Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by giuseppe94)
    Suicide is different from euthanasia, because in the latter case the person is destined to die anyway.
    I'm confused about euthanasia, but I have a problem with that statement. Is there someone who isn't destined to die? Euthanasia is meant to spare one from physical pain due to a terminal disease whereas suicide can spare one from a (possibly longer period of) spiritual/psychological/etc pain. There is obviously a difference, but I don't think it's there.

    I see abortion as something not morally wrong as well. The fetus is the outcome of a mistake, generally, and it would be unfair to let the child grow with presumibly bad, young parents and in poor economic conditions, both for the child and for its parents themselves.
    Is it moral to kill a poor unplanned already born baby? The discussion for abortion is not whether the fetus will have a good life, it is whether the fetus is a person. Unless, of course, you're OK with killing people in bad conditions.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by giuseppe94)

    I feel the same way, but not about suicide. If you think about it, suicide is morally wrong because the one who commits it "disappoints" the people who love him, and it also shows weakness and ineptitude to live. He's a failure.
    Suicide is sad a depressing but you can't place moral blame on someone who is dead for killing themselves. It doesn't matter if people are upset because upsetting people isn't morally wrong. Showing weakness isn't morally wrong either, and neither is failing. How is it any different from Euthanasia when the person is trying to end their own suffering?
    Offline

    16
    I don't really have a code of conduct. I believe they're all just human constructs which can and will change over the years. I govern myself based on the general situation and what would result in a positive outcome. If that would somehow be construed as morally wrong by others it wouldn't bother me.

    I think most people do govern themselves by what they're told, though, as opposed to any real thoughts of their own.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Floalley)
    But what if I'm not a consequentialist? Sure the consequences of my actions are important, but I can argue the act itself is also just as, if not more important. For example, killing a person then giving his organs to five people that need them seemingly has good consequences but the action itself seems innately reprehensible.

    I find it really difficult to strike a balance between the morality of the action and the morality of the consequences because completely siding with either option doesn't seem to fit. This is where the hypocrisy comes in, I'll do an action even though it seems wrong because the benefits seem to outweigh the wrongness of the action, but in the same day I'll do an action even if the consequences are bad because I feel it is morally right to do that action.
    Sure, but my point was simply that you can decide on the morality of at least a few situations.

    I mentioned why I can't get away with my hypocrisy earlier, but I have to disagree with you that people can be perfected. No one can be perfected. The only place that perfection lies is in maths and abstract ideas. Not in people. Sorry it's just not possible.
    By "perfected" I mean to become less imperfect, not to become perfect. That is whithin everyone's reach.


    I'm looking for one that fits my moral instinct as you put it. I feel uncomfortable with the relative account of morality a lot of the time but no argument for objective morality has convinced me so far (either far too rigid, or far to vague, but that's philosophy for you!') It's something that has actually disturbed me for a long time and I have lost sleep over it.

    I know why your confused about my opinion and it's because I'M confused!
    Why not try to figure out your own system?
    • Section Leader
    • Political Ambassador
    • Reporter Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by euphoricsmile)
    I would be interested in knowing the list of rules you have made, im currently trying to produce my own rules and some inspiration would be good. Also, I have read your blog, its really interesting
    Thanks! Sure, they are the following:


    1. INDUSTRY. Move closer to my life goals with each passing day.
    2. PERSEVERANCE. Never disengage from a resolution or goal for the lack of self-discipline.
    3. INTEGRITY. Show no incongruity between action and mind; act independently of who may bear witness.
    4. JUSTICE. Wrong none by doing or supporting injuries, or by omitting the benefits that are my duty.
    5. RESOLUTION. Resolve to perform what I ought; perform without fail what I resolve.
    6. BRAVERY. Do not shy from doing what is right when I recognise it to be so, no matter the adversity.
    7. COMPASSION. Lend my hand and ear to friends and family whenever they are in need; be receptive to all, especially those who are in need of help or assistance.
    8. SINCERITY. Hurtfully deceive none through purposeful action or omission.
    9. SELF-CONTROL. Do not be tempted by the unjust procurement of goods or services, sex, money or drugs.
    10. HUMILITY. Praise others often and genuinely; do not boast or seek to feed my own ego.
    11. TRANQUILITY. Do not be moved by trivialities or the negativity of others.
    12. CLEANLINESS. Tolerate no uncleanliness of body, clothing or home.
    13. FRUGALITY. Make no expense but to do good to myself or others, i.e., do not be wasteful.


    Some may recognise the influence from Benjamin Franklin's autobiography.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by baleworldclass)
    I don't really believe in ethics. I do as I please, when I please.
    I don't mean this as a direct attack, but from this and previous threads you really do sound like a child who has picked up 'Beyond Good and Evil', and come to some badly thought out conclusions and stuck to them. As a matter of pure interest, what made you start thinking like this?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viriol)
    I'm confused about euthanasia, but I have a problem with that statement. Is there someone who isn't destined to die? Euthanasia is meant to spare one from physical pain due to a terminal disease whereas suicide can spare one from a (possibly longer period of) spiritual/psychological/etc pain. There is obviously a difference, but I don't think it's there.



    Is it moral to kill a poor unplanned already born baby? The discussion for abortion is not whether the fetus will have a good life, it is whether the fetus is a person. Unless, of course, you're OK with killing people in bad conditions.

    I'll make try to explain myself better. Someone who is going to suicide can still change his own destiny and has much more opportunities to do so than a, for example, sick person who's dying for cancer.

    Fetuses are not people in my opinion, they don't have mind nor a consciousness, and if they're unwanted there's no point in letting them born. With babies it's different.

    (Original post by Floalley)
    Suicide is sad a depressing but you can't place moral blame on someone who is dead for killing themselves. It doesn't matter if people are upset because upsetting people isn't morally wrong. Showing weakness isn't morally wrong either, and neither is failing. How is it any different from Euthanasia when the person is trying to end their own suffering?
    Upsetting people is morally wrong, that's where morality comes from. If something upsets me here in Italy it doesn't mean it would be the same in Vietnam or Congo which would also be seen as morally correct.

    As I said above, a person who is going to commit suicide can still change his fate.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miser)
    Thanks! Sure, they are the following:

    1. INDUSTRY. Move closer to my life goals with each passing day.
    2. PERSEVERANCE. Never disengage from a resolution or goal for the lack of self-discipline.
    3. INTEGRITY. Show no incongruity between action and mind; act independently of who may bear witness.
    4. JUSTICE. Wrong none by doing or supporting injuries, or by omitting the benefits that are my duty.
    5. RESOLUTION. Resolve to perform what I ought; perform without fail what I resolve.
    6. BRAVERY. Do not shy from doing what is right when I recognise it to be so, no matter the adversity.
    7. COMPASSION. Lend my hand and ear to friends and family whenever they are in need; be receptive to all, especially those who are in need of help or assistance.
    8. SINCERITY. Hurtfully deceive none through purposeful action or omission.
    9. SELF-CONTROL. Do not be tempted by the unjust procurement of goods or services, sex, money or drugs.
    10. HUMILITY. Praise others often and genuinely; do not boast or seek to feed my own ego.
    11. TRANQUILITY. Do not be moved by trivialities or the negativity of others.
    12. CLEANLINESS. Tolerate no uncleanliness of body, clothing or home.
    13. FRUGALITY. Make no expense but to do good to myself or others, i.e., do not be wasteful.

    Some may recognise the influence from Benjamin Franklin's autobiography.
    Thank you that's a really good list and seems very well thought out just like everything else on your blog, haha i haven't it but it does sound majestic
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Genocidal)
    I don't really have a code of conduct. I believe they're all just human constructs which can and will change over the years. I govern myself based on the general situation and what would result in a positive outcome. If that would somehow be construed as morally wrong by others it wouldn't bother me.

    I think most people do govern themselves by what they're told, though, as opposed to any real thoughts of their own.

    So do you make decisions on the spot?
    and do you not view anything as ethical/ non ethical- (forgetting what this may mean to others)?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by giuseppe94)
    I'll make try to explain myself better. Someone who is going to suicide can still change his own destiny and has much more opportunities to do so than a, for example, sick person who's dying for cancer.

    Fetuses are not people in my opinion, they don't have mind nor a consciousness, and if they're unwanted there's no point in letting them born. With babies it's different.
    What about someone with severe depression that no amount of counselling or medication will solve? Unless their death physical harms someone (including monetary assets) on with purposeful intent and knowledge that their action will have these affects, then I can't see it being immoral because I don't agree that just upsetting someone is enough for an action to be immoral.


    Upsetting people is morally wrong, that's where morality comes from. If something upsets me here in Italy it doesn't mean it would be the same in Vietnam or Congo which would also be seen as morally correct.

    As I said above, a person who is going to commit suicide can still change his fate.
    That's where you think morality comes from. I don't agree. Many people are extremely upset with the fact that people are gay but that doesn't make being gay morally wrong. Are you saying that people who get sentenced to death for being gay in other countries deserve it because in that country the fact that their gay upsets people and is considered immoral?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viriol)
    Sure, but my point was simply that you can decide on the morality of at least a few situations.
    Being able to decide what is moral in a few situations is no-where near having a system in which you live your life.


    By "perfected" I mean to become less imperfect, not to become perfect. That is whithin everyone's reach.
    Again I don't think it's possible to rid myself of hypocrisy on a basic level.


    Why not try to figure out your own system?
    I'm trying to but its not easy, and I haven't got very far.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Floalley)
    What about someone with severe depression that no amount of counselling or medication will solve? Unless their death physical harms someone (including monetary assets) on with purposeful intent and knowledge that their action will have these affects, then I can't see it being immoral because I don't agree that just upsetting someone is enough for an action to be immoral.




    That's where you think morality comes from. I don't agree. Many people are extremely upset with the fact that people are gay but that doesn't make being gay morally wrong. Are you saying that people who get sentenced to death for being gay in other countries deserve it because in that country the fact that their gay upsets people and is considered immoral?
    It is enough to be immoral. Anything we consider immoral is just something that damages someone else in some way.

    Being gay is not morally wrong anymore because society evolved up to a point it realised it doesn't damage anyone. In the past it was immoral and prohibited. If today there are like 70% of the people who don't consider being gay immoral perhaps in a few years time, most certainly actually, the percentage will raise to 80-90% and to 100% when society changes its mentality and gets rid of all religious bonds.

    Gay people don't deserve to die in countries where being gay is considered immoral, nor should anyone else. But it must first be solved the problem of still punishing people with capital sentence. When people of those countries will realise being gay does not really damage anyone else, but rather creates a much fairer society, and free themselves of religious dogmas, they will start viewing it as not-so-immoral-after-all.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by giuseppe94)
    It is enough to be immoral. Anything we consider immoral is just something that damages someone else in some way.

    Being gay is not morally wrong anymore because society evolved up to a point it realised it doesn't damage anyone. In the past it was immoral and prohibited. If today there are like 70% of the people who don't consider being gay immoral perhaps in a few years time, most certainly actually, the percentage will raise to 80-90% and to 100% when society changes its mentality and gets rid of all religious bonds.

    Gay people don't deserve to die in countries where being gay is considered immoral, nor should anyone else. But it must first be solved the problem of still punishing people with capital sentence. When people of those countries will realise being gay does not really damage anyone else, but rather creates a much fairer society, and free themselves of religious dogmas, they will start viewing it as not-so-immoral-after-all.
    But you've just changed your definition of what makes something immoral from an action that upsets someone to an action that damages someone.

    How does suicide damage someone else?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Informing myself as best as possible on a subject before forming and/or expressing my opinion. I like to have an argument ready incase I am challanged.

    Saying that, the most heated debate I have been in since startng uni was where to order pizza; pizza hut or domino's.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Floalley)
    But you've just changed your definition of what makes something immoral from an action that upsets someone to an action that damages someone.

    How does suicide damage someone else?

    Being upset is still a form of demage, although yeah, it would have been better to say "damage" instead of upset.

    Suicide damages other people that maybe cared about you. If a mother lost his son because he suicided that would be wrong in many ways... Mainly because all the effort she has put to raise his son and all the love she gave him become pointless.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by giuseppe94)
    Being upset is still a form of demage, although yeah, it would have been better to say "damage" instead of upset.

    Suicide damages other people that maybe cared about you. If a mother lost his son because he suicided that would be wrong in many ways... Mainly because all the effort she has put to raise his son and all the love she gave him become pointless.
    And I can still respond that people being gay upsets other people (a form of damage as you put it), but we widely don't consider that immoral.

    The effort and love the mother felt would not be 'pointless' as a result of suicide. Does the mother have some sort of claim of ownership over her child's life as a result? I'm not saying that suicide is a nice thing and that people shouldn't be upset, but I just can't accept the claim that it's immoral.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Floalley)
    And I can still respond that people being gay upsets other people (a form of damage as you put it), but we widely don't consider that immoral.

    The effort and love the mother felt would not be 'pointless' as a result of suicide. Does the mother have some sort of claim of ownership over her child's life as a result? I'm not saying that suicide is a nice thing and that people shouldn't be upset, but I just can't accept the claim that it's immoral.

    People who are upset by gay people consider it immoral, but the society in the whole doesn't. As said there are still people who don't consider it morally acceptable and the majority which does.

    The mother doesn't own his son's life, but how would the son feel knowing he will hurt his mother with his suicide? It's immoral for him, and he knows it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by giuseppe94)
    People who are upset by gay people consider it immoral, but the society in the whole doesn't. As said there are still people who don't consider it morally acceptable and the majority which does.

    The mother doesn't own his son's life, but how would the son feel knowing he will hurt his mother with his suicide? It's immoral for him, and he knows it.
    I just can't agree with you that upsetting someone is enough for an action to be immoral, and I don't see how suicide is damaging in any other way that being upsetting.

    Sorry but you're never going to convince me.
    • Section Leader
    • Political Ambassador
    • Reporter Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Floalley)
    I'm still trying to figure out what moral standard I want to live my life at, but I don't think I'll ever find one I'll feel happy with. And if I do, I'm pretty sure it will all go to hell because as a person I'm pretty hypocritical.
    I don't imagine it to be a very satisfying life to live without the strength to act in accordance with your convictions - it strikes me as a very passive and unfulfilling existence.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miser)
    I don't imagine it to be a very satisfying life to live without the strength to act in accordance with your convictions - it strikes me as a very passive and unfulfulling existence.
    I'm not saying that I act hypocritically all the time. I'm just accepting the fact that I'm not perfect. I could give you a list of ideals to live by that I would agree to as a good way of living your life, but then I could also give you an example for each of how I've gone against them without feeling particularly bad or any negative consequences occurring. Life isn't rigid and it's impossible to stick with a set of rules, yet I generally agree with certain rules which makes me a hypocrite.

    I have strong opinions and beliefs that I stand up for and I don't think that anyone that knew me would describe me as a passive person.

    I'm finding this very hard to explain, so sorry if it's confusing.
 
 
 
Poll
If you won £30,000, which of these would you spend it on?
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

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