A Thought Experiment (16 Viewers)
- Thread starter rounder
- Start date
An action does not have to be harmful to society in order for it to be considered immoral. It's immoral to disregard senior citizens although disregarding them may actually lagely benefit society. All the money that goes into pensions could actually be spent on improving the economy. But we don't disregard senior citizens who have nothing more to offer because we know it's wrong.
I am sure you can think of a dozen things that may benefit society yet at the same time is fundamentally immoral. Yes, I am trying to defend a morality originating outside the human mind, however, this doesn't mean that our human minds are incapable of recognizing this morality.
Give me 1000 vcash and she's all yours.
I am sure you can think of a dozen things that may benefit society yet at the same time is fundamentally immoral. Yes, I am trying to defend a morality originating outside the human mind, however, this doesn't mean that our human minds are incapable of recognizing this morality.
Give me 1000 vcash and she's all yours.
Taking care of old people IS beneficial to society. It makes total sense to do so because when I'm an old man I want to be taken care of too. We don't need to be driven by something superhuman to do it, because we figured out ourselves it's the best for all of us. Not taking care of old people is immoral, because if we don't do it we get screwed over ourselves eventually.
Yeah because I don't think fucking your sister is perverted...
Yeah because I don't think fucking your sister is perverted...
Some cultures would disagree with you.
Here's the problem I have with ethical relativism.
If it were true, then nothing would be wrong with raping a woman. It's just disadvantageous to society thus we should avoid it, but somehow if it had been advantageous to society then it would be completely moral to rape a woman. The same can be said about torturing a new born baby. Let me give you an example.
Say in a certain country 'X', if you rape a certain woman called 'Z', you will earn a fortune from the king of that country and you and your family will live happily ever after. In this case, it is advantageous to poor families to have the husband rape Z because it would mean the children will live better lives. Now, is it moral to rape Z in this specific country?
Yeah because I don't think fucking your sister is perverted...
Its a joke to read articles on incest & ignore current affairs.
Yes, but we can't imagine such a scenario happening in reality. That's what gives you the illusion of some moral values (not even all) being something superhuman.
Excellent B-movie plot, but it won't happen in reality. And fully contrived to make non-believers look like immoral oppurtunists. Anyhow I'll play along and assume it could happen. Well, then that would be an immoral sadistic bastard of a king to start off with, right? How do we respond to immoral actions? Normally by trying to stop them. That's why we invented democracy in reality. So, also assuming that we can't undermine this king's power and we have to make a choice given the only 2 possible options, then yes, at some point the hardship the poor family has to endure will overcompensate the hardship caused to the woman by raping her. This example also nullifies one of the main purposes or morality, which is avoiding that individuals do something for personal gain (in reality the personal gain of rape is the derived pleasure) that will in the long run (usually if everybody did it) would significantly harm society and thus every individual too.
Now, why don't you stop giving Planet-of-the-Apes-esque examples and try to make a general statement. I gave you 3 solid reasons why it doesn't make sense to postulate absolute morality. You have ignored them and keep making up examples that don't lead to a general conclusion.
And as long as there aren't any other significant disadvantages, like I mentioned too.
Jesus Christ, I was just joking around with Andy.
Excellent B-movie plot, but it won't happen in reality. And fully contrived to make non-believers look like immoral oppurtunists. Anyhow I'll play along and assume it could happen. Well, then that would be an immoral sadistic bastard of a king to start off with, right? How do we respond to immoral actions? Normally by trying to stop them. That's why we invented democracy in reality. So, also assuming that we can't undermine this king's power and we have to make a choice given the only 2 possible options, then yes, at some point the hardship the poor family has to endure will overcompensate the hardship caused to the woman by raping her. This example also nullifies one of the main purposes or morality, which is avoiding that individuals do something for personal gain (in reality the personal gain of rape is the derived pleasure) that will in the long run (usually if everybody did it) would significantly harm society and thus every individual too.
Now, why don't you stop giving Planet-of-the-Apes-esque examples and try to make a general statement. I gave you 3 solid reasons why it doesn't make sense to postulate absolute morality. You have ignored them and keep making up examples that don't lead to a general conclusion.
And as long as there aren't any other significant disadvantages, like I mentioned too.
Jesus Christ, I was just joking around with Andy.