Morality doesn't exist in reality.

51 Comments

Morality is merely a social and psychological construct. It is subjective and varies from culture to culture and individual to individual. It doesn't exist in reality.

Consider the following situations:

Case-A: A trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by dropping a heavy weight in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you – your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed?

Case-B: As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. As in the first case, you can divert it onto a separate track. On this track is a single (fat) person. However, beyond that person, this track rejoins the main line towards the five, and if it weren't for the presence of that (fat) person, who will stop the trolley, flipping the switch would not save the five. Should you flip the switch?

Case-C: A trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You can divert its path by colliding another trolley into it, but if you do, both will be derailed and go down a hill, and into a yard where a man is sleeping in a hammock. He would be killed. Should you proceed?

Case-D: A brilliant transplant surgeon has five patients, each in need of a different organ, each of whom will die without that organ. Unfortunately, there are no organs available to perform any of these five transplant operations. A healthy young traveler, just passing through the city the doctor works in, comes in for a routine checkup. In the course of doing the checkup, the doctor discovers that his organs are compatible with all five of his dying patients. Suppose further that if the young man were to disappear, no one would suspect the doctor. Should he proceed?

Case-E: As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You can flip a switch and divert the train to run one person over instead of five, but that person is your mother. Would you flip the switch?

In which cases should you proceed to the action? What differentiates all these situations from one another, when outcome will be the same?

What should you choose? :

Sacrifice the person in each case	12
Sacrifice the person only in selected case(s)(specify in comment)	6
No action in any case	21
I don't care, I would rather masturbate	30

Help us keep this site organized and clean. Thanks!

[ Report Post ]

Comments ( 51 )

dom180

11 years ago | pl

A - Yes.

B - Yes.

C - Yes.

D - More information is needed. This one is more complicated because it involved actual, get-your-hands-dirty murder. You couldn't morally absolve the doctor without setting a precedent that killing for the greater good is okay. I think setting that precedent could do more damage than could be made up through saving 4 lives, so no. He shouldn't; the outcome of this scenario is NOT the same because of the role of the courts. There's also the possibility that the other men might not survive the surgery, or might recover without it. Too many variables to make a judgement.

E - Should I? Yes. Would I? I can never know without being in that situation.

I don't understand why people say "morality doesn't exist" just because different people have different moralities. It's akin to saying "thoughts don't exist", just because we don't all think the same.

Comment Hidden ( show )

8

8
NotStrangeBird

11 years ago | pl

I think the disturbingly common issue of improperly maintained trolley braking systems should be addressed before any moralistic views are explored.

Comment Hidden ( show )

6

6
- NotStrangeBird
  
  11 years ago
  
  Also there are some security issues if any old clown can hang around the tracks and throw switches whenever they feel like it.
  
  Comment Hidden ( show )
  
  3
  
  3
  - Anonymous Post Author
    
    11 years ago
    
    What a FUCKTARD!!!!!!
    
    Comment Hidden ( show )
    
    -3
    
    -3
    - BLAh81
      
      11 years ago
      
      Never heard of humor?
      
      Comment Hidden ( show )
      
      2
      
      2
      - Anonymous Post Author
        
        11 years ago
        
        Yeah, but this isn't humor. This is trolling.
        
        Comment Hidden ( show )
        
        -1
        
        -1
        
        -
        
        BLAh81
        
        11 years ago
        
        Well, I think it's kinda funny. Judging by all the thumbs up, many more people do. I can understand you not wanting to have your thread fucked up though. Still, lighten up man.
        
        Comment Hidden ( show )
        
        4
        
        4
    - RomeoDeMontague
      
      10 years ago
      
      You are correct. It does not exists. It is made up of peoples personal opinions and thoughts of the world. So using such things in a argument is pretty pointless.
      
      This is why when I designed my set of morals it was based on a fair give and take system. My moral code is not really morality its logic. I believe everyone should be treated fairly.
      
      I also think is someone commits a crime the same should be committed to them. I believe that we are all given an certain amount of rights. If you disrespect that persons rights you too lose that right. I believe people should only get what they earn. That people with bigger responsibility should earn more since they are in fact doing more work.
      
      I believe if their is a free service it should be for everyone not just a selected group of people. I believe everyone should be treated equally and get what they earn. I believe these basic rights don't change depending on age, gender, race or religion.
      
      I believe that if we must commit something like murder it should only be in self defense or if you want to eat it. However I think cannibilism should be stayed away from since if you start killing within your species its open for corruption and means the species may face extinction.
      
      You can ask me anything about my morals and I will give logical reasoning behind it. I created my moral code a long time ago. When I was very young. I was a child when I created this and I realized every side felt something different so how do we know which moral code is correct? None of them are.
      
      So I found a logical system which is fair and just. If people follow these rules we are all equal and none of us gets completely what we want but its the logical system. We cant simply say rape is ok to amuse to rapist. However to say its bad we need some logical reasoning behind it.
      
      Emotions are completely worthless in these type of situations. That is why my system was designed by a system of give and take that is to be fair and equal to everyone.
      
      Comment Hidden ( show )
      
      0
      
      0
q25t

11 years ago

I would do nothing in each case. I'm not prepared to be judge on who lives and dies, even if the potential is there to save a greater amount of people.

As for the general question as to whether morality exists, I would say that it does but only in the subjective sense in which it is relative to culture, time, and individual.

I posted a comment a while back on a related topic showing how murder, stealing, and rape were all subjective at one point. I'll see if I can find that again.

Comment Hidden ( show )

3

3
- q25t
  
  11 years ago
  
  Found it.
  
  "In the case murder, rape, and stealing, all of these things were acceptable at one point or another (mostly in the caveman era).
  
  Murder is especially relative. Even so recent as the Industrial Revolution, people were allowed to die within the factories due to the poor conditions for working. Is this not murder in a sense? If you don't like that example, there is the case of kings within the dark ages or the renaissance even killing their subjects.
  
  Rape is much the same. It was acceptable not too long ago for invading armies to rape the women (sometimes men) they came across and this was acceptable then.
  
  Stealing is presently acceptable but only in certain ways. Stealing could be defined as taking from someone what is theirs with no intention of return and without direct consent. Taxes upon the wealthier individuals could be seen this way. If that doesn't work, then simply move back farther into the age of kings. These kings would in some cases outright forcibly take properly from individuals and that was seen as not particularly wrong.
  
  Now to anyone reading this about to jump down my throat, I'm just bringing up the relativity of morality; it's not that I believe these things are actually okay."
  
  Comment Hidden ( show )
  
  1
  
  1
  - 1000yrVampireKing
    
    11 years ago
    
    When is rape ever expectable? When is it a necessity to rape someone? Who HAS TO RAPE PEOPLE? That is never expectable. That is never a need. If you kill in defence of you or others that is something you needed to do at the moment. If you steal to eat it was to survive at the moment. Rape is never something you NEED to do. It is something you CHOOSE To do. So it is always a crime.
    
    Comment Hidden ( show )
    
    1
    
    1
    - disfunkshinal
      
      11 years ago
      
      He says " Now to anyone reading this about to jump down my throat, I'm just bringing up the relativity of morality; it's not that I believe these things are actually okay."
      
      I don't see anywhere he said that rape is acceptable.
      
      Comment Hidden ( show )
      
      1
      
      1
      - q25t
        
        11 years ago
        
        Thank you.
        
        Comment Hidden ( show )
        
        0
        
        0
    - brown_snake
      
      11 years ago
      
      Weaponized rape is a commonly used tool during civil or tribal conflicts. In in the interest of successfully cowing and demoralizing enemy or hostile populations ,it certainly has its advantages.
      
      Comment Hidden ( show )
      
      1
      
      1
    - q25t
      
      11 years ago
      
      When is it ever necessary?
      
      Consider this hypothetical. A man and a woman somehow are the last people on earth and they're perfectly aware of this fact. However, they speak different languages. Now, for the good of humanity, if only one of them wanted to procreate and had no means by which to convince the other, would that necessarily be wrong?
      
      Be aware that if you go back to the caveman era, this was nearly the case according to research. In this case, either a series of grunts was considered assent, simply not objecting was, or that prehistoric man simply saw rape as a means to an end.
      
      I'm not in any way trying to justify these actions, but it's sometimes necessary to see just how far we've come in every aspect as a race and morality is usually neglected.
      
      Comment Hidden ( show )
      
      1
      
      1
    - Justsomejerk
      
      11 years ago
      
      You're adorable.
      
      Comment Hidden ( show )
      
      1
      
      1
    - GoraIntoDesiGals
      
      11 years ago
      
      I disagree. Sex is a need for a man but women don't understand nor care. So a man who is rejected by 100% women would feel a need to rape. I'm not saying it's good/bad but that's the whole point of this thread.
      
      Comment Hidden ( show )
      
      0
      
      0
      - 1000yrVampireKing
        
        11 years ago
        
        So if someone gets upset since they are not getting any can they rape you? According to you it is perfectly ok if you are not getting none. That does not make it anymore valid. If your dad never got sex from your mom he can rape you? How about your mother can she rape you? That is ok with you since they do NEED to have the drive met. This is completely NEEDED.
        
        Comment Hidden ( show )
        
        1
        
        1
        
        -
        
        BLAh81
        
        11 years ago
        
        "So if someone gets upset since they are not getting any can they rape you? According to you it is perfectly ok if you are not getting none."
        
        I don't think he is saying that at all. He even literally says: "I'm not saying it's good/bad". I think he's merely saying he understands why certain guys would feel a need to rape. In no way is that an endorsement in my eyes.
        
        Comment Hidden ( show )
        
        0
        
        0
      - 1000yrVampireKing
        
        11 years ago
        
        I never said sex was bad or that people did not need it. I am just saying that rape is not something that you ever HAVE to do. That it is wrong no matter how you look at it. If a brother rapes his sister was that something that NEEDED to happen? If a guy rapes a women on the street did it NEED to happen. That women is now stuck with a child she can not take care of or did not want. If she has an abortion the child dies. Did that child deserve any of that? If a child is raped by a fucked up teacher did that NEED to happen? NO IT NEVER NEEDED TO HAPPEN AND IT IS ALWAYS WRONG. YOU ARE A BASTARD IN ALL CASES.
        
        Comment Hidden ( show )
        
        1
        
        1
      - BLAh81
        
        10 years ago
        
        "So a man who is rejected by 100% women would feel a need to rape."
        
        Ever heard of prostitution?
        
        Comment Hidden ( show )
        
        0
        
        0
- BLAh81
  
  11 years ago
  
  "As for the general question as to whether morality exists, I would say that it does but only in the subjective sense in which it is relative to culture, time, and individual."
  
  I agree that the culture and timeframe in which one grows up, as well as their individual character, determines/influences much of their sense of morality, but aren't there also certain things which are wrong no matter what?
  
  I mean, can you tell me when or where it was ever OK to, say, brutally torture your own baby to death?
  
  Comment Hidden ( show )
  
  0
  
  0
Darkoil

11 years ago

All of these situations are absolutely absurd. They are not a good judge of morality. Morality is a man made concept and it will differ from person to person. Take the first one for example, why would I murder a fat guy to save 5 people I don't know or care about? I wouldn't give a shit if all 6 of them were to die as long as I'm not in trouble for it.

Comment Hidden ( show )

2

2
- BLAh81
  
  11 years ago
  
  "They are not a good judge of morality."
  
  Sure, someone who "wouldn't give a shit if all 6 of them were to die" is in a great position to judge morality, right?
  
  Comment Hidden ( show )
  
  0
  
  0
Anonymous Post Author

11 years ago

Extra-Note:

Case-F: Suppose that a judge or magistrate is faced with rioters demanding that a culprit be found for a certain crime and threatening otherwise to take their own bloody revenge on a particular section of the community. The real culprit being unknown, the judge sees himself as able to prevent the bloodshed only by framing some innocent person and having him executed.

Case-G: Similar to case-A except that the fat man is, in fact, the villain who put these five people in peril. Should you push the villain to death?

Comment Hidden ( show )

1

1
- dom180
  
  11 years ago
  
  F - I believe that framing the innocent man would probably be wrong for the same reason as I believe killing the innocent man in Case D would probably be wrong. Those two stories are really exactly the same at the bare bones; an innocent man being killed because doing so *might* save a larger number of people. Giving the rioters what they want would increase the likelihood of them rioting or threatening rioting in the future, leading eventually to a mob rule situation.
  
  G - Yes.
  
  As a secondary point, the reason why I believe D would set such a precedent as I mentioned above and A, B, C and E would not is because the doctor is an authority figure in a position of power as opposed to a civilian. The doctor's situation is also probably a lot more frequent that the case of the runaway trolley, so there's a greater risk.
  
  Comment Hidden ( show )
  
  0
  
  0
  - wigsplitz
    
    11 years ago
    
    How can you be pro- pushing innocent people in front of a train, and pro- pushing guilty fat man into a train yet be anti- capital punishment and anti- legal gun ownership? I'm just curious.
    
    Comment Hidden ( show )
    
    0
    
    0
    - dom180
      
      11 years ago
      
      Because I don't believe free gun ownership and capital punishment work to reduce deaths (in anything other than the immediate short-term, anyway), whereas I do believe (in this hypothetical world where fat people can derail trains) that pushing fat people in front of trains on course to kill people reduces deaths.
      
      Comment Hidden ( show )
      
      0
      
      0
Wendell

11 years ago

I'm not going to kill an innocent bystander to possibly save five people from that days fate. It's bad that they're going to die but it's just an accident of nature as opposed to a heroic murder? It's different if I'm the one jumping in front of a trolley, cause I chose to.

Comment Hidden ( show )

1

1
- Anonymous Post Author
  
  11 years ago
  
  Refer to extra note below.
  
  Comment Hidden ( show )
  
  0
  
  0
Anime7

11 years ago

I do believe that morality is a social construct, but I also think that it is something that carries on inherently within us. Some behaviors just feel wrong, like lying or masturbating, for some. However, the more you do either, the less guilt you feel. Without any prior knowledge of what is right or wrong, I think some people have certain traits that they are born with, and one of these is inherent guilt over some acts. You may not want to feel guilty but you do and you cannot explain why. I honestly think this about some people; maybe the social values of the Old World still exists in a suppressed part of our initial consciousness.

Comment Hidden ( show )

1

1
Anonymous Post Author

11 years ago

This is SPARTA.....!!

Comment Hidden ( show )

0

0
- Anonymous Post Author
  
  11 years ago
  
  This is MADNESS!!!
  
  Comment Hidden ( show )
  
  0
  
  0
1000yrVampireKing

11 years ago

A yes
B yes
c yes
D No (Why I stay away from hospitals)
E I could not kill my own mom

Comment Hidden ( show )

0

0
- Anonymous Post Author
  
  11 years ago
  
  Refer to the extra-note below.
  
  Comment Hidden ( show )
  
  0
  
  0
1000yrVampireKing

11 years ago

From all the scenarios I can say that the OP seems to really hate fat people. I agree with the OP and morals are actually based on peoples personal beliefs. One might think it is moral to kill animals to eat but one might not. A killer might think killing is ok as long as they respect the dead body. So it really depends on who you ask.

Comment Hidden ( show )

0

0
suckonthis9

11 years ago

This has nothing to do with 'morality', it has everything to do with law.
Do nothing in each case. If you did any of these, you will be implicated in an indictable criminal offense, such as; Negligent Homicide, Manslaughter, Felony Murder or Vehicular Homicide.

Comment Hidden ( show )

0

0
dappled

11 years ago

Morality does exist; it just isn't fixed. Think of it like fashion.

Comment Hidden ( show )

0

0
- BLAh81
  
  11 years ago
  
  I agree morality does exist. However, I'm not entirely sure that it isn't fixed. Certain moral values may indeed be fluid alright, but aren't certain things INHERENTLY right or wrong?
  
  I mean, can you tell me when or where it was ever OK to, say, brutally torture a baby to death for fun? I don't think such a timeframe/culture ever existed and even if it did, I still think they were blatantly in the wrong.
  
  Comment Hidden ( show )
  
  0
  
  0
  - Darkoil
    
    11 years ago
    
    The Spartans kllled weak, sick or deformed babies at birth, maybe not exactly for fun but they believed it was the right thing to do. They were also pederasts which again is something that is seen as inherently wrong in todays modern society.
    
    Comment Hidden ( show )
    
    2
    
    2
    - BLAh81
      
      11 years ago
      
      What you say is true, the Spartans did indeed do those things (although indeed still not for fun). However, I still think they were BLATANTLY in the wrong. Killing babies simply IS wrong. The culture or timeframe is simply irrelevant.
      
      Comment Hidden ( show )
      
      0
      
      0
      - Darkoil
        
        11 years ago
        
        Yeah but you are holding their actions against morals which we have in todays modern world, if you were brought up in their culture then you would probably think differently.
        
        Comment Hidden ( show )
        
        0
        
        0
        
        -
        
        BLAh81
        
        11 years ago
        
        Yeah, I would probably think differently if I was brought up in their culture. That wouldn't make it ANY less wrong though. I simply refuse with every fiber of my being to believe that something such as killing babies was EVER alright.
        
        Besides, we have developed a lot as a species, since the days of the Spartans, and I think our present-day morals are VASTLY superior to theirs.
        
        Comment Hidden ( show )
        
        0
        
        0
        
        See More Comments =>
  - dappled
    
    11 years ago
    
    It's an interesting question. I know there are times that babies have been killed (even by the church) but I don't think for fun. I'd like to believe that even in the amorality there was doubt (and that doubt was morality itself). I strongly believe that morality comes from intuitivism (as does the church - "do unto others as you would be done to") and I think there's a natural logic to it (that you even see in primate societies) but I know what you meant about it not existing and I was being a bit pedantic. Obviously people do have morals but morality itself isn't really a tangible thing.
    
    Comment Hidden ( show )
    
    0
    
    0
Alec_the_Protector

11 years ago

There is no morality. Morality is what you make it. If I asked you the difference between right and wrong, there is a chance that what you deem as wrong may be right to me. Morality is a creation of the mind or a conduct by our society or people that we choose to follow. We can only decide for ourselves what is truly right and what is truly wrong. However, neither of the two exist.

Comment Hidden ( show )

-1

-1

Are You Normal?

Morality doesn't exist in reality.