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

[wilsontc]

eedwards,

You said:

Originally Posted by eedwards

Morality and ethics classes are taught in schools. I have never heard of immorality or unethics classes being taught in schools...hmmm. If morality is inherently innate would these classes be necessary?

Exactly. There is the potential in every child for immoral behavior...whether or not they act on it determines whether they BEHAVE morally or immorally. Ideally in our society the longer children are taught and modeled moral behavior the more moral they become. That raises the question of what TYPE of morality they learn and how they apply it. As has been pointed out, moralities differ between cultures. For example, the morality of Shariah law is very different from the morality of Christian law which is different from the morality of the Torah in Jewish law. So when you talk about a person being "moral" there is the question of WHAT type of morality are you talking about?

Asking more questions,

Tim

[JUPITERASC]

Originally Posted by eedwards

Morality and ethics classes are taught in schools.

Morality and ethics classes are linked with the study of world religion in schools.

Originally Posted by eedwards

I have never heard of immorality or unethics classes being taught in schools...hmmm.

Hilarious. Which school would admit to teaching immoral and/or unethical behavior? Even if that were the case - e.g. military academy training school

Originally Posted by eedwards

If morality is inherently innate would these classes be necessary?

IMO we're agreed that although SOME children are born with innate morals NOT ALL children are born with innate morals - furthermore no human child is perfect - hence classes for all

Originally Posted by eedwards

Do you remember those little hardcover Golden books that we all loved as kids? They were entertaining but also, (in many cases), taught us about ethics and morals.

Ethics and morals at Adult level bring in Legal ethics, medical ethics, consumer ethics, religious ethics et al

[JUPITERASC]

Originally Posted by wilsontc

So when you talk about a person being "moral" there is the question of WHAT type of morality are you talking about?
Asking more questions,

IMO universal common-sense innate morality. i.e. My contention is that morality and/or ethics are innate AND even if we are imperfect human beings and frequently avoid acting on innate moral and/or ethical promptings - that DOES NOT INVALIDATE the existence of innate morality and/or ethics

[tsmall]

Originally Posted by JUPITERASC

IMO universal common-sense innate morality. i.e. My contention is that morality and/or ethics are innate AND even if we are imperfect human beings and frequently avoid acting on innate moral and/or ethical promptings - that DOES NOT INVALIDATE the existence of innate morality and/or ethics

Wait, there is such a thing as universal common sense? I've actually found that "common sense" isn't really that common.

[JUPITERASC]

Originally Posted by tsmall

Wait, there is such a thing as universal common sense? I've actually found that "common sense" isn't really that common.

Not everyone takes note of "common sense" promptings and those who do obviously do not necessarily act on those "common sense" promptings.

i.e. Common sense may indicate to avoid driving after drinking alcohol - however alcohol related road deaths are frequent simply because many of us ignore those "common sense" promptings!

Alcohol-related traffic crashes are a leading cause of unintentional injury deaths and a substantial contributor to health-care costs in the United States

(1). Approximately 40% of persons are involved in alcohol-related crash during their lifetime
(2). 1992, alcohol was involved in estimated 17,700 traffic fatalities and 355,000 traffic injuries
(2,3). 1990, alcohol-related crashes cost $46.1 billion, including $5.1 billion medical expenses
(4,5). This report summarizes alcohol-related traffic fatalities (ARTFs) data from National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS) 1982-1992 http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00022270.htm

[tsmall]

Originally Posted by JUPITERASC

Not everyone takes note of "common sense" promptings and those who do obviously do not necessarily act on those "common sense" promptings.

i.e. Common sense may indicate to avoid driving after drinking alcohol - however alcohol related road deaths are frequent simply because many of us ignore those "common sense" promptings!

Yes, but if someone is impaired by consuming alcohol, then mental acuity, or "common sense" would also be impaired, wouldn't it?

I was thinking more along the lines of the theory of holes. If you find yourself in one, the first thing to do is stop digging. Yet how many people keep digging? Or another example that I personally witnessed...someone who has achived the level of Eagle Scout, yet decides it would be a good idea to open a woodstove and throw a cupful of gasoline onto a fire?

[JUPITERASC]

Originally Posted by tsmall

Yes, but if someone is impaired by consuming alcohol, then mental acuity, or "common sense" would also be impaired, wouldn't it?

but if someone made the decision to avoid consuming alcohol BEFORE driving (based on common sense) then they would be making that decision BEFORE their common sense became impaired by alcohol

[eedwards]

Originally Posted by JUPITERASC

Morality and ethics classes are linked with the study of world religion in schools.

Sometimes they are and sometimes they aren't. Do you know why they are linked with world religions in many cases? Because religion in one of the, (probably the most powerful), tools that society uses to teach about ethics and morals. If morals were innate these classes would not be necessary.

Originally Posted by JUPITERASC

Hilarious. Which school would admit to teaching immoral and/or unethical behavior? Even if that were the case - e.g. military academy training school

So, you also think the military and it's trainings are unethical or immoral? I, for one, am very thankful for our military.. I can't imagine where we would be without it. Perhaps we should have just "turned the other cheek" throughout history and things would have turned out "okay"?

Originally Posted by JUPITERASC

IMO we're agreed that although SOME children are born with innate morals NOT ALL children are born with innate morals - furthermore no human child is perfect - hence classes for all

I have never agreed upon those terms. I believe that morals are something learned, something taught and\or instilled upon someone throughout their life. IMHO, no one is born with "innate morals". I do believe that survival is innate and we will use use whatever means necessary to accomplish that end...be it moral or immoral.

Originally Posted by JUPITERASC

Ethics and morals at Adult level bring in Legal ethics, medical ethics, consumer ethics, religious ethics et al

Yes, but their roots are in the very basic things that were taught to us...instilled in us...as children...from "Golden Books"...religion...our parents...etc..

[JUPITERASC]

Originally Posted by eedwards

So, you also think the military and it's trainings are unethical or immoral?

Soldiers are trained killers and IMO killing is wrong so obviously IMO military training is unethical or immoral - BUT of course, that is only my opinion and others are entitled to disagree

Originally Posted by eedwards

I, for one, am very thankful for our military.. I can't imagine where we would be without it. Perhaps we should have just "turned the other cheek" throughout history and things would have turned out "okay"?

since "the other cheek was not turned" any answer is speculative

[Neptune Rising]

Originally Posted by eedwards

So, you also think the military and it's trainings are unethical or immoral? I, for one, am very thankful for our military.. I can't imagine where we would be without it. Perhaps we should have just "turned the other cheek" throughout history and things would have turned out "okay"?

I'm too young to remember WW2, but I'm glad our people in the UK didn't turn the other cheek when Mr Hitler decided to follow his dream! Glad Winston Churchhill wasn't a 'sit on the fence' type of chap.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEDWDAMRBeU

[Caro]

Maybe the words and term 'common sense' relate in the past to a 'sixth sense,' which many of us have lost touch with.

- a sense and connection with a higher order or good. However we are mostly living and responding in a pit of fear.

[wilsontc]

Jupiter,

You said:

Originally Posted by JUPITERASC

I disagree with the thinly veiled INFERENCE of your comment that "children are not born moral...Either one is aware there is more than one reason or one is unaware there is more than one reason...Precisely... aka "SOME children ARE moral"...And my contention is that morality is UNDER rated...nothing has been 'corrected' ... merely rephrased...you acknowledge your comment is accurately summed up (as already previously summed up) "The ends justify the means?"

There was no "inference" at all. You gave a universal statement of something like "all people are born and act in a moral way." The thing about a universal statement is if someone can find ONE situation in which it isn't true, the ENTIRE statement isn't true. I mentioned the immorality of children, in which children behave immorally. So NOT "all" people are born and act in a moral way.

Since children can and do behave immorally they have the potential to be immoral. This does not mean that all children ACT immorally, only that they have that potential in them. Yes, SOME children ACT morally. I agree with that. They have learned that moral behavior from their social structure (such as the "Little Golden Books" mentioned previously.

You think that morality is UNDER-rated...that's fine...but that's not what I said. Rephrasing a statement as a question IS correcting something. And what I acknowledge is that ONE way of summing up my original question of "is morality over-rated?" is "DOES the end justify the means?" Another way is "What are people's real morals?" and there are others.

Following up,

Tim

[wilsontc]

Jupiter,

You said:

Originally Posted by JUPITERASC

Soldiers are trained killers and IMO killing is wrong so obviously IMO military training is unethical or immoral

Once again you are conflating opinion with fact. Your OPINION about killing being wrong does NOT make it a FACT that killing IS "unethical or immoral".

Deconflating,

Tim

[wilsontc]

Jupiter,

You said:

Originally Posted by JUPITERASC

...since "the other cheek was not turned" any answer is speculative

True...but it is a pretty easy speculation to make. Take the example of Hitler. Hitler conquered every area around him and kept conquering. Wherever he conquered he oppressed and killed the people he didn't like. If nothing was done, if no one tried to stop him, there is every indication he would have kept on killing. If a person is to speculate to the contrary, they have to come up with a reason for Hitler to stop his military expansion.

Same way with other military expansions. If no one does anything when a dictator starts to expand their territory militarily, why should the dictator stop expanding? Inaction is not a solution to military expansion, inaction is an enabler of military expansion. True, some military expansions can be stopped by words...but to some words are weak if not backed up by the sword.

Speculatively,

Tim

[JUPITERASC]

Originally Posted by wilsontc

There was no "inference" at all. You gave a universal statement of something like "all people are born and act in a moral way." The thing about a universal statement is if someone can find ONE situation in which it isn't true, the ENTIRE statement isn't true. I mentioned the immorality of children, in which children behave immorally. So NOT "all" people are born and act in a moral way.

Since children can and do behave immorally they have the potential to be immoral. This does not mean that all children ACT immorally, only that they have that potential in them. Yes, SOME children ACT morally. I agree with that. They have learned that moral behavior from their social structure (such as the "Little Golden Books" mentioned previously.

You think that morality is UNDER-rated...that's fine...but that's not what I said. Rephrasing a statement as a question IS correcting something. And what I acknowledge is that ONE way of summing up my original question of "is morality over-rated?" is "DOES the end justify the means?" Another way is "What are people's real morals?" and there are others.Following up,
Tim

You said

Originally Posted by wilsontc

....If children by their nature are not born moral, then morality is NOT innate.

That's the universal statement you made and which I contend with when I specifically say

Originally Posted by JUPITERASC

The comment

Is not a statement of fact but A NOTION aka OPINION... one may INFER from that notion that If on the contrary children by their nature ARE born moral then morality IS innate. i.e. THEREFORE
I disagree with the thinly veiled INFERENCE of your comment that "children are not born moral"....Contrary to your opinion, my contention is that the original statement is not a statement of fact and that furthermore, more than one inference may be drawn from the original statement aka opinion "IF children by their nature are not born moral" ... aka "SOME children ARE moral" exactly as I said

I simply contended the suggestion you made that ALL children are not born moral

[JUPITERASC]

Originally Posted by wilsontc

Once again you are conflating opinion with fact. Your OPINION about killing being wrong does NOT make it a FACT that killing IS "unethical or immoral".Deconflating, Tim

Obviously then clearly, your OPINION about killing being justified does NOT make it a FACT that killing IS "ethical or moral"

[JUPITERASC]

Originally Posted by Caro

Maybe the words and term 'common sense' relate in the past to a 'sixth sense,' which many of us have lost touch with.

- a sense and connection with a higher order or good. However we are mostly living and responding in a pit of fear .

Agreed Caro that the words and term 'common sense' relate to a 'sixth sense' which many of us may have lost touch with

[wilsontc]

Jupiter,

You said:

Originally Posted by JUPITERASC

Obviously then clearly, your OPINION about killing being justified does NOT make it a FACT that killing IS "ethical or moral"

We agree! Yes, my OPINION that killing is sometimes justified does NOT make it a FACT killing is "ethical or moral". Saying "killing is ethical or moral" suggests killings is ALWAYS ethical or moral. I would say instead killing is SOMETIMES ethical or moral (depending on the ethics and morals used).

Logically,

Tim

[wilsontc]

Jupiter,

You said:

Originally Posted by JUPITERASC

[If children by their nature are not born moral, then morality is NOT innate.]That's the universal statement you made and which I contend with...

A postulate is NOT a "universal statement". Saying IF something is true is NOT the same thing as saying that it IS true. Once again you are conflating a supposition with a fact. However, IF the postulate's conditions are met, then the conclusion IS true.

Following up, this statement is the same as "IF SOME children by their nature are not born moral, then morality is not innate." And I said that children can behave immorally (for example, when a child starts arguing with someone and then finds a gun and shoots the other person to stop the argument). So the CONCLUSION is that there are SOME situations where children behave immorally...so therefore morality is NOT universally "innate" (i.e., inborn) since SOME children behave immorally:
http://mybrownbaby.com/2012/03/boy-s...n-perspective/

So since I can find one situation where a child (young person) behaves immorally then people can not by their nature be moral in all cases.

Logically,

Tim

[JUPITERASC]

Originally Posted by wilsontc

We agree! Yes, my OPINION that killing is sometimes justified does NOT make it a FACT killing is "ethical or moral". Saying "killing is ethical or moral" suggests killings is ALWAYS ethical or moral.

the fact is I said that several posts ago

Originally Posted by JUPITERASC

Precisely... "SOME children ARE moral" exactly as I said

I equally simply contended that you incorrectly suggested that ALL children are not born moral

....And I contended that morality is UNDER rated

Originally Posted by wilsontc

Saying IF something is true is NOT the same thing as saying that it IS true

Obviously, that's my contention made several posts ago

Originally Posted by wilsontc

So since I can find one situation where a child (young person) behaves immorally then people can not by their nature be moral in all cases. Logically, Tim

I already drew attention to that

Originally Posted by wilsontc

I would say instead killing is SOMETIMES ethical or moral (depending on the ethics and morals used).Logically,Tim

An OPINION frequently stated by many on this thread

"The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unaware, enslave themselves" - Dresden James