Morality

[ShnogTrip]

Our morals come from common sense. It's one of our survival tools. People realized that rules were needed if they wanted to continue surviving and living a more worry free life. We realized that there needs to be some kind of order. No one wants someone to steal their belongings so a law for stealing was created. No one wants their loved ones to be hurt or killed so laws for that were created.

Our morals can be explained by our natural ability to have empathy for one another. For instance, I wouldn't want my things stolen so I'm not going to steal your things. We are able to see other people as ourselves. However, some people lack that trait.

Our morals are sometimes learned from other people. Whether it be our family, friends, or a religion.

Our morals can also be explained by the simple fact that we might just be intimidated by the person we are wanting to steal from or harm, etc. Of course the fear of spending time in prison probably stops a lot of people from doing "wrong" as well.

It all comes down to doing what is good for our survival. Our own survival and the survival of the human race. Right is what's good for our survival and wrong is what's bad for it.

Does anyone agree with me? If not, where do you think our morals come from?

[olavisjo]

In a society that seeks stability, the act of murder is counter productive, as it creates an atmosphere of retaliation, fear, and other such that affects folks' quality of life. Increased need to guard against murder, thus creating less time for other pursuits is also in play.

Okay, that is a part of the picture, murder does cause difficulty for society. But what about the victim? The victim will be entirely out of any pain or hardship, they will just slip into the eternal sleep without dreams that they would go to sooner or later, so no harm no foul. And if there is no other collateral damage, murder should be fine according to the thinking that I seem to understand you hold.

For example, a woman living out in the countryside gives birth to a child that she does not want anymore and decides to bury the baby in the woods where nobody sees her do it. She has done no harm to anyone, even the child is spared the misery that life will inevitably bring. So can we say that this act of killing is not wrong?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 5:

Okay, that is a part of the picture, murder does cause difficulty for society. But what about the victim? The victim will be entirely out of any pain or hardship, they will just slip into the eternal sleep without dreams that they would go to sooner or later, so no harm no foul...

No, there is still harm because of the potential for retribution, and the impact of the murder on the psychology of those around.

And if there is no other collateral damage, murder should be fine according to the thinking that I seem to understand you hold.

The collateral damage is in living with a murderer on the loose.

For example, a woman living out in the countryside gives birth to a child that she does not want anymore and decides to bury the baby in the woods where nobody sees her do it. She has done no harm to anyone, even the child is spared the misery that life will inevitably bring.

The problem here is that this woman has deprived this child of it's own decision making regarding whether it wants to live or not, and whether it thinks its own life will be "misery".

So can we say that this act of killing is not wrong?

It is wrong for the above reason.

Remember, we are talking about 'murder', a word which is defined as 'wrong' to begin with. This woman, by giving birth, has created a person with whom certain rights and privileges are offered. Her taking it upon herself to negate those rights is the violation.

[olavisjo]

This woman, by giving birth, has created a person with whom certain rights and privileges are offered. Her taking it upon herself to negate those rights is the violation.

Would you explain what you mean when you say "certain rights and privileges are offered".

[ShnogTrip]

From Post 3:

...But my question to you is do you believe that something like murder as actually really wrong or do we just try to brainwash each other, in society, to believe that it is wrong so that we will be in less danger of being murdered?

Murder is wrong by definition.

As to why it is considered wrong, various notions come into play, some more important than others, and most folks' lists will likely be different.

In a society that seeks stability, the act of murder is counter productive, as it creates an atmosphere of retaliation, fear, and other such that affects folks' quality of life. Increased need to guard against murder, thus creating less time for other pursuits is also in play.

"Brainwashing" is not far off the mark, at least as Webster's defines it.

Though I prefer not to use the term due to its negative connotations, I would contend in this matter brainwashing is not such a bad idea.

I agree with you. I also think that empathy comes into play when it comes to violence and murder. Most people instinctively realize that they wouldn't want that happening to themselves, except for the people without empathy. It's just another survival tool that's wired into our brains. If it's bad for our survival then it's naturally wrong.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 7:

This woman, by giving birth, has created a person with whom certain rights and privileges are offered. Her taking it upon herself to negate those rights is the violation.

Would you explain what you mean when you say "certain rights and privileges are offered".

Life and self-determination come to mind.

[olavisjo]

Would you explain what you mean when you say "certain rights and privileges are offered".

Life and self-determination come to mind.

I was more interested in getting your opinion on who or what offers these rights and privileges. Also are these rights and privileges a property of the material world or spiritual world or imaginary world or whatever world?

[Goat]

The problem here is that this woman has deprived this child of it's own decision making regarding whether it wants to live or not, and whether it thinks its own life will be "misery".

Actually, exposing unwanted children on the mountainside used to be a fairly common practice before the ability to give abortions. One ancient Greek writer talked about a young lady (using the term parthenos btw, which was later used for virgin), who left her child in the mountains.

By our modern standards is it horrifying, but it was not unheard of in the ancient times.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 10:

I was more interested in getting your opinion on who or what offers these rights and privileges.

Society, usually in the form of government decrees.

Also are these rights and privileges a property of the material world or spiritual world or imaginary world or whatever world?

They are concepts insofar as we can't "touch" them. However, they can be quite "real" when violated.

As we think of the example of a woman killing her child, we can instinctively understand it, and some of the concepts involved. Our own "will to live" is expressed in empathy for one whose "will to live" was denied by another.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 11:

Actually, exposing unwanted children on the mountainside used to be a fairly common practice before the ability to give abortions. One ancient Greek writer talked about a young lady (using the term parthenos btw, which was later used for virgin), who left her child in the mountains.

By our modern standards is it horrifying, but it was not unheard of in the ancient times.

This reminds me of an indigenous tribe in South America whose name escapes me at this time. The tribe has/had a tendency to kill it's handicapped, based on the notion that they drain resources from the tribe (quite primitive, they).

A group of missionaries became involved with this tribe, and were appalled to learn of the practice. The debate then became one of do we apply "our" standard on a tribe that must "eek out" a living in the jungle? Who is not appalled to learn that a handicapped person would be killed simply for being handicapped? Or the flip-side: Who would not be appalled if the entire tribe were to perish due to being forced to share scarce resources with those least capable of contributing to the collection of those resources?

This is a great example of the question the OP proposes. Is it morally correct to kill one in order to save all, or is it morally correct to save the one where it may result in the demise of all?

[ChaosBorders]

From Post 11:

Actually, exposing unwanted children on the mountainside used to be a fairly common practice before the ability to give abortions. One ancient Greek writer talked about a young lady (using the term parthenos btw, which was later used for virgin), who left her child in the mountains.

By our modern standards is it horrifying, but it was not unheard of in the ancient times.

This reminds me of an indigenous tribe in South America whose name escapes me at this time. The tribe has/had a tendency to kill it's handicapped, based on the notion that they drain resources from the tribe (quite primitive, they).

A group of missionaries became involved with this tribe, and were appalled to learn of the practice. The debate then became one of do we apply "our" standard on a tribe that must "eek out" a living in the jungle? Who is not appalled to learn that a handicapped person would be killed simply for being handicapped? Or the flip-side: Who would not be appalled if the entire tribe were to perish due to being forced to share scarce resources with those least capable of contributing to the collection of those resources?

This is a great example of the question the OP proposes. Is it morally correct to kill one in order to save all, or is it morally correct to save the one where it may result in the demise of all?

Generally I'm of the opinion cases like this aren't black and white. Combine virtue ethics, deontological absolutist ethics, and consequential ethics and what you have is a case of:
The intent is good.
The act is bad.
The consequence is good.

If the good of the intent and consequence seems to out way the bad of the act itself, then the preferable thing may still be to kill the handicap member of the tribe. It's not necessarily a 'right' act in and of itself, but it's at least understandable and to be expected.