Forums → WEPR → Moral

Esemple:
Is it moral to kill someone and save other two by doing this?

http://armorgames.com/community/thread/12321645/is-killing-someone-to-protect-a-person-morally-acceptable

well I can tell you what oral is... what your mom does to me every night! HEY-O

But seriously. Morals are relative to the person who has them. There are certain morals that people should be expected to have, like don't kill innocent people, don't rape people, etc. But morals are all relative to the individual person.

But seriously. Morals are relative to the person who has them. There are certain morals that people should be expected to have, like don't kill innocent people, don't rape people, etc. But morals are all relative to the individual person.

I was just giving an example. The overall general populace probably expects people to not run down the street with a gun and plug someone at random. As far as killing one person to save another, that's a completely different argument

I was just giving an example. The overall general populace probably expects people to not run down the street with a gun and plug someone at random.

As far as killing one person to save another, that's a completely different argument

But why? I was trying to find out why you think so.

I figured he was just using it as an example of a classical moral debate. But the taking of a life is justified if you are directly protecting another life. One should try and avoid causing death, In firearms classes, they teach you to shoot to STOP. Not kill. Shoot to stop them from continuing to be a threat to your or other people. But it's not always that easy. For example, if you were to tackle someone robbing a bank, and during the tackle the guy (or girl, you never know) hits his head and dies of trauma, you're still charged with murder. That's why we have good Samaritan laws. If the end is justified by the means, or if you tackling or shooting the guy because he was wearing a ski mask and holding a very large canvas bag demanding that the teller gives him money or he will shoot her, you should be okay.

Some animals understand that life is sacred too; elephants have "funerals" for dead pack members, where they walk by the body in a line and touch it with their foot.

That's an extremely hasty conclusion. You have no sound reason to assume that this behaviour is due to any such belief.

If the end is justified by the means, [...]

I don't know why people say it that way. It's means justified by end.

That's an extremely hasty conclusion. You have no sound reason to assume that this behaviour is due to any such belief.

I don't know why people say it that way. It's means justified by end.

Why else would they? They obviously have some understanding of mortality and death, or else they would not do what they do

Understanding mortality ≠ Regarding life as sacred.

I mean that you killed said person Because he was pointing a gun or doing a thing that made people fear for their lives. Thus tackling a guy who is trying to kill another person, or the means, justify the end, or the fact that said aggressor is dead.

The means do not ever justify the end. You're saying that by tackling someone, their death at your hands is justified, which makes no sense whatsoever. What I think you're trying to say is that stopping a potential killer (the end) justifies killing them (the means).

The whole morality-problem starts where you ground your moral system?

Naturally every healthy society goes towards systems which can be based on reasons outside the feelings of the members of the system, making moral more of a science then an emotion-based system. This also means the systems tend to be more logical and helpful in survival (aka. part of EVOLUTION).

Systems which are based on someone's ad-hoc sayings (aka. religious systems) are dying out as we can observe, because of the above.

Moral and ethic as modern people usually understands it are based on value of life, because:
- we "know" we live
- we don't know about any kind of pre- or afterlife (actually the evidence points towards the conclusion there is none)
- when alive you can change things
- if you can change things, you can change things for the "better". This better is a complicated issue, as although the usualy examples/paraphrases of morality comes from such exemples where "is it moral to kill one to save a hundred" (where the answer is obviously yes), it also counts in other factors, as those questions like the famous example is just to rise attention that things "common sense" says are "objectively wrong" they are actually NOT always bad things, and morality is always relative.
After he sheer numbers where in the examples the people have no relations, and are complete strangers, morality also touches emotional factors, grand-scale factors and hypothetical questions when can an almost-always situation be favourable even.

So yes, there are moral systems in which life is not sacred, but they are destined to die out. And I mean life in general, going for only as intelligent life, and especially only for human life are also leads to (fast) extinction.

Naturally every healthy society goes towards systems which can be based on reasons outside the feelings of the members of the system, making moral more of a science then an emotion-based system. This also means the systems tend to be more logical and helpful in survival (aka. part of EVOLUTION). Systems which are based on someone's ad-hoc sayings (aka. religious systems) are dying out as we can observe, because of the above.

Where and when? As far as I know Christian values are still one of the biggest factors in individual and national ideas of morality around the world with Buddhist ideals as a close second. The emotional attachment to life, all life, is a fundamental part of those morals as well. You can even see that right here in the forums, just go over to the thread on the death penalty. The majority of the people opposing the death penalty were of the opinion that taking any life is inherently wrong, a very emotional perspective considering the subject.

we don't know about any kind of pre- or afterlife (actually the evidence points towards the conclusion there is none)

What evidence? Do you have actual evidence about what happens after someone dies? Care to share this miraculous discovery with the rest of the class?

Where and when? As far as I know Christian values are still one of the biggest factors in individual and national ideas of morality around the world

Show me a today-society which opress women, approves slavery, kills homosexuals, is not goes for secularism, kills people for working on Saturday etc.
You can't, because no modern society is ever based on xianity (or budhism, or any other religion).

And death-penalty? Xianity is PRO-DEATH SENTENCE. As you yourself said people are against death-penalty. This therefor means they are against xian values.

What evidence? Do you have actual evidence about what happens after someone dies?

Yep, we do have. Go to a cemetery. Pick up a book about the decomposing of the body. Pick another what explains brain functions (especially higher-brain functions, like consciousness).
Death is The End. End of story.
And birth... Thought everyone learnt about procriation in secondary school in details. Like sperm cell + egg cell => baby?
Cell-differentiation maybe what you did not get? Also secondary-school stuff.

Show me a today-society which opress women, approves slavery, kills homosexuals, is not goes for secularism, kills people for working on Saturday etc.
You can't, because no modern society is ever based on xianity (or budhism, or any other religion).

If that's all you think religious values are then you're coming from a very ignorant and bigoted place. And if all of you're posts are going to be in this line of thought then this is likely the last reply I give to anything you say, because it's impossible to convince a bigot to change their mind and I won't waste my time. Also, this isn't the year 3000. Replacing "Christ" with "x" is not the social norm and it's rather annoying to read. Quite frankly, when mentally enunciated (aka how most people read) it makes you sound like a conspiracy theorist decrying zionist control of the world.

Yep, we do have. Go to a cemetery. Pick up a book about the decomposing of the body. Pick another what explains brain functions (especially higher-brain functions, like consciousness).
Death is The End. End of story.
And birth... Thought everyone learnt about procriation in secondary school in details. Like sperm cell + egg cell => baby?
Cell-differentiation maybe what you did not get? Also secondary-school stuff.

None of that is evidence that there is nothing before or after life. Higher brain functions, especially consciousness, are still mysteries that aren't understood in the slightest. Decomposition doesn't define what happens to consciousness after death. The biological function of conception and birth don't explain how a cluster of cells manages to attain that mysterious consciousness (or sentience or whatever other term you want to use). Furthermore, the energy that does allow the brain to function fades after death but energy cannot be created or destroyed. Therefore that energy must either go somewhere else or be converted into another form, but science doesn't have any evidence to indicate what happens to that energy.

Higher brain functions, especially consciousness, are still mysteries

Utter crap. Brain functions are brain-functions. No brain - no brainfunction. And if you'd be so good to look up a book on the subject from later than the '90s...

Decomposition doesn't define what happens to consciousness after death.

The biological function of conception and birth don't explain how a cluster of cells manages to attain that mysterious consciousness

The energy of the brain produces comes from the same source any other energy the body has: food.No food => no production of energy.
the already produced energy goes away when decay happens. Animals, plants, microbes eats the body.

On the energy-field the brain/body produces again if the brain/body stopps functioning, the field is no longer sustained.
If an energy-field is no longer sustained, it simply dissipates. Heat, light, electric fields - they do all the same. If you are curious where the energy goes, its particles by time collide with other particles, and are transformed to another kind of energy.
Conclusion: nothing there is to sustain an afterlife. And there was not even a chance for a "life before birth" (remember: no brain = no brain function).

If that's all you think religious values are then you're coming from a very ignorant and bigoted place.

Oh, you go namecalling? Pretty pathetic if you ask me, definitely not even a conversation-attempt, and especially not a refutal.
And PLEASE, do not refer xianity as the only religion, it is not the social norm and it's rather annoying to read. And is utter bull****. Quite frankly, when mentally enunciated (aka how most people read) it makes you sound like a conspiracy theorist decrying zionist control of the world.

Conclusion: nothing there is to sustain an afterlife. And there was not even a chance for a "life before birth" (remember: no brain = no brain function).

Your basic premise here doesn't get you very far. I agree that a brain is necessary for brain function. That much seems trivially true. But this has nothing to do with your claim that there is no life before birth. You'd need to make a connection between life and brain function.

But this is beside the point. The 6th and 7th weeks of fetal development see a fetus's brain develop into a complex structure. Of course, our brains continue developing until we're like 20. But the point here is that a fetus does have a brain. At the very least, the fetus has just a much of a brain the day before it is born as it does the day of its birth. So by your reasoning, there's something special about passing through the vaginal canal that gives us proper brain function.

It's also worth noting that dead people still have brains. If I die right now, I'll have a brain - albeit one that isn't functioning. There's a bit of time between death and decomposition, so you're missing part of the story here.

But what you're really missing is the very interesting point that Ishtaron touched upon. In the philosophy of mind, we deal with very difficult questions about consciousness, thought, mental states, and the like. These are deep and fascinating questions that can't be reduced to biological explanations.

So, in short, higher brain functions are, in fact, still very mysterious. They're mysterious to philosophers, neuroscientists, biologists, and their ilk.

But back to the thread - we should perhaps draw a clearer connection between these higher functions and our notions of morality. Does a sense of ethics arise with a higher level of consciousness merely as a biological/evolutionary advantage? Or is there more to the story?