Jesus_of_Suburbia wrote:
However when society as a whole things something is right it is.
Right for that society maybe, but certainly you do not mean absolutely right.
Jesus_of_Suburbia wrote:
However when society as a whole things something is right it is.
TheMindRapist wrote:Right for that society maybe, but certainly you do not mean absolutely right.
TheMindRapist wrote:Jesus_of_Suburbia wrote:
However when society as a whole things something is right it is.
Right for that society maybe, but certainly you do not mean absolutely right.
Crystal_Bearer wrote:So you're basically saying that morality (and therefore ethics) are based solely on the direction of society's endeavors?
Crystal_Bearer wrote:However, I don't believe that any of us would dare to say that killing everyone you meet would be moral, but what if someone else did think it was right? Would they be justified? Even if you're talking about a society, it is still just as malleable there as with individuals. With the number of interacting societies (and more importantly: sub-cultures), it is growing into a straight discussion of egoism.
Crystal_Bearer wrote:Personally, I believe that it is the intention of a person weighed against an inbred ideal of morality that is the deciding factor. People should be expected to know if an action is right or wrong. If they can't tell the difference, then it depends on what their intentions were. If they were noble, then they are at least justified. There is, therefore, a clear distinction between justification and moral correctness, where-in justification is a measure of deontological value, and 'moral correctness' is a measure of the consequentialists' outcome....
The question is... which is more important to embody?
terminus wrote:Crystal_Bearer wrote:However, I don't believe that any of us would dare to say that killing everyone you meet would be moral, but what if someone else did think it was right? Would they be justified? Even if you're talking about a society, it is still just as malleable there as with individuals. With the number of interacting societies (and more importantly: sub-cultures), it is growing into a straight discussion of egoism.
I believe there are people out there who would say killing is right. I even think some would say murder is right. In fact - history has shown us that people will say this. Killing is justified for holy wars, extermination of witches, genocide, cannibalistic socieities, and maybe even in the minds of sociopaths. On an individual level the persons ethics are highly skewed from the ethics of the majority of society.
terminus wrote:The question then is which ethics are more influential. In general, societies' ethics as a whole are a major influence over the generation of law and the behavior of a society in general. As such, a societies ethics would be more influential and thus more important than an individuals. However, what if the individual was completely isolated from society? Then societies ethics would have minimal to no impact on the individual (probably none if they were completely 100% isolated). Therefore, societies ethics may mean nothing to this individual and this individuals ethics would be the most important set of ethics in their life.
terminus wrote:I don't know that any valid testing has been done to prove whether ethics are actually born into a person or if they develop over time due to the influence of society around an individual.
terminus wrote:However, I believe Nazi Germany would be a good case study to show that the attitude and ethics of a society can be vastly deterministic upon an individuals ethics even if they vary greatly from the societal norms of the rest of the world. In my opinion this is one instance that would provide a strong argument that ethics are not inbred but are a product of society.
terminus wrote:How do you define noble? Nobility is in the eye of the beholder. One man's nobility is another's evil - A gallant knight that fights evil witches and slays them is a highly respected nobleman in one man's court. Whereas the 'witches' who are noble for serving and worshipping their god/goddess are martyrs to the evil crusading knights. Another example: islamic suicide bombers are noble to their people and extremist organizations but are terrorists to the rest of society. American troops are noble warriors for America but are nothing more than meddling terrorists with expensive gear and powerful backing to many countries...
terminus wrote:Are morals inbred? I think you're presenting a completely different topic here of nuture versus nature.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests