Ask Your Question today
For example, I would say that brutally torturing a baby to death would be wrong for absolutely anyone, everywhere, in any timeframe, in any culture and for whatever reason. What do you think?
I'm not a fan of moral relativism or multiculturalism. Certain things are intrinsically wrong, some cultures are fundamentally flawed and I won't deny it for the sake of political correctness.
I certainly hope that modern science can produce a cheap alternative to fossil fuels that would render unnecessary further wars in parts of the world that hate Western society, culture and religion but are more than happy to take our money for their resources.
;-)
But who put you in charge of morality, and how will you verify that your sense of morality is better than the others?
Word! Sadly you are labelled a racist for not supporting multiculturalism , at least around here.
I completely agree that some cultures might be flawed (even fundamentally) based on how you see things.
What if how you see things was seen as flawed?
It all depends on culture. Thick about it- In western culture we slaughter thousands of animals every single day, subjecting their lives and many other animal's lives to ones of misery, existing and suffering as mere objects to do as we wish with, only for our own luxury.
Now sounds horrific when you put it like that, yet I'm sure if I were to compare it to the holocaust, there would be outrage. Because while torturing animals in contained conditions is considered 'acceptable', violating basic human rights is apparently 'not okay'.
... Yet although an atrocity, to many at the time, the holocaust would indeed have been acceptable and justified also.
In some culture's the objectifying and cruelty inflicted upon animals today would seem sickening. But it really does depend on how you've grown up and what you've gotten used to and learnt to consider as normal.
However outragous you might think something is, such as your example of 'torturing babies', you have to remember that nothing is black or white;
There is no universal true 'good' or 'evil', only what we are conditioned to perceive. Until we learn to question things ourselves and begin to make our own judgement.
This is why there will always be conflict in the world.
Just because we slaughter animals every day doesn't make it right. I am addicted to chicken and I am doing wrong every day. Their suffering exists, no matter if we care or not. Doesn't that have anything to do with right/wrong?
I wasn't saying their suffering doesn't exist, it's fact that it does. I was mearly using animal exploitation as an example for how many in the western culture consider some things normal and okay, which to many others would seem bizarre.
It's a matter of opinion whether it is right or wrong, as with everything. Everyone is entitled to an opinion as long as they can back it up.
If something is right or wrong is a moral choice and never set it stone- however strongly you feel about something there will always be others with opposing views.
Unless you believe in god and his 'rules' or 'commandments' and his judgement, who has the right to say who has the correct viewpoint? Nobody does.
"Just because we slaughter animals every day doesn't make it right."
I hate to play devil's advocate, but who told you that something was right or wrong?
What is right or wrong depends on the culture. And even within a culture there will always be exceptions.
Human culture is a manifestation of human nature at the level of society. And, human nature is universal to all humans.
This is why *all* human cultures are, more or less, the same. There are many cultural universals, which torturing a baby to death probably falls under.
But what truly defines "human nature"? Just because you see it in most human populations does not mean that it is necessarily universal in the human species. That would be like saying "Firefox is a part of all computer nature" because we see them in practically all computers today, but god knows someone can come up with a computer that is incompatible with Firefox. Will that mean that that computer isn't really a "computer"?
Rape, molestation and killing pointlessly. Are all pretty wrong and most cultures agree that this stuff is bad. Things like stealing are wrong but can sometimes be excused in times of desperation. Like the little poor boy stealing food since he does not have enough to eat.
There is also animal sex and insest. While some people still do it most people in the world will always find desire to have sex with animals, and insect of any kind incredibly creepy and wrong.
Why furries tend to creep out most people. Since it stems from the desire to have sex with animals. So even if you are not having direct sex with an animal (Sex with an animal is really rape since its none consenting)You are still imaging having sex with one. To most people sex outside your own species is disgusting and wrong.
Yet another misconception about furries. Most furries do not have zoophilia desires. They are simply people who are fans of anthropomorphic animals.
Besides, the difference between furries and real animals is that furries are anthropomorphic while real animals are not. Real animals cannot consent to sexual intercourse. Furries are anthropomorphic with full human personalities and such, and are fully consenting (unless it is rape art). Saying that they are "still imagining having sex with [animals]" is like saying "People who like midgets are still imagining having sex with children".
Is there really such a thing as killing pointlessly? There is pretty much always some reason behind murder, even if others don't know, the one who committed the crime does.
But, if the so called "reason" for killing someone or something is a sociopathic one like killing just to watch something or someone die that's not a legitimate reason but more of a pathology.
School shooter, Luke Woodham, beat and tortured to death his own family dog to prepare himself for killing people like his mother, girlfriend and another girl at school. The dog was a little Pug and her name was, Sparkle.
Senseless and pointless are the reasons of such persons.
Yes. Kill out of defense and killing for food. If you just kill for the fun of it you are killing pointlessly. If killing is not a necessity you must not kill. If a maniac kills since he imagined he was being harmed he killed in self defense since he perceived he/her was being endangered. Why rape is never ok since their is no real reason to rape someone. Rape is absolutely never necessary and serves no good.
. . .. why does every interesting debate end in a total nutcase comment?
No. There are multiple ways to look at something. Even in the case of torturing a baby. You have to break it down.
To one person abortion might fit " brutally torturing a baby to death" to another abortion might be perfectly acceptable.
I believe it's subjective, and basically impossible to determine right and wrong. That's kind of where I am with my life.
YES, I believe there is such a thing as good and evil in the universe. It can be put very simply: Love=Good Evil=Hate
Why so? Because Hate causes pain causes suffering, which not only stinks subjectively but also hurts productivity in all areas of life (and thus the evolution of society), and because Love nourishes the brain and increases positive outcomes for all. It's simple logic.
Most of the people here are saying that what is right or wrong depends on the culture. That is to say that the only thing that determines whether something is socially acceptable or not is whether people accept it or not. I think there is a difference. Slavery was always evil, no matter how society viewed/accepted it. Killing a baby caused suffering to the child, and though acceptable, it probably caused subconscious/repressed pain to the parents and made the emotional scale of that society on the whole a more bitter, grayer picture.
I believe some societies operate better than others. If this weren't the case, then there would be no reason to care about who our leaders are, how the government is run, what messages are being sent by the media, etc. etc. It would all be the same regardless. But we know that it makes a difference how a society is run, on the lives of all the individuals in it and the quality of functioning on multiple levels--material, intellectual, spiritual, emotional. The more people that are satisfied in all these ways, and meeting their potential in all these ways, the better the society.
Any society that tortures and kills a baby is a twisted society! I don't care what the members think...the baby's suffering is the constant. Varying social acceptibility, constant suffering. Constant perversion of the human mind's capability of accepting, perceiving, and giving love, cooperation, and understanding (all things which benefit society and all its members and take no innocent victims) Think about the VICTIM here!
Any one who fucks with a child in any way (including circumcision) is 100% wrong and should be killed with pain, that includes Michael and Debbie Pearl.
anybody that bases their personal morals solely on what society thinks is okay is what we call a "sheep".. someone with no spiritual or moral convictions in the world, other than to follow what everybody else does... and this kind of behavior and lack of thinking and lack of feeling and lack of caring are SO destructive to society... it makes me sick. This is why the holocaust happened... this is why bullying happens, this the biggest problem in society. And they just shrug their shoulders and don't get it. It makes me sick.
Everything is relative...nothing is intrinsically right or wrong...we assign those objective values to subjective phenomena to create groupthink...which is part of group animal psychology...the actual behavior gets lost in the group lesson to be learned by it.....
Violence has certain evolutionary "reasons" and is caused by certain stressful environments...if you are not violent ...it just means that as of yet you have not experienced that degree of stress for the degree of time to set you off...it is learned behavior but learning violence is also traumatic
Some surgical interventions could easily be considered brutally torturing a baby and yet they are done for the health of the baby. Without context no action can be described as intrinsically right or wrong. This does break down though with the word murder as many define murder as killing that meets the criteria for being wrong. In this I guess all murder is intrinsically wrong and yet you end up at the same place because without context you can't decide was is murder and what isn't.
Humans have done far worse than that with it being seen as right at the time. Far worse than that is happening right now on this planet. I see it as wrong but others might see it as right.
Morals are not only fluid in time but in comprehension and with respect to the prevailing situation. Sometimes right cannot be done. There is only wrong and less wrong.
Killing babies isn't wrong in all cultures, though. The Spartans often did it. I don't think a culture that views torturing babies to be acceptable is inconceivable.
I know the Spartans practised infanticide. Clearly, they didn't CONSIDER it as intrinsically wrong. However, that doesn't mean it wasn't.
I would say it was, since a baby - by definition - is innocent and therefore doesn't deserve such a horrible fate. I think the Spartans were wrong.
Wouldn't you agree?
I completely agree with you. However, no amount of consensus can take something to the level of "intrinsic".
Imagine a hypothetical in which the world would explode if you did not torture that baby to death. If there are objective morals, I think it's pretty clear that the right thing to do must be to kill the baby. If there are no objective morals, I think so long as your aim is to save as many lives as possible you should also kill the baby.
My point is that no matter what you believe about the nature of morality, there are hypotheticals which would make any rational person accept that killing the baby is the right thing to do. That makes it not intrinsically wrong.
If there are objective morals, they must originate somewhere. Where would you propose they originate from?
"no amount of consensus can take something to the level of "intrinsic"."
Sure, I guess that's indeed true.
"Imagine a hypothetical in which the world would explode if you did not torture that baby to death. If there are objective morals, I think it's pretty clear that the right thing to do must be to kill the baby. If there are no objective morals, I think so long as your aim is to save as many lives as possible you should also kill the baby."
I see what you're saying, but torturing a baby to death simply IS unacceptable in my view, NO MATTER how logical it would be or how much humanity would benefit from it. You just CANNOT go there. Period. Personally, I'd rather die, than torture a baby to death, no shit. People who wouldn't aren't really worth saving anyway I think.
"My point is that no matter what you believe about the nature of morality, there are hypotheticals which would make any rational person accept that killing the baby is the right thing to do. That makes it not intrinsically wrong."
Basically, you're saying that the end can justify the means (which can be a VERY dangerous idea BTW). Maybe indeed in some cases, but certainly not in this one. If you're doing evil to accomplish something good, you're still doing evil.
"If there are objective morals, they must originate somewhere. Where would you propose they originate from?"
I really wish I could answer that. It would be the end of SO fucking much misery. However, you may find this interesting: http://www.samharris.org/the-moral-landscape
I've heard of that book before. I'll do a bit of reading about the book first, but I might end up putting it on my list to read. It's a long, long list though - and I'm a very slow reader.
I think having rigid, unshakable convictions is what is dangerous. I can't see how torturing one baby can be considered worse than killing every single baby, every adult and all life on Earth. It seems like a belief that relies so much on emotional reasoning that it can't even really be debated. If it exists in the emotional realm you can't really debate it in the logical realm - you believe what you believe and that's that. If emotional reasoning prevents someone from making utilitarian decisions, especially with regards to human life, I think that is undeniably dangerous.
I think if you can logically determine that the ends will justify the means, then it should be all systems go. If you're doing evil to accomplish good, you've got to remember that you're doing evil *and* good. Focusing on the evil biases your argument. You've got to look at the balance between good and evil, and I think the best way to do that is by utilitarianism. One life for billions - I think the balance is pretty obvious and I think the evil is more than justified through utilitarian eyes.
If you can logically justify a moral decision, do what you want. I don't see why there should be any exceptions.
I thought the matter over some more, and concluded you're probably right. Still, I don't think I personally could ever torture a baby to death, EVEN if I knew it was the best (or the least worst) option. I simply couldn't do it. I also still think it CAN be a very dangerous idea to believe that the end justifies the means. I think history has very, very clearly shown that.
It's very much a cultural thing. The Japanese routinely threw Chinese babies in the air and caught them on their bayonets, during their occupation of China in the early 20th century. It wasn't considered wrong to them, no matter how awful it may sound to us.
I would guess that almost anything which one might think to be "intrinsically" wrong, today, was common practice somewhere, at sometime in the past.
I see what your saying there Sailor, however I wouldn't so much see it as a cultural issue but rather an issue of wartime atrocities.
It wasn't during any war. It was an occupation. Be that as it may be, morals and customs vary as a society changes, for better or worse.
The most physically perfect humans on earth were the Polynesians (before Europeans came), who killed any child that wasn't perfect. It may sound horrible to us, but it worked for them.
"It wasn't during any war."
Huh? Weren't you referring to the Nanjing massacre that took place during the Second Sino-Japanese War?
I knew the Spartans killed babies that were unhealthy or deformed but I never knew that about the Polynesians.
they should throw your Mcmuffin ass in the river. Shut up I love Chinese Babies.
Don't talk about Asians my husband is Asian, And the Japs are my cuzs. They didn't do that that's bullshit. Your existence is intrinsically wrong Shut up fool stop makin up stories you heard in the irish pub!
U know u want a piece of this pie, but u cant have it. No Cherry pie 4 u. Your blowup doll nancy is an ignorant fool. Do you pay your 20 year old to blow ya. Or do u just have to give her some chicken wings? Most guys your age gotta pay. for a 20 year old. I know she aint doin your impotantent ass (and I don't give a fuck if I spelled it wrong) for free.
Old irish idiot! I told ya go on OURTIME that's more for people your age. got it MCMuffin!
Japanese soldiers =/= Every person of Japanese origin.
Many American soldiers did tons of atrocities to the Natives and such but it does not mean that all Americans are like that. It's not trash talking to say that the Japanese army was extremely cruel to the Chinese and Koreans in WWII. It is historical, and is no excuse for branding all Japanese people as baby killers.
It depends on what your perpective is. Torturing a baby is wrong, but doing other things that aren't physically hurting some creature or someone isn't.
So you're saying that killing the antichrist before it matures and destroys the world is wrong? You, sir, are a dumbass.