Turn on thread page Beta

Sainsbury's to promote a vegetarian diet based on Oxford Uni scientist recomendations watch

    • Section Leader
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    It would be sensible to say that A and B have committed equally immoral acts.

    I propose that B showed a lack of integrity which A did not by acting contrarily to his own principles.
    Thanks for the interesting scenario! I agree that A and B committed equally immoral acts insofar as they did the same thing in the same circumstance. I also agree that B showed a lack of integrity that A didn't by acting contrarily to his principles.

    I'd like to look at A's case a little more closely though. I chose the example of murder because we'd be hard pressed to find a person who would think it was acceptable the way A does, and there's really no excusing believing the murder would be justified. Any person who sincerely considers the morality of it would arrive at the conclusion that it's not acceptable - anyone who doesn't is either living on another planet or bending over backwards in rationalisations.

    A is a person who allowed himself to believe it was acceptable. In my opinion this is a worse fault of character than B's failing of integrity, since it shows no consideration for even caring to know the difference between what is right or wrong. A only thought about his own convenience, whereas B, although failing to live up to his moral standards, at least possessed moral standards.

    In other words, whilst B's moral integrity was at fault, A, without caring about the difference between right and wrong, can't even be meaningfully spoken of to have any moral integrity.

    We might also consider that, of the two people, only B might be moved to apologise.

    Is B really worse because he had moral standards and A - at least when it came to murder - had none?
    • TSR Group Staff
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Group Staff
    (Original post by miser)
    Thanks for the interesting scenario! I agree that A and B committed equally immoral acts insofar as they did the same thing in the same circumstance. I also agree that B showed a lack of integrity that A didn't by acting contrarily to his principles.

    I'd like to look at A's case a little more closely though. I chose the example of murder because we'd be hard pressed to find a person who would think it was acceptable the way A does, and there's really no excusing believing the murder would be justified. Any person who sincerely considers the morality of it would arrive at the conclusion that it's not acceptable - anyone who doesn't is either living on another planet or bending over backwards in rationalisations.

    A is a person who allowed himself to believe it was acceptable. In my opinion this is a worse fault of character than B's failing of integrity, since it shows no consideration for even caring to know the difference between what is right or wrong. A only thought about his own convenience, whereas B, although failing to live up to his moral standards, at least possessed moral standards.

    In other words, whilst B's moral integrity was at fault, A, without caring about the difference between right and wrong, can't even be meaningfully spoken of to have any moral integrity.

    We might also consider that, of the two people, only B might be moved to apologise.

    Is B really worse because he had moral standards and A - at least when it came to murder - had none?
    Well I never saw this thread going in this direction when I started it, but I would like to chime in as I find this a very interesting subject.

    Morality, right and wrong, good and evil are entirely subjective. Ultimately there is no such thing as good and bad, right or wrong - it's all a matter of perspective.

    Therefore your perspectives are that both person A and B were wrong in committing murder, and that person A was worse because he thought he was justified in his actions.

    We can live by laws of a country, to keep the peace, stay out of jail and fit into society - but that doesn't mean we have to agree with them or that they are right.

    Everything is a matter of perspective. Some people will think person A was perfectly justified, others will not. There's no right or wrong answer, it depends on your perspective, which is influenced by an infinite number of factors.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    Some people have dietary needs (such as nut allergies) which makes it hard for them to eat a veggie/vegan diet so it shouldn’t be forced on people
    We’ve been eating meat for ages
    Yolo #luvmeabacobburger
 
 
 
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: November 28, 2017
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources
AtCTs

Ask the Community Team

Got a question about the site content or our moderation? Ask here.

Welcome Lounge

Welcome Lounge

We're a friendly bunch. Post here if you're new to TSR.

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.