You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
A Moral Dilemma
- Thread starter daniel_m
- Start date
Quote from ElCubano:
Murder....I think not....
Of course it's murder. Why wouldn't it be. You're making a conscious decision to take the guy out. It's not an accident. You're killing him on purpose. He has no say in it either.
With the kids however, it's not murder because they are already in the way of train. You're just letting them die. They're not supposed to be there, unlike the guy, who is supposed to be there knowing that the train will go the other way.
Of course it's murder. Why wouldn't it be. You're making a conscious decision to take the guy out. It's not an accident. You're killing him on purpose. He has no say in it either.
==========================================
so when a soldier kills another it s also murder
when a cop kills a criminal fleeing the scene it's murder
and when a fireman makes a conscious decision to go into one room instead of the other knowing that the other wll die it's murder???
==========================================
so when a soldier kills another it s also murder
when a cop kills a criminal fleeing the scene it's murder
and when a fireman makes a conscious decision to go into one room instead of the other knowing that the other wll die it's murder???
http://www.elitetrader.com/et/index.php?threads/is-god-mute.292671/page-69
1. I can only guess that his real question very lately was actually to ask How to define/evaluate good and bad moral (acts), rather than the definition of morality, nor good morality (i.e. good principle of defining morality).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality
2. It seems to me his objective and the ways/words of asking the questions about morality was a bit confusing (even to himself). (Why didn't he simply quote his own post #584 below, if he can? )
3. I think a separate thread should have been really started, if he is serious wanting to talk/discuss about this (off)topic in this thread again.
Last edited:
imo, morality is evaluated by statistics within a close system/boundary, which represents a race, culture, country, etc!
Therefore, it's relative. It can be changed dynamically according to time, space, situation, etc. Meaning: Never absolute!
In general, legal systems and laws are made to provide an order among people in a nation to follow in order to have a common morality.
A separate set of religious laws designed for believers should not be a good idea. Jesus, as a fervent promoter of human equality, didn't support this idea! By saying believers should obey state laws.
A person travelling to different places/countries would have to observe different sets of morality rules/laws, naturally!
Therefore, it's relative. It can be changed dynamically according to time, space, situation, etc. Meaning: Never absolute!
In general, legal systems and laws are made to provide an order among people in a nation to follow in order to have a common morality.
A separate set of religious laws designed for believers should not be a good idea. Jesus, as a fervent promoter of human equality, didn't support this idea! By saying believers should obey state laws.
A person travelling to different places/countries would have to observe different sets of morality rules/laws, naturally!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_law
Philosophy of law is a branch of philosophy and jurisprudence that studies basic questions about law and legal systems, such as "what is law?", "what are the criteria for legal validity?", "what is the relationship between law and morality?", and many other similar questions.
Moral psychology is a field of study in both philosophy and psychology. Some use the term "moral psychology" relatively narrowly to refer to the study of moral development.[1] However, others tend to use the term more broadly to include any topics at the intersection of ethics, psychology, and philosophy of mind.[2] Some of the main topics of the field are moral judgment, moral reasoning, moral sensitivity, moral responsibility, moral motivation, moral identity, moral action, moral development, moral diversity, moral character (especially as related to virtue ethics), altruism, psychological egoism, moral luck, moral forecasting, moral emotion, affective forecasting, and moral disagreement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_psychology
3 Measures
3.1 Interview techniques
3.2 Survey instruments
4 Theories
4.1 Moral identity
4.2 Moral self
4.3 Moral values
4.4 Moral virtues
4.5 Moral reasoning
4.6 Moral willpower
4.7 Moral behavior
4.8 Moral intuitions
4.9 Moral emotions
4.10 Moral conviction
4.11 Evolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory
Alternative theories
... ...
* Absolutism – Absolutism holds that there are various ethical rules that are absolute. Breaking such moral rules is never legitimate and therefore is always unjustifiable.
* Pacifism – Pacifism is the belief that war of any kind is morally unacceptable and/or pragmatically not worth the cost. Pacifists extend humanitarian concern not just to enemy civilians but also to combatants, especially conscripts. For example, Ben Salmon believed all war to be unjust. He was sentenced to death during World War I (later commuted to 25 years hard labor) for desertion and spreading propaganda.[30]
* Right of self-defence – The theory of self-defence based on rational self-interest maintains that the use of retaliatory force is justified against repressive nations that break the non-aggression principle. In addition, if a free country is itself subject to foreign aggression, it is morally imperative for that nation to defend itself and its citizens by whatever means necessary. Thus, any means to achieve a swift and complete victory over the enemy is imperative. This view is prominently held by Objectivists.[31]
* Consequentialism – The moral theory most frequently summarized in the words "the end justifies the means", which tends to support the just war theory (unless the just war causes less beneficial means to become necessary, which further requires worst actions for self-defense with bad consequences).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_philosophy
Bioethics
Main article: Bioethics
Bioethics is the study of controversial ethics brought about by advances in biology and medicine. Bioethicists are concerned with the ethical questions that arise in the relationships among life sciences, biotechnology, medicine, politics, law, and philosophy. It also includes the study of the more commonplace questions of values ("the ethics of the ordinary") that arise in primary care and other branches of medicine.
Bioethics also needs to address emerging biotechnologies that affect basic biology and future humans. These developments include cloning, gene therapy, human genetic engineering, astroethics and life in space,[46] and manipulation of basic biology through altered DNA, RNA and proteins,e.g.- "three parent baby,where baby is born from genetically modified embryos, would have DNA from a mother, a father and from a female donor.[47] Correspondingly, new bioethics also need to address life at its core. For example, biotic ethics value organic gene/protein life itself and seek to propagate it.[48] With such life-centered principles, ethics may secure a cosmological future for life
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioethics
9 Further reading
9.1 General bioethics
9.2 Jewish bioethics
9.3 Christian bioethics
9.4 Muslim bioethics
9.5 Buddhist bioethics
9.6 Hindu bioethics
9.7 East Asian bioethics
At first glance I thought this thread was being resurrected to discuss the moral dilemma posed by driverless cars in similar circumstances--how should they be programmed?
imo, people should not spend time to consider this kind of hypothetical scenarios about moral dilemma if a scenario is illogical, or its probability is slim or approaching zero.
1. There's literally no way the guy knew the upcoming run-away train is driverless.
2. There's literally no way the guy knew the children are playing in the tunnel.
3. There's literally no way the guy knew a worker is working in another tunnel.
4. There's literally no way the guy knew the possibilities/alternatives that he could divert the train by whatever means. And the consequences in advance! Or even doing any reasonable guesses.
5. The guy is practically impossible to know all the above situations simultaneously, in advance.
Can we physically talk to God requesting timely answers for whatever practical real-life morality questions we would like to ask? How about abortion?