Enough on the basics; let’s switch gears and discuss the topics for Day 3.
A. In a situation where one person is being harmed and the other is doing the harming, which is most to be avoided, harming the other or being harmed by another? Why? What if the person doing the harming will not get caught? What if the person doing the harming can avoid feeling guilty? The harms we’re talking about can be minor (stealing parking place), moderate (embezzlement) or major (genocide).
B. What skills should we work to possess, the skills to persuade others to agree with our beliefs or the skills to discern whether the beliefs we have are true or false?
What do A and B have in common?
A. DISCLAIMER: I am currently in neither position, and that considered, my actions should I find myself in either situation may in fact be different than the opinions expressed at this time.
That having been said, the preferred position would be the one being harmed. While I often complain that “there are no good parking spots. I don’t want to have to walk that far!” I would much prefer that the spots be taken by those who need them (mothers with children in tow, the elderly who have difficulty walking for long periods of time, etc). And even considering the amount of pain I could possibly suffer at the hands of someone participating in immoral (there’s that concept again) behaviors, it would be nothing compared to the pain I would (hopefully) experience knowing the abomination that I have become and the discomfort I have caused for others.
This logic would continue to be applicable in the situation in which I would not be caught in my actions, because the disappointment in self would still be present. However, this would be much less applicable should I have the misfortune of losing the very values on which I have based my entire existence and forgetting how to feel responsible (I believe the term used in the question was guilty) for my actions.
B. I am of the opinion that the preferable skills would be the ones to discern whether the beliefs we have are true or false. What good is it to be able to convince others to believe you if you are unsure if you are claiming something that should be believed? I would much rather know I am right and have no one believe me than to wonder if I had convinced a hundred people of something that is false.
The sets of questions explore fairly unrelated issues. The commonalities between the two concepts discussed might possibly include the ideas of right and wrong. Obviously, to be causing harm to someone else is, at least in the majority of cases, wrong. Along those same lines, to convince someone of something that is clearly incorrect could be considered wrong.
That’s all I have for Day 3.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Our small group for Day 2 was a good one. Conversation was light and friendly, despite discussing some rather controversial topics. Here are some thoughts on the conversation.
The questions all discussed the idea of right and wrong versus moral and immoral. The four of us seemed to agree (at least to a degree) that morality can be thought of as a degree of right. By this I mean that many people seem to view somewhat less significant actions that they see as being less than desire to be wrong, while actions that seem to be much more significant they see as being immoral. To further explain this idea, consider the following example:
Let’s imagine that when asked if I had done the readings for class my response was yes, when in fact the truth was no. This lie would be considered wrong. We are taught this concept from an early age. Lying is wrong. I know few, if any, people who would say that this is immoral.
Now let’s imagine that I witness a murder (to continue with the idea of extremity used in this example, shall we say a quadruple murder, the victims of which included a pregnant woman and two toddler-aged children) and am asked to testify. When asked who I saw commit the murder, suppose I claim, due to some personal dislike for the man, that it was the woman’s husband and the children’s father, when in fact, I know full well it was not. I’m thinking it might be a safe assumption here to say that most people would consider this lie to be more than wrong, probably downright immoral.
Thus we see the difference (at least in my opinion): the degree of the lie (small and insignificant versus large and life altering).
Transitioning right into the next question, another possible reason for the distinction between the two uses is the level of effect each term has on the person to whom the term is applied. “Immoral” seems to carry more weight than “wrong.” I would much rather be called wrong than immoral.
All of this having been said, what makes something “immoral”? Well, that certainly seems to be an easily answered question: society. Can anyone argue that morality is not, at least largely, based on the ideals and norms that society has established for us?
The questions all discussed the idea of right and wrong versus moral and immoral. The four of us seemed to agree (at least to a degree) that morality can be thought of as a degree of right. By this I mean that many people seem to view somewhat less significant actions that they see as being less than desire to be wrong, while actions that seem to be much more significant they see as being immoral. To further explain this idea, consider the following example:
Let’s imagine that when asked if I had done the readings for class my response was yes, when in fact the truth was no. This lie would be considered wrong. We are taught this concept from an early age. Lying is wrong. I know few, if any, people who would say that this is immoral.
Now let’s imagine that I witness a murder (to continue with the idea of extremity used in this example, shall we say a quadruple murder, the victims of which included a pregnant woman and two toddler-aged children) and am asked to testify. When asked who I saw commit the murder, suppose I claim, due to some personal dislike for the man, that it was the woman’s husband and the children’s father, when in fact, I know full well it was not. I’m thinking it might be a safe assumption here to say that most people would consider this lie to be more than wrong, probably downright immoral.
Thus we see the difference (at least in my opinion): the degree of the lie (small and insignificant versus large and life altering).
Transitioning right into the next question, another possible reason for the distinction between the two uses is the level of effect each term has on the person to whom the term is applied. “Immoral” seems to carry more weight than “wrong.” I would much rather be called wrong than immoral.
All of this having been said, what makes something “immoral”? Well, that certainly seems to be an easily answered question: society. Can anyone argue that morality is not, at least largely, based on the ideals and norms that society has established for us?
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Intro
Oye. This blog is for my Philosophy class on Ethics.
Should be a good class.
Here's hoping, right?
Should be a good class.
Here's hoping, right?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)