Lawz-
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#101
Report 13 years ago
#101
(Original post by Zoecb)
Hmm. Well I think as a society we have a responsibility towards children... anyway I don't see how this example is relevent.
:rolleyes:

Look... this is simple - one may contend that there is no moral responsibility for an omission to act.

This example is one of just such an omission. I am asking you whether you think there is any moral responsibility.

if not - then fine.

If so - then it conflicts with the fist contention.
0
reply
Zoecb
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#102
Report 13 years ago
#102
(Original post by Lawz-)
As opposed to most moral judgements that are statements of fact??

Of COURSE it's a statement of opinion... morality is precisely that - a description of the prevailing societal preference at the time.
I suppose that's true. But I have a couple of basic groundings for my philosophy, I've been told they're similar to a guy called Mill - basically, do what you like as long as you're not harming anyone.
0
reply
cottonmouth
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#103
Report 13 years ago
#103
(Original post by Lawz-)
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.



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.



Of course it is. It is immoral to cheat on your girlfriend. It is not illegal.

Overlap is not synonimity.
So what you are saying is that morals cannot conflict, because of a theory you have learned about? Well, they can. Because in my case, they do.

I believe it is morally wrong to harm another. I believe it is morally right to act for the greater good- i am a socialist, i want help and kindness for everyone. In the situation you gave me, i would have to choose one. Or are you saying that i dont, as it is impossible, hold these two moral opinions. Or are you saying that this model is oncoherent? But it isnt a model, as torture isnt allowed.
0
reply
Lawz-
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#104
Report 13 years ago
#104
(Original post by Zoecb)
I suppose that's true. But I have a couple of basic groundings for my philosophy, I've been told they're similar to a guy called Mill - basically, do what you like as long as you're not harming anyone.
yes - liberalism...

sure - but most people do accept that we have a responsibility to others. You are free to disagree.
0
reply
Lawz-
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#105
Report 13 years ago
#105
(Original post by cottonmouth)
So what you are saying is that morals cannot conflict, because of a theory you have learned about? Well, they can. Because in my case, they do.
A theory I have learned about? Its basic common sense.

if you actually read my post - I say you cant be COHERENT and have conflicting morals.

of course you CAN - Im not doubting your capability to be illogical, Im simply saying you cannot at once be coherent and hold two opposing normative precepts.

(Original post by cottonmouth)
I believe it is morally wrong to harm another. I believe it is morally right to act for the greater good- i am a socialist, i want help and kindness for everyone. In the situation you gave me, i would have to choose one. Or are you saying that i dont, as it is impossible, hold these two moral opinions. Or are you saying that this model is oncoherent? But it isnt a model, as torture isnt allowed.
anyway - yes - it is incoherent. Either you think it is more important to prevent harm or to not torture.
0
reply
cottonmouth
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#106
Report 13 years ago
#106
(Original post by Lawz-)
yes - liberalism...

sure - but most people do accept that we have a responsibility to others. You are free to disagree.
I accept we have a responsibilty to others. I also don't beleieve in harming others. In the situation you gave me, explain away what i would do. Are you saying that to be true to myself, i would have to pick one moral, and picking that moral means i don't hold the other moral? That just isn't true.
0
reply
Lawz-
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#107
Report 13 years ago
#107
(Original post by cottonmouth)
I accept we have a responsibilty to others. I also don't beleieve in harming others. In the situation you gave me, explain away what i would do. Are you saying that to be true to myself, i would have to pick one moral, and picking that moral means i don't hold the other moral? That just isn't true.
One has to trump the other for you to be coherent and consistent.

Sure you could be arbitrary and illogical - but one should try to avoid it.
0
reply
naivesincerity
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#108
Report 13 years ago
#108
(Original post by Lawz-)
anyway - yes - it is incoherent. Either you think it is more important to prevent harm or to not torture.
Yes, but what about in the hypothetical instance where torture for information prevents future harm, for example, a terrorist act?
0
reply
Zoecb
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#109
Report 13 years ago
#109
I just dislike the ultiliatrian view that it's OK to achieve something at the expense of someone else.

To sum up, it would all be much nicer if terrorists didn't blow people up, everyone was nice to each other and strangers all hugged in the street and we all lived happily ever after, thus neatly avoiding this whole issue *sigh*
0
reply
Lawz-
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#110
Report 13 years ago
#110
(Original post by naivesincerity)
Yes, but what about in the hypothetical instance where torture for information prevents future harm, for example, a terrorist act?
That's my point.
0
reply
naivesincerity
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#111
Report 13 years ago
#111
(Original post by Lawz-)
That's my point.
Ah Yes Should have read it more carefully
0
reply
cottonmouth
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#112
Report 13 years ago
#112
(Original post by Lawz-)
A theory I have learned about? Its basic common sense.

if you actually read my post - I say you cant be COHERENT and have conflicting morals.

of course you CAN - Im not doubting your capability to be illogical, Im simply saying you cannot at once be coherent and hold two opposing normative precepts.



anyway - yes - it is incoherent. Either you think it is more important to prevent harm or to not torture.
Then you would have to assume that all morals we hold have equal weighting- which they do not. How is that incoherent? It is more important to sace the world from all of use being wiped out than it is not to torture. Though that is such an extreme example, it doesn't really serve the debate very well. We are talking about mankind.

The classic debate is what you would do in this situation:


You are at a train station. You see workers on the tracks. All have headphones on, and cannot hear a thing. There are 5 workers on one line, 1 on another. You see a train heading towards them all. You notice it is on the line heading for the 5 men, (who cant see or hear it coming). There is a lever next to you. If you pull the lever, the train will change course, onto the line where the single worker is working. What do you do?

a.) Pull the lever so it kills only the one man
b.) Leave nature to take its course and let the 5 men die.

Now, in law, a.) would be illegal, as it is a conscious decision to sacrafice one mans life, no matter how noble the ends are.
b.) is the option most people consider to be morally right.

I dont. I would go b.).

This situation best serves the debate we are having, not an end-of-the-world one.
0
reply
Lawz-
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#113
Report 13 years ago
#113
(Original post by naivesincerity)
Ah Yes Should have read it more carefully
heh ... well perhaps my point hasnt been clear - it seems to be evading a good few people.
0
reply
Lawz-
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#114
Report 13 years ago
#114
(Original post by cottonmouth)
Then you would have to assume that all morals we hold have equal weighting- which they do not.
I'm saying nothing of the sort.

(Original post by cottonmouth)
How is that incoherent?
because if they conflict, they cant both be true. In which case you are holding one if not more false moral beliefs.

(Original post by cottonmouth)
It is more important to sace the world from all of use being wiped out than it is not to torture. Though that is such an extreme example, it doesn't really serve the debate very well. We are talking about mankind.
Socratic method. Been around for about 2500 years and more... perfectly valid way to expose the fallacy in an absolute statement.

(Original post by cottonmouth)
You are at a train station. You see workers on the tracks. All have headphones on, and cannot hear a thing. There are 5 workers on one line, 1 on another. You see a train heading towards them all. You notice it is on the line heading for the 5 men, (who cant see or hear it coming). There is a lever next to you. If you pull the lever, the train will change course, onto the line where the single worker is working. What do you do?

a.) Pull the lever so it kills only the one man
b.) Leave nature to take its course and let the 5 men die.

Now, in law, a.) would be illegal, as it is a conscious decision to sacrafice one mans life, no matter how noble the ends are.
b.) is the option most people consider to be morally right.
No it wouldnt. You would have a defence to that.

(Original post by cottonmouth)
I dont. I would go b.).
to consciously choose the immoral option is morally incoherent.

(Original post by cottonmouth)
This situation best serves the debate we are having, not an end-of-the-world one.
Its the same point.
0
reply
cheesecakebobby
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#115
Report 13 years ago
#115
(Original post by Zoecb)
I just dislike the ultiliatrian view that it's OK to achieve something at the expense of someone else.
Utilitarians like J.S.Mill adapted their view so as to preserve 'liberties' - the greatest good should be aimed for except where doing so would sacrifice an individual's rights. I'm not convinced they can successfully unite the two ideas though.
0
reply
cottonmouth
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#116
Report 13 years ago
#116
(Original post by Lawz-)
I'm saying nothing of the sort.



because if they conflict, they cant both be true. In which case you are holding one if not more false moral beliefs.



Socratic method. Been around for about 2500 years and more... perfectly valid way to expose the fallacy in an absolute statement.



No it wouldnt. You would have a defence to that.



to consciously choose the immoral option is morally incoherent.



Its the same point.
Well, i'm informed by a criminal law lecturer at Kings college that it would be illegal. So there:p:

No, maybe you arent saying anything of the osrt. But i'm saying that you can have two conflicting moral actions to choose from. They could both be borne out of different reasonings, and therefore there is no fallacy.

The morals can and do conflict! But they both exist.
0
reply
cottonmouth
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#117
Report 13 years ago
#117
(Original post by cheesecakebobby)
Utilitarians like J.S.Mill adapted their view so as to preserve 'liberties' - the greatest good should be aimed for except where doing so would sacrifice an individual's rights. I'm not convinced they can successfully unite the two ideas though.
Thats interesting actually. So he wouldn't agree with killing one man to save 5 lives either? At least i have Mill on my side!
0
reply
cheesecakebobby
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#118
Report 13 years ago
#118
Well it isn't particularly clear, especially as philosophers criticise his pairing of 'liberty' with utilitarianism, but he certainly would have objected to say, the torture of an individual to give perverse pleasure to 100 onlookers.
0
reply
Lawz-
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#119
Report 13 years ago
#119
(Original post by cottonmouth)
Well, i'm informed by a criminal law lecturer at Kings college that it would be illegal. So there:p:
I would disagree. See the case of Re A&B (I think) - conjoined twins, an operation was needed to save them - but if performed would kill one.

The court gave permission to effecitvely kill the other one. This is exactly the same situation.

(Original post by cottonmouth)
No, maybe you arent saying anything of the osrt. But i'm saying that you can have two conflicting moral actions to choose from. They could both be borne out of different reasonings, and therefore there is no fallacy.
This is morality 101. A normative system has to have a grundnorm. two conflicting moral precepts cannot flow from the same grundnorm.

(Original post by cottonmouth)
The morals can and do conflict! But they both exist.
Then its incoherent.
0
reply
Adam83
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#120
Report 13 years ago
#120
This thread goes to show just how many little hitlers there are still wandering around. I wish you would die out.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Why do you want to do a masters?

Great for my career (51)
34.93%
I really love the subject (41)
28.08%
I don't know what else to do (20)
13.7%
I can't get a job (8)
5.48%
My parents want me to (3)
2.05%
I don't know... I just do (23)
15.75%

Watched Threads

View All