How do we judge moral dillemmas?

[Kerr]

Oh yeah, I forgot, no one gets hurt when people disobey traffic laws....

Actually I think all the people who die from traffic accidents would disagree. Traffic laws are there for a reason.

And it is still not in the same category as homosexuality, because, for example, homosexuality hurts no one... literally... maybe except for the comfort of homophobes.

 

[rojse]

I find the work of Marc Hauser quite interesting. Hauser states that morality is innate, encoded into us, and we will often respond to moral dilemmas in the same manner.

Is Morality Innate and Universal? | Memory, Emotions, & Decisions | DISCOVER Magazine

 

[Storm]

I find the work of Marc Hauser quite interesting. Hauser states that morality is innate, encoded into us, and we will often respond to moral dilemmas in the same manner.

Is Morality Innate and Universal? | Memory, Emotions, & Decisions | DISCOVER Magazine

It's an interesting notion, and I won't say there's nothing to it. However, a cursory glance at the Death Penalty thread should reveal that it's not that simple.

 

[TheKnight]

While MSizer's argument wasn't very good, neither are your comparisons persuasive. As you point out, all these things hurt someone. Homosexuality hurts no one.

I agree. However, he does not make that distinction.

Actually I think all the people who die from traffic accidents would disagree. Traffic laws are there for a reason.

It was sarcasm.

I messed up in discussing traffic laws because I got this thread mixed up with another...

And it is still not in the same category as homosexuality, because, for example, homosexuality hurts no one... literally... maybe except for the comfort of homophobes.

Who is hurt isn't relevant. His inference was the fact that something is pleasing to certain people makes it morally good. He didn't say anything about who gets hurt.

 

[Kerr]

It was sarcasm.

I messed up in discussing traffic laws because I got this thread mixed up with another...

Some of us may have issues with understanding sarcasm... sometimes .

Eating meat only hurts the comfort of those who are animal-lovers. It doesn't hurt anyone else.

If you eat meat, the animal must be dead first. So if you value the lives of those animals, that can become an issue. Homosexuality, on the other hand, involves no killing of anything.

 

[rojse]

It's an interesting notion, and I won't say there's nothing to it. However, a cursory glance at the Death Penalty thread should reveal that it's not that simple.

Please elaborate.

 

[Storm]

Please elaborate.

Well, take murder. Pretty much everyone agrees that murder is wrong, but what qualifies as murder is a whole nother kettle of fish. We don't agree on capital punishment or abortion. Hell, some of us think slaughtering animals for food should be included.

We have certain, apparently universal imperatives, sure. But there's a lot more to morality and ethics than those can cover.

 

[TheKnight]

Some of us may have issues with understanding sarcasm... sometimes .


If you eat meat, the animal must be dead first. So if you value the lives of those animals, that can become an issue. Homosexuality, on the other hand, involves no killing of anything.

I agree. His point didn't mention who gets harmed/killed. His point was simply "It causes pleasure and therefore is morally good."

 

[camanintx]

I agree. His point didn't mention who gets harmed/killed. His point was simply "It causes pleasure and therefore is morally good."

Maybe because conradxiong already made that qualification in Post #11.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

Well, take murder. Pretty much everyone agrees that murder is wrong, but what qualifies as murder is a whole nother kettle of fish. We don't agree on capital punishment or abortion. Hell, some of us think slaughtering animals for food should be included.

We have certain, apparently universal imperatives, sure. But there's a lot more to morality and ethics than those can cover.

I think the problem is a function of values. When values are reduced to the level of pleasure/comfort and pain/harm (positive and negative values respectively), then universal morality makes sense and can be applied accordingly. It is, I propose, only when additional (or perhaps derivative) values are incorporated that systems end up clashing. Everyone agrees that murder is wrong because at its core murder really just means "harming someone so greatly that they die in such a way that there is no benefit to society and no gain to others aside from those party to the harming." Whereas something like abortion has a religious value incorporated so that a pure harm/benefit analysis cannot be completed.

I think the ideal morality system has to be indeterminate enough (wide enough in scope) to encompass human emotional response, but while preserving the truth values for preventing harm and ensuring benefit. So I cannot say that a purely consequentialist/deontological approach will satisfy humanity, as that discards the "human element," but I think we can foster the creation of a better system of understanding if we trim away "excess" values.

MTF

 

[Cobblestones]

When faced with a moral dilemma, what is the best basis for coming to a decision about right and wrong?

As individuals or as a society? The latter is fairly simple. That which harms the community is taboo. Murder, theft, drug abuse, etc. all take a toll on the community at large, particularly in confined societies such as tribes or clans. The former is more difficult as people tend to base their opinions on personal experience and not necessarily with a view to protecting others.

Do religious pronouncements hold the same weight, more weight, or less weight than decisions arrived at outside of the religious realm.

The lines between the two are quite blurred in most societies. It would be difficult to distinguish which is the more weighty in any given situation. Again, those things that harm the society are generally intertwined with both civil and religious thought.

Here are three moral issues to consider:

1. Is slavery morally good or bad?
2. Is homosexuality morally good or bad?
3. Is physician assisted suicide morally good or bad?

1. For the slave or the master? In either case, I think it can be demonstrated that it is bad.
2. In a closed tribal society that depends on heterosexual relationships in order for the tribe to survive? Bad. In larger societies where there is no such threat of extinction, it is neither good nor bad.
3. Considering that even the most long-lived among us are less than a faint blip on the timeline of the universe's existence, I don't think it really matters all that much.

Please provide an answer to all three questions and then explain whether you arrived at your position(s) because of your religious beliefs or because of some other basis.

I have no religious beliefs.

 

[DadBurnett]

When faced with a moral dilemma, what is the best basis for coming to a decision about right and wrong?

Do religious pronouncements hold the same weight, more weight, or less weight than decisions arrived at outside of the religious realm. Here are three moral issues to consider:

1. Is slavery morally good or bad?
2. Is homosexuality morally good or bad?
3. Is physician assisted suicide morally good or bad?

Please provide an answer to all three questions and then explain whether you arrived at your position(s) because of your religious beliefs or because of some other basis.

Slavery ... I believe it is bad, immoral, however the Bible does not specifically prohibit it and Jesus recognized the reality of it without speaking out against it.
Homosexuality ... The homosexual act seems to be unnatural and personally, it is repugnant to me. The existence of homosexuality as a condition is a reality in both animals and human beings ... all of which are creatures created by the Creator. He judged the wholle of creation as good and yes, seemingly condemned some behaviors. We are instructed by Jesus not to judge ...
Physician assisted suicide ... if the "artificial" ending of life is wrong, then so is the "artificial" prolonging of life. We see nothing wrong with putting animals our of their misery, ther suffering; why not people? And if there is a glorious afterlife, can it be wrong to perhaps arrive early???