Reply to: Is doing the wrong thing for the right reason ever morally justified?

[speling bee]

Maybe it's just as well we live in a more sceptic age or HMRC would be telling us it's a mortal sin not to get our tax returns in on time.

Is Tax Evasion a Mortal Sin?

[xoggoth]

Perhaps the question is, what is morally wrong about breaking the law?

Maybe it's just as well we live in a more sceptic age or HMRC would be telling us it's a mortal sin not to get our tax returns in on time.

[speling bee]

What is morally wrong about growing and selling cannabis?

Perhaps the question is, what is morally wrong about breaking the law?

[Robinho]

What is morally wrong about growing and selling cannabis?

[escapeUK]

Is doing the wrong thing for me, but the right thing morally ever personally justified?

I think not.

[doodab]

Only if you consider morality to be a fixed rather than a relative concept.

I expect the rules to be fixed however as the rules take into account particular circumstances and an individual's frame of reference the end result is more like what most people consider "relative morality" than the blanket prohibition on certain behaviors that most people consider "fixed morality".

Note that this doesn't automatically imply that things could occur which some observers might consider wrong and others right, maintenance of consistency would be an important property of the rules, in much the same way that causation is an important property of general relativity.

I also expect that much like einstein's formulation of gravitation the rules won't make a lot of sense to most people and they will have to make do with rules of thumb like "though shalt not kill"

[doodab]

It's wrong to murder people. If you do, you go to jail.
In a war, it's right to murder people, if you dont, you go to jail

If you steal food, it's wrong and you go to jail
if your kids are starving and you dont steal food, you are wrong and deserve to go to hell


it's not easy. and playing with words dont make it any easier

In some situations it's morally justified to kill or steal and therefore it's the right thing to do. It seems difficult because you have two contradictory statements and they can't both be true. That's usually a good sign that one of them isn't.

[EternalOptimist]

Yes.

PS - Not interested in any navel gazing/hang-wringing debate. Thought that would save y'all some time

dead right. all the talk usually comes after the event, rationalisation. rather than a pre-thought out belief system

[JaybeeInCUK]

and I put it to you that you lift up off your seat a little.

because you are talking through your @rse and I can't hear you clearly

Go.

Away.

[Zippy]

Yes.

PS - Not interested in any navel gazing/hang-wringing debate. Thought that would save y'all some time

[EternalOptimist]

Morals. Who cares about morals?

We are aware (why, we do not know) of certain human needs, like happiness, and it makes sense to cooperate with others to provide that to the maximum number of people by whichever means work. That's it.

When I realised what a philosophical morass it was, at a young age. I decided to follow the utilitarian belief in the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people.

if I was wrong. I'm sure God will be the first to let me know , when I snuff it

[xoggoth]

Morals. Who cares about morals?

We are aware (why, we do not know) of certain human needs, like happiness, and it makes sense to cooperate with others to provide that to the maximum number of people by whichever means work. That's it.

[EternalOptimist]

I put it to you that such rigidity likely stifles academic achievement, a pre-requisite for the first two, and also stifles enterprising spirit, a very large factor in the latter, thus a far smaller percentage of children so hindered, compared to the whole population, attain those professions.

I also put it to you that those parents who don't bother updating kids morals as soon as they are able to understand the finer aspect you quoted above (anywhere between ages 5 and 12) ought to be fined.

and I put it to you that you lift up off your seat a little.

because you are talking through your @rse and I can't hear you clearly

[JaybeeInCUK]

Only if you consider morality to be a fixed rather than a relative concept.

It's the old shades of grey, context and intent, and relative perspectives thing. E.g., all young children are pretty innocent, by and large. Ironically, this can make them relatively heartless compared to most adults when it comes to ethics.

There's a psychology experiment whereby children are asked what they'd do if someone they loved needed a particular medicine to save their life, but they had no money and the Chemist that stocked said medicine was unwilling to lend them some until they could afford to pay (by which time it would be too late to make a difference).

If you ask adults whether it would be morally justified to steal some of the medicine from the unsympathetic Chemist in that scenario, most would say "yes of course". Very young children, though, have a more fixed black and white moral code, and have been told from an early stage that it's "always wrong" to steal. So, most of them will say it must be wrong in that circumstance too, despite the drastic consequences of following a particular moral code too rigidly*.

* And to think that some of those very same children grow up to become lawyers, politicians and contractors.

I put it to you that such rigidity likely stifles academic achievement, a pre-requisite for the first two, and also stifles enterprising spirit, a very large factor in the latter, thus a far smaller percentage of children so hindered, compared to the whole population, attain those professions.

I also put it to you that those parents who don't bother updating kids morals as soon as they are able to understand the finer aspect you quoted above (anywhere between ages 5 and 12) ought to be fined.

[EternalOptimist]

Wrong. Murder is wrong, in or out of war. That's not "playing with words", that's fact.

Killing in war is also Murder, unless you are both:

1) A conscript
2) in a kill-now-or-be-killed-in-two-seconds situation.

bolks.

killing the enemy is mostly murder. firing shells from 20 miles away is pure murder.
dropping bombs
sniping
laying mines
launching an overwhelming attack
etc

but in a war situation, it's the right thing to do