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

tsmall

Premium Member
As a spin off of this thread

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

I wanted to open one that discusses the question of morals as a whole, and when, or even if they should be broken. Ethics, or situational ethics, is always a difficult concept, or judgment call. Two wrongs don't make a right, but there are times when people have made tough choices to do the wrong thing for the right reasons.

On the referenced thread, we discussed whether or not the premeditated killing of any human being is ethically or morally justifiable. We explored the meaning of "premeditated," and in ran the gamut from state sanctioned execution of convicted murderers to self defense.

Now I throw it out to AW members. Is it ever ethical or morally justified to do that which one knows to be morally wrong?
 

wintersprite1

Premium Member
I had always believed in turn a cheek... and there was never a reason for killing... now I have children, touch one of them = die = I am a killer. And I am good with that.


TK
 

tsmall

Premium Member
I had always believed in turn a cheek... and there was never a reason for killing... now I have children, touch one of them = die = I am a killer. And I am good with that.


TK

I have to say that I quite agree. When I was little, I remember in Sunday school learning about Jesus, and my teacher told us that we never really love someone unless we are willing to die for them, that they might live. I thought about it and thought about it, and realized that there wasn't anybody I knew, or (at the ripe old age of eight) didn't know that I would rather see die if I could step in and stop it. As an adult, I understand the idea in greater depth than I did at eight. But, as a mother, I further believe that we never really love someone unless we are willing to kill, that they may live. And yeah, I'm good with that too.
 

Monk

Premium Member
Hi TSMALL and WINTERSPRITE1,

I have a Pluto M.C., but i'm not evil, but love playing hypothetical games with Devil's Advocate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil's_advocate

Say we had a time machine, who would you want "to put coins on the eyes of in 20th Century?"

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=coins%20on%20the%20eyes


If i had a time machine, i would put coins on the eyes of Hitler, Himmler and Dragutin Dimitrijevic, all before they could do damage!

Hell with karma for myself!
 
Last edited:

princess valhalla

Well-known member
TSmall, I am quite confused with your stance. The two post are quite contradictory . . .

Killing is wrong. Whether premeditated, sanctioned by the state in the form of execution or war, or acting out of self-defense. The sixth Commandment tells us "Thou shalt not kill." That's it. Not, "Thou shalt not kill, unless thy life is threatened, or the life of a loved on is threatened, or the life of thy neighbor is threatened." Four words. Straight to the point, as it were.

The problem is that we are human. In that respect, everyone commenting on this thread has a point, but in large part is missing the greater point. We are imperfect. We say one thing and then do another. We hold others to certain standards, but exempt ourselves because we feel justified in the moment. And really, isn't that what we all, as astrologers, are trying to figure out? We come into this world (some of us believe) with lessons to learn based on past incarnations, and with things to also teach in this one. We work off karma and accrue karma and work it off some more. Thankfully, the Universe, or God as we each choose to define it, forgives. And gives us another chance. And we evolve. Spiritually, mentally, physically. Unfortunately, we evolve at different rates. So, while some of us have reached the ability to turn the other cheek no matter what happens, or who may die, the rest of us are left to muddle through as best we can, and hope that eventually all of humanity can get it right on this one little issue.

Killing is wrong.
 

tsmall

Premium Member
Could you be more specific about what confuses you? Because, I'm pretty sure I've been clear. Killing is wrong. Does that mean, as an imperfect human, that I will always do the right thing? Am I morally justified to do that which I personally find ethically wrong?

TSmall, I am quite confused with your stance. The two post are quite contradictory . . .
 

tsmall

Premium Member
Great hypothetical, Monk! Have you read Stephen King's book, 11/22/63?

There are several people throughout history whose eyes I wouldn't mind putting coins in, but....it does beg the question of what would really change? Would it be better, or worse? I'm not at all qualified to debate free will, and what is writ in the stars. Do we make our choices, do you suppose, or are they already made for us?

Hi TSMALL and WINTERSPRITE1,

I have a Pluto M.C., but i'm not evil, but love playing hypothetical games with Devil's Advocate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil's_advocate

Say we had a time machine, who would you want "to put coins on the eyes of in 20th Century?"

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=coins on the eyes


If i had a time machine, i would put coins on the eyes of Hitler, Himmler and Dragutin Dimitrijevic, all before they could do damage!

Hell with karma for myself!

That last part I go agree with. Sometimes, we have to say "hell with karma" and do what we think best.
 

Monk

Premium Member
Hi TSMALL,

I think i would put coins on the eyes of Dragutin Dimitrijevic first, perhaps the problems with Hitler would never have happened if the First World War never happened...indeed i can't see a worse outcome than what happened...if i had a time machine!

You have no idea how evil Dimitrijevic was, his code name was Apis or the bee, Apis means Osiris...he was the ring leader of a very evil secret society called "The Black Hand" Their emblem was skull and bones, a dagger dripping with blood and a poison bottle...nice!

There is a scholarly book long out of print that is the transcripts of the trial of conspirators that assassinated Arch-duke Ferdinand that triggered W.W.1. It is called "The Sarajevo Trial by W. A. Dolph Owings, order it by library, too expensive to buy now!

If you scroll down below to "References" you will note it mentioned:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_Bridge

I have the book, thus verify comments below, you may have to left click several times on images, both are on links:-

http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/904/1jm0.jpg

http://2012forum.com/forum/download/file.php?id=3710&mode=view

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragutin_Dimitrijevi%C4%87


I haven't read the S. King book you mention.
 
Last edited:

Neptune Rising

Well-known 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.
 

Anachiel

Well-known member
Re: Is it ever ethical or morally justified to do that which one knows to be morally wrong

Your question is a red-herring because both morals and ethics are human designed and, therefore open to weigh on perspective.

Basically, you are asking a question about concepts which, are imperfect and flawed according to reason and created by societal education and influence.

Whatever has been done in history and your view of it really depends on what side of the coin you were on. Simply put, the winner or loser, the controller or the controlled, the dominant or the submissive.

Now, with that out of the way, what are you really asking? Are you asking how one can prevent from being hurt, or is it a debate on whether defensive or offensive measures are more important? Or, are you simply confounded by the extent with which humans are capable both of great acts of healing or hurting each other?

It is ethics and morals that create the divisions from which judgement ensues. This is the seed of hubris.
 

Carris

Well-known member
As a spin off of this thread

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

I wanted to open one that discusses the question of morals as a whole, and when, or even if they should be broken. Ethics, or situational ethics, is always a difficult concept, or judgment call. Two wrongs don't make a right, but there are times when people have made tough choices to do the wrong thing for the right reasons.

On the referenced thread, we discussed whether or not the premeditated killing of any human being is ethically or morally justifiable. We explored the meaning of "premeditated," and in ran the gamut from state sanctioned execution of convicted murderers to self defense.

Now I throw it out to AW members. Is it ever ethical or morally justified to do that which one knows to be morally wrong?
What do morals and ethics mean? A society's shared standards of what is right or wrong.

I don't know if I want to blindly follow society's standards on this. At the end of the day I have to answer to my conscience. And I think as we live, and experience various circumstances, most of us get a pretty clear idea of what is just, fair, kind, compassionate and what is unjust. Its something innate and internal - no code or book can really teach you these things. You cannot say, "It is always wrong to lie." because sometimes it might be the most fair, compassionate, just thing to do.
 

Monk

Premium Member
My view of this was hypothetical relating to a time machine, which gives hindsight....however if i was able to go back in time i may try to kill Dragutin Dimitrijevic, it may not change anything but is worth a try!

Two bullets fired on a Sarajevo street on a sunny June morning in 1914 set in motion a series of events that shaped the world we live in today, W.W.1., W.W.2., the Cold War, and our difficulties in the Middle East all trace their origin to the gunshots that interrupted that "Summer Day", 28th June 1914.

The victims, Arch-duke Ferdinand and his wife were killed on their wedding anniversary, shot by 19 year old Gavrilo Princep, however he was a patsy, most conspirators were dying with T.B. thus didn't mind being martyrs, the brain and master behind Black Hand Society was Dimitrijevic/Colonel Apis, he was the real pied piper that unleashed the dance of death of ST. Vitus Day, highly symbolic.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/29660/Apis

ST. Vitus day history dates below:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vidovdan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dancing_mania
 

Monk

Premium Member
The reason being the casualties of both World Wars, no one won!

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/FWWcasualties.htm

http://warchronicle.com/numbers/WWII/deaths.htm

Dimitrijevic/Apis was always involved in black magic, he was involved in the assassination of the earlier Alexander I of Serbia

He signed his name by midnight day marker on day of assassination, Apis means Osiris, the star of Osiris is Alnilam, on Nadir, Uranus= revolution on M.C., Jupiter on Asc for expansion of intent, graph on link, also please scroll down to assassination on link below, 11th June 1903 in Belgrade.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandar_Obrenovi%C4%87

http://2012forum.com/forum/download/file.php?id=3707&mode=view
 
Last edited:

MaeMae

Banned
ask the Nazi's this question.
Moral/Ethical issues are dependent on one's belief system, which varies among cultures.
I think it's immoral to have sex with 12 year olds.
Some countries allow children to marry for just this reason. They believe that man should control woman's purity, on behalf of God. Their morals and ethics in tact.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
What do morals and ethics mean? A society's shared standards of what is right or wrong.

I don't know if I want to blindly follow society's standards on this. At the end of the day I have to answer to my conscience. And I think as we live, and experience various circumstances, most of us get a pretty clear idea of what is just, fair, kind, compassionate and what is unjust. Its something innate and internal - no code or book can really teach you these things. You cannot say, "It is always wrong to lie." because sometimes it might be the most fair, compassionate, just thing to do.
As you have reminded us Carris, "most of us get a pretty clear idea of what is just, fair, kind, compassionate and what is unjust" :smile:

A REAL LIFE SITUATION THAT HAPPENED JUST SIX WEEKS AGO

Neighbourhood Watchman observes black teen walking along holding some unidentified object

ALARM!!
(a) anyone black automatically acquires a black mark
(b) any teen is a general cause for alarm
(c ) the wearing of a hoody increases implied threat level - even though it is raining and normal common sense individuals would realise wearing a hoody under those circumstances is not necessarily threatening behaviour


Neighbourhood Watchman phones 911 and conveys his alarm to the authorities, nervously saying he is now following the 'suspect'. The authorities tell him “Don't follow him, there's no need for that, we're on our way”.

Neithbourhood Watchman ignores that advice and pursues the 'suspect' who is on the phone to his girlfriend telling her he is worried because he is being followed but he does not want to run. “Run!” advises his girlfriend. He runs... Neighbourhood Watchman acting as Judge, Jury and Executioner shoots and wounds him.

The 'suspect' screams in obvious agony for help. The Neighbourhood Watchman fires once more, this time killing him. The dead 'suspect' is discovered to have been carrying a highly suspicious bag of Skittles candy and a can of iced tea – the result of an innocent shopping trip that cost him his life.


The Neighbourhood Watchman claims he acted in self-defense because he was in fear for his life. But the entire event is recorded on several tapes as concerned citizens living in nearby houses urgently call 911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3J84CBVjf0





 

tsmall

Premium Member
Re: Is it ever ethical or morally justified to do that which one knows to be morally wrong

Your question is a red-herring because both morals and ethics are human designed and, therefore open to weigh on perspective.

Basically, you are asking a question about concepts which, are imperfect and flawed according to reason and created by societal education and influence.

Whatever has been done in history and your view of it really depends on what side of the coin you were on. Simply put, the winner or loser, the controller or the controlled, the dominant or the submissive.

Now, with that out of the way, what are you really asking? Are you asking how one can prevent from being hurt, or is it a debate on whether defensive or offensive measures are more important? Or, are you simply confounded by the extent with which humans are capable both of great acts of healing or hurting each other?

It is ethics and morals that create the divisions from which judgment ensues. This is the seed of hubris.

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?
 
Top