What makes anything ethical, moral or just?

[Mr. Hamtastic]

As in what quality makes anything ethical, moral, or just?

A man has raped a woman. This is unethical, immoral, and unjust. This man is put in jail. Is this ethical, moral, and just? Why? Does this mean that a man who has been imprisoned for an equal amount of time is allowed one rape?

There is an underlying question here, as well. I think it can be said that rape is a horrible crime. What makes it unethical, immoral, and unjust? Or is it that in our society it is these things, while it may not be in another.

Are these qualities always indisputable? A man murders another man. The second man was going to launch a terrorist attack. There is no evidence. Now what?

 

[chimpkin]

A man has raped a woman. This is unethical, immoral, and unjust. This man is put in jail. Is this ethical, moral, and just?

I would argue yes, provided the jail is going to do the following:

Prevent the man from raping again (including other inmates).
Rehabilitate the man so that his inclination to rape is no longer present.

Considering our prison system doesn't satisfy the first or second point at all, we have a serious moral problem as a country.

OTOH, to not lock the guy up would leave him free to commit more damage, which would be a worse evil (speaking from personal experience here).

Rape is already an acceptable-enough act in some quarters.

I hate moral gray areas...unfortunately I find them all over the place.

 

[Rav]

A man has raped a woman. This is unethical, immoral, and unjust. This man is put in jail. Is this ethical, moral, and just? Why? Does this mean that a man who has been imprisoned for an equal amount of time is allowed one rape?

Putting him in prison serves the greater good so yes, it's just.

There is an underlying question here, as well. I think it can be said that rape is a horrible crime. What makes it unethical, immoral, and unjust? Or is it that in our society it is these things, while it may not be in another.

Rape is unjust because the victims suffer. It's that simple.

Are these qualities always indisputable? A man murders another man. The second man was going to launch a terrorist attack. There is no evidence. Now what?

In this case you are highlighting a possible difference between what is legal and what is ethical. They are not always the same thing. He did the "right" thing but in the absence of any compelling evidence he'll probably go to jail anyway. Our legal system isn't perfect.

 

[quadraphonics]

As in what quality makes anything ethical, moral, or just?

Are these qualities always indisputable?

They are never indisputable.

Morality is simply the projection of various forms of bias and interest. It has no objective, absolute existence.

 

[yaracuy]

As in what quality makes anything ethical, moral, or just?

Follow the golden rule

A man has raped a woman. This is unethical, immoral, and unjust. This man is put in jail. Is this ethical, moral, and just? Why? Does this mean that a man who has been imprisoned for an equal amount of time is allowed one rape?

Id don't understand you second paragraph


There is an underlying question here, as well. I think it can be said that rape is a horrible crime. What makes it unethical, immoral, and unjust?
.........
Rape is a violence against a person, because a person is less able you should not take advantage , society to function have to have some standard.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Or is it that in our society it is these things, while it may not be in another.

Think would you like if some one does such tings to one of you family
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Are these qualities always indisputable? A man murders another man. The second man was going to launch a terrorist attack. There is no evidence. Now what?

Excuses excuses excuses.

 

[James R]

quadraphonics:

Morality is simply the projection of various forms of bias and interest. It has no objective, absolute existence.

This sounds contrary to the position taken by the majority of moral philsophers, which is known as moral realism. But from the little you've written, I can't be absolutely sure what you mean.


Mr. Hamtastic:

As in what quality makes anything ethical, moral, or just?

What makes you think that ethical or moral things depend on some subsidiary quality?

A man has raped a woman. This is unethical, immoral, and unjust. This man is put in jail. Is this ethical, moral, and just? Why? Does this mean that a man who has been imprisoned for an equal amount of time is allowed one rape?

Generally, you're imprisoned after you've committed a crime, not before. Rape is not "allowed", which is why you are sent to prison if you are found guilty of rape. You seem to have things backwards.

The question of whether a particular sentence is just is always one that can be debated. You'll have to be more specific regarding the particulars of a particular case.

There is an underlying question here, as well. I think it can be said that rape is a horrible crime. What makes it unethical, immoral, and unjust? Or is it that in our society it is these things, while it may not be in another.

The position that there is no general standard of morality but merely the standard imposed by a particular society or, taking it a step further, just an individual person, is called moral relativism. There are many problems with moral relativism when it is taken beyond a certain point. For a start, it seems to be possible to be wrong about a moral decision.

Are these qualities always indisputable? A man murders another man. The second man was going to launch a terrorist attack. There is no evidence. Now what?

It depends on the detail. Was there any way to stop man #2 apart from murdering him in cold blood? Could he have been brought to trial in a court of law?

 

[chimpkin]

I can give you a dilemma I may actually have to decide:
I see one of the neighborhood teens in my front yard trying to crank my car up. Do I shoot him?

In my jurisdiction I can do this legally. I don't have full coverage on my 1995 car, having found that even a total would likely only earn me about $700 from insurance...but nonetheless, with no car, I can't go to work. Joyriders routinely torch the cars afterwards where I live, so chances are that I wouldn't get the car back at all or in a drive-able condition.
I'd go into debt to replace the car...a long term bad consequence.
BUT
I might be able to stop him short of killing him. Doing so entails more risk-that he'd get away with the car or hurt me.

So, this is how I break it down...and it would make a philosopher wince, I'm sure...

Chances are I'd kill him with or without a firearm, because you'd have to enter my emotions into the equation. When someone threatens my survival and life quality like that...I get really mad. REALLY mad.

I'm not going be capable of rationality for a few, and by that time, serious injury, at the very least, will have occurred. Maybe on both parties' parts, but I won't be feeling it for a while...nor will I care.

Is that the very best moral decision? no.

The best one would be tackling him and holding him for the cops-as that commits the least harm to the dumb kid's family, who didn't deserve to have the pain of putting the loser in the ground. While satisfying the requirement that the kid can't go around stealing and torching cars anymore, and will be given consequences of trying to steal mine.
It also retains my car, any damage to the ignition sustained notwithstanding.

But I feel I owe any would-be burglar no consideration. When you choose to try and steal from me, IMO, you put yourself beyond consideration...outside of frith. I will do as I see fit in that moment, and that may include killing you to insure retention of my stuff.
And I'm not going to risk a lethal stab in a close-quarters fight. I'm much more likely to vent you. Because you just proved by your actions you're not worth the risk.
Of course I am trained a bit with pole arms...and at the house I have such.
And a usable sword, and scythes, and steel poles, and all sorts of blunt objects...meaning head injury will be yours if I use that...
But I'm not nonviolently holding the person in a citizen's arrest, even though I agree that's the morally best thing. There will be injury.
(See? not very socialist of me, is it? Not very high morality either. Survival orientation is what I think of this as.)

 

[KilljoyKlown]

I can give you a dilemma I may actually have to decide:
I see one of the neighborhood teens in my front yard trying to crank my car up. Do I shoot him?

In my jurisdiction I can do this legally. I don't have full coverage on my 1995 car, having found that even a total would likely only earn me about $700 from insurance...but nonetheless, with no car, I can't go to work. Joyriders routinely torch the cars afterwards where I live, so chances are that I wouldn't get the car back at all or in a drive-able condition.
I'd go into debt to replace the car...a long term bad consequence.
BUT
I might be able to stop him short of killing him. Doing so entails more risk-that he'd get away with the car or hurt me.

So, this is how I break it down...and it would make a philosopher wince, I'm sure...

Chances are I'd kill him with or without a firearm, because you'd have to enter my emotions into the equation. When someone threatens my survival and life quality like that...I get really mad. REALLY mad.

I'm not going be capable of rationality for a few, and by that time, serious injury, at the very least, will have occurred. Maybe on both parties' parts, but I won't be feeling it for a while...nor will I care.

Is that the very best moral decision? no.

The best one would be tackling him and holding him for the cops-as that commits the least harm to the dumb kid's family, who didn't deserve to have the pain of putting the loser in the ground. While satisfying the requirement that the kid can't go around stealing and torching cars anymore, and will be given consequences of trying to steal mine.
It also retains my car, any damage to the ignition sustained notwithstanding.

But I feel I owe any would-be burglar no consideration. When you choose to try and steal from me, IMO, you put yourself beyond consideration...outside of frith. I will do as I see fit in that moment, and that may include killing you to insure retention of my stuff.
And I'm not going to risk a lethal stab in a close-quarters fight. I'm much more likely to vent you. Because you just proved by your actions you're not worth the risk.
Of course I am trained a bit with pole arms...and at the house I have such.
And a usable sword, and scythes, and steel poles, and all sorts of blunt objects...meaning head injury will be yours if I use that...
But I'm not nonviolently holding the person in a citizen's arrest, even though I agree that's the morally best thing. There will be injury.
(See? not very socialist of me, is it? Not very high morality either. Survival orientation is what I think of this as.)

I sort of agree with your response to the situation you portrayed. First let's look at it through the criminals eyes. He probably knows it's legal for you to shoot him, so there's a very good chance he's armed and will have no hesitation in shooting you before you can shoot him. So I wouldn't guess that you would like to bring a knife to a gun fight.

Second, if you don't want to ever place yourself in that position. Plan to avoid it. Don't make your car an easy mark, keep it locked, put it a garage whenever possible, for a few bucks get a Lo-jack installed on it. With a Lo-jack you have a very good chance of recovery within an hour or two of reporting it gone. I know this from personal experience.

But then I'd rather go the extra mile in order not to shoot or kill someone. I don't care weather it's legal or not. I don't want to kill anyone and suffer whatever the consequences might be.

 

[chimpkin]

He probably knows it's legal for you to shoot him,

He may, but there seems to be a tendency for the local teens to get hopped up on Xanax and then decide to go steal things for fun. And they aren't bright kids.
:shrug:
I don't get it either.

With a Lo-jack you have a very good chance of recovery within an hour or two of reporting it gone.

Still possibly torched.
If I get really nervous I might do the ghetto alternative: lug the car battery into the house every night.
ATM all the adjacent hoodlums have their own hoopty and don't need mine.
But it's a potential dilemma-car thief or catching a thief in my house... what do I do.
...And I suspect my anger would take over.

 

[James R]

I think I'd move to a better neighbourhood, if I was in your position. But then again, maybe you're not in a position to do that.

 

[KilljoyKlown]

He may, but there seems to be a tendency for the local teens to get hopped up on Xanax and then decide to go steal things for fun. And they aren't bright kids.
:shrug:
I don't get it either.



Still possibly torched.
If I get really nervous I might do the ghetto alternative: lug the car battery into the house every night.
ATM all the adjacent hoodlums have their own hoopty and don't need mine.
But it's a potential dilemma-car thief or catching a thief in my house... what do I do.
...And I suspect my anger would take over.

Well you can only do so much, but even I wouldn't lug the battery in and out.

Still you've got to weigh the trouble killing someone will be as opposed to the trouble recovering or getting another car will be. Even if it works out in the end killing someone is going to be a nightmare legally and emotionally and if you don't kill him but cause permanent damage to him, you leave yourself open to lawsuits that can drag on forever (not a pleasant thought).

Any chance you could move into a better neighborhood?

 

[KilljoyKlown]

@chimpkin

Here's another thought, those not so bright kids might be gang members or want-to-bees. Either way they will be acting like gangsters which means taking revenge against you for their messed up buddy.

Even if they are not gang members, don't tell me you won't be worried about it. Just another argument against killing someone.

Also, why would you guess that they were hopped up on Xanax? My guess would be Meth and I'd bet good money on that being the case.

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

In the case of Moral relativism-how can a person be "wrong", then?

To me, something being ethical means that the majority agrees with it. Just means that it satisfies peoples' ideals of "rightness". Morality is back to whatever the majority considers moral. I think the treatment of women in various cultures and religions is a prime example. Do the different ways women are dealt with land in the "Well it's not wrong, just not right for us?" or what? Western culture, generally, gets outraged at alot of the ways women are treated in other cultures, but don't those other cultures get outraged at the freedom and (near)equality women have here? Who is "right" and how do we know?

 

[glaucon]

As in what quality makes anything ethical, moral, or just?

Calling it such.

(Yes, for the record, I'm an Ethical Relativist..)

 

[quadraphonics]

This sounds contrary to the position taken by the majority of moral philsophers, which is known as moral realism.

Maybe if you stop reading at Kant. Did antihumanism, perspectivism, relativism, structuralism, etc. never happen?

Which isn't to say that a large current of working philosophers, past and present, haven't been more interested in working from the premise of moral universalism than in addressing the basic question. But that's at least as much of an argument for ignoring said philosophers (when it comes to such fundamental questions, anyway) as it is for accepting moral realism. From certain post-modern perspectives, what those guys are engaged in is not so much philosophy, as such, but rather some form of imperialism.

There are many problems with moral relativism when it is taken beyond a certain point. For a start, it seems to be possible to be wrong about a moral decision.

? How is that a "problem," and anyway how would moral universalism address such? Or did you mean to write something like "it seems to be impossible to be wrong about a moral decision?"

 

[KilljoyKlown]

In the case of Moral relativism-how can a person be "wrong", then?

To me, something being ethical means that the majority agrees with it. Just means that it satisfies peoples' ideals of "rightness". Morality is back to whatever the majority considers moral. I think the treatment of women in various cultures and religions is a prime example. Do the different ways women are dealt with land in the "Well it's not wrong, just not right for us?" or what? Western culture, generally, gets outraged at alot of the ways women are treated in other cultures, but don't those other cultures get outraged at the freedom and (near)equality women have here? Who is "right" and how do we know?

IMO cultures can be wrong. When a culture sports a value that makes it okay to mutilate a female when she's still a baby so that she will never have a chance to ever have an orgasm. That's just wrong on any level you want to look at it. That was an extreme example on par with it being okay to own slaves. But there are many lessor issues that are not ethical, moral or just and I think we need a world court of law with some teeth to take care of those problems, and no I don't have any idea how that will ever happen from this worlds current state of affairs.

 

[quadraphonics]

IMO cultures can be wrong. When a culture sports a value that makes it okay to mutilate a female when she's still a baby so that she will never have a chance to ever have an orgasm. That's just wrong on any level you want to look at it.

How about the level that the culture in question looks at it? Because they seem to be reaching a different conclusion, on that level.

 

[KilljoyKlown]

How about the level that the culture in question looks at it? Because they seem to be reaching a different conclusion, on that level.

IMO the culture in question is criminal in the same way a man who brutally rapes a girl is, and a criminal culture needs to be held up to world scrutiny and opinion if nothing else. The next thing I would like to know is how many of that cultures population believes in and supports that criminal custom? My bet would be most do not and would vote it out of existence if they weren't in fear of those in power.

 

[quadraphonics]

IMO the culture in question is criminal in the same way a man who brutally rapes a girl is,

Which is to say, according to your own culturally-relative norms. There are cultures in which the brutal rape of girls is not criminal, particularly if said girl is from a particular section of society (or another society entirely).

and a criminal culture needs to be held up to world scrutiny and opinion if nothing else.

Which is to say that you're engaged in cultural imperialism. You want to impose whatever consensus moral system world scrutiny would amount to (and implicitly assume that such matches your own, at least in this case).

The next thing I would like to know is how many of that cultures population believes in and supports that criminal custom?

Enough to make such a custom, by definition.

My bet would be most do not and would vote it out of existence if they weren't in fear of those in power.

It seems otherwise, in many instances. For example, progressive politicians in regressive religious cultures tend to face the threat of death when they challenge such mores.

Moreover, the premise that cultural norms should be reevaluated democratically is itself a culturally-relative judgement. That cultural norms might be dictated and enforced by a power elite is itself considered "right" and "moral" in certain places, and so the masses in those cultures would have no particular basis for respecting democratic resistance to such (or even, producing any such resistance to begin with).

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

As in what quality makes anything ethical, moral, or just?

A man has raped a woman. This is unethical, immoral, and unjust. This man is put in jail. Is this ethical, moral, and just? Why? Does this mean that a man who has been imprisoned for an equal amount of time is allowed one rape?

There is an underlying question here, as well. I think it can be said that rape is a horrible crime. What makes it unethical, immoral, and unjust? Or is it that in our society it is these things, while it may not be in another.

Are these qualities always indisputable? A man murders another man. The second man was going to launch a terrorist attack. There is no evidence. Now what?

Acts of cruelty can be justified . The statistics show 33% of all prisoners are innocent. No Go look it up ! Do your own research! But besides that you got the justified. Like a guy I Know who killed a biker for raping his wife. Yeah Big Party and this biKer was there and he decided he was going to have some fun with the cute red headed girl. Drug her up to the master suit and started at it . Well all the guys figured out what was going on as she was screaming. So they busted the door down and the fight started roaring . The biker started throwing dudes out the 2nd floor window . It was not fairing well at all until the Husband come up stairs with a shoot gun and blew the biker away. The case drug on for years . Hell it could be still going on for all I know . It turned into one complicated mess. Course it didn't help much with the bikers gang going around torching peoples houses for testifying. Yeah Complicated like I said.
Anyway What ya going to do. Kill em all and don't worry about