Inherently wrong actions?

[Smart_Guy]

If you're a Muslim murder isn't inherently wrong--it depends on who you murder. Muhammad was a warmongerer and probably aggressively killed hundreds on his own and lead to the slaughter of thousands.

Yes, many claim so.

 

[serp777]

Yes, many claim so.

Well its basically a historical fact and more than just a claim. The many who claim this include historians, eye witnesses, archaeologists, and many other reputable people. It seems to me that if you're a believer in Islam, you're quite justified in murdering people as long as they're unbelievers or heathens or other particular kinds of people. It honestly seems like the radical Muslims are the ones who have interpreted their holy books and history correctly.

 

[LuisDantas]

I would agree that these actions are wrong in my opinion and personal experience, but I wouldn't call these things INHERENTLY wrong.

In that case, I don't think you are using a fully functional set of basic concepts.

Inherently wrong implies a kind of objective, or universal morality that doesn't appear to exist.

So I have heard time and again, but I find that a bit naive.

If by objective morality you mean that some specific action, understood to be complete regardless of circunstances, ought to be consistently moral or immoral... well, that is not only impossible, it is a failure to understand what morality means.

Morality needs circunstances to be weighted in and a rational agent to make decisions. That does not mean that it is not objective. It means instead that it is attainable.

For example cruelty has evolved in some species as a survival mechanism like when lions play with and torture their dying prey. I don't call this inherently wrong though because its just the course of evolution and no human is in a position to judge, with any kind of authority, that certain pathways of evolution are inherently morally right or wrong.

It is not morally wrong because those species lack the cognitive abilities necessary to make moral judgements. That is all.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Well its basically a historical fact and more than just a claim. The many who claim this include historians, eye witnesses, archaeologists, and many other reputable people. It seems to me that if you're a believer in Islam, you're quite justified in murdering people as long as they're unbelievers or heathens or other particular kinds of people. It honestly seems like the radical Muslims are the ones who have interpreted their holy books and history correctly.

Well, some have/made those claims too and chose to believe them. I respect what you want to believe.

Wait, eye witnesses?!?! You mean of Muhammad?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The rape of a child is never ever justified nor is it right, if we can agree on what is 'right'. And the person that dares to suggest that a child can be responsible for that rape is a total ...well, I would rather not use those words here. But please, someone explain to me how my 8 year old would have wanted to be raped. I will NOT hold my breath.

Jo, I wouldn't take it personally. I think SSE is arguing from a moral nihilist position. I am also a moral nihilist. Moral nihilism says that there are no moral absolutes and there is nothing that we know of that establishes moral absolutes in the universe (i.e. not the universe itself, or any sort of inherent moral order or any sort of law-giving deity). Basically, it's just the position that morals and ethics are social constructs. As humans, that means that morals and ethics are constructed by humans for the purpose of social cohesion (usually). But it doesn't have any foundation beyond that.

You should also follow the discussion that him and Luis are having. He's just addressing Luis' moral absolutist fallacies. He's not necessarily saying that rape is okay. Like I said, I am moral nihilist. But I've known numerous rape and molestation victims. My oldest sister was snatched off the street, abducted into a van and gang raped when she was a young girl on her way to school. I was also sexually abused as a child. So being a moral nihilist doesn't mean you lack empathy or that you believe that rape is permissible. It just means that a moral nihilist doesn't think we can argue from absolutes that anything is inherently wrong or "evil" .We would use other foundations to argue against them.

 

[ArtieE]

As humans, that means that morals and ethics are constructed by humans for the purpose of social cohesion (usually). But it doesn't have any foundation beyond that.

Morality evolved. Here's a short article about the foundation of morality.
http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/evolmoral.html

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Are there any actions that you think are inherently wrong?

I do not.

Not sure what there could be to debate, but I do think it profound to fully realize no action is inherently wrong. I also find it easy to take that for granted once you realize this truth.

I think certain things are wrong in a relative sense. Like I don't wish to be killed, so I do think killing is wrong in a relative way. But I don't see it as inherently wrong because a) everyone (or everything) in physical existence will die/be killed and b) because of my theological understandings. The latter covers a whole lot of sub-points that perhaps amount to profound points that are possibly seen as ridiculous from a non-theological perspective - such as Perfect Love knows there is no death, thus killing is not truly possible.

But I start this thread cause I am interested in what actions, if any, people think are inherently wrong. And to help stipulate that a bit, I do mean wrong regardless of geographic location or local laws.

I came pretty close to adding to the inquiry by asking if you (general you) think there are any wrong thoughts? I actually think that is more direct inquiry, but not sure if that just clouds things. But really looking for any thoughts, words or actions that people think are inherently wrong and why they reach that conclusion.

Kind of hoping non-theist types respond cause I anticipate certain theist types to say certain things are inherently wrong because their doctrine says so.

In a nutshell, without going in to the rationale. I think we all own ourselves, and whatever we do to ourselves isn't immoral (it may be subjectively virtuous, but that's another story.) And the fact that we all own ourselves gives us some universal, objective rights in our interactions with each other. l state these simple, few rights in a more precise version of the Golden Rule (which draws no authority from any religion or dogma): Morality is honoring the EQUAL rights of ALL to their life, liberty, property and self-defense to be free from violation through force or fraud. You have no right to assume that because we're all gonna die, that the remainder of a life you take (by murder) is of no value. Your right to freedom is only to be as dumb as you want on your own dime.

So to answer your other question, no, there are no wrong (immoral) thoughts. Hate crimes are just another ploy for government control. One way or another murder is driven by hate (or insanity). If you murder someone, it doesn't matter why.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

The rape of a child is never ever justified

Mind if I ask when rape is ever justified?

 

[serp777]

Well, some have/made those claims too and chose to believe them. I respect what you want to believe.

Wait, eye witnesses?!?! You mean of Muhammad?

Yeah eye witnesses at the time reported on Muhammad's military conquests and battles. What's so crazy about that? You do know people witnessed Muhammad right? And again, its not just a claim, its a historical fact. The Quran even corroborates it. You keep saying "claims" as if this is in doubt or debatable. It isn't really. So its a belief in the same sense that I believe in gravity.

For example check out a brief overview of the battles he was involved.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_expeditions_of_Muhammad

 

[JoStories]

Here are some interesting articles on how morality evolved.
Since you mentioned "8 year old" here is some information about such a case.

"Rawan, an eight-year-old girl in Yemen has died from being repeatedly raped by her 40-year-old husband. She bled to death after being sold by her parents to her husband."
http://www.religiousfreedomcoalition.org/2013/09/20/muslim-man-rapes-child-bride-until-she-dies/

Forgive me but are you arguing that rape of a child is wrong or right?

 

[JoStories]

Mind if I ask when rape is ever justified?

It isn't of course but that Satanist person was saying it was a right action and I was just appalled by such a statement. Maybe I misread and should back up but that is what I got from his or her statements.

 

[serp777]

In that case, I don't think you are using a fully functional set of basic concepts.


So I have heard time and again, but I find that a bit naive.

If by objective morality you mean that some specific action, understood to be complete regardless of circunstances, ought to be consistently moral or immoral... well, that is not only impossible, it is a failure to understand what morality means.

Morality needs circunstances to be weighted in and a rational agent to make decisions. That does not mean that it is not objective. It means instead that it is attainable.



It is not morally wrong because those species lack the cognitive abilities necessary to make moral judgements. That is all.

In that case, I don't think you are using a fully functional set of basic concepts.

How?

So I have heard time and again, but I find that a bit naive.

Why?

If by objective morality you mean that some specific action, understood to be complete regardless of circunstances, ought to be consistently moral or immoral... well, that is not only impossible, it is a failure to understand what morality means.

First of all let me just mention that inherent is quite similar to objective morality. Inherent means that a certain action is right or wrong permanently and essentially built into the fabric of existence. For example the universe inherently increases in entropy--its a necessary, prerequisite condition.

Objective morality is generally supposed supplied from a perfectly moral and righteous God or divine being. So in other words objective morality comes from an undeniable, perfect, and maximally good source. Otherwise morality is just a matter of opinion because nobody can claim they have the proper authority or knowledge to dictate morality. All morality means is a set of values or principles and or laws that a society or individual abides by that differentiates right from wrong. Human beings are clearly not the best authorities for morality since we are constantly wrong and we have greatly changed our morals throughout the millenia. For example, it used to be moral to marry and have relations with young girls, and now it is a disgusting and heinous crime. This is just moral relativism and the prevalence of moral relativism shows that nothing is really inherently moral. Its my opinion that pedophilia is wrong but i'm not an absolute moral authority.

Morality needs circunstances to be weighted in and a rational agent to make decisions. That does not mean that it is not objective. It means instead that it is attainable.

There's no easy or clear way of using rationality to make many moral decisions because morals involve both quantitative and qualitative. Your best bet would be an advanced kind of utilitarianism. Many philosophers, humanists, and other intelligent people have worked on using rationality to make moral decisions on the basis of a perfectly rational algorithm, but ultimately there is still much debate and most of the time people cannot agree. It basically comes down to a matter of opinion. Furthermore, your particular set of morals that you have established can be attainable, but that certainly doesn't make them inherent.

 

[LuisDantas]

Indeed. Morality is objective (as I understand the word, anyway) but it is not easy.

In fact, it can't ever be both easy and necessary.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Yeah eye witnesses at the time reported on Muhammad's military conquests and battles. What's so crazy about that? You do know people witnessed Muhammad right? And again, its not just a claim, its a historical fact. The Quran even corroborates it. You keep saying "claims" as if this is in doubt or debatable. It isn't really. So its a belief in the same sense that I believe in gravity.

For example check out a brief overview of the battles he was involved.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_expeditions_of_Muhammad

That's one weird way in taking reports of eye witnesses, being at that time and all. Same for historical facts, to take at it as proof of the claims done in between. If battles are facts, claims of defining details in it are not necessarily facts. Yes, those details the way people define them as they wish are indeed debatable claims. I believe that as I believe in gravity, which has eye witnesses who we can actually ask directly, by the way

Again, believe what you wish, I'm not trying to convince you, prove you wrong or anything. I respect that.

 

[ArtieE]

Many philosophers, humanists, and other intelligent people have worked on using rationality to make moral decisions on the basis of a perfectly rational algorithm, but ultimately there is still much debate and most of the time people cannot agree. It basically comes down to a matter of opinion. Furthermore, your particular set of morals that you have established can be attainable, but that certainly doesn't make them inherent.

What is moral doesn't depend on opinion. In every situation the moral thing to do is that which is most beneficial to people and/or least detrimental to people. Of course people can disagree what that is in every given situation.

 

[Acim]

Okay. The thing is, what I believe everyone ought to consider to be inherently wrong stems from my worldview. If your worldview is different (particularly if you reject certain key premises of my worldview), you might well disagree. So I'm not sure we're going to make much progress.

We wouldn't be making progress toward case for inherent wrongness. By what you're bringing up, we'd both be subjected to relative wrongness, or what majority of worldviews in our area believe to be right/wrong, and/or what is the traditional (lawful) views.

 

[Acim]

The rape of a child is never ever justified nor is it right, if we can agree on what is 'right'. And the person that dares to suggest that a child can be responsible for that rape is a total ...well, I would rather not use those words here. But please, someone explain to me how my 8 year old would have wanted to be raped. I will NOT hold my breath.

Being a person that was a minor and got to experience rape by an adult, I think I understand the issue. Didn't understand as a minor the way I understand it as an adult.

It's such an emotionally hyped up issue that I have learned it is 'inherently wrong' to not see it as always 'inherently wrong.' Relative wrongness type talk on this particular topic will not hold up well where emotions are flying. For that reason, I will not answer your question.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

By posting this, then it follows that, by using your posted definitions, rape clearly DOES cause harm and in no way am I referring to sexual games that include rape. I am talking about violent rape done against the will of the one being raped, whether man, woman or child. So please, tell us again how there is no harm in rape.

Please reread my post. Slowly.

I can't 'tell you again ' what I never said to begin with.

 

[Acim]

In a nutshell, without going in to the rationale. I think we all own ourselves, and whatever we do to ourselves isn't immoral (it may be subjectively virtuous, but that's another story.) And the fact that we all own ourselves gives us some universal, objective rights in our interactions with each other. l state these simple, few rights in a more precise version of the Golden Rule (which draws no authority from any religion or dogma): Morality is honoring the EQUAL rights of ALL to their life, liberty, property and self-defense to be free from violation through force or fraud. You have no right to assume that because we're all gonna die, that the remainder of a life you take (by murder) is of no value. Your right to freedom is only to be as dumb as you want on your own dime.

So to answer your other question, no, there are no wrong (immoral) thoughts. Hate crimes are just another ploy for government control. One way or another murder is driven by hate (or insanity). If you murder someone, it doesn't matter why.

Because you brought up self defense, I disagree that it doesn't matter why. A claim of self defense does (in some instances) justify killing another person. If that could be pre-meditated, it would be way around the logic of why murder is always wrong. If you kill me, and claim it was self defense, it's a gamble. You might not show this to be the case and instead are found guilty of my murder. If you premeditate, and make it so I confront you, I am angry, and there are witnesses to that, and say in this hypothetical I take a swing (or 10) at you and you kill me, then all's good in relative morality land. You just acted in self defense. My death (or actually murder) was right (action) for you to take. As long as the premeditated part is only known to you, I think overwhelming majority would agree with your take. I very much wish it were otherwise, that the overwhelming majority didn't think self defense justifies killing another.

As I said before, the fact that we can/do justify some killings as 'right' does make it challenging to see how any murder is inherently wrong. The premeditated part doesn't make it inherently wrong, cause clearly government (via capital punishment) engages in this form of killing. I believe many see capital punishment as inherently right, though I like to think the majority that believe in capital punishment simply don't see it as inherently wrong (but not necessarily right). Law enforcement can/does justify killings on self defense. Sometimes, we have learned, they made up circumstances of it being self defense. Which then leads to the whole malice aspect and what I said earlier. If a killing can be done with malice, but that is masked really well, then it would either take a whole lot of scrutiny (perhaps of government) to find out it was malicious or mind reading to determine the maliciousness. Minus those, and if masked very well, then a (premeditated) murder can/has been seen by many as not inherently wrong, and by some as 'right thing to do.'

Thus the most extreme action we can discuss (taking the life of another) is I think shown to be relatively wrong. Though given the emotional hype around rape, it is challenging for me to conclude that taking the life of another is the most extreme thing we can do to another human.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

It isn't of course but that Satanist person was saying it was a right action and I was just appalled by such a statement. Maybe I misread and should back up but that is what I got from his or her statements.

Quote me saying that.

What I will say however that the rape of a child is no different than the rape of anyone else, until personal attachment to the victim, personal feeling on the subject, and ones general worldview is contrasted against the action.

None of these things are absolutes.