Immorality And Its Exceptions

Ethics, Morality, and Sin

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Miles
Prodigy
Posts: 3388
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 265 times
Been thanked: 940 times

Immorality And Its Exceptions

Post #1

Post by Miles »

.

im·mo·ral
/ˌimˈmȯr-əl/
immoral adjective
: not morally good or right : morally evil or wrong

__________
mo·ral
/ˈmȯr-əl /
moral adjective
: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical moral judgments


Nice, but can the principles themselves be nullified? Can a normally immoral act become moral because of who instigated it? That is, could Donald Trump's lying---which is typically considered to be "morally wrong"---be deemed moral rather than immoral because at that time he was President of the United States?

In fact, can any immoral behavior lose its standing and become moral because of who did it or sanctioned it? During WWII could the collateral bombing of innocent women and children, typically an immoral action, be justified as moral when the USA did it, but immoral when the Germans did it (it happened on both sides)? Could god's condonation of slavery, commonly considered to be an immoral stance, be deemed moral just because it was His? OR, was god's killing of innocent women and infants in
1 Samuel 15:3 not immoral because He ordered it?

"Now go and smite Amalek and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."



.

nobspeople
Prodigy
Posts: 3191
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
Has thanked: 1510 times
Been thanked: 819 times

Re: Immorality And Its Exceptions

Post #2

Post by nobspeople »

Miles wrote: Sat Jan 23, 2021 9:34 pm .

im·mo·ral
/ˌimˈmȯr-əl/
immoral adjective
: not morally good or right : morally evil or wrong

__________
mo·ral
/ˈmȯr-əl /
moral adjective
: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical moral judgments


Nice, but can the principles themselves be nullified? Can a normally immoral act become moral because of who instigated it? That is, could Donald Trump's lying---which is typically considered to be "morally wrong"---be deemed moral rather than immoral because at that time he was President of the United States?

In fact, can any immoral behavior lose its standing and become moral because of who did it or sanctioned it? During WWII could the collateral bombing of innocent women and children, typically an immoral action, be justified as moral when the USA did it, but immoral when the Germans did it (it happened on both sides)? Could god's condonation of slavery, commonly considered to be an immoral stance, be deemed moral just because it was His? OR, was god's killing of innocent women and infants in
1 Samuel 15:3 not immoral because He ordered it?

"Now go and smite Amalek and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."



.
To me, morality is subjective in so many ways. So to offer a 100% YES or NO wouldn't do justice to the question IMO. I think there are times it's moral "to lie" and times it's not, independent on who is doing the lie.
Being this question was submitted in a Christian forum, we must consider God in all this. For those that believe, it could be said not to lie no matter what because "God will take care of it".
For those unbelievers (either in God or its ability and or willingness to get involved), there are shades of grey, as they say.
Have a great, potentially godless, day!

User avatar
Miles
Prodigy
Posts: 3388
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 265 times
Been thanked: 940 times

Re: Immorality And Its Exceptions

Post #3

Post by Miles »

nobspeople wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 1:41 pm
Miles wrote: Sat Jan 23, 2021 9:34 pm .

im·mo·ral
/ˌimˈmȯr-əl/
immoral adjective
: not morally good or right : morally evil or wrong

__________
mo·ral
/ˈmȯr-əl /
moral adjective
: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical moral judgments


Nice, but can the principles themselves be nullified? Can a normally immoral act become moral because of who instigated it? That is, could Donald Trump's lying---which is typically considered to be "morally wrong"---be deemed moral rather than immoral because at that time he was President of the United States?

In fact, can any immoral behavior lose its standing and become moral because of who did it or sanctioned it? During WWII could the collateral bombing of innocent women and children, typically an immoral action, be justified as moral when the USA did it, but immoral when the Germans did it (it happened on both sides)? Could god's condonation of slavery, commonly considered to be an immoral stance, be deemed moral just because it was His? OR, was god's killing of innocent women and infants in
1 Samuel 15:3 not immoral because He ordered it?

"Now go and smite Amalek and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."



.
To me, morality is subjective in so many ways. So to offer a 100% YES or NO wouldn't do justice to the question IMO. I think there are times it's moral "to lie" and times it's not, independent on who is doing the lie.
Being this question was submitted in a Christian forum, we must consider God in all this. For those that believe, it could be said not to lie no matter what because "God will take care of it".
For those unbelievers (either in God or its ability and or willingness to get involved), there are shades of grey, as they say.
The question here isn't one of the morality or immorality one assigns an act, but whether such a moral condition, whatever it may be, can be dependent on the performer: Stealing a loaf of bread that doesn't belong to me is immoral, but is moral when you do the same.

.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Guru
Posts: 2117
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 671 times
Been thanked: 407 times

Re: Immorality And Its Exceptions

Post #4

Post by Purple Knight »

Tons of people believe it's moral to lie for the right reason. It probably is.

The usual example is that you're in Nazi Germany and there are Jews in your attic. A Nazi comes along and asks, "Are there Jews in your attic?" and you of course say no. Morality achieved. You stuck it to the evil guy.

I can't live my life like that because I don't know who's good and who's evil. I have to concentrate on what I can do and what I ought not to do.

It's why I stay evil. It's why I'll never be good. I can't reliably find the Nazi and stick it to him by lying to him, killing him, enslaving him, or any number of other things that would be evil if I did them to a good person.

Dimmesdale
Sage
Posts: 726
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 7:19 pm
Location: The Temple of Logic
Has thanked: 26 times
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: Immorality And Its Exceptions

Post #5

Post by Dimmesdale »

In my opinion, a being can act immorally but not be culpable, because they act without the intention of doing ill. Even if they do ill, they did not have ill as their intention, but... something else - the ill happened along the way, as a byproduct of their actual goal. I would call these persons "forces of nature" rather than moral agents in the fully actualized sense.

Such people should be hindered and, potentially, punished, if only to set a precedent and maintain the laws of the lands. But these people cannot be regarded as morally responsible because they do wrong, abuse, and so on, the same way they breathe - and not with malice or forethought. This is because they do not have the empathy required to do wrong. They simply do what they do, like viruses or natural predators in the true sense. They simply don't care.

And as the commentator Sam Vaknin has pointed out: you can't be truly evil if you do not care about the responses your victims have. If you simply live life like a steamroller, being virtually oblivious of who you hurt, you are not a proper moral agent. You are, again, a force of nature.

nobspeople
Prodigy
Posts: 3191
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
Has thanked: 1510 times
Been thanked: 819 times

Re: Immorality And Its Exceptions

Post #6

Post by nobspeople »

Miles wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 2:19 pm
nobspeople wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 1:41 pm
Miles wrote: Sat Jan 23, 2021 9:34 pm .

im·mo·ral
/ˌimˈmȯr-əl/
immoral adjective
: not morally good or right : morally evil or wrong

__________
mo·ral
/ˈmȯr-əl /
moral adjective
: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical moral judgments


Nice, but can the principles themselves be nullified? Can a normally immoral act become moral because of who instigated it? That is, could Donald Trump's lying---which is typically considered to be "morally wrong"---be deemed moral rather than immoral because at that time he was President of the United States?

In fact, can any immoral behavior lose its standing and become moral because of who did it or sanctioned it? During WWII could the collateral bombing of innocent women and children, typically an immoral action, be justified as moral when the USA did it, but immoral when the Germans did it (it happened on both sides)? Could god's condonation of slavery, commonly considered to be an immoral stance, be deemed moral just because it was His? OR, was god's killing of innocent women and infants in
1 Samuel 15:3 not immoral because He ordered it?

"Now go and smite Amalek and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."



.
To me, morality is subjective in so many ways. So to offer a 100% YES or NO wouldn't do justice to the question IMO. I think there are times it's moral "to lie" and times it's not, independent on who is doing the lie.
Being this question was submitted in a Christian forum, we must consider God in all this. For those that believe, it could be said not to lie no matter what because "God will take care of it".
For those unbelievers (either in God or its ability and or willingness to get involved), there are shades of grey, as they say.
The question here isn't one of the morality or immorality one assigns an act, but whether such a moral condition, whatever it may be, can be dependent on the performer: Stealing a loaf of bread that doesn't belong to me is immoral, but is moral when you do the same.

.
Morality is dependent on the individual, as well as their society, the time in which they live, and the circumstance, even for those that believe in god (even though they may not want to admit it).
Have a great, potentially godless, day!

User avatar
Miles
Prodigy
Posts: 3388
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 265 times
Been thanked: 940 times

Re: Immorality And Its Exceptions

Post #7

Post by Miles »

nobspeople wrote: Fri Sep 17, 2021 2:11 pm
Miles wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 2:19 pm
nobspeople wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 1:41 pm
Miles wrote: Sat Jan 23, 2021 9:34 pm .

im·mo·ral
/ˌimˈmȯr-əl/
immoral adjective
: not morally good or right : morally evil or wrong

__________
mo·ral
/ˈmȯr-əl /
moral adjective
: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical moral judgments


Nice, but can the principles themselves be nullified? Can a normally immoral act become moral because of who instigated it? That is, could Donald Trump's lying---which is typically considered to be "morally wrong"---be deemed moral rather than immoral because at that time he was President of the United States?

In fact, can any immoral behavior lose its standing and become moral because of who did it or sanctioned it? During WWII could the collateral bombing of innocent women and children, typically an immoral action, be justified as moral when the USA did it, but immoral when the Germans did it (it happened on both sides)? Could god's condonation of slavery, commonly considered to be an immoral stance, be deemed moral just because it was His? OR, was god's killing of innocent women and infants in
1 Samuel 15:3 not immoral because He ordered it?

"Now go and smite Amalek and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."



.
To me, morality is subjective in so many ways. So to offer a 100% YES or NO wouldn't do justice to the question IMO. I think there are times it's moral "to lie" and times it's not, independent on who is doing the lie.
Being this question was submitted in a Christian forum, we must consider God in all this. For those that believe, it could be said not to lie no matter what because "God will take care of it".
For those unbelievers (either in God or its ability and or willingness to get involved), there are shades of grey, as they say.
The question here isn't one of the morality or immorality one assigns an act, but whether such a moral condition, whatever it may be, can be dependent on the performer: Stealing a loaf of bread that doesn't belong to me is immoral, but is moral when you do the same.

.
Morality is dependent on the individual, as well as their society, the time in which they live, and the circumstance, even for those that believe in god (even though they may not want to admit it).
So describe two individuals, each living in the same society, time, and circumstances whose identical behavior should be deemed moral for one and immoral for the other. This is the thrust of my original question, "Can a normally immoral act become moral [only] because of who instigated it?"


.

nobspeople
Prodigy
Posts: 3191
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
Has thanked: 1510 times
Been thanked: 819 times

Re: Immorality And Its Exceptions

Post #8

Post by nobspeople »

Miles wrote: Fri Sep 17, 2021 3:53 pm
nobspeople wrote: Fri Sep 17, 2021 2:11 pm
Miles wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 2:19 pm
nobspeople wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 1:41 pm
Miles wrote: Sat Jan 23, 2021 9:34 pm .

im·mo·ral
/ˌimˈmȯr-əl/
immoral adjective
: not morally good or right : morally evil or wrong

__________
mo·ral
/ˈmȯr-əl /
moral adjective
: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical moral judgments


Nice, but can the principles themselves be nullified? Can a normally immoral act become moral because of who instigated it? That is, could Donald Trump's lying---which is typically considered to be "morally wrong"---be deemed moral rather than immoral because at that time he was President of the United States?

In fact, can any immoral behavior lose its standing and become moral because of who did it or sanctioned it? During WWII could the collateral bombing of innocent women and children, typically an immoral action, be justified as moral when the USA did it, but immoral when the Germans did it (it happened on both sides)? Could god's condonation of slavery, commonly considered to be an immoral stance, be deemed moral just because it was His? OR, was god's killing of innocent women and infants in
1 Samuel 15:3 not immoral because He ordered it?

"Now go and smite Amalek and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."



.
To me, morality is subjective in so many ways. So to offer a 100% YES or NO wouldn't do justice to the question IMO. I think there are times it's moral "to lie" and times it's not, independent on who is doing the lie.
Being this question was submitted in a Christian forum, we must consider God in all this. For those that believe, it could be said not to lie no matter what because "God will take care of it".
For those unbelievers (either in God or its ability and or willingness to get involved), there are shades of grey, as they say.
The question here isn't one of the morality or immorality one assigns an act, but whether such a moral condition, whatever it may be, can be dependent on the performer: Stealing a loaf of bread that doesn't belong to me is immoral, but is moral when you do the same.

.
Morality is dependent on the individual, as well as their society, the time in which they live, and the circumstance, even for those that believe in god (even though they may not want to admit it).
So describe two individuals, each living in the same society, time, and circumstances whose identical behavior should be deemed moral for one and immoral for the other. This is the thrust of my original question, "Can a normally immoral act become moral [only] because of who instigated it?"


.
I don't think it immoral to lie
My best friend 9a couple years older than me) thinks it is immoral to lie
Have a great, potentially godless, day!

Post Reply