Morality

[Sleeppy]

Disregard any government laws. It's all legal.

Scenario 1:

Tom wants to have intercourse with a very young girl. She and her guardians give their consent. Is this acceptable for him to do?

Scenario 2:

Jim, from his home, can see kids playing outside his window. He decides to masturbate. No one can see him. Is this acceptable for him to do?

Scenario 3:

Kayla notices that her dog is quite fond of her leg. She decides to have sex with her dog. Is this acceptable for her to do?

Scenario 4:

Jim and Kayla have just given birth to a baby girl. They kill her and bury her in the yard. Is this acceptable for them to do?

Scenario 5:

Mike likes to eat dog meat. He raises them and eats them. Is this acceptable for him to do?

Scenario 6:

Ashley loves her poodle, even more than her daughter. Her poodle receives more attention, but her daughter has all of her basic necessities. Is this acceptable for her to do?

 

[InformedIgnorance]

1. Yes, provided that she was truly giving informed consent (which I would need to ascertain)
2. Yes, since there is no repercussion to the children (this to me was the most difficult of the questions, as I had to separate the action and its actual outcomes from potential outcomes which include a potentially increased chance of him going further one day and actually assaulting one of the children)
3. Yes, if the dog takes the dominant role and is not being forced in any way.
4. No, given that she is an intelligent being capable of life, her death through either neglect or direct action without having done something to warrant that life being abridged is immoral.
5. Yes, it is no different than if he were raising chickens.
6. Yes, though it could be argued that adoption would be in the child's best interests as otherwise there may be significant psychological issues.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Scenario 1:

Tom wants to have intercourse with a very young girl. She and her guardians give their consent. Is this acceptable for him to do?

Assuming she hasn't been persuaded by someone with authority over her or is persuaded during the act, I would be inclined to say yes.

Scenario 2:

Jim, from his home, can see kids playing outside his window. He decides to masturbate. No one can see him. Is this acceptable for him to do?

I see no harm in this.

Scenario 3:

Kayla notices that her dog is quite fond of her leg. She decides to have sex with her dog. Is this acceptable for her to do?

This I'm not sure about, but as far as consent goes, I would think in the case of someone who can't speak, actions speak louder than words. Unsure, but favoring yes.

Scenario 4:

Jim and Kayla have just given birth to a baby girl. They kill her and bury her in the yard. Is this acceptable for them to do?

No. There is most definitely harm in this scenario.

Scenario 5:

Mike likes to eat dog meat. He raises them and eats them. Is this acceptable for him to do?

No more or less so than raising cows for the slaughter.

Scenario 6:

Ashley loves her poodle, even more than her daughter. Her poodle receives more attention, but her daughter has all of her basic necessities. Is this acceptable for her to do?

As long as the child receives all it needs, I find this acceptable. I do feel human children require more care than dogs due to their general natures though.

 

[Drolefille]

1. Yes, provided that she was truly giving informed consent (which I would need to ascertain)

Depends severely on the age for me, 'very young' makes me think she would be incapable of providing true informed consent.

2. Yes, since there is no repercussion to the children (this to me was the most difficult of the questions, as I had to separate the action and its actual outcomes from potential outcomes which include a potentially increased chance of him going further one day and actually assaulting one of the children)

I agree. I think it's his moral duty to seek assistance, but if no child is harmed - and that includes that he does not purchase child pornography - I wouldn't intervene.

3. Yes, if the dog takes the dominant role and is not being forced in any way.

Disagree, sorry I don't think dogs can give consent.

4. No, given that she is an intelligent being capable of life, her death through either neglect or direct action without having done something to warrant that life being abridged is immoral.

Agreed.

5. Yes, it is no different than if he were raising chickens.

Agreed - presuming uncruel living conditions.

6. Yes, though it could be argued that adoption would be in the child's best interests as otherwise there may be significant psychological issues.

I guess I agree here.

I have an issue with the word "acceptable." To me this means "just on this side of immoral" so you know, it's "OK" but not necessarily ideal. If you mean this is "A OK 100%" some of my answers would change. Because for example number six - I think the mother has a moral duty to go beyond that. It's not the ideal. It's not negligence - although possibly emotionally so I guess - but I think parents have the obligation to do the best they can for their children.

 

[Sleeppy]

4. No, given that she is an intelligent being capable of life, her death through either neglect or direct action without having done something to warrant that life being abridged is immoral.

What would make the killing acceptable?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

My answers are not the abstract truth of morality, nor is anybody's thus it's not fair to say what is right or wrong.

 

[Drolefille]

What would make the killing acceptable?

Nothing. An infant isn't culpable for his or her actions. Even if the infant somehow killed the mother, there's no responsibility.

 

[Sleeppy]

No. There is most definitely harm in this scenario.

No more or less so than raising cows for the slaughter.

What about if you replace the dogs with humans? Is this acceptable? Why or why not?

 

[Drolefille]

What about if you replace the dogs with humans? Is this acceptable? Why or why not?

Humans are people, dogs are not.

 

[Sleeppy]

Nothing. An infant isn't culpable for his or her actions. Even if the infant somehow killed the mother, there's no responsibility.

Why does culpability matter?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

What about if you replace the dogs with humans? Is this acceptable? Why or why not?

Again, as acceptable as dogs or cows.

 

[Sleeppy]

Humans are people, dogs are not.

Humans and dogs are animals. What decides their different treatment in the scenario, exactly?

 

[Drolefille]

Why does culpability matter?

The only reason we generally allow people to kill other people is in self-defense.
Infants aren't responsible for their actions.
There's no way in which it would be acceptable.

Humans and dogs are animals. What decides their different treatment in the scenario, exactly?

Humans are sapient. See the vegetarian thread as I'm not repeating that argument.

 

[Sleeppy]

Again, as acceptable as dogs or cows.

It's acceptable for humans to be raised as food?

 

[InformedIgnorance]

That is a very good question, one I am not sure that I am capable of adequately explaining my position on, but I will try.

I believe that many of our rights are innate qualities of rational beings; however others are the result of our membership within society (these rights are typically those that relate to relationships with other people, ownership of property and so forth). Personally I believe that our rights come with certain responsibilities, primarily the responsibility to respect those same rights of other rational beings; to my mind therefore, failure to respect those rights in others warrants diminishing of one's own rights in proportion to the actual or intended abridgement of rights one caused, facilitated or allowed.

For an infant, I just cannot see that they could actually manage to achieve or even attempt something that would diminish their rights to such an extent.

 

[Sleeppy]

The only reason we generally allow people to kill other people is in self-defense.
Infants aren't responsible for their actions.
There's no way in which it would be acceptable.

Humans are sapient. See the vegetarian thread as I'm not repeating that argument.

Why only self-defense? Why does the infant need to be responsible?

What do you mean by sapient?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

It's acceptable for humans to be raised as food?

If you believe other animals are allowed to be, then the same goes for humans.

 

[Drolefille]

Why only self-defense? Why does the infant need to be responsible?

Because killing a human requires a level of justification that cannot be reached in any situation I can come up with regarding an infant.

 

[Sleeppy]

That is a very good question, one I am not sure that I am capable of adequately explaining my position on, but I will try.

I believe that many of our rights are innate qualities of rational beings; however others are the result of our membership within society (these rights are typically those that relate to relationships with other people, ownership of property and so forth). Personally I believe that our rights come with certain responsibilities, primarily the responsibility to respect those same rights of other rational beings; to my mind therefore, failure to respect those rights in others warrants diminishing of one's own rights in proportion to the actual or intended abridgement of rights one caused, facilitated or allowed.

For an infant, I just cannot see that they could actually manage to achieve or even attempt something that would diminish their rights to such an extent.

So, the infant's right not to be killed in that manner is apart of her being?

What determines a rational being?

 

[Sleeppy]

Because killing a human requires a level of justification that cannot be reached in any situation I can come up with regarding an infant.

Where does the need for justification come from?