I think rape, random killing, etc., etc. is inherently wrong. I am confused as to how you could not also think so.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Inherently wrong actions?
- Thread starter Acim
- Start date
I'd actually tend to agree with that. Morality is arbitrary feel good stuff, a pillow for the hard hard world. To say something is 'inherently wrong' in the world is really just being mad at how the world is. I aint mad bro
Again, I mostly agree. The only part where we might disagree (and by 'we' I mean more than you and I) is the notion that a Creator of Us would likely have better idea of the way the world is. Not even sure how to phrase that, but is how I see objectivity entering the picture. I don't think that Creator would have same perspective as we do as individuals with our overlaying of value judgments, some of which are on par with 'mad at how the world is.' But I do think ancestors (now passed away, able to be connected with) would have very good idea of that perspective and able to translate Divine version of 'way world is' compared with our perception of it. A bit of a sorting out type process that conceivably helps us get around our feeble value judgments / emotional hangups and filter 'world' through realistic knowledge, or perception if you prefer. I also truly believe we have this knowledge ingrained in us, but have it masked beneath layers of, how you say, ignorance.
I covered this in OP regarding local laws.
I do think murder is pretty close to universal law and yet we have so many names / stipulations that I find it challenging to see it as universal. Like seemingly okay for state to engage in premeditated murder (i.e. capital punishment). Or okay for us to kill other life on the planet. Or okay for us to kill each other in self defense. Or in war. Or accidentally. Or if you're last name is Clinton.
Gotta love the stipulation of "unlawful" on there to excuse the State of its murderous actions. Must be nice to have relative morality on your side.
I think it is relatively wrong. As I brought up in earlier posts, there are reasons to see it as not universal.
It's odd, to me, that rape is actually easier to argue as being less acceptable than killing. The whole consent thing around rape is painted so black and white as if no stipulations are possible. In recent other thread, I was debating that people who engage sexually with transgendered people aren't, IMO, giving consent to that sexual activity. I realize this is debatable on a case by case basis, but the counterpoint to whatever I brought up is that deception was impossible and therefore consent is understood as implied / fully given. Thus, with at least some cases of rape, if the point is about consent, and less about being treated brutally, I think it isn't so universally wrong. I still stand by what I was getting at earlier in that I do think there are people that have a rape fantasy that amounts to them being taken sexually against their will. Not consenting. If they are consenting to it, I think it is not appealing to them and is obviously not technically rape. Thus, to frame it as non-rape I think is missing the point being made.
The whole topic of consent, going well beyond the topic of rape, is a whole other ball of wax. Personally, every single day I've been alive, something occurs in my life that I didn't consent to, and yet I / we manage. I think it relates directly to this topic and is possibly grounds for 'inherently wrong' but do believe that could conceivably go outside of human actions. Once that's on the table, I think things get convoluted very fast. I hesitate to bring up examples because of how convoluted things can get, but just to help anyone reading this, 'forces of nature' are not things we (seemingly) consent to, and yet are 'causing harm' or (seemingly) going against our will. Convoluted for me because we are (as humans) forces of nature as well, I'd argue that everything (physical) that we do is inherently natural.
With killing, I see you stipulate that with the word "random." Others have stipulated the term with other words. I see this as relatively easy to argue as being non-universal, but perhaps it depends on what stipulations one must set up for it to be seen as less relative and more universal. I'd like to think killing is wrong regardless of the circumstance. I'm kind of thinking of most participating on this thread, I'd come down on side of it being universal - that thou shalt not kill. And yet, I'd have to stipulate my own beliefs with idea that my body's usual functioning is surviving by killing cells/bacteria essentially all the time. So there's that. Then food being another rather significant exception we make room for, and justify killing. Then with the idea that we stick only with humans, and it again has stipulations, which I noted in previous post. I'm thinking vast majority can justify to themselves that killing in 'self defense' is okay or not inherently wrong. I see that as inherently problematic to allow for such a justification, but for this thread, I'll just note that it works well as showing how killing/murder is only relatively wrong.
This is where I personally disagree. A creator doesn't necessarily have the best interests of humans at heart, and most creator gods don't claim omnibevevolence (and others do but I don't believe it based off their holy text) And still do have emotional hangups and biases.
And since I don't believe the act of creation imparts objectivity (I find uses for tools that are not intended all the time especially for art. They have subjective value outside the subjective value the creator places on them) nor do I subscribe objectivity to either age or power, I would consider a deity's moral judgements just as subjective as anyone else's.
Further as a utilitarian / consequentialist I wouldn't accept moral judgements by revelation anyway. 'X knows best' because of A, B and C are judgements of character, not the actions themselves based on what harm or help they would cause.
I hear you. I think it's the closest that there is, or can be, to actual objectivity among human thinking. Either way, it's a bit circular in how 'objectivity' is arrived at as a concept that determines reality.
I wasn't bringing up moral judgments by invoking Creator. I was bringing up what things actually are (including us) by suggesting Creator would know this, have direct Knowledge of it. Being a theist type, and the type I am, I see that Knowledge as within us, and not limited to some Creator over yonder. But it certainly gets tricky when you realize we have ability to manifest mass illusion which is then seen as 'the way we think things actually are.' Even while we claim 'ignorance' when we attempt to be humble or indirect knowledge when we're being honest. Using the illusion (and what's in it) as basis for then determining 'what is real.' Or in the case of this thread, pointing to illusion to determine what is 'inherently wrong.' May as well go into my night dreams and to all the characters causing me harm, let them know they are behaving in inherently wrong ways.
The Golden Rule is a moral or ethical precept, i.e., expressing what is good for people to do. It isn't a causal law. People choose to violate it every day, every minute of every day.
Interestingly, it's actually impossible for someone to want to be the victim of murder, rape, theft, and various other crimes. If a person wants someone else to do those acts to him/her, then technically it isn't murder, rape, theft, etc. For instance, if Joe wants to die and doesn't want to kill himself but wants someone else to perpetrate the killing, he isn't wanting someone to do something to him out of malice, but, rather, he wants someone to do him a favor. (However, if Joe persuades John to kill him, the prosecutor would treat it as murder.)
That's no reason to doubt that there are inherently wrongful acts, i.e., to propose that morality is merely an invention of humans (or relative to each society).
In philosophy of law, there is a whole theory of justice that isn't premised on retribution against those convicted of crimes, but rather on deterrence and incapacitation. It's sometimes referred to as "negative retribution" or (somewhat erroneously) consequentialism. It really faces no further conundrums-- such as relating to how long a sentence should be in order to successfully incapacitate or deter a criminal from committing more such acts--than the theory of retributive justice does.
In any case, I assure you that neither judges nor prosecutors see themselves as personally punishing someone. They see themselves as merely carrying out the law that they did not personally enact.
Thanks for the clarification. I think I understand your view a little better.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Your agenda here aside,
I believe it is inherently wrong to kill anyone out of malice.
Malice
noun
1. evil desire to inflict injury, harm, or suffering on another, either because of a hostile impulse or out of deep-seated meanness:
1. evil desire to inflict injury, harm, or suffering on another, either because of a hostile impulse or out of deep-seated meanness:
.
I see it as a causal law that is impossible to violate. I think it's possible to think you have violated it, but how Cause and Effect are actually set up / understood would matter with regards to a debate that could be had on this. I think the Rule doesn't let silly notion of 'death' prevent it from effects to be realized (much) later on. Personally, there are many instances where I judged something as 'wrong' and later in life got to experience myself doing the same thing, as if now it is suddenly very okay. Prior to my spiritual allegiance, I likely didn't think much about any past history where I may have said something was wrong, but now do it as if it is right/okay. Since my spiritual allegiance, I have fairly acute awareness around how hypocrisy works at a deeper level.
I definitely disagree with it being impossible to want to be the victim. If going to get technical, then that needs to be understood as simply wanting, not necessarily engaging in an act where 'external' judges (i.e. you and me) assess that victim couldn't possibly have wanted that. In all such instances (of crimes), I reckon that 99.99999999999% of the time it will show up as victim claiming they did not want that. The not wanting / not consenting is a discussion that perhaps we are having in this thread, yet gets so challenging to discuss becomes of emotions. Logic/reason be damned when emotions are flaring.
In your hypothetical, if Joe makes certain threats, but doesn't actually harm people and John the cop kills him, I doubt the prosecutor would treat John's actions as murder. Even if technically it is. And I'm sticking to the idea that Joe wanted to die, but didn't want to kill himself. Came up with another plan and in the hypothetical it worked out well for what Joe wanted originally. Or Joe could confess to serial crimes being committed, which he didn't do, and if all goes well (according to Joe) the State will kill him via death penalty. State won't be charged with pre meditated murder of an innocent person, so all's good in the relative morality.
Just cause you think there is no reason to doubt, doesn't make it so. Would help your position, I think, if you had offered something to support that assertion. As it stands now, there is reason to doubt it.
I don't see how the paragraph that follows relates to that assertion, and don't see it supporting the notion that there are inherent wrongs. I'm thinking in this philosophy that the theory of justice is applied to whatever the local laws assert is wrong.
And yet, if their decisions result in harm (via punishment) to individuals, that is somehow, magically okay. Again, must be nice to have relative morality on your side.
Honestly, the fact that we have governments that do some of these things, and get away with it (easily) is reason enough to realize there aren't inherently wrong actions. Relatively wrong, is essentially realizing as long as your in that area, you are under their laws. If they themselves break the laws, that is not your concern, nor will they care if you discover that. It's best you assume that all their actions are inherently right, and if you are not aligned with them/their laws, you are relatively what's wrong within the community.
Your agenda here aside,I'll put a finer point on my position.
I believe it is inherently wrong to kill anyone out of malice.
Malice
noun
1. evil desire to inflict injury, harm, or suffering on another, either because of a hostile impulse or out of deep-seated meanness:
.
I accept that you believe this.
I still see it showing up in shared existence as relatively wrong, and in some instances (inherently) right. But of course never framed as 'evil desire.'
Essentially, if it is ever 'right' to kill another person, then whatever logic is being employed there (minus the assumed authority that so called officials have) just needs to be reproduced. If that is reproduced ineffectively, that will be a judgment call. Such that it is possible that it was never righteous in the first, second, and 50th time it was determined to be 'officially right thing to do.' IOW, just get rid of the malice value judgment for any killer, and then it is possibly not wrong to kill anyone, at any time. Because that's an extreme that my relative morality does not accept, then perhaps more prudent to realize that all killings involve a level of malice, some far better masked than others. The more masked it is, the better the case for it being (inherently) right. The less masked that is, the more the judgment of 'malice killing' can be applied and deemed 'inherently wrong.'
I use parenthesis and single quotes because I still see it as relatively wrong in how it is practiced, while I do personally think it is inherently wrong for humans to kill each other for any (conceivable) reason. But, of course, forgivable.
Skwim
Veteran Member
How kind of you. I accept that you believe this.
I have no idea what you mean by the descriptive "shared existence" here, or why it would make the killing I described relatively wrong.
Please share. When is it inherently right to kill someone out of malice?
I already explained this in previous post. You could quote the whole thing and I'll just highlight the portions where I described the killing as relatively wrong.
I also explained why I put 'inherently' in parenthesis and now you are asking me to explain a time when it is inherently (underlined/emphasized) right. If you don't care to read that post again, then I'll just go with what I implied and indicate that the explanation is in that previous post. It would be 'inherently right' for the state to kill someone out of malice, and downplay the malice part as much as humanly possible.
Morality would be relative if we have no knowledge or forethought on how it may affect yourself and others in the future. Consequences are not relative. Ignorance from not realizing the full consequences is an excuse in convenience. For the most part we know better.
Sonofason
Well-Known Member
Let's pretend for a moment that there is no God. And lets pretend that human beings do not exist. And just for a moment, lets also pretend that no other life exists either. Is there anything wrong with rain falling from the sky? Is there anything wrong with volcanoes erupting? Would it be wrong for an asteroid to collide with the earth? Would it be wrong for the Sun to explode? I will assume that you have answered "no" to each of these questions. You see, for something to be inherently wrong, there must be a sentient being capable of perceiving it. This sentient being doesn't have to know that what has taken place is wrong necessarily, it only needs to perceive an unsuitable or undesirable condition. After all, wrong is defined as " an unsuitable or undesirable manner or direction".
If my intention is to travel north on the highway, and I mistakenly go south, I will hopefully soon realize that I have made a "wrong" turn. I had intended to go north. Me going south does not suit my intentions. I am moving in an undesired direction. I'm going the wrong way. Going south when I want to go north is inherently wrong. Why? because I want to go north. To go in the wrong direction is wrong, assuming my intention is to go in the right direction. Still leaving God out of the equation, the rightness or wrongness of something is purely subjective, and is a matter of each sentient beings personal perspective on the matter. What you think is right, I might think is wrong. So the bottom line here is about consequences. Most decent people on the planet believe that rape is wrong. If you think its okay to rape someone, that's fine...do what you think you must do, but there will be consequences if we catch you. And the consequences would be a whole lot worse if I catch you. But that's just because I don't believe in mercy. No one deserves it, so I'm not giving it.
There are numerous actions and even thoughts that are inherently wrong. Why? Because I say so. You see, when it comes to judging other people, I have the last word. Unless you would like to invoke a God. In that case perhaps I'll defer the last word to Him. But nevertheless, I will judge you and everyone else based upon my own personal subjective feelings, and it makes no difference if you think I'm right or wrong.
So = that all people consider something wrong all of the time everywhere? Or = that all people should consider something wrong all of the time everywhere?
This is just all very confused.
The Golden Rule is not a causal law. It is a moral precept.
Rape and theft are acts that, by definition, people do not consent to. For a person to want someone else to perform actions similar to a rape or theft of their property, and for that person to perform those actions, means that the person consented. Therefore it wasn't rape or theft. For someone to want someone else to perform actions similar to the crime of murder, and for that person to actually perform those actions, that person has not killed someone out of malice.
To claim that there are no inherently immoral or unethical acts is called nihilism, which isn't a moral thesis worthy of discussion.
The Golden Rule isn't even that. It's a vague rule of thumb.
I've talked to conservative Christian dudes who said that if they were gay they would want someone to beat the gay out of them. If necessary, kill them before they actually had sex.
Because they don't want to go to hell. They think that the loving thing to do sometimes involves a Bible and a tire iron.
Tom
But what actions taken constitute murder?
Leaving old lead pipes in a Michigan town, populated by poor black people?
Or take the recent incident in the west bank. A young Palestinian boy stabbed a young Israeli girl to death in her bed. Whether that was murder or not depends on which mother you ask or who's laws you follow.
Murder is a very subjective judgment and it always has been.
Tom