Moral Absolutes
- Thread starter ICantBelieveItGoesBoom
- Start date
Recommended Videos
'Good' and 'bad' are just things we came up with. I don't believe there's something that's always bad. It's all subjective.
Moral absolutism can only work if the act itself is not what is put to the test, but the intent behind the act. Doing good with the intent of doing good is a good act, but doing good so that you can get good head is a selfserving/evil act. Good can only be done when it is done with the sole intent of doing good. On the flipside, pure evil is only done when it is done with the evil intent. That's only according to Kant though, the utilitarians would probably beg to differ.
Moral absolutes don't really work in real life, like you said killing can be an act of mercy in extreme circumstances, just like stealing can be good if you're stealing a gun to keep someone from being killed. Intent comes into play, but the effect of the act also has to be kept in mind. Common sense and judging each event on its own merits is a much sounder practice.
Moral absolutes don't really work in real life, like you said killing can be an act of mercy in extreme circumstances, just like stealing can be good if you're stealing a gun to keep someone from being killed. Intent comes into play, but the effect of the act also has to be kept in mind. Common sense and judging each event on its own merits is a much sounder practice.
And that definitely made me more embarrassed :L. I could really use an internet cookie right now [/hinthint]neuromasser said:
I disagree that philanthropy is "always good." In practice, most philanthropic acts are done out of selfish reasons. As an example, people will donate money to charities more for the tax write-off than the cause itself. They would be just as likely to donate to PETA as they would cancer research.
There are also people who are court ordered to give back to their communities. While their actions might be beneficial (as with donating), their reasons for doing so are inherently selfish (not wanting further legal repercussions).
There are also people who are court ordered to give back to their communities. While their actions might be beneficial (as with donating), their reasons for doing so are inherently selfish (not wanting further legal repercussions).
So does society, laws and sturdy rope. It's a good thing, unbound people tend to be a threat to a cohesive and functioning society. Yay morals!goatzilla8463 said:
I agree, the intent behind the philantrophic acts comes into play, but if you define philantrophy as acts of good done with the sole purpose of doing good, then all truly good acts would be philantrophy and all truly philantrophic acts would be good. It's pretty sweet.Daegond said:
Genocide? Really? You mean that?Anachronism said:
We are all people. You seriously trying to say that your people are better then Bob down the roads clan, and that these people need to be completely eliminated from the face of the earth because there inferior minds will never be able to grasp the concept of co-existence?
They can learn, and it is up to the rest of the world that cares to teach these people, not to destroy them for their beliefs.
Argh... That is why there is a distinction between donating, and between philanthropy, if they are donating for selfish reasons then they are not philanderers. There is a reason we have five different words for everything, they all have slightly different meanings, and are not always interchangeable both ways.Daegond said:
In my defence, I did say that it would only be acceptable in the most extreme situation. Such as if these people had been consistently attacking everyone else for a prolonged period of time, giving no sign that they were ever prepared to negotiate or stop their attacks.manaman said:
Obviously I don't think genocide is acceptable; I admit that my initial wording wasn't very good. What I meant was that in the most extreme case, it could be seen as a necessary evil.
I get what you are trying to say. I am just saying it is wrong.Anachronism said:
The scenario you gave. Justification to go to war. Justification to beat them to a bloody battered pulp, something that can never give rise to a nation that can threaten you or your children for many generations to come.
After that it is time for you to move in, to help the people that are left recover.
That is never a reason for your country to move in an exterminate every last man, women, child, and baby. Seriously you would order your soldiers to kill the babies of a nation cause they where aggressive?
Believes like that are the reason crazy ass judges can only give a years house arrest to a man who is being convicted of his second rape, this time to his friends little sister. Then tell the sister to suck it up when she was crying about how she has to be on the same block as this guy.Mazty said:
I am not even sure where you got a crazy as statistic like that. I think you need to back that one up or just come out and say you made it up.
What if it is a fundraiser to rape puppies?AkJay said:
We can always do what if's but the only true good thing in this world is google... right?