Is it ever ethical or morally justified to do that which one knows to be morally wron

tsmall

Premium Member
Interesting, something i ponder now at my age, ive found morals, at least for me, to change as i evolve in life. When i was younger, it was very black and white, right was right and wrong was wrong with no consideration for reasons behind the action.... now i know and accept the nature of change. So, no clear cut answer for this one. If i say, i think 'such and such, for me, is morally wrong', and the i find myself in the situation, it may well not be as clear cut black and white as me thinking 'this is morally wrong'. To try not be misunderstood, i have a strong internal moral code but i understand the need to be adaptable.

It would also be interesting to consider someones Jupiter - fixed, mutable, cardinal qualities, other factors of their charts, etc. when considering an individuals moral compass.

I agree that what seems black and white in theory often descends into shades of grey in real life, when choices have to be made.

Good thought to look at Jupiter, but wouldn't a person's Saturn placement have something to say about their morals as well? Perhaps with Moon and Mercury thrown in?
 

tsmall

Premium Member
Monk, I understand what you mean. Going for a time machine ride to eliminate past perpertrators of massive acts of evil seems like it would be a great idea. I still circle back around to the question of, by doing so, what else might we be changing?

JUPITERASC, the entire situation surrounding the death of Trayvon Martin is terrible. Since Zimmerman is claiming self defense with quite a few people questioning whether or not he is lying, are you suggesting that self defense is never a defense?

Carris, I agree with everything you said, except that morals and ethics are only as society defines them. At some point, don't we all define them for ourselves?
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
JUPITERASC, the entire situation surrounding the death of Trayvon Martin is terrible. Since Zimmerman is claiming self defense with quite a few people questioning whether or not he is lying, are you suggesting that self defense is never a defense?
tsmall, self defense is the claim any 'good lawyer' makes automatically for their client irrespective of what actually happened. :smile:

At the time he pleaded self-defence to the cops George Zimmerman did not factor in the telling evidence on taped 911 calls. Unfortunately for George Zimmerman the voice recognition experts had his voice on one of the 911 tapes so they could compare it and two experts have now said they have no idea whose voice it was screaming on some of the 911 tapes but it was not George Zimmerman's voice. The screaming for help stopped immediately a bullet was fired. One of the last people to speak to Trayvon Martin was his girlfriend but six weeks after the shooting she has still not been spoken to by police
 
Last edited:

Carris

Well-known member
Carris, I agree with everything you said, except that morals and ethics are only as society defines them. At some point, don't we all define them for ourselves?

Then if there is no rigid absolute, if we all ultimately have to answer to our own conscience, how can we ask "Is it ever ethical or morally justified to do that which one knows to be morally wrong?" If I do something that I KNOW to be morally wrong, then my conscience would keep bothering me - I wouldn't do it in the first place.

I gave this example on the other thread: say I kill a tyrant who is torturing my people because I had absolutely NO other way to stop him. Society's morals would say that "killing is always wrong" but according to me I would be fully justified and right - it isn't morally wrong to me. On the other hand, the tyrant's family would say that I had no right in taking away their husband/father/son away from them. So who is right? Is the family's right more important than that of thousands of citizens who suffer torture at the hands of the tyrant? Is it "majority wins"?
 

Anachiel

Well-known member
I don't know that it's a red herring. We are faced with the question almost daily. In little ways, sure, but it's there. Your six year old asks you if Santa is real. Lie, or tell the truth? Or how about the idea that if a cherished pet is old and terminally ill, the humane thing to do is euthanasia, but assisted suicide for the terminally ill is considered wrong?

It's a good point you make about ethics and morals being potentially divisive, but without them where would we be?

Morals and ethics came from the need to control society and, to some extent, to exploit what all humans experience : pain.

Since all humans are essentially the same, having the same needs and weakness; the answer to your above questions is; what would YOU want done to you.

That of course does not guarantee recompense but, in the words of a great humanitarian (as opposed to moralist or religious fanatic or indoctrinated thoughtless),

"BE the change you want to see in the world" - Gandhi.


On a lighter note:

"This task was appointed to you, and if you do not find a way, no one will" - Galadriel, Lord of the Rings
 

MaeMae

Banned
Do unto others as you would have done to you?
That's a basic no brainer. Except when ego interferes. What then, Anachiel?
 

Mandy

Well-known member
If, moral and ethical, codes are innate then how did Mr. Milgram get all those adults to "electrocute" others, when they could hear that they were in pain, potentially could die, and when they knew that they were not even being paid to do it, let alone directed to do so by law...
His experiment was unethical, but look at what it uncovered. By virtue of it being unethical, psychologists are not permitted to conduct such experments any longer and means by which our understanding could be enlightened further, have been prohibited. However, we still have the news. I live in London and here, children kill other children for nothing! There are children who would never participate in such violence, even if it conferred massive rewards. But, there are other (very young) children who would, even when completely unprovoked. To give an example of Jamie Bulger, a two year old murdered, in 1993, by being stolen and placed on train tracks by two random ten year old boys.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
First, Milgram's experiments were not an exception. They produced alarmingly consistent results with sane adults in Western society. Second, may I recommend this reading: http://www.amazon.com/Emotional-Construction-Morals-Jesse-Prinz/dp/019928301X as an antithesis to Hauser's ill-supported claims and in support of more ecologically valid (i.e., outside of the lab) considerations. Mwah.
Perhaps so Mandy. Nevertheless, the following is also true! :smile:

EXAMPLE OF INNATE MORAL/ETHICAL CODE

A healthy man walks into a hospital where five patients are awaiting organ transplants.

Is it morally acceptable to kill the man in order to harvest his organs to save the lives of five others?

If you instantly answered no, you share a near-universal response to the dilemma, one offered by peoples and cultures all over the globe.
 

Mandy

Well-known member
Your example is riddled with emotive content. Theoretically, there is a difference between cognitive function and affective function. If we assume at any point that the two are interdependent, then we have a million extraneous variables to account for which could affect one's emotive response in any given situation. These may include shock, which is neuroscientifically distinct from instinct. People report different instincts and show huge variation in behaviour in a state of shock. Other extraneous variables include: socialisation, hormonal composition, nervous composition, content of memories, childhood conditioning, pre-natal care, etc. It is important to not only measure the influence of every one variable but also the interactions between all these. In psychological research, one unaccounted for variable, can skew results substantially and therefore the conclusion.

The problem with gaining a comprehensive understanding of morality is rooted in the origins of consciousness (arguments of which I am sure you are versed in). I do not feel that I am in a position to judge that person X has done an immoral thing because what I know is not his consciousness and it would be a fallacy for me to assume blindly that his consciousness is roughly the same as mine. I can take the perspective of the victim, but I cannot be sure that the victim even feels victimised. Often they do not. I cant judge the contents of anyone's consciousness - AT ALL. All I know is what I do/do not like and likes and dislikes are culturally dependent. In the UK, being slashed across the face with a sharp object would qualify for arrest. In Africa, the natives celebrate such an event, even though the child never chose it. The child is socialised into experiencing this as a great reward and not an immoral act.

To what extent do we have free will to decide to remove ourselves from the cuture we are born into, however small? In English culture, a wife who has a cheating husband will be very upset, need therapy, and have problems trusting again, ALL because she perceives his actions towards her as immoral. Fundamentally, she's taken by surprise at finding out, she's thinking "how could he" and some wives even will inflict serious harm on the husband/other woman as punishment for doing her wrong. In the Arab culture, a man can have several wives, treating them accordingly, and the wives will be completely unmoved by it whilst staying unquestionably devoted to obeying the commands of their one husband. Still, in the buddhist culture, people are encouraged to let go of all attachments. In all three, judgements about morality would be worlds apart because what we consider the be (im)moral is contingent on our socialisation and lacking much free will, giving the illusion of "innateness." If one exercises their small amount of free will, they will reap the benefits of our extremely adaptable brain, and what they consider to be immoral can change with time, whilst some will maintain their initial learning. This feeds into theories of depression/mental health and theories of depression/mental health feed into people escaping a prison sentence, for commiting an "immoral" act, due to being mentally unstable at the time of incident. Similarly, in the west people kill kattle for food, whereas in India, cows are a sacred animal. Calling a child sinful for eating beef would seem immoral in Britain, whereas calling a child sinful for eating beef in India would be right. What came first? The chicken or the egg?
 

Neptune Rising

Well-known member
If you instantly answered no, you share a near-universal response to the dilemma, one offered by peoples and cultures all over the

This strikes me as a very broad, sweeping statement, which in fact presumes to understand the thought processes, morality and ethics of billions of people, hundreds of cultures and untold evolutions of ethics, not only through societal evolution but also through individual evolution - which is quite limiting, considering it such a broad and expansive topic (we are taking about morality after all - Jupiter/9th house).
 
Last edited:

Neptune Rising

Well-known member
I agree that what seems black and white in theory often descends into shades of grey in real life, when choices have to be made.

Good thought to look at Jupiter, but wouldn't a person's Saturn placement have something to say about their morals as well? Perhaps with Moon and Mercury thrown in?

Yes indeed, Saturn too, perhaps for the way the rules are constructed, Jupiter for the values and Mercury for the way these internal things are communicated and thought about by the individual.
 

JerryRR

Well-known member
"We are not of this world,and this world is not of us,and we fear lest we meet death in this realm of an alien God."

A Cathar prayer.

J.R.
 

wilsontc

Staff member
loaded question, to Tamara

Tamara,

You said:
Is it ever ethical or morally justified to do that which one knows to be morally wrong?

This is a loaded question. Look at it another way:

Is it ever moral to do something immoral?

Answer:

No.

That's the answer, pure and simple. You can't be moral if you are doing things that aren't moral. Try answering this question any other way and your head starts spinning...you start to have "reasonable doubt".

Now what if you ask: would you ever do something that you believe is immoral? That is a much different and perhaps more interesting question. To follow up: if you believe all killing is immoral would you ever kill? And how do you justify going against your morals? If you go against what you say are your morals are they truly your morals? If not, what are your true morals?

Answering and questioning,

Tim
 

wilsontc

Staff member
innate? to Jupiter

Jupiter,

You said:
Although morals and ethics are clearly used in order to impose controls on society that is not the reason for their existence...Ethical and moral codes are innate

First of all, something being "innate" is not a reason. OK, if I accept ethical and moral codes are innate that still leaves the question WHY do they exist? Secondly, "innate" means an inborn instinct that we have from birth...and there are many children who are not "innately" moral at all. They behave immorally (attack other children, steal their things, etc.) and think nothing of it. In your example there are plenty of children who might find it "cool" to take apart the healthy man just to do it, without needing any excuse of helping five unhealthy people. Children often take pleasure in violence.

No, morals and ethics are "trained into" people, as they grow up in society and gradually get a sense of what is and what is not acceptable. And there are some people who can't be trained, who are without a sense of morality and do whatever they want whenever they want simply to satisfy their curiosity. That seems to be what Mandy is talking about, the immoral people.

Interesting for Mandy to discuss the benefits of immorality. There were a lot of Nazi human experiments which were immoral according to many people yet we benefit today from the knowledge these experiments gave us. Same with the Nazi rocket scientists who were the basis of our space program. Maybe morality is over-rated?

Wondering immorally,

Tim
 
Last edited:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
This strikes me as a very broad, sweeping statement, which in fact presumes to understand the thought processes, morality and ethics of billions of people, hundreds of cultures and untold evolutions of ethics, not only through societal evolution but also through individual evolution - which is quite limiting, considering it such a broad and expansive topic (we are taking about morality after all - Jupiter/9th house).
I'm reposting the comment you referred to below.
If you instantly answered no, you share a near-universal response to the dilemma, one offered by peoples and cultures all over the globe.

But how did you reach this conclusion? Was it a rational decision learned in childhood, or was it—as Harvard evolutionary biologist and cognitive neuroscientist Marc Hauser claims—based on instincts encoded in our brains by evolution? In his recent book Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong (HarperCollins), Hauser argues that millions of years of natural selection have moulded a universal moral grammar within our brains that enables us to make rapid decisions about ethical dilemmas.
i.e. my post highlighted the claims of Harvard evolutionary biologist and cognitive neuroscientist Marc Hauser who argues that there is "a universal moral grammar within our brains":smile:
 

tsmall

Premium Member
Re: loaded question, to Tamara

Tamara,

This is a loaded question. Look at it another way:

Is it ever moral to do something immoral?

Answer:

No.

That's the answer, pure and simple. You can't be moral if you are doing things that aren't moral. Try answering this question any other way and your head starts spinning...you start to have "reasonable doubt".

Now what if you ask: would you ever do something that you believe is immoral? That is a much different and perhaps more interesting question. To follow up: if you believe all killing is immoral would you ever kill? And how do you justify going against your morals? If you go against what you say are your morals are they truly your morals? If not, what are your true morals?

Answering and questioning,

Tim



Tim,

Bingo. Head spinning and everything. Isn't it funny how a simple question can lead you to try to define who you really are, and what you really believe? I mentioned before (either on this thread or the other one) that as humans we often say one thing and then do another. That can either be due to hypocrisy, or to something deeper. I do believe that all killing is wrong, but even though I've never been put in a position where I needed to choose one life (mine, or a loved one's) over another, I recognize that I would likely do what I believe to be wrong in that instance. Or, if I or a loved one were starving. Stealing is wrong. But yes, I would steal food if necessary.

A high school sociology class taught that there are three basic needs all people have. It was a long time ago, but I remember them as being the need to live. The need for food, clothing and shelter. And the need to be liked, loved and accepted. But the most basic of these is the need to live. If we believe in evolution, we each carry within us a primitive brain stem, whose soul purpose is to insure the continuation of the species, or of ourselves, through whatever means necessary. To consume resources and reproduce, if you will.

The question of morals and ethics boils then down to the personal vs. the social. There have been times that people have demonstrated great sacrifice for the greater good. Instances of the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few, or the one (pardon the Star Trek quote.)

I don't know that there is any right or wrong answer to this question. But, it is a good question for people to consider.

Tamara
 

Mandy

Well-known member
Re: loaded question, to Tamara

There were a lot of Nazi human experiments which were immoral according to many people yet we benefit today from the knowledge these experiments gave us. Same with the Nazi rocket scientists who were the basis of our space program. Maybe morality is over-rated?

Wondering immorally,

Tim

You've made many excellent points Tim, such as regarding the way the question was originally posited, but the point above is particularly apt. I am currently in the process of postgrad in neuropsychology. Neuropsych faces a problem in that there are huge numbers of patients suffering psychologically and yet we know not a great deal about the brain in order to help them. I dont want to get too techical, but there are many promising ideas in neuropsychological research that could be conducted with various populations in order to yield a more comprehensive understanding of the more holistic, and natural, sides of brain function and yet the ethical board would never approve them. This is because there would be a small chance of an adverse consequence occuring as a result of expert experimentation. Also, practice shows such research is seldom funded. Conversely, we have all these drug trials with anti-depressants. What is more, the anti-depressants have been licensed for wide spread use. However, one physician can never predict how one's brian will react to the medication. Research has shown that suicide rates have gone up drastically directly as a result of Prozac. Perhaps part of the reason for this is because often one's symptoms tend to worsen for the first few weeks of taking the drug before any relief is experienced. Begs the question: Why is experimentation (which can help understand a multitude of ailments from the vegetative state to Alzheimers to depression) wrong and tightly controlled and the licensing of drugs to the already vulnerable (OUT) patients, who have no medical assistance at home, lack of funds for therapy, etc., and the drugs have a realistic possibility of making them substantially worse, is okay. I dont know how clearly I have conveyed what I want to say as I write this in a hurry, but the point is that the industry key to helping people prioritizes financial outcomes over those pro life, in many cases. I suppose this finds reflection in JUPITERASC's example, in that: is it better to (reversibly) affect potentially a few people in order to perpetuate lasting research, or to harm openly the already vulnerable, in greater numbers, and charge them for it in the process? Its not a hypothetical example. Also, it makes me think about Hauser's claims in the context of their relevance when pittied against the blindingly widespread social manipulation in the world today, leaving any "innate" morality corrupted from childhood (potentially).
 

tsmall

Premium Member
Re: loaded question, to Tamara

You've made many excellent points Tim, such as regarding the way the question was originally posited,

Hi Mandy. You are probably right that the title of this thread, or the question posited, isn't as great as it could be. My thread title came from the discourse on this thread

http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=40720

which led me to reframe the original question, and start a new thread. Perhaps, if you want to reframe the question again, you can do so with a new thread? To my way of thinking, that is indeed how ideas evolve and grow...much like seeds planted in a garden that spring to life in unexpected ways.

Tamara
 
Top