Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I've just started taking Philosophy at Uni (first time I've done the subject) and we were given this question to think about before our next discussion, only I can't really think of anything.

    Is there any situation so unthinkable that you have to change your morals? As in there is NO other way to solve the problem without doing so?

    I tried coming up with everything, even horrible ones like you have decide about killing children, but then the answer would be easy because you'd always go for the option where the least is harmed/killed.

    Any thoughts?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    <sub!>
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I dunno, maybe something about giving birth to a really severely disabled baby- like, obviously infanticide is illegal but at the same time they're going to live a life of debilitating pain/not really have a life at all (like the Baby K case). But I guess in that case you're constrained by societal laws etc
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Yes! When the British government took away my passport, so i went to france instead, and applied for a....

    ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, morality not nationality
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    had to make an account just for this, two words
    ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Someone is about to kill the person you love most in the world and you have the option of shooting that person (the would be murderer) first. Do you do the morally wrong thing and take someone's life, or do you not do anything and suffer the loss?

    I know what I'd do, even knowing that it's morally wrong to take a life.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by doloroushazy)
    I dunno, maybe something about giving birth to a really severely disabled baby- like, obviously infanticide is illegal but at the same time they're going to live a life of debilitating pain/not really have a life at all (like the Baby K case). But I guess in that case you're constrained by societal laws etc
    I don't know because you could give the baby up without having to kill it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bartimaeus)
    Someone is about to kill the person you love most in the world and you have the option of shooting that person (the would be murderer) first. Do you do the morally wrong thing and take someone's life, or do you not do anything and suffer the loss?

    I know what I'd do, even knowing that it's morally wrong to take a life.
    But wouldn't that still be taking your morals into account? If you are totally against murder and do decide to stand by, then you are just applying your regular morals, even if it meant your loved one dies.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, everyday life.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    war
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KJane)
    But wouldn't that still be taking your morals into account? If you are totally against murder and do decide to stand by, then you are just applying your regular morals, even if it meant your loved one dies.
    Yes, but if you choose not to stand by (as I think most people would not just stand by) then you are changing your morals due to the severity of the situation.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jismith1989)
    Yes, everyday life.

    (Original post by 2ndClass)
    war
    Any specific examples?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KJane)
    I've just started taking Philosophy at Uni (first time I've done the subject) and we were given this question to think about before our next discussion, only I can't really think of anything.

    Is there any situation so unthinkable that you can't apply your normal morals to it?

    I tried coming up with everything, even horrible ones like you have decide about killing children, but then the answer would be easy because you'd always go for the option where the least is harmed/killed.

    Any thoughts?
    You use morality as though it were a verb. It's an adjective.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I'm a subscriber of Kant's categorical imperative, but if I was told I had to kill a terrorist in order to save a group of people I think I would have to do it, whereas the categorical imperative would guide me to do otherwise and not treat the terrorist as a means to an end.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KJane)
    Any specific examples?
    Well, when one considers that the majority of the clothing that I own, for example, will have been made by very poor people in condions of near servitude in sweatshops with long hours and quasi-military discipline, I've certainly forgone whatever moral principles I may have had about the dignity of human life and the indignity of modern civilisation; the same goes for the laptop I'm currently using (which, being an Apple product, will have been produced in the Foxconn factories, which sound like godawful places) and many other things we buy/consume on a day to day basis.

    I don't buy the utilitarian (or neoclassical economic) argument that the workers are entering into a free and fair contract to work in those places of their own volition will because the other options are worse, as that is, for many reasons, obviously very myopic.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by heartlesswhore)
    You use morality as though it were a verb. It's a noun.
    Sorry, fixed. Although the question was the exact words of my Philosophy lecturer, so it's not technically my misuse of the noun.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jismith1989)
    Well, when one considers that the majority of the clothing that I own, for example, will have been made by very poor people in condions of near servitude in sweatshops with long hours and quasi-military discipline, I've certainly forgone whatever moral principles I may have had about the dignity of human life and the indignity of modern civilisation; the same goes for the laptop I'm currently using (which, being an Apple product, will have been produced in the Foxconn factories, which sound like godawful places) and many other things we buy/consume on a day to day basis.
    Ah I see, but surely a person could try and solve this by making their own clothes, or buying products from companies that have some sort of policy against it and do not use sweatshops at all. (however few may do so)
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KJane)
    Ah I see, but surely a person could try and solve this by making their own clothes, or buying products from companies that have some sort of policy against it and do not use sweatshops at all. (however few may do so)
    Sure, they could, and I do try to do that, if possible -- but even if I were consistently to buy ethically (or even make my own clothes), I'd be well aware that most other people weren't doing that and that the dark Satanic mills were still out there, so I'd only really be massaging my own conscience and living up to my own abstract ethical standards, not improving the lot of the workers. So there's no situation in which one has to change one's morality (Socrates famously judged the ability of the state to carry out punishment more important than the preservation of his own life, even though he could easily have escaped from prison, gone into exile and avoided the death penalty), because morality is inherently subjective (and thus ethics can never be a rigorous discipline, as it's nought but the rationalisation and systematisation of prejudices), but in reality very few, if any, of us follow a moral code consistently, and most of us are led by our emotion and ingrained habits at least as much as, if not more than, by reason.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Say you found out your father committed a murder (say you found a pictures/video).

    You can either go to the police about it (resulting in you ruining his life forever and you dont know circumstances) or you could keep it bottled up inside you effectively leaving you in emotional torment for a long time/rest of your life (you are sure he'd never do that to anyone else)

    You can interchange your father to anyone who you care about on par with yourself.

    So basically, would you sacrifice yourself for someone else
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aarondragon0)
    had to make an account just for this, two words
    ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE
    Pretty much this.

    You have to be prepared, it's every man for himself.
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
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.