Morality

[Gjallarhorn]

Hitler definitely meant it.

Not what I meant:

I think if it exists, it at least had ought.

...meaning the Holocaust at one point ought to have happened.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Not what I meant:

...meaning the Holocaust at one point ought to have happened.

 

[Sleeppy]

Not what I meant:

...meaning the Holocaust at one point ought to have happened.

I know. It was just a little fun.

What I meant is.. It ought to have happened because Hitler's mindset and the chain of events dictated it. It also ought to have happened that Hitler is dead and the Holocaust with him.

Cause and effect, is all I'm really saying.

 

[nnmartin]

By order of nature do you mean that it happens in nature, it's just a natural thing?

Well there are two things wrong with that;

1) Cannibalism is also in nature, yet I'm sure you wouldn't approve of cannibalism?

2) Natural killing for food involves finding and hunting, not raising to die.

Order of nature doesn't just mean something that occurs in nature.

No, this relates more to things that were meant to or intended/designed to happen - could either be in a religious sense or just according to natural laws.

Cannibalism is against the order of nature for humans because they weren't designed to do this (as far as I am aware there are even certain strange diseases people can get off eating each other).

I think there are examples in nature where some kind of food cultivation occurs - think insects like ants and wasps for instance.


Nature has it's laws - bestiality and pedophilia are not supposed to occur.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I know. It was just a little fun.

What I meant is.. It ought to have happened because Hitler's mindset and the chain of events dictated it. It also ought to have happened that Hitler is dead and the Holocaust with him.

Cause and effect, is all I'm really saying.

What I mean by "ought to happen" is "it should happen"

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Order of nature doesn't just mean than something occurs in nature.

No, this relates more to things that were meant to or intended/designed to happen - could either be in a religious sense or just according to natural laws.

Proof of their existence and proof that the morals you describe are the ones that is natural laws?

You don't find it a bit funny at all that these natural laws just happen to agree with what you find moral? It's like saying "God is wearing the same shirt I have on today"

Cannibalism is against the order of nature for humans because they weren't designed to do this (as far as I am aware there are even certain strange diseases people can get off eating each other).

Proof please? I never heard of the eskimos getting diseases. Even if they did, you obviously have to clean the meat...

I think there are examples in nature where some kind of food cultivation occurs - think insects like ants and wasps for instance.

What?

Nature has it's laws - bestiality and pedophilia are not supposed to occur.

Proof? And it happens naturally, very common, you just don't like it so you think it is immoral and you think nature agrees with you.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

I know. It was just a little fun.

What I meant is.. It ought to have happened because Hitler's mindset and the chain of events dictated it. It also ought to have happened that Hitler is dead and the Holocaust with him.

Cause and effect, is all I'm really saying.

Then that's only addressing is, not ought.

 

[Daviso452]

The reaction couldn't have done anything else. We'd never have chemistry class if chemical reactions had a choice.

Wanting is a result of the chemical reaction. Why? What's the scientific explanation?

You were missing my point. I was not saying it could be different, but had it been different, the universe would have just gone on without life.

But to answer the latter, it's just how the chemicals reacted. It's just how things are. The fact that we are here means nothing. You could ask the same for why the force of gravity is as strong as it is. Nothing caused that. That is just how it turned out to be.

 

[Nooj]

Nature has it's laws - bestiality and pedophilia are not supposed to occur.

Why should we follow nature's laws? Most people would say that we shouldn't practice infanticide, even though it is a fairly common practice among many other species of animals.

 

[nnmartin]

We are not animals in the true sense so that is not a relevant point.

 

[Daviso452]

We are not animals in the true sense so that is not a relevant point.

Um, yeah we are? If by true sense you mean literally yeah, we are. If you mean figuratively, then we still are. We just control our instincts more than other animals.

 

[nnmartin]

Our sense of awareness and ability to rationalise takes us above the ordinary animal.

 

[waitasec]

Our sense of awareness and ability to rationalise takes us above the ordinary animal.

and our ability to rationalize ourselves into dangerous situations can make us more stupid than ordinary animals too...

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Our sense of awareness and ability to rationalise takes us above the ordinary animal.

So any animal with an enhanced skill is no longer an animal?

 

[Sleeppy]

You were missing my point. I was not saying it could be different, but had it been different, the universe would have just gone on without life.

But to answer the latter, it's just how the chemicals reacted. It's just how things are. The fact that we are here means nothing. You could ask the same for why the force of gravity is as strong as it is. Nothing caused that. That is just how it turned out to be.

My point was that it hadn't been different.

But, I'm really not trying to prove anything at this point. Just seeing what you could come up with.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Back to the OP

Morals do not change Just because you remove the law.
Morals do not change because we can not be seen
Morals do not change because someone gives permission.
Morals do not change because no one will find out.

We are all perfectly well aware, when what we do, is morally wrong.
We all have a moral sense, those that do not, tend to need psychiatric help.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

We are all perfectly well aware, when what we do, is morally wrong.
We all have a moral sense, those that do not, tend to need psychiatric help.

It's true that a lot of us have our own personal morality, but I do not think my morals are better than anyone else's, actually have been thinking of going completely lack on morality anyway.

Saying someone without morals needs psychiatric help is like saying a person who disagrees with your morality needs psychiatric help.

 

[Me Myself]

Can we override the animals lack of consent, and do it anyway?

You do it with cows and it´s not even for survival.

I would say it is always wrong except when it is for survival, and then it is gray more than anything.

 

[9Westy9]

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?

1) If the girl is willing then yes
2) What he does in his own home is his business. So yes
3) I'm undecided here. Mostly as it's hard to ascertain whether the dog consents or not
4) Undecided
5) Undecided
6) Is the daughter getting the attention she needs? If so then yes else no.

 

[connermt]

Back to the OP

Morals do not change Just because you remove the law.
Morals do not change because we can not be seen
Morals do not change because someone gives permission.
Morals do not change because no one will find out.

We are all perfectly well aware, when what we do, is morally wrong.
We all have a moral sense, those that do not, tend to need psychiatric help.

Morals are independent of the law or permission, or being seen/found out.
We may very well be aware of what we do is morally wrong, but that would be morally wrong to the individual (assuming the individual accepts society's morality).
There are a lot of people, moral or not, that need psychiatric help :yes: