Situational Morality

feral · Jan 22, 2004

Are certain immoral actions moral under the right conditions? Is theft of food acceptable when you are starving, murder acceptable in the situation of war? What makes something moral and some other action or thought immoral, in your view?

kdet · Jan 22, 2004

feral said:
Are certain immoral actions moral under the right conditions? Is theft of food acceptable when you are starving, murder acceptable in the situation of war? What makes something moral and some other action or thought immoral, in your view?

Wow, you have some good questions, today IMO an act such as stealing is immoral regardless of the reason behind it but whether it is moral or not may not keep me from stealing food to feed my children. I wouldn't try to excuse it and would do my best to make restitution as soon as posssible but the stealing itself would still be immoral.
War is much tougher...if you are on the front lines it is more a situation of kill or be killed. In that case it is clearly self defense. But to drop a bomb that will kill 1000's of people..that is just wrong.

MoonlessNight · Jan 22, 2004

feral said:
Are certain immoral actions moral under the right conditions? Is theft of food acceptable when you are starving, murder acceptable in the situation of war? What makes something moral and some other action or thought immoral, in your view?

Your description is talking about situational morality (in what situations would things be moral), but the poll is about where morality is derived from. One could easily believe that morality comes from God and therefore the Bible, and still believe that murder is wrong in all situations except that of war. Both the issue of the source of morality and situational morality are good to discuss, but they aren't the same issue.

Lifesaver · Jan 22, 2004

Morality is absolute. It can be said that God created it by having created the universe such as it is (if the universe was different, maybe different moral laws would apply). He tells us what is right or wrong in the Bible, though many can be arrived at with reason.

When you have a situation where there isn't any good way out, one should take the less bad. There are priorities.

Mylinkay Asdara · Jan 22, 2004

I subscribe to situational morality and ethics.
Partly my unwritten religous values
Partly the life of Jesus, but not the Bible
partly what I've been taught by my elders in my family and otherwise
Partly what I've experianced

In the end, intentions, the situation, the result and the motivating factors all decide if it was moral or eithical to do something.

feral · Jan 22, 2004

Moonless night...

The reason for the poll is to find out where posters are getting their standard of morality from...and the board is for seeing what they say about situational morality. I'd kind of like to see if it's just atheist who believe someone can be right sometimes and wrong others, or if Christians and other religious people can feel that way too. Just getting a feel for the posters...

Arnold_Philips · Jan 22, 2004

I think morality isn't some free-floating creature. God didn't say "Let there be morality." I think morality is a tool that is used for some greater end, namely that of personal human flourishing. This isn't to say morality is unimportant, but I think it's place is to serve humans, not the other way around.

MoonlessNight · Jan 22, 2004

feral said:
Moonless night...

The reason for the poll is to find out where posters are getting their standard of morality from...and the board is for seeing what they say about situational morality. I'd kind of like to see if it's just atheist who believe someone can be right sometimes and wrong others, or if Christians and other religious people can feel that way too. Just getting a feel for the posters...

I see, and now I understand.

Lillithspeak · Jan 25, 2004

Morality, or "Morals" evolve as human beings progress toward ever more englightenment. What was once moral is no longer: beating your wife or child, slavery,stoning adulterers, burning witches, slaughtering unbelievers, and now it's all illegal too.

As we continue to understand what truly is moral, we get closer to being evolved humans. Humans who won't tolerate the abuse of others, including other living creatures and this perfect, beautiful earth. So, what is moral is evolving all the time. We live in a country that says everyone will have equal civil rights, we haven't quite gotten there yet, but we are moving towards it. We are evolving; although some do so kicking and screaming all the way.

Bulldog · Jan 25, 2004

I voted the first one. If God created the earth, and he says something is moral or immoral, than thats just what it is.

Philosoft · Jan 25, 2004

Lifesaver said:
Morality is absolute. It can be said that God created it by having created the universe such as it is (if the universe was different, maybe different moral laws would apply). He tells us what is right or wrong in the Bible, though many can be arrived at with reason.

Why didn't God make all morals derivable from reason? And why did he make some that seem applicable only to peoples who lack certain technologies?

When you have a situation where there isn't any good way out, one should take the less bad. There are priorities.

Sounds like utilitarianism. A Mill fan, are you?

Mephster · Jan 27, 2004

Natural reasoning. Starting with principles of reason, moving through logical progression of scientific methodology, to conclusions often verified via experience and often confirmed by religious text.

Natural Law Ethics and Basic Human Goods

(cp. T. Chappell, G. Grisez, John Finnis et al.)

SolomonVII · Jan 29, 2004

My opinion is that morality is something that comes from within. The goodness or badness of any act is determined most by whether or not it feels right or it feels wrong. Even if we try to objectively analyse a situation based on some outside criteria and come up with a decision contrary to what our heart is telling us, through either guilt or remorselessness, it is our heart that ultimately decides for us.

I am of the impression that, like the development of language or emotional behavior, there exists a developmental window sometime during childhood in which our sense of good and bad gets imprinted. For example, at around two or three, learning a language comes very naturally to a child. To try to teach that child, or an adult, how to speak a language either before or after that developmental window is much more difficult. Moral learning likely is follows a similar trajectory.

Magisterium · Jan 29, 2004

"situational" morality....

Well, it seems necessary that any morality will need to be subject to the situation when you neglect culpability. Culpability (as in our current legal system) is the means of determining a person's (or persons') level of responsibility in the commission of a morally reprehensible act.

The integrity of moral doctrine is preserved when morality is implemented with all of it's facilities (namely culpability).

Though an act may be morally reprehensible, the person acting may or may not be responsible for the act. (for instance in cases of legitimate need(stealing), self defense(assault or killing), or even in an accidental situation. All of these cases effect personal culpability though the act remains immoral.

Additionally, the idea that morality stems from reason alone falls critically short in that reason is limited by knowledge. Just as it was only reasonable that tons of steel could fly after the knowledge of aerodynamicswas obtained, so too a complete and true morality cannot be realized by sheer force of reason until one's knowledge is also complete. (which we know is not the case)

PS. I didn't vote because there was no choice for receiving one's morality from their church or ecclesial body.

Salvatore Gonzales · Jan 30, 2004

feral said:
Are certain immoral actions moral under the right conditions? Is theft of food acceptable when you are starving, murder acceptable in the situation of war? What makes something moral and some other action or thought immoral, in your view?

Regarding the poll ?s: The Torah is a part of the "larger"
Christian Bible. The Torah is the first five books. Jews
have also used the Talmud as a basis for moral law.
The Talmud is NOT a holy book despite the websites
that say it is. The Talmud is actually a library of
Torah commentaries and legal opinions that spans
generations.

Theft of food is not acceptable. However, the Bible
states that food is to be left *freely* for the poor, widows,
and orphans. In a society that follows this, there
is absolutely no reason for theft of food.

Murder, killing in war, and self-defence are all
seen differently in the Bible. Jewish, Christian and
Muslim scholars have discussed this for a long long
time. Even these diverse groups agree that murdering
for personal gain or solely out anger is wrong.

The commandment in the original Hebrew says
not to "murder", but was often translated as "kill"
and some people have interpreted this to mean no
killing of humans, animals, etc under any circumstances.
I respect this viewpoint.

praying · Jan 30, 2004

feral said:
Are certain immoral actions moral under the right conditions? Is theft of food acceptable when you are starving, murder acceptable in the situation of war? What makes something moral and some other action or thought immoral, in your view?

I am not sure that I believe in situtational morality, that seems to me as an easy way to rationalize what you are doing.

I think that everyone develops their moral system from a variety of sources, This is the honest answer. We are products of our environments. We get our beliefs from, listed in what I believe is positive developmental experiences as we go through life

a. Parents/Care Givers
b Teachers/School
c Church/Bilbe (of course this is optional fro non-believers, which does
not mean they are any less moral )
d Peers
e Work exposure
f. Collective experiences over time

Lillithspeak said:
Morality, or "Morals" evolve as human beings progress toward ever more englightenment. What was once moral is no longer: beating your wife or child, slavery,stoning adulterers, burning witches, slaughtering unbelievers, and now it's all illegal too.

To be enlightened does not mean that atrocities commited in the past were not atrocities. Wrong is wrong. If it is wrong to beat your wife today, hold slaves today, par take in child labor today, it was wrong when these things were rampant.

placebo · Jan 30, 2004

mhatten said:
... To be enlightened does not mean that atrocities commited in the past were not atrocities. Wrong is wrong. If it is wrong to beat your wife today, hold slaves today, par take in child labor today, it was wrong when these things were rampant.

Question 1: Was it wrong for God to murder millions of men, women and children as detailed in the Old Testament?

Question 2: Imagine it is fifty years in the future, free speech is restricted, and it is "wrong" to criticize our government. Does that mean that it was wrong for us today to be critical of our government?

praying · Jan 30, 2004

placebo said:
Question 1: Was it wrong for God to murder millions of men, women and children as detailed in the Old Testament?

Let me start by saying I am not a Bible literalist, and yes I believe there are actions depicted in the Bible that are immoral. Did God do those things is the question.

Question 2: Imagine it is fifty years in the future, free speech is restricted, and it is "wrong" to criticize our government. Does that mean that it was wrong for us today to be critical of our government?

Let me correct my terminology immoral was the word I should have used.

The situations you describe are wrong in my view but not immoral.

SolomonVII · Jan 30, 2004

placebo said:
Question 1: Was it wrong for God to murder millions of men, women and children as detailed in the Old Testament?

From the point of view of an athiest, since God does not exist, how can a non-existent God be held morally accountable for the death of millions?
From a theistic point of view, since God is the ultimate ground for all existence, for living and for dying.Keeping in mind that death comes to us all, the question would become is death itself wrong? God- and if not God who?- gives us life and He takes it away. Ultimately our lives do not belong to us. But if there is a benevolent God who owns us, we have reason to hope.
In a way, the question really does not make sense. Do we hold the sky morally accountable for the havoc wreaked by a tornado, or the ocean morally accountable for floods. Like nature, God is not really a part of the ethical system of man. He is exists as the source of meaning for our existence, and the grounds for our hope that our lives have a purpose. Even while we proclaim God's immanence in our lives, He remains at the same time transcendant to the ordinariness of our lives.
But to rephrase the question, should the Israelis of the Old Testament be held accountable for their own behavior? The answer to this is "Yes, absolutely!". They are to be held ethically responsible for both their own moral behavior and for their own survival. In the world of nature, where the hunter becomes the hunted, and the devourer becomes the devoured, it is not always apparent which is the best path. We can only trust that God knows, and pray from the depths of our heart that He may show us. This is clearly the message of the Old Testament books. God, in his mercy and his justice, has made it clear to us that it is within our nature to be moral agents, and we will be held accountable for both our triumphs and our transgressions.

placebo said:
Question 2: Imagine it is fifty years in the future, free speech is restricted, and it is "wrong" to criticize our government. Does that mean that it was wrong for us today to be critical of our government?

From the time of Moses opposing the opressive rule of the Pharoah, the message of the Bible has clearly been that authority over our lives belongs to God alone. We were not created to be slaves to each other, but as brothers and sisters who are children of the Most High.
There is no simple answer to the question of how our respect for the rulers of the day is to be balanced with the inherent freedom that God has given us. If history has taught us anything, it shows that how to reach this balance is a continual process of trial and error. An action doesn't become "wrong" because men have passed laws. It is wrong because it is opposed to the absolute justice of God. And the nature of our reality is as uncertain for the believer as it is for the unbeliever. The difference is that the believer has made the decision to trust that such an absolute justice exists for us. God Himself is the grounds for that trust and that hope.

praying · Jan 30, 2004

solomon said:
From the point of view of an athiest, since God does not exist, how can a non-existent God be held morally accountable for the death of millions?
From a theistic point of view, since God is the ultimate ground for all existence, for living and for dying.Keeping in mind that death comes to us all, the question would become is death itself wrong? God- and if not God who?- gives us life and He takes it away. Ultimately our lives do not belong to us. But if there is a benevolent God who owns us, we have reason to hope.
In a way, the question really does not make sense. Do we hold the sky morally accountable for the havoc wreaked by a tornado, or the ocean morally accountable for floods. Like nature, God is not really a part of the ethical system of man. He is exists as the source of meaning for our existence, and the grounds for our hope that our lives have a purpose. Even while we proclaim God's immanence in our lives, He remains at the same time transcendant to the ordinariness of our lives.
But to rephrase the question, should the Israelis of the Old Testament be held accountable for their own behavior? The answer to this is "Yes, absolutely!". They are to be held ethically responsible for both their own moral behavior and for their own survival. In the world of nature, where the hunter becomes the hunted, and the devourer becomes the devoured, it is not always apparent which is the best path. We can only trust that God knows, and pray from the depths of our heart that He may show us. This is clearly the message of the Old Testament books. God, in his mercy and his justice, has made it clear to us that it is within our nature to be moral agents, and we will be held accountable for both our triumphs and our transgressions.

From the time of Moses opposing the opressive rule of the Pharoah, the message of the Bible has clearly been that authority over our lives belongs to God alone. We were not created to be slaves to each other, but as brothers and sisters who are children of the Most High.
There is no simple answer to the question of how our respect for the rulers of the day is to be balanced with the inherent freedom that God has given us. If history has taught us anything, it shows that how to reach this balance is a continual process of trial and error. An action doesn't become "wrong" because men have passed laws. It is wrong because it is opposed to the absolute justice of God. And the nature of our reality is as uncertain for the believer as it is for the unbeliever. The difference is that the believer has made the decision to trust that such an absolute justice exists for us. God Himself is the grounds for that trust and that hope.

As they used to say on the old Game show Family Feud "Good Answer", "Good Answer"

I have tried very hard at times to imagine my life without my faith, without God but can't I can't imagine what it would be like to live without Him . It scares me.

Situational Morality

Got a moral standard? What is it?

The Holy Bible. If God says it's wrong then it's wrong.

Some other holy text defines my morals - the Qur'an, Torah, etc

My religions values, not written in text - The law of three, etc

The life and teachings of Christ, but not the whole Bible

The life and teachings of another - Buddha, my grandparents, etc

American or western type law - if you break the law you're immoral

Non-western law - Sharia, modified Islamic law, etc

My life experiences - what I've seen strictly define what's moral

Subjective standard - What's moral depends on the situation

Several of these combined/Some other moral standard (explain)/I don't know/I don't believe in "moral

Dostoyevsky was right

God lives in us

Fides et Ratio

Fides et Ratio

Voice of Li'Adan

Dostoyevsky was right

what

Fides et Ratio

The Umbrella

Don't Tread on Me

Orthogonal, Tangential, Tenuously Related

arete

Well-Known Member

Praying and Thinking

SOGrecondo

Snazzy Title Goes Here

Active Member

Snazzy Title Goes Here

Well-Known Member

Snazzy Title Goes Here

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency