Moral absolutes (page 14)

Jimmer

My two bits are: Saying,"There are no moral absolutes," is asserting a moral absolute in-and-of-itself.

Hmmm...

plmkrzy

with 100% absolute certainty, say that any specific action (rape, murder, etc.) is always and forever wrong.

Soldiers are conquering the town, and a platoon of men who serve the enemy side raid a home. Of course they are heavily armed having engaged in combat, so to attempt to fight them would be futile. They see a beautiful teenage girl in this family and unfortunately desire to use her for sexual purposes.It is obvious they want to have their way with her. They ask for the girl, and make it painstakingly clear that if they are denied they will kill the entire family. Is it morally wrong for the girl to give in to unwanted, forced sexual intercourse to save her family? An instance in which a rape saved the lives of people? Ethics itself teaches that people must act for the greater good of the majority,

You are confusing ethics and morality but even worse leaving out the key players in these scenarios to establish a point you are trying to make and it is a double standard. If you want to prove your point you have to include ALL participants and that INCLUDES the soldiers. Otherwise, it will only wash with those who are nearsighted and unwilling to see the whole picture.

You cannot have 100% of anything without 100%

Some of you are consistently using portions of scenarios and in your own minds establishing 100% conclusions. It is mathematically impossible! But some of think you are doing just that. LOL! And you think I AM DUMB???

Lets say for argument sake that you are correct then it MUST mean that the soldiers are possibly morally justified in their actions.

You can’t have it any other way.

Soldiers are conquering the town, and a platoon of men who serve the enemy side raid a home. Of course they are heavily armed having engaged in combat, so to attempt to fight them would be futile. They see a beautiful teenage girl in this family and unfortunately desire to use her for sexual purposes.It is obvious they want to have their way with her. They ask for the girl, and make it painstakingly clear that if they are denied they will kill the entire family. Is it morally wrong for the Soldiers to rape her? Yes or No?

I would like an answer please. And since some of you have taken pot shots at MY intellgence I deserve an answer!

Is it morally wrong for the Soldiers to rape her? Yes or No?

peacefulpete

Francois...In your scenario like any scenario the question is one of harm. Yes, if she is harmed emotionally or physically she is being wronged. Whether some pragmatist would justify the wrong for the preservation of a species (btw.one that has just demonstrated it's unfitness to survive)is another issue.

siegswife

Francois, I think that the grandfather forcing himself on the granddaughter is immoral. Besides the fact that he is forcing himself on the only other human that's alive, he's also not really looking at the big picture. Any number of things could happen as a result of his rape.

She could kill him and then herself. Human race is still gone. She may not become pregnant...will he rape her again? She could die in an accident...human race is still gone and he never had a chance to make peace with his granddaughter. She will probably hate him for the rest of their time together, maybe run away from him...who will teach her to survive once he's gone? He might think that his motives are unselfish, but by not considering her or what could result from his actions, he's acting selfishly and hurting his granddaughter in the process.

As to your question regarding whether the human race should survive in that scenario, I'd have to say NO. If people have obliterated themselves and one of the only two people left is a rapist I think the universe would be better off without us.

Here's the problem that I'm having with the rest of this discussion. Some of you are asserting that if a person commits an act such as rape or murder under circumstances that could possibly be understood or justified that proves 100% that there are no moral absolutes. I don't think that conclusion can be reached by the scenarios introduced in this discussion, including those about children having sex with adults in ancient Roman times.

If someone is in a position where they have to choose the lesser of two evils, that in no way implies that the evil they chose is the moral thing to do. The fact that they have chosen one bad thing over another does not make one of those bad things moral and right. The choice the person makes when confronted with such a choice is not even a reflection of their morality. Mortality perhaps, but not morality. If a moral person unwillingly commits an immoral act I don't think that they then feel that the act has become moral by virtue of their committing it. In fact, they would probably feel guilt or regret for it even if the act is somehow justifiable. I seriously doubt if they would think that they committed a moral "right".

I really think it's a stretch to assert that moral absolutes are nonexistant just because a person in the midst of a difficult situation might choose to do something immoral when that seems to be the only option. Morality is probably the last thing on someones mind when they or their loved ones are faced with physical danger, frightened and threatened. Most people will just react and deal with the moral issues later.

Just because someone makes a decision to commit an immoral act does not mean that act is no longer immoral or the moral implications of that act don't exist. Therefore, moral absolutes do exist just as immorality exists. One doesn't negate the other.

Other than that...what plum said.

drwtsn32

I would like an answer please.

Plum, in your scenario of course it would not be moral for the soldiers to do that.

And since some of you have taken pot shots at MY intellgence I deserve an answer!

I hope nothing I said gave you that impression!

I appreciate everyone's opinions on this topic. This thread was started so that a discussion could take place. Unfortunately this subject line can be a bit uncomfortable to talk about.

You are confusing ethics and morality

How would you describe the difference between the two?

leaving out the key players in these scenarios

I agree that in the unlikely scenarios brought up, someone is morally guilty. I don't think anyone is denying that; the person forcing such an ultimatum is morally responsible/guilty. But the person actually commiting the act may not be.

I am going to think about what everyone said over the next couple of days.... at least.

Thanks again for your responses; if someone didn't counter what we and others were saying in here, we wouldn't be as likely to keep thinking about this.

peacefulpete

Question...Is a convicted criminal being wronged by being punished with execution or incarceration? My answer is 'Yes, Since incarceration or execution involve harm to the man, he is being wronged. This is in fact an ingrediant of our modern concept of punishment. He is to be wronged for wronging others. The executioner or jailer is then committing a wrong but is doing so without malicious intent or motive. It is appropriate, imperative. He then is acting out of a necessity created by the criminal. Again the distinction is real.

Big Tex

Moral differences don't imply the absence of a moral absolute. Rather, they imply its existence. Again, when you compare one set of morals to another, what you're actually doing is holding both sets up to an outside standard and seeking to determine which one coincides more with that standard. To put it another way, the reason that one person can have a more accurate perception of New York than another person is simply because a real New York exists, against which those perceptions can be judged.

Morals haven't differed as much as one might think. Certain values and/or behaviors have been encouraged by every civilization across time. Example: what civilization or people has valued cowardice in battle, or double crossing those who were kindest to you? There seem to be certain morals that are similar across all times, places, and peoples, giving weight to the idea that there is some kind of standard that the vast majority of people pay heed to.

In Reborn's example, it is the instinct of survival that comes into play for the parents. In that stiuation I submit that it is not their morality, but their survival, and that of their children that they are concerned with. I still maintain that in that scenario it is not the parents, but the two men who are committing an immoral or unethical or unvirtuous act.

Morals and ethics are synonymous.

siegswife

I still maintain that in that scenario it is not the parents, but the two men who are committing an immoral or unethical or unvirtuous act.

I agree. The moral absolute of that sort of situation is that the victims shouldn't be held morally responsible for the situation and their subsequent reactions. Morality dictates that all of the blame be put squarely on the shoulders of those who created the situation to begin with thereby absolving the victims of complicity...morally or otherwise.

Country Girl

All I can say, basically, is that if someone's actions morally assault yer conscience, then it's wrong and ought to be taken up with the sherrif's department.

CG

Country Girl

I was wrong. I should have said, instead, that it needs to be taken upwith xxxx..whoever it is above you. screw me.. ihate myself.

CG

Moral absolutes

Share this