated killing of humans, therefore not inherently wrong, yes?

 

[columbus]

Which words in my definition don't you understand?

They're all in the dictionary.
.

Now lets go on to the word "premeditated".
If government officials knew that lead in drinking water would result in deaths(and maybe worse), was it premeditated to ignore the problems in Flint? Does ignoring the science when it interferes with your political ambitions, and so remaining ignorant about the effects of a policy on children, make the deaths "unpremeditated"?
I don't think so. Perhaps you differ.
Tom

 

[The_Fisher_King]

The latter.

Though I detest the word "should."

Okay. The thing is, what I believe everyone ought to consider to be inherently wrong stems from my worldview. If your worldview is different (particularly if you reject certain key premises of my worldview), you might well disagree. So I'm not sure we're going to make much progress.

 

[JoStories]

Oh boy. So something is only wrong if there is a threat of consequences? Even as moral shenanigans go, that seems a pretty sketchy slippery slope.

So if I get away with a rape it's not actually wrong?(by your standard)

That aside, these are still only your personal valuations. Nothing inherent, or even wrong in any sense outside of these valuations.

So by your standards, if the SOB that raped my daughter had not been caught, he would have done nothing wrong? Well, I have to say, that is very possibly the most messed up kind of thinking I have seen here to date. Rape of a child or anyone for that matter is wrong period. The fact that you asked why is beyond my understanding.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Inherently wrong actions?

There are none. Morality and ethnics are social constructs.

 

[JoStories]

I had to read through the rest of the thread to see a) how @Satans_Serrated_Edge was responding and b) see if anyone else was responding. I'm not seeing you explain much by way of inherently wrong.



If a person desires to be raped. Yep, I know, odd. Very rare (I think). But I've experienced conversations with (2) people that were expressing this. Googled it, and found it wasn't just those 2 people that had this fantasy. In my discussions, it was me trying to determine if it was strictly role playing or actual. To be honest, I'm not clear and see it as a gray area. From what I understood in the conversation, if the person knew it was a set up (role play), it wouldn't be appealing to them. But also was able to get enough info that had the person convey that if it were brutal and not (for them) sexual it would be very unappealing. I think there are many degrees of what is possibly rape, such that whatever is the most extreme version, I do believe a majority (I'd like to think everyone) would say it is wrong. However, there are two reasons why I can't agree with it being inherently wrong. Possibly 3 reasons, but I'm not going to bring up the third right now. One (that actually relates to the third reason) is it is possible that there are people living amongst us that do desire the most extreme version to be done to them, therefore not inherently wrong, in their opinion. I do see this as hypothetical. Second reason is because there are people willing to commit the act (be the aggressor) and I don't believe that for them it is inherently wrong. I don't see this as hypothetical. Nor do I see it as a situation where everyone else is wrong and they are (inherently) right. For me, it's like any situation where aggression is seen as warranted. I probably have my own version of that (which doesn't harm anyone) but I do recognize it as detriment to myself. Yet, in the moment, I'm likely to justify that my aggression was warranted then.

The rape of a child is never ever justified nor is it right, if we can agree on what is 'right'. And the person that dares to suggest that a child can be responsible for that rape is a total ...well, I would rather not use those words here. But please, someone explain to me how my 8 year old would have wanted to be raped. I will NOT hold my breath.

 

[JoStories]

harm

[hahrm]

• Synonyms
• Examples
• Word Origin

See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun
1.
physical injury or mental damage; hurt:
to do him bodily harm.
2.
moral injury; evil; wrong.
verb (used with object)
3.
to do or cause harm to; injure; damage; hurt:
to harm one's reputation.


vs


wrong
rôNG/
adjective

1. 1.
   not correct or true.
   "that is the wrong answer"
   synonyms: incorrect, mistaken, in error, erroneous, inaccurate, inexact, imprecise, fallacious,wide of the mark, off target, unsound, faulty;
   informalout
   "the wrong answer"
2. 2.
   unjust, dishonest, or immoral.
   "they were wrong to take the law into their own hands"
   synonyms: illegal, unlawful, illicit, criminal, dishonest, dishonorable, corrupt; More

adverb

1. 1.
   in an unsuitable or undesirable manner or direction.
   "what am I doing wrong?"

noun

1. 1.
   an unjust, dishonest, or immoral action.
   "I have done you a great wrong"
   synonyms: misdeed, offense, injury, crime, transgression, violation, peccadillo, sin; More

verb

1. 1.
   act unjustly or dishonestly toward (someone).
   "please forgive me these things and the people I have wronged"
   • 
     
     I get how you could marry them to create some (still arbitrary) moral system for yourself, or adopt one(more likely), but lets not be disingenuous and pretend these words are synonyms.

Is a comet that destroys a planet 'inherently wrong'? It's certainly harmful. No 'harm' is caused by theft from someone who has more than enough to sustain themselves. Is it wrong to steal from the rich?

These are different words with different meanings.

By posting this, then it follows that, by using your posted definitions, rape clearly DOES cause harm and in no way am I referring to sexual games that include rape. I am talking about violent rape done against the will of the one being raped, whether man, woman or child. So please, tell us again how there is no harm in rape.

 

[Smart_Guy]

I believe there are at least some of those. Murder (no just killing) and theft are examples among others I believe are.

Some could say that everything harmful is inherently wrong, but in my humble opinion, I believe that's wrong. There are harmful actions that are natural to take given circumstances. I could hit someone back hard if they want to, for example, want to rape me, and I wouldn't hold back even if it kills them in the process (I'm not saying there is an intention to kill them). Accordingly, physical violence is wrong by default, but not inherently wrong and is okay to resort to in some cases, I believe.

 

[ArtieE]

Here are some interesting articles on how morality evolved.

The rape of a child is never ever justified nor is it right, if we can agree on what is 'right'. And the person that dares to suggest that a child can be responsible for that rape is a total ...well, I would rather not use those words here. But please, someone explain to me how my 8 year old would have wanted to be raped. I will NOT hold my breath.

Since you mentioned "8 year old" here is some information about such a case.

"Rawan, an eight-year-old girl in Yemen has died from being repeatedly raped by her 40-year-old husband. She bled to death after being sold by her parents to her husband."
http://www.religiousfreedomcoalition.org/2013/09/20/muslim-man-rapes-child-bride-until-she-dies/

 

[serp777]

Yes, assuming that you accept the environment that makes the action possible as part of the action itself.

Rape, for instance, is by definiton wrong.

So is nurturing cruelty in a more general sense.

So is Intentionally misleading others out of personal convenience.

I would agree that these actions are wrong in my opinion and personal experience, but I wouldn't call these things INHERENTLY wrong. Inherently wrong implies a kind of objective, or universal morality that doesn't appear to exist. For example cruelty has evolved in some species as a survival mechanism like when lions play with and torture their dying prey. I don't call this inherently wrong though because its just the course of evolution and no human is in a position to judge, with any kind of authority, that certain pathways of evolution are inherently morally right or wrong.

 

[serp777]

I believe there are at least some of those. Murder (no just killing) and theft are examples among others I believe are.

Some could say that everything harmful is inherently wrong, but in my humble opinion, I believe that's wrong. There are harmful actions that are natural to take given circumstances. I could hit someone back hard if they want to, for example, want to rape me, and I wouldn't hold back even if it kills them in the process (I'm not saying there is an intention to kill them). Accordingly, physical violence is wrong by default, but not inherently wrong and is okay to resort to in some cases, I believe.

If you're a Muslim murder isn't inherently wrong--it depends on who you murder. Muhammad was a warmongerer and probably aggressively killed hundreds on his own and lead to the slaughter of thousands.