Ethically wrong in all cases

[Mskedi]

Let's see...

Murder (as in premeditated murder or crimes of passion, not killing for self-defense)
Rape
Molestation
Theft of unnecessary items -- e.g., downloading music illegally, stealing a DVD player... things that aren't a choice between starving and living.
Cheating
Genocide (an extension of murder, granted, but horrendous)
Gossip (by definition I believe gossip is malicious... just talking about someone else isn't necessarily gossip)
Intentionally harming someone else physically or emotionally out of malice, revenge, or jealousy

 

[EnemyPartyII]

That is what they argued during the Nuremburg trials, just before they were found guilty and lynched.

Um, no... the Nuremberg trials had nothiong to do with abortion. You have been misinformed

 

[MooCar93]

Case by Case, perhaps. Who is to say whose life is more important but God?

Except that by denying the woman in this case the right to make a choice regarding abortion, you're essentially playing God and condemning her (possibly along with her baby, as in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, where the baby has no chance of surviving anyway) to death.

 

[Lisa0315]

Except that by denying the woman in this case the right to make a choice regarding abortion, you're essentially playing God and condemning her (possibly along with her baby, as in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, where the baby has no chance of surviving anyway) to death.

Ectopic pregnancy is not a viable pregnancy. I do not consider that abortion, but an assisted miscarriage.

Lisa

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Ectopic pregnancy is not a viable pregnancy. I do not consider that abortion, but an assisted miscarriage.

Ectopic prgnancy is possibly the most common, but not the only example, of a situation where carrying a foetus to term risks the life of the mother...

(and thats another thing I've never understood, an extopic pregnancy involves a foetus which has precisely the same potential as a normal pregnancy... but everyone agrees that terminating an ectopic is OK... the only difference between an ectopic and a normal is geography. Makes me think the whole anti-abortion thing has a lot more to do with bedroom legislation than defending the rights of unborn children)

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Anything not motivated by, or in accordance with, Love. I can think of very few acts that are absolutely never acceptable, because that would mean finding an act that is absolutely never loving.

I suppose that non-consensual sex could be perhaps the only action broad enough* to be taken into consideration that I think is wrong in all circumstances. Though I might have to reconsider that if, as someone pointed out, there were a case in which the world would end otherwise. However, thankfully, that is not realistic.

*I wouldn't have thought personally that, for example, "murder motivated by ____" or similar statements are actually relevant because we are imposing conditions on the act, and hence not adressing the issue. However, I suppose even 'murder' includes connotations of specific circumstances and necessarily raises further questions, such as illegality, the definition of 'life' and whether we are only talking about the human species.

I think every moral judgement must involve looking at the circumstaces to an extent, so I don't think we can really talk about 'acts' that are wrong, because every act must be put into context, and is in part formed and defined by its context.

Situation ethics all the way.

peace

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Ectopic prgnancy is possibly the most common, but not the only example, of a situation where carrying a foetus to term risks the life of the mother...

(and thats another thing I've never understood, an extopic pregnancy involves a foetus which has precisely the same potential as a normal pregnancy... but everyone agrees that terminating an ectopic is OK... the only difference between an ectopic and a normal is geography. Makes me think the whole anti-abortion thing has a lot more to do with bedroom legislation than defending the rights of unborn children)

As far as I can recall, ectopic pregnancies are usually terminated by the removal of the Fallopian tube, which is not direct abortion of the foetus. The removal of the foetus is not the primary goal of the surgery, rather it is the removal of the oviduct. Hence the law of double effect (in Catholic theology at least) dictates that such surgery is acceptable even from a strictly anti-abortion stance.



peace

 

[BAFRIEND]

Ectopic prgnancy is possibly the most common, but not the only example, of a situation where carrying a foetus to term risks the life of the mother...

(and thats another thing I've never understood, an extopic pregnancy involves a foetus which has precisely the same potential as a normal pregnancy... but everyone agrees that terminating an ectopic is OK... the only difference between an ectopic and a normal is geography. Makes me think the whole anti-abortion thing has a lot more to do with bedroom legislation than defending the rights of unborn children)

Great point. Now don't forget to also point out that less than 5% of all abortions are done for medical reasons.

 

[allhart]

Great point. Now don't forget to also point out that less than 5% of all abortions are done for medical reasons.

If people have no moral ethics in human reproduction then they should be castrated. Left to ravage there sexual desires unto who ever wants them and leave the rest of us to take care for the innocent who are morally responsible.This is insane!The women that are in my life that has down this killing. Are on the brink of insanity and there quilt and depression is out of this world and it is ,so multi faceted in there lives after the fact. In that its destruction of the so called decision of an adult of a aborted baby that people still don't care.and people are ,so self center and independent thinking that there is no ramification to there abortion and to their conscience. and the rest of us have to listen to there crying and live with there insanity all for sex and wanting no responsibility and the rest of us carry the burden all the way around. FOR THE LOSE AND THE LOST.

 

[DailyBlessings]

Just for curiosity, what do you consider to be ethically wrongful in all cases (a.k.a. "always wrong to do")?

To stray from the will of God I suppose. I believe in only two categorical imperatives, and neither of them would warrant the same ethical decision for all situations.

 

[UberLutheran]

1. Ingratitude. Looking at everything we're given — this planet, the soil, the water we drink, the air we breathe, our houses, our food, our conveniences, our families, our friends — and not being grateful, of feeling like we deserve these things instead of them being gifts we are given.

2. Doing anything to anybody which we would not will be done to everybody, at all times and in all circumstances; or treating others in a way which would be anathema to us were we treated the same way.

 

[crazyfingers]

Just for curiosity, what do you consider to be ethically wrongful in all cases (a.k.a. "always wrong to do")?

It's always wrong to attempt to use government to impose a religious opinion onto others.

 

[Upisoft]

It's always wrong to attempt to use government to impose a religious opinion onto others.

The followers of the religion may disagree with you. They would believe the government do very good things.

 

[crazyfingers]

The followers of the religion may disagree with you. They would believe the government do very good things.

They best study the the ethic of reciprocity/Golden Rule then. Imposing one's religion onto another is always wrong as it's a denial of freedom of conscience. Religion is a personal thing and should never be imposed onto another.

 

[Upisoft]

They best study the the ethic of reciprocity/Golden Rule then. Imposing one's religion onto another is always wrong as it's a denial of freedom of conscience. Religion is a personal thing and should never be imposed onto another.

That's because you believe in the Golden Rule and you try to impose it onto others. Do you have an excuse?

 

[crazyfingers]

That's because you believe in the Golden Rule and you try to impose it onto others. Do you have an excuse?

I don't impose it on anyone. However I do morally condemn those who do not accept the equal rights of others (required by the Golden Rule) and I will not accept my equal rights to be abridged.

 

[Upisoft]

I don't impose it on anyone. However I do morally condemn those who do not accept the equal rights of others (required by the Golden Rule) and I will not accept my equal rights to be abridged.

You're free to use any rule (including Golden Rule) to justify your moral choice. That doesn't make you right.

If you have moral argument with others, it is totaly possible that they will think you are wrong and you will think they are wrong. So, who is going to say who is right? You or they?

 

[crazyfingers]

You're free to use any rule (including Golden Rule) to justify your moral choice. That doesn't make you right.

If you have moral argument with others, it is totaly possible that they will think you are wrong and you will think they are wrong. So, who is going to say who is right? You or they?

I am very much aware that no morality can be shown to be correct. That's because morals are based on values and it's not possible to show a value to be right or wrong. It's simply what is valued.

So, what do you base your morals on?

I base mine on freedom for myself and for others as well as empathy for others. that leads me to the Golden Rule.

 

[Upisoft]

I am very much aware that no morality can be shown to be correct. That's because morals are based on values and it's not possible to show a value to be right or wrong. It's simply what is valued.

So, what do you base your morals on?

I base mine on freedom for myself and for others as well as empathy for others. that leads me to the Golden Rule.

Well, if you ask, I share your views on morality. However, I would not say that something is wrong in all cases, just because I can't know all the cases.

 

[levi501]

Personal belief... when the intention behind your actions is to cause more harm than it prevents.

Objectively... nothing.