Given a context, would you do the moral thing or rather the right thing?

[Braznor]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Braznor

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Braznor

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Braznor

Originally posted by: shinerburke
I think it is obvious what you would do.

A rhetoric post, So why not? We are certainly being exterminated for no fault of ours. India is the secondmost terror prone country in the world after Iraq. When you can scream about illegals all day, why can I not wish destruction on my enemies murdering my people in my nation at this very moment?

The enemies of my country are too numerous to be measured. So yes, the distinction exists between the right and the moral thing.

Tell Eva I said hello.

Eva should be cavorting with your boogeyman of hypocricy.

Don't drag K.C. & The Sunshine Band into this!!!!

lol, as long as they provide pics, it should be good enough for ATOT!

So you're into dudes?

Some like to peek over the girly ones, you are obviously into simians by the pm you sent me once!

:laugh:

 

[manowar821]

The nuking of Japan, twice? Immoral and wrong.

Not that I really expect my morality or sense of right and wrong to match with yours, and I couldn't give any less of a shit.

 

[BrownTown]

OK, well now I am a little scared after reading that whole Braznor post, kinda makes me wonder what exactly the dilemma he is facing here really is, sorta sounds like maybe he is gonna go suicide bomb some people and wants to know if were cool with it?!?!

 

[Braznor]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
OK, well now I am a little scared after reading that whole Braznor post, kinda makes me wonder what exactly the dilemma he is facing here really is, sorta sounds like maybe he is gonna go suicide bomb some people and wants to know if were cool with it?!?!

I asked you for your own judgment, not my choice.

 

[Braznor]

Originally posted by: manowar821
The nuking of Japan, twice? Immoral and wrong.

Not that I really expect my morality or sense of right and wrong to match with yours, and I couldn't give any less of a shit.

Excuse me, was I supposed to feel bad about it?

 

[amdhunter]

I would just the eviler of the options. I'd have bombed japan for the lols.

 

[ShotgunSteven]

"Shepherd Book once said to me, 'If you can't do something smart, do something right.'"

-Jayne Cobb

Pulled the quote from online, as I am not sure where my Serenity DVD is right now. For some reason I recall it as being slightly different.

More people died due to the fire bombings of Japan than from the atomic bombs, or so I recall reading. Some also believe it was a warning to keep the Russians from moving in. What if Japan had been under the sway of the U.S.S.R. after WWII? What state would it be in today? How many people is it "right" to sacrifice in order to give a country a better future?

 

[torpid]

I don't accept your usage of the word "right" here. There's no difference between moral and right. The definition of moral includes the distinction between right and wrong. What you seem to mean is "good for yourself". For example, in your bombing of japan scenario, you appear to be suggesting that it was immoral but "good for the US". It can't have been both immoral and right, since those terms are at odds with each other.

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: Braznor

Originally posted by: meltdown75
voted option 5 because i am having trouble deciding what to vote without a context.

Example: Atomic bombings of Japan.

The bombings saved more lives than they destroyed. A land invasion would have been far more costly to both sides. Therefore it was the moral option.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Braznor

Originally posted by: meltdown75
voted option 5 because i am having trouble deciding what to vote without a context.

Example: Atomic bombings of Japan.

The bombings saved more lives than they destroyed. A land invasion would have been far more costly to both sides. Therefore it was the moral option.

And it was "right."

I noticed people who believe in Judeo-Christan God believe there is absolute wrong, absolute right, and gray in between, while atheists tend to believe everything is gray and morality is a point of view.

 

[BurnItDwn]

I don't think what you are describing is "right vs moral" but instead "do the ends justify the means."
The "most efficient/effective way to get something done" isn't always the "right way to get something done"
The "right" way is always the "moral" way.

In that context, I can think of a few situations where I may do the "efficient" thing rather than the "right" thing.

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Braznor

Originally posted by: meltdown75
voted option 5 because i am having trouble deciding what to vote without a context.

Example: Atomic bombings of Japan.

The bombings saved more lives than they destroyed. A land invasion would have been far more costly to both sides. Therefore it was the moral option.

And it was "right."

I noticed people who believe in Judeo-Christan God believe there is absolute wrong, absolute right, and gray in between, while atheists tend to believe everything is gray and morality is a point of view.

Agreed, kinda. As a Deist, I believe there is absolute right and absolute wrong, but there are very few real situations where either can be applied. Everything is a mixture of right and wrong.

As for morality, I think there are many valid moral philosophies, but everything is subject to a semi-flexible moral standard.

ie: Stoning a rape victim for "sharing her body with another man" is immoral and wrong. Period. Viewpoint is irrelevant.

 

[jjones]

What? No option for doing the wrong thing? I guess that leaves me out.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

As has already been mentioned, right and moral are open to interpretation if only because no one can agree on the arbiter. I do find it somewhat amusing and depressing at the same time that there would appear to be a consensus that killing cannot be moral.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: Braznor

Originally posted by: BrownTown

Originally posted by: Braznor

Originally posted by: meltdown75
voted option 5 because i am having trouble deciding what to vote without a context.

Example: Atomic bombings of Japan.

Umm which side of the debate is which in your mind?

imo these two words or pretty much synonyms at least in my personal dictionary.

Not always. Morally the atomic bombings of Japan might have been wrong (as in killing at a higher scale than before) . But militarily it was right (also in context of preventing needless deaths of Japanese civilians during an invasion as well as the invading American troops)

IMO, the RIGHT and justified thing would have been to drop several more and nuke Tokyo and the Emperor, Kyoto, Kobe, and the other major cities. (my biological father was a US Marine on Okinawa and Iwo Jima during WWII)
BUT, the RIGHT MORAL THING was that "just a little dab'll do ya." ONLY use as much lethal force as is absolutely necessary. Sometimes, cooler heads prevail over those who are "mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore" types, which is generally a good thing.

 

[ShadowOfMyself]

Right and moral are the same because of one simple reason - whats right to me might not be right to you, so, it depends on each ones morals, so moral = right

What Im saying is, it might be wrong for you to kill a person, but it might be right to someone else, you cant do anything about it, supreme truth doesnt exist

99.9999% of the world will agree that it is wrong to murder a baby for no apparent reason, but does that make the other 0.00001% wrong? Not really, he just has a different moral code

"Theres no good or evil, only different points of view"

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: ShadowOfMyself
Right and moral are the same because of one simple reason - whats right to me might not be right to you, so, it depends on each ones morals, so moral = right

What Im saying is, it might be wrong for you to kill a person, but it might be right to someone else, you cant do anything about it, supreme truth doesnt exist

99.9999% of the world will agree that it is wrong to murder a baby for no apparent reason, but does that make the other 0.00001% wrong? Not really, he just has a different moral code

"Theres no good or evil, only different points of view"

The supreme irony of this post is that you state your views so absolutely. So I guess you DO believe in absolute truth after all.

 

[Cold Steel]

Originally posted by: ShadowOfMyself
Right and moral are the same because of one simple reason - whats right to me might not be right to you, so, it depends on each ones morals, so moral = right

What Im saying is, it might be wrong for you to kill a person, but it might be right to someone else, you cant do anything about it, supreme truth doesnt exist

99.9999% of the world will agree that it is wrong to murder a baby for no apparent reason, but does that make the other 0.00001% wrong? Not really, he just has a different moral code

"Theres no good or evil, only different points of view"

So we have two men. One pushes an old lady in front of an oncoming bus. The other pushes the old lady out of the way of the oncoming bus. Are they both just men who push old ladies around?

 

[ShadowOfMyself]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: ShadowOfMyself
Right and moral are the same because of one simple reason - whats right to me might not be right to you, so, it depends on each ones morals, so moral = right

What Im saying is, it might be wrong for you to kill a person, but it might be right to someone else, you cant do anything about it, supreme truth doesnt exist

99.9999% of the world will agree that it is wrong to murder a baby for no apparent reason, but does that make the other 0.00001% wrong? Not really, he just has a different moral code

"Theres no good or evil, only different points of view"

The supreme irony of this post is that you state your views so absolutely. So I guess you DO believe in absolute truth after all.

I thought you would see past that :roll: Dont you think I assumed someone would say this? But see, it is already IMPLIED in my post, right there in the bolded part

So, all that I said up there is already according to my morals, thus not being absolute truth... Theres really no way to get out of this argument, youll keep going in circles, so dont bother

So we have two men. One pushes an old lady in front of an oncoming bus. The other pushes the old lady out of the way of the oncoming bus. Are they both just men who push old ladies around?

Yes thats exactly what Im saying... Deciding who is right or wrong will depend on each ones morals... If theres such a thing as a neutral person, that person would view the situation just as you said, two guys pushing ladies around

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: ShadowOfMyself

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: ShadowOfMyself
Right and moral are the same because of one simple reason - whats right to me might not be right to you, so, it depends on each ones morals, so moral = right

What Im saying is, it might be wrong for you to kill a person, but it might be right to someone else, you cant do anything about it, supreme truth doesnt exist

99.9999% of the world will agree that it is wrong to murder a baby for no apparent reason, but does that make the other 0.00001% wrong? Not really, he just has a different moral code

"Theres no good or evil, only different points of view"

The supreme irony of this post is that you state your views so absolutely. So I guess you DO believe in absolute truth after all.

I thought you would see past that :roll: Dont you think I assumed someone would say this? But see, it is already IMPLIED in my post, right there in the bolded part

So, all that I said up there is already according to my morals, thus not being absolute truth... Theres really no way to get out of this argument, youll keep going in circles, so dont bother

Supreme truth does exist, though, just not necessarily in the realm of morality. And Right and Moral are the same because of a much simpler reason than moral relativism... The very definition of the word "moral" incorporates right vs wrong.

Yes thats exactly what Im saying... Deciding who is right or wrong will depend on each ones morals... If theres such a thing as a neutral person, that person would view the situation just as you said, two guys pushing ladies around

No, the neutral person observes the first guy pushing the lady in front of the bus and concludes that the guy is trying to push a lady in front of a bus. He sees the other guy push the lady out of the way of the bus and concludes that the other guy is trying to push the lady out of the way of the bus. He would have to be unable to observe the bus for him to conclude solely that there are two guys pushing ladies around.

 

[meltdown75]

Originally posted by: ShadowOfMyself
Right and moral are the same because of one simple reason - whats right to me might not be right to you, so, it depends on each ones morals, so moral = right

What Im saying is, it might be wrong for you to kill a person, but it might be right to someone else, you cant do anything about it, supreme truth doesnt exist

99.9999% of the world will agree that it is wrong to murder a baby for no apparent reason, but does that make the other 0.00001% wrong? Not really, he just has a different moral code

"Theres no good or evil, only different points of view"

this is known as ethical relativism.

 

[ShadowOfMyself]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: ShadowOfMyself

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: ShadowOfMyself
Right and moral are the same because of one simple reason - whats right to me might not be right to you, so, it depends on each ones morals, so moral = right

What Im saying is, it might be wrong for you to kill a person, but it might be right to someone else, you cant do anything about it, supreme truth doesnt exist

99.9999% of the world will agree that it is wrong to murder a baby for no apparent reason, but does that make the other 0.00001% wrong? Not really, he just has a different moral code

"Theres no good or evil, only different points of view"

The supreme irony of this post is that you state your views so absolutely. So I guess you DO believe in absolute truth after all.

I thought you would see past that :roll: Dont you think I assumed someone would say this? But see, it is already IMPLIED in my post, right there in the bolded part

So, all that I said up there is already according to my morals, thus not being absolute truth... Theres really no way to get out of this argument, youll keep going in circles, so dont bother

Supreme truth does exist, though, just not necessarily in the realm of morality. And Right and Moral are the same because of a much simpler reason than moral relativism... The very definition of the word "moral" incorporates right vs wrong.

Yes thats exactly what Im saying... Deciding who is right or wrong will depend on each ones morals... If theres such a thing as a neutral person, that person would view the situation just as you said, two guys pushing ladies around

No, the neutral person observes the first guy pushing the lady in front of the bus and concludes that the guy is trying to push a lady in front of a bus. He sees the other guy push the lady out of the way of the bus and concludes that the other guy is trying to push the lady out of the way of the bus. He would have to be unable to observe the bus for him to conclude solely that there are two guys pushing ladies around.

Im sure you knowledgeable people it all better than me , but hey, just explaining my point of view... And for the record, that IS what I was saying! So the neutral guy concludes one is pushing the lady in front of the bus and the other is pushing her out of the bus, whats the difference? Why does he have to make a choice on whos right or wrong? Isnt the whole point of being neutral to avoid that?

We both have an orange, I throw my orange up, you let yours fall down... Does the neutral person have to take a stance in this? No... To him, we were just throwing oranges around... Maybe he loves oranges and will think that dropping oranges is wrong, otherwise it will have no effect on it, thats what I mean

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: ShadowOfMyself
We both have an orange, I throw my orange up, you let yours fall down... Does the neutral person have to take a stance in this? No... To him, we were just throwing oranges around... Maybe he loves oranges and will think that dropping oranges is wrong, otherwise it will have no effect on it, thats what I mean

Maybe he's hungry

 

[Cold Steel]

Originally posted by: ShadowOfMyself

So we have two men. One pushes an old lady in front of an oncoming bus. The other pushes the old lady out of the way of the oncoming bus. Are they both just men who push old ladies around?

Yes thats exactly what Im saying... Deciding who is right or wrong will depend on each ones morals... If theres such a thing as a neutral person, that person would view the situation just as you said, two guys pushing ladies around

*shudders*

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

Are you talking about creating the Science religion for the space barbarians in Foundation? That was so great.