A Licence To Kill...or Steal...or Rape...or Lie

[Lardlad95]

Situational Ethics. Most people here subscribe to this ideal in one way or another. The basic idea behind it is essentially moral relativism. There are no universal truths when it comes to morality. Rather the context of the situation must be taken into account before the action can be judged.

Then there are those who simply disregard morality in general. Actions are niether good nor bad, they just are.

The question is, under these philosophies how do we judge a situation?

Could there be a situation where exploiting the working class is justified? What about molesting a child? Are these actions inherently immoral? Does "immoral" really exist?

Any takers?

[Klipper]

i have a little theory that goes "every fucking thing is relative!"
if you think about it, i think you'll come to the realisation that it is true.

[Monty Cantsin]

When I glanced at you’re original post I started writing on Situationist ethics rather then situational ethics, but to the point I think moral norms can be established upon a relativist base. Societies based on relativism, would have a legal system in which the relative judgments on ethics by each particular individual are added up into the collective judgement and the majority view becomes the moral law, at least until the law is changed with a shift in beliefs. This way moral law is not put beyond reason like religious based moralities that start out as a mystical way of teaching human values and are separated form our understanding and thus are alienated from our reason and rationalisations thus they become fundamentalist dogmas.

[Clarksist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 02:05 AM
i have a little theory that goes "every fucking thing is relative!"
if you think about it, i think you'll come to the realisation that it is true.
Then, isn't your saying "every fucking thing is relative!" also relative?

Sorry, but I had to the be the motherfucker that pointed that out.

Moving on... I think morality can exist, even amongst athiest. Morality is that gut feeling humans have created which is basically saying the continuation of the species over all other needs. So yeah, humans have morality.

[quelliire]

,. we are inherently immoral. we are animals. our actions hold no weight or real consequence. we are a mold growing on a rock floating in nothing

[Roses in the Hospital]

Due to the absence of God as any kind of all powerful law enforcement, I don't see how there can be any absolute deontolgical morals.
However, I do think thereis a sort of sociological moralality. Morals we have developed simply because they represt he easiest way of 'getting along with each other' in our society, i.e. generally it's wrong to kill, however most of the time the telelogical moral framework must take priority, even if it does have its flaws.

[seraphim]

Do as you would be done by.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 10:43 AM
Do as you would be done by.
Why?

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by Monty [email protected] 15 2005, 03:44 AM
When I glanced at you’re original post I started writing on Situationist ethics rather then situational ethics, but to the point I think moral norms can be established upon a relativist base. Societies based on relativism, would have a legal system in which the relative judgments on ethics by each particular individual are added up into the collective judgement and the majority view becomes the moral law, at least until the law is changed with a shift in beliefs. This way moral law is not put beyond reason like religious based moralities that start out as a mystical way of teaching human values and are separated form our understanding and thus are alienated from our reason and rationalisations thus they become fundamentalist dogmas.

How exactley would you go about determing moral law? Would everyone vote once a month? Once a year? How often would we have to determine majority view?

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 01:50 AM
,. we are inherently immoral. we are animals. our actions hold no weight or real consequence. we are a mold growing on a rock floating in nothing
Human Sentience creates morality and immorality. Animals are niether are not on the same level of consciousness.

Animals do not kill out of malice. They act based on instincts. They kill to eat, or to protect themselves, or to defend territory. They put not real thought into actions beyond doing what their instincts tell them to.

[Kristatos]

As for the Michael Jackson case; I don't care whether he really is innocent or not, I just want him to start recording again. And I don't think he will do anything suspicious again. But this is my view on him exclusively.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 02:15 AM
As for the Michael Jackson case; I don't care whether he really is innocent or not, I just want him to start recording again. And I don't think he will do anything suspicious again. But this is my view on him exclusively.
THe "pull a michael jackson" thing was saying "is it ok to molest children" in regards to situational ethics.

[Man of the Century]

A few weeks ago, I was at Rain, the dance club at the Palms in Las Vegas. The DJ got on the mic and said, "Who wants to hear some Michael Jackson?" The place screamed pretty well. Then, "Who thinks he's innocent?" About 25% screamed. Then, "Who thinks he's just a sick fuck?" The place went wild. It was great. Wild place, too. Some great puss there as well. Fucking HELLO quality *****es!

Oh, the topic...er, sure...whatever.

[Fidelbrand]

Originally posted by Lardlad95+Jun 19 2005, 01:28 AM--> (Lardlad95 @ Jun 19 2005, 01:28 AM)
[email protected] 18 2005, 02:15 AM
As for the Michael Jackson case; I don't care whether he really is innocent or not, I just want him to start recording again. And I don't think he will do anything suspicious again. But this is my view on him exclusively.
THe "pull a michael jackson" thing was saying "is it ok to molest children" in regards to situational ethics. [/b]
A Leftist who rests and aligns his judgements alongside with the bourgeois media's speculative "yet-to-prove" fact with the risk of infringing one of our most cherrished concept: justice. :D

['Discourse Unlimited']

Due to the absence of God as any kind of all powerful law enforcement, I don't see how there can be any absolute deontolgical morals.

However, I do think thereis a sort of sociological moralality. Morals we have developed simply because they represt the easiest way of 'getting along with each other' in our society, i.e. generally it's wrong to kill, however most of the time the telelogical moral framework must take priority, even if it does have its flaws.


I totally agree! I think that "Morality" and "Ethics" are two problems that Communist society might face, after the revolution... I mean, in the absence of any recognised "external" authority, there are no absolutes!! Mankind can define what is right and what is wrong, but in the end, these definitions will be liable to change as people's opinions do.



Societies based on relativism, would have a legal system in which the relative judgments on ethics by each particular individual are added up into the collective judgement and the majority view becomes the moral law, at least until the law is changed with a shift in beliefs.


Again, I agree. As to how this would work "in practice" - well, what's wrong with the 'Trial by Jury' system? You could define "laws" initially according to what the people think, and use controversial cases as a sort-of referendum on law, if it enters crisis. Then you might impose a five or ten year revision period, to ensure that "law" continues to reflect popular opinion...

That might work! :)

[Dwarf Kirlston]

that which is disgusting to you is not wrong. that which is different is not wrong. you have a part in the creation of suffering. death and suffering come to all.

i dont believe in god, evolution, or big bang.

life, diversity, liberty, equality, safety... are these "good"?

think of the great "evil men" and of the great "good men".
hitler, Micheal Jackson, JTR... vs Jesus and George Washington and Cristopher columbus - they all have had more advertising than truth to their story.

[coda]

try these off the philosopher's net.
The first one is a morality quiz, the second is a 4 or 5 question taboo quiz.

http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/morality_play.htm

http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/taboo.htm


other quizzes
http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/