moral question

[birch]

http://www.krimineel.com/kinderen-steken-hondje-in-brand
http://www.youtube.com/verify_age?next_url=/watch?v=fK50IfNW_Rs
http://www.piaberrend.org/ukraine-m...rder-to-show-the-world-a-clean-country-at-eu/
http://www.navs.org.uk/campaigns/64/0/0/

i have to use examples to drive the point home or else people just manuever around the point.

does being able or having the power to do something give one the "right" to do it?

according to many who wax on about 'logic', cold/hard facts and universal laws, it is. is this real honesty though or isn't this just irresponsiblity simply because one doesn't have to?

but anyone with "real" sense and honesty knows this is wrong and not true. no one has to be honest with others or themselves. there is only so much the universe cares about but does that mean it's okay if we do the same? strict literalists would agree with this, especially those who consider themselves 'intellectuals'. they might as well be inanimate with no feelings. those who are dishonest evaluate living beings with the same detachment as with the inanimate or that power or might equals right because either the universe allows it or just because one can abuse power, so therefore it's not wrong just as one can lie (the universe doesn't stop you) doesn't mean it's right.

the belief or idea that "only" what you can get away with or what the universe allows means emphatically that makes it okay is, imo, the crux of dishonesty. the idea that one does not have to be responsible for what it's aware of just because one can get away with not doing so. the greatest test of truth is just as dependent or even more so on exactly what one does not have to be accountable for as for what it does.

these immoral bastards or those who favor moral relativism or rationalize morality to the point of nonexistence as superstition or illogical are themselves unconscious or hypocritical.

this is the same type of logic that anything that occurs is natural, so therefore okay because that is predatorial nature. taken further, that it's okay to abuse or enslave others because they have done it or nature allows it or just because one has the power to do so whether it be animals/pet, or groups of people.

i think true honesty and right is not doing just because one has the power to do so but doing what you know is best considering all factors, not dishonestly and/or hypocritically deeming anything irrevelant just because it can be overridden or ignored.

the question they never consider is that it actually might not all be okay or right, just because it is or just because the universe allows it or even engenders it.

 

[cosmictraveler]

does being able or having the power to do something give one the "right" to do it?

Depends upon what it is that they are going to do. If they want to get a drink of water out of a lake then that should be a right as long as its a public lake not a private lake which then you'd need approval from the owner in most cases.

I have the power to steal property but that doesn't give me a right to do so because laws tell me if I do I'll be sent to jail.

I have the power to throw a rock and break someones glass windshield but if I do I know I'll be arrested as well and sent to jail.

So you have the power to do many things and there's allot that you can do but conversely there's allot of bad you can also do. Knowing what the limits of your power are is something we all must keep in check.

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

well all that don't seem like that big a deal when you consider the U.N. thugs kill woman and children or who ever else gets in the way of there campaigns.
What is it Population control at its finest. Yeah I learned all about that while in Haiti doing our fact finding mission .

O.K. her is one for you . My new eye witness account take it or leave it believe it or not . Staying with a catholic priest in Port Au Prince :

Cat with can stuck on his head . I think as to kill the cat the can was wedged on the cats head . The cat was killing the beloved food of chicken dinners the Group was raising .

I tried to pull the can off , but it looked like there was open wounds under the can and it would not come off . Then a young Haitian lad came over and said : Is dead yet ? . I said : I tried to pull it off and it would not come off. He pulled on the can . Shook it and it did not come off . Then he pointed at his chickens and said . How are my chickens ? How are the baby chicks ?
At that point I walked away and said nothing .

 

[birch]

what dishonest replies. obviously this has to do with abuse of power. just because one 'can' set a dog on fire to be sadistic or just because they don't care doesn't mean it's right. this is the insanity as well as degeneracy and irresponsibility of a might is only right philosophy.

 

[Pandaemoni]

does being able or having the power to do something give one the "right" to do it?

Clearly in the abstract the answer is "no," though one can imagine semantic debated on what one means by "power" and "right." I have the power to cheat, steal and kill (in that I am capable of performing the acts), but few would say that I have a generalized "right" to do these things.

The more interesting question that I see raised on these forums is whether having the power to do a thing is a necessary condition to having the right. If I lack the power to speak (because I am being held incommunicado in a Chinese prison, say, and have no practical power to change that status), do I nonetheless have the right to free speech? Some people would I do, on the theory that God gave me the right and that the Chinese are merely violating my right. I tend to say that if I lack the power to do a thing and there is no reasonable avenue (like go to court to demand the government allow me to exercise my right) for me to obtain that power, then I lack the right itself.

Having power to commit an act is certainly not a sufficient condition to having the right to commit that act as I think the relevant terms are commonly understood.

 

[Ripley]

And from where does this power-source originate that has caught us in a moral dilemma?

 

[Jeeves]

Morality is necessarily relative and situational -
Sometimes there isn't a "right" choice, but only the lesser of two or more wrong choices. Sometimes we lack sufficient information to predict the consequences of each available choice. And sometimes the obvious (to the protagonist) right choice is disapproved by society, or even punished by law.

I think, if we are sane, reasonable and mentally free to take a step back from our socially circumscribed role, to see a larger picture, we each can form a clear enough concept of right and wrong. This concept is predicated on the viability of our family, our tribe, our species and our planet: that which preserves life, well-being and happiness is good; that which destroys is bad. If we were honest, all our individual concepts would almost perfectly overlap, with very few people's notion of right falling far outside the norm.

Unfortunately, we are not all free to be sane and reasonable, because it's precisely those few whose idea of morality falls outside the norm - let's call them psychopaths - who tend to become leaders, who tend to gain power over others, who then dictate the moral code of societies. They're the ones who most crave power and have no compunction about gaining it by any means.

The majority of sane people are weak, cowardly, dishonest, hypocritical - willing to go along with wrong and pretend it's right, as long as we gain something, or it's easier, or it keeps us on the safe side of the psychopaths in power. And, too, there is a greater or lesser predisposition to psychopathy in every one of us; a healthy society is aware of that and takes precautions to curb it, while in a society that's going down the wrong path, the leadership encourages psychopathy to flourish in an ever increasing portion of the citizenry - and the ever fewer alarmists are ignored.
That's what makes humanity a doomed proposition: good men usually do nothing.*


(The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - attr. Edmund Burke)