Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    But choosing one moral over another doesn't negate the other moral. I would be acting immorally in one sense, morally in another
    That makes no sense. No normative system can exist rationally like this.

    Morality is a binary state - either an act is moral according to the rules, or immoral. It cant be both or a degree of either.

    If two moral notions conflict - one or both are wrong.

    Thesis
    Antithesis
    Thesis.

    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    In any case, since your hypothetical situation is so out-there, we cant really use ot to advocate a change in laws, which are based in moral codes.
    Ill give you my left kidney if you stop bringing up Law. Laws are NOT the same as morals.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    INDIRECTLY YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE. The two roughly equate, the distinction between the two is a mere technicality.
    I completely disagree.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    If it is morally wrong, it is unjustifiable. How then can you say that others are also entitled to that right?
    Someone finally said it. Thank god.

    I said it earlier - but when I posted the server crashed and I couldnt be bothered to type it all out again .
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zoecb)
    I completely disagree.
    There is no rational distinction on the basis of morality.

    If you choice A and choice B, and one causes far more harm than the other, then hiding behind an irrelevant action/inaction distinction is illogical.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    You always argue the state forces too much on us
    Oh really? Maybe I missed something.. where's that exactly?

    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    but you want them to force us to act on situations that have nothing to do with us too?
    Did I say I did? Kindly stop twisting my words and putting extra ones in my mouth. I said - you are responsible, if you had the ability and means at your disposal to prevent the deaths of many and knowingly didn't. It's about as black and white as it gets. **** what the law says. If we were operating only within the confines of the law here, there would be no scope for debate would there?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Zoe, shall we help out Ace? He is arguing piffle! We know the ends of torture aren't the same as the ends of rape or murder( talking of course, about "legal" torture, and not Fred West style torture, in which case Ace would be wrong- and since there is no legal torture here, just what is he getting at?).

    He starts out by saying that he thinks torture is accptable, because it is for the greater good. He doesnt explain what this greater good is. Is he referring to Lawz' analogy with the wipeout of Earth? Then he accuses us of things we havent said! Oddness!
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Who made it your choice? In this scenario we're working with, am I head of MI6 or something? (Just to clarify).
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    want them to force us to act on situations that have nothing to do with us too?
    The main arguments against a rescuer law in this country are all practical. None realy contend that there is no level of moral responsibility for a failure to act.

    A toddler drowns in a paddling pool. You sit on the edge and do nothing. No moral responsibility according to your normative system?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Rescuing the toddler isn't hurting anyone.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    Zoe, shall we help out Ace? He is arguing piffle! We know the ends of torture aren't the same as the ends of rape or murder( talking of course, about "legal" torture, and not Fred West style torture, in which case Ace would be wrong- and since there is no legal torture here, just what is he getting at?).
    Murder would be a really great instrument of torture. Congratulations once again on displaying your idiocy.

    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    He starts out by saying that he thinks torture is accptable, because it is for the greater good. He doesnt explain what this greater good is. Is he referring to Lawz' analogy with the wipeout of Earth? Then he accuses us of things we havent said! Oddness!
    Torture is justifiable in certain cases. The 'greater good' (which I never mentioned directly) would be preventing the loss of at least one other person's life, something I've mentioned about ten times already. So how about you read what I say and debate that, rather than inventing what you wanted me to say.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zoecb)
    Rescuing the toddler isn't hurting anyone.
    ARE YOU RESPONSIBLE? YES/NO?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zoecb)
    Rescuing the toddler isn't hurting anyone.
    youre missing the point Zoe.

    Im addressing the contention that an omission to act is not a morally blameworthy act.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    That makes no sense. No normative system can exist rationally like this.

    Morality is a binary state - either an act is moral according to the rules, or immoral. It cant be both or a degree of either.

    If two moral notions conflict - one or both are wrong.

    Thesis
    Antithesis
    Thesis.



    Ill give you my left kidney if you stop bringing up Law. Laws are NOT the same as morals.
    I just disagree. Morals can be different. There is no one moral is there? In your scenario, there are two morals, both of which i hold. Acting on one means having to ignore the other. I know a system cant work like this. Hence why the system isn't like this! Hence why torture should remain illegal.

    I know one moral can't be both right and wrong. But there is more than one moral oresent here, sint there?

    I know laws arent the sam as morals. But they were and are based on them, so sepaating the two isnt really possible.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    The 'greater good' (which I never mentioned directly) would be preventing the loss of at least one other person's life, something I've mentioned about ten times already.
    OK, so say some nasty person deliberately infects a partner with HIV. Do we test out some potentially life-saving drugs on the perpetrator, bearing in mind they're really drastic and new and could potentially cause him loads of pain, in order to save his victim?


    Right, this toddler:

    1. You're presumably responsible for its welfare if you're keeping an eye on it.
    2. The omission to act here is not really an omisson because we're talking about childcare, which is a case where omission to act is an active action of neglect, which you can be prosecuted for.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    I just disagree. Morals can be different. There is no one moral is there? In your scenario, there are two morals, both of which i hold. Acting on one means having to ignore the other. I know a system cant work like this. Hence why the system isn't like this! Hence why torture should remain illegal.
    Huh?

    Look - it is entirely illogical to have a normative system where two accepted norms conflict.

    You cant hold two opposing views and be coherent.

    This is simply logic ... I really dont see what the controversy is.

    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    I know one moral can't be both right and wrong. But there is more than one moral oresent here, sint there?
    A normative system is like a reverse family tree - they all trace themselves back to the grundnorm. if they are all in line with that, they cant be conflicting.

    you dont have two separate independent strands of normative rules, otherwise you are entirely incoherent.

    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    I know laws arent the sam as morals. But they were and are based on them, so sepaating the two isnt really possible.
    Of course it is. It is immoral to cheat on your girlfriend. It is not illegal.

    Overlap is not synonimity.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zoecb)
    1. You're presumably responsible for its welfare if you're keeping an eye on it.
    No - its not your kid. You just happened to be at the pool and see it.

    (Original post by Zoecb)
    2. The omission to act here is not really an omisson because we're talking about childcare, which is a case where omission to act is an active action of neglect, which you can be prosecuted for.
    see the above.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    It is immoral to cheat on your girlfriend.
    Ah , also a matter of opinion.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zoecb)
    Ah , also a matter of opinion.
    As opposed to most moral judgements that are statements of fact??

    Of COURSE its a statement of opinion... morality is precisely that - a description of the prevailing societal preference at the time.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    No - it's not your kid. You just happened to be at the pool and see it.
    Hmm. Well I think as a society we have a responsibility towards children... anyway I don't see how this example is relevent.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    Murder would be a really great instrument of torture. Congratulations once again on displaying your idiocy.


    Torture is justifiable in certain cases. The 'greater good' (which I never mentioned directly) would be preventing the loss of at least one other person's life, something I've mentioned about ten times already. So how about you read what I say and debate that, rather than inventing what you wanted me to say.
    You just don't grasp things first time, so you? What do you mean "murder would be....."? When i said Fred West, i ment that he tortured his victims. This type of torutre is different to "legal" torture, and i was wondering which one you were arguing for, since i find your views odd anyhow.

    Torture, in my opinion, is morally wrong. But neither Zoe nor i have said that it is NEVER EVER justifiable. We have even stated, explicitly, that we would act if we had to
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 22, 2006
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.