|
vigilant_mind
unfazed



Registered: 01/19/07
Posts: 1,717
Loc: boco
Last seen: 14 years, 6 months
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Quote:
So, what you're saying is that you have no concept of right versus wrong?
Of course I have. This is basic stuff, it's instinctual, we need it for survival. This is exactly why those concepts have NOTHING to do with morality. It's just a way of sorting things out in a manner that suits my best interests. With other words, no matter how "good" one action of mine might seem, helping others and anything similar to that, it is good to keep in mind that the first and the most determinant reason for doing it was to serve MY best interest.
So you're saying morality is an ascribed or acquired concept, yet your own personal concept of right versus wrong (whatever it may be that you call it) is instinctual and thus innate?
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
|
I think it's some of both. Everything that exerts pressure on our lives influences our beliefs.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
Edited by Icelander (12/14/07 11:49 AM)
|
vigilant_mind
unfazed



Registered: 01/19/07
Posts: 1,717
Loc: boco
Last seen: 14 years, 6 months
|
Re: Killing vs. Letting Die [Re: Icelander]
#7758059 - 12/14/07 11:50 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Of course, yet I think we need to make a clear distinction here as to what morality is and what it isn't. I see now how ambiguous of a term morality can be.
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
|
What do you think this distinction is? Being ambiguous it will mean differing things for different belief systems.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs



Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
|
|
Quote:
So you're saying morality is an ascribed or acquired concept
No, since what I said right from the start is that I don't believe in morality. At all. However, when I said that my concepts of good and bad have nothing to do with morality I was taking to account it's definition. I did that for various reasons. Let's take a look at it's definition first, shall we?
Quote:
mo·ral·i·ty /məˈrælɪti, mɔ-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[muh-ral-i-tee, maw-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun, plural -ties for 4–6. 1. conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct. 2. moral quality or character. 3. virtue in sexual matters; chastity. 4. a doctrine or system of morals.
My perceptions have nothing to do with what others consider morality because my perceptions regarding good and bad are not in conformity with the standards of right or good conduct. For example, if my standards were to be pondered by an individual who subscribes to the commonly accepted moral rules, they would consider mine to be far from moral or ethical. By saying that my concepts about good and bad are selfishly motivated, I was trying to express how everybody's else's concepts are selfishly motivated as well. Case in which, so long morality.
--------------------
   All this time I've loved you And never known your face All this time I've missed you And searched this human race Here is true peace Here my heart knows calm Safe in your soul Bathed in your sighs
|
vigilant_mind
unfazed



Registered: 01/19/07
Posts: 1,717
Loc: boco
Last seen: 14 years, 6 months
|
Re: Killing vs. Letting Die [Re: Icelander]
#7758099 - 12/14/07 11:56 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I think morality is the concept of what one thinks is right versus what is wrong--guidelines for behavior, if you will. I see now how important is to define terms such as this at the outset.
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
|
they would consider mine to be far from moral
No wonder FWG no longer has time for us.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
vigilant_mind
unfazed



Registered: 01/19/07
Posts: 1,717
Loc: boco
Last seen: 14 years, 6 months
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Quote:
So you're saying morality is an ascribed or acquired concept
No, since what I said right from the start is that I don't believe in morality. At all.
You don't have to believe in something in order to be able to define it and discuss it. I was attempting to see what you feel is the distinction between morality and your own concept of right and wrong.
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
|
Quote:
vigilant_mind said: I think morality is the concept of what one thinks is right versus what is wrong--guidelines for behavior, if you will. I see now how important is to define terms such as this at the outset.
I agree with your definition. I'm having some trouble understanding where you are trying to go with this.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
Edited by Icelander (12/14/07 12:00 PM)
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs



Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
|
Re: Killing vs. Letting Die [Re: Icelander]
#7758123 - 12/14/07 12:01 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Icelander said: they would consider mine to be far from moral
No wonder FWG no longer has time for us.
Well it's all because of his sexy butt and his teasing ways
--------------------
   All this time I've loved you And never known your face All this time I've missed you And searched this human race Here is true peace Here my heart knows calm Safe in your soul Bathed in your sighs
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs



Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
|
|
Quote:
vigilant_mind said: You don't have to believe in something in order to be able to define it and discuss it. I was attempting to see what you feel is the distinction between morality and your own concept of right and wrong.
And I just talked about that
--------------------
   All this time I've loved you And never known your face All this time I've missed you And searched this human race Here is true peace Here my heart knows calm Safe in your soul Bathed in your sighs
|
vigilant_mind
unfazed



Registered: 01/19/07
Posts: 1,717
Loc: boco
Last seen: 14 years, 6 months
|
Re: Killing vs. Letting Die [Re: Icelander]
#7758130 - 12/14/07 12:04 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I was just answering your question about what I think morality is.
Now, to continue with the original topic.
I posted this earlier, but for everyone's convenience, I'll post it once more. Here is a defense of the view that killing and letting die are morally on par via example proposed by philosopher James Rachels.
James Rachels' Case of the Greedy Person and his Young Cousin
In the first [case], Smith stands to gain a large inheritance if anything should happen to his six-year-old cousin. One evening while the child is taking his bath, Smith sneaks into the bathroom and drowns the child, and then arranges things so that it will look like an accident. In the second [case], Jones also stands to gain if anything should happen to his six-year-old cousin. Like Smith, Jones sneaks in planning to drown the child in his bath. However, just as he enters the bathroom, Jones sees the child slip and hit his head, and fall face down in the water. Jones is delighted; he stands by, ready to push the child's head back under if it is necessary, but it is not necessary. With only a little thrashing about, the child drowns all by himself, 'accidentally' as Jones watches and does nothing. Now Smith killed the child, whereas Jones 'merely' let the child die. That is the only difference between them. Did either man behave better, from a moral point of view? If the difference between killing and letting die were in itself a morally significant matter, one should say that Jones's behavior was less reprehensible than Smith's. But does one really want to say that? I think not."
|
Veritas

Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
|
|
Morality is not an ambiguous term. What is ambiguous is whether a particular set of rules concerning what is right and wrong is universally applicable. That belief concerning morality is normative, while the belief that morality is subjectively determined is descriptive.
I agree with MushroomTrip that the tendency to believe in certain rules concerning what is right or wrong is instinctive. The specific rules, however, are highly subjective and imposed by humans.
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
|
Did either man behave better, from a moral point of view?
I think not to any great degree. I still don't see the point of all this?
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
vigilant_mind
unfazed



Registered: 01/19/07
Posts: 1,717
Loc: boco
Last seen: 14 years, 6 months
|
Re: Killing vs. Letting Die [Re: Icelander]
#7758188 - 12/14/07 12:27 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Ultimately, this relates to the original question of whether one thinks killing and letting die are on a moral par. I offered James Rachels's example to defend the stance that killing and letting die are equally wrong.
|
Tomandjerry58
Stranger
Registered: 01/27/03
Posts: 5,212
|
|
Quote:
vigilant_mind said: I was just answering your question about what I think morality is.
Now, to continue with the original topic.
I posted this earlier, but for everyone's convenience, I'll post it once more. Here is a defense of the view that killing and letting die are morally on par via example proposed by philosopher James Rachels.
James Rachels' Case of the Greedy Person and his Young Cousin
In the first [case], Smith stands to gain a large inheritance if anything should happen to his six-year-old cousin. One evening while the child is taking his bath, Smith sneaks into the bathroom and drowns the child, and then arranges things so that it will look like an accident. In the second [case], Jones also stands to gain if anything should happen to his six-year-old cousin. Like Smith, Jones sneaks in planning to drown the child in his bath. However, just as he enters the bathroom, Jones sees the child slip and hit his head, and fall face down in the water. Jones is delighted; he stands by, ready to push the child's head back under if it is necessary, but it is not necessary. With only a little thrashing about, the child drowns all by himself, 'accidentally' as Jones watches and does nothing. Now Smith killed the child, whereas Jones 'merely' let the child die. That is the only difference between them. Did either man behave better, from a moral point of view? If the difference between killing and letting die were in itself a morally significant matter, one should say that Jones's behavior was less reprehensible than Smith's. But does one really want to say that? I think not."
i guess every person would have a different opinion on this just like anything else.
but in my opinion no.. there is no difference between the two just like there is no difference in profiting off people with medical problems.
or no difference in sending american troops to baghdad so you can profit off the oil. why else would we be out there.
but you see we live in a money...capitalist....every man for himself society and it will not change because we live like kings and i nor anyone else will change that because of the feeling of security that it supplies us with
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs



Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
|
|
And why wrong? See, this is what I have trouble in understanding. Why is it wrong? According to whom?
--------------------
   All this time I've loved you And never known your face All this time I've missed you And searched this human race Here is true peace Here my heart knows calm Safe in your soul Bathed in your sighs
|
vigilant_mind
unfazed



Registered: 01/19/07
Posts: 1,717
Loc: boco
Last seen: 14 years, 6 months
|
Re: Killing vs. Letting Die [Re: Icelander]
#7758210 - 12/14/07 12:33 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
The difference between Jones and Smith as it occurs to me is that Smith is causally necessary for the child to drown. Both men have the same intentions and both achieve their desired outcome. So does it make a moral difference in this case if one is not taking action toward the child dying?
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
|
That questions answer would depend on the circumstances as Veritas has pointed out.
All things being equal though, all things would be equal.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
vigilant_mind
unfazed



Registered: 01/19/07
Posts: 1,717
Loc: boco
Last seen: 14 years, 6 months
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said: And why wrong? See, this is what I have trouble in understanding. Why is it wrong? According to whom?
The only question I'm asking in this thread is whether one views killing as being equivalent to letting die, and why. The question of why one views these actions (or lack thereof) in and of themselves as wrong opens up a pandora's box of philosophical questions, thus I think I'm going to stick to the original topic.
|
|