|
Morally Right?
Let's say someone came to your class to tell you about World War 2 (while it was still going on) it was this woman, who would kill others and work at a concentration camp and when someone (like a classmate) asked her how she could do such awful things she answered "Me and my husband want nice neighbours and friends, and we havn't been able to buy a house until now. If we just work there for 6 more months we'll be able to keep the house and invite our neighbours and have a normal life! After that we'll quit!" you'd pretty much think the woman was selfish right? I mean she's killing people for a nice house! But then your teacher would say something like "hey you can't judge people before you've been in their shoes, how can you decide waht's morally wrong or right if you havn't ever proven that you can go against everyone, follow your conscience, even if that means losing your career, future, friends, money or anything like that?!" what would you answer to that? or like AGAINST that - to show that we actually do have a right to say what's wrong or right even if we havn't been in the exact situation! Cause I really believe we do, like I KNOW IT'S WRONG TO KILL, so why can't I make that judgment and say "she was wrong, because she killed" ?!
[ ]
Want to answer more questions in the Miscellaneous category?
Maybe give some free advice about: Random Weirdos?
In a picture of a man shooting an unarmed man who is on there knees begging, who would you rather be?
Why is it morally wrong do you ask? Because she made a choice: she took the easy path when a hard path could have had the same outcome. Why is it wrong to do that: because it's cowardly.
tell your teacher: " it matters not what I would do, because I may be just as immoral as they are: my actions have little to do with the moral implications of an occurance."
]
As with all ethical issues, everything is a lot more complicated than it looks.
Let me start with your teacher's statement. First of all it does not make a lot of sense and seems to have a lot of unrelated arguments strung together. I fail to see why making an ethical judgment is dependent upon your ability to stand "against everyone". I wouldnt accept that as a premise without a proper argument, which he has not provided. Is it his claim that weak willed people are not entitled to try to decide what is right and what is wrong?
Secondly, the first part of his argument involving walking in their shoes, is also dubious at best. Of course one should strive to try and understand why people do what they do. However, since everyone's situation is unique, his line of argument taken to an extreme, prevents us from ever making any sort of judgment.
As I see it, the only thing we can do is to strive to look at things from all aspects to the best of our ability. Courts work by this principle and pass judgments every day. Its not perfect, but its all we have.
Now, onto the far more complicated ethical dilemma. This is not a matter I can properly discuss here since it would fill many pages. However let me try and provide a brief overview of the problem.
1. Ethics are relative (as mentioned by the other person). The only true test of an ethical action is consistency according to a predetermined philosophy. E.g. if you claim there is such a thing as a right to life, it is unethical if you kill. If you claim that there is no such right, and you accept that your own life is also worthless, then you are not really acting unethically (you may be in conflict with the rules of a society, and may be subject to punishment, but you are not acting unethically as such).
2. There is a silver lining to this cloud. Most people (virtually all) who claim to have radical ethical beliefs, have not thought them through properly. E.g. Those who believe in survival of the fittest rarely accept being bullied by those stronger than they are. Humans tend to have very similar needs and expectations, making it possible to argue ethics with them, and to show that they are acting inconsistently.
3. Your premise "its wrong to kill" is probably flawed. I say probably since I dont know you, and perhaps you are being consistent. However, that is unlikely. Let me illustrate with a few questions. Is it wrong to kill plants in order to eat? Is it wrong to kill animals in order to eat? Is it wrong to kill animals or humans in self defense (when you would certainly be killed yourself)? If you answered no to any of these, killing is not always wrong. So what it boils down to is "when is it wrong". This point may vary from person to person and is hugely debatable. It may surprise you to know that, within philosophy, it is virtually impossible to defend killing animals for any reason (including food) without depriving many humans of their right to life. Thats a totally different discussion, but it puts the "when" in perspective.
So the woman is not necessarily being unethical because she killed. However one might derive two points, the first rooted in rights, the second rooted in utilitarianism.
- If she is acting ethically, the society created by her set of beliefs would find murder to be an acceptable means of acquiring wealth. It would follow that no person would have a right to life.
- If she is acting ethically, the value she places on life is very very small. If anyone accepts such a low value on life, they must also be willing to forfeit their own when someone else is trying to get rich.
Both scenarios create a society that is full of suffering and destruction. Both scenarios create a society that would not be able to function in the long term. In that way one can pass judgment upon her.
In reality a person like that would usually try to justify their actions through some sort of arbitrary distinction (e.g. its ok to kill Jews, but her life- or that of her race- is more valuable). Without going into it here, that type of argument is easy to take apart.
Anyway, sorry for the length, but I hope this does something more than just to confuse matters (in my own defense I am almost asleep as I type this). If you are interested in ethics try check out these links which will give you some insight into two of the main ways to approach the issue of morality:
[Link](Mouse over link to see full location)
[Link](Mouse over link to see full location)
]
i understand where you are coming from. what she said was really disgusting, but morals are relative. everyone has a different definition of what is good and what is evil. not everyone agrees with all of society's standards. she may not think it's wrong while you (and many of us, im sure) do. in her mind, she is right for doing this. i guess she does not care either. or maybe she has a personal vendetta against jewish people (is that who we are talking about?) and wants revenge. on the whole race. because she thinks it will do her justice. hmm. or maybe she is a psychopath/sociopath or mentally ill.
there is something called moral relativism and in my LA class we are talking about judging people from a different time period and how like early settlers thought slavery was okay and how we today think it is very bad.
btw, are you talking about a female nazi?
"World War 2" (while it was still going on)"
"woman, who would kill others and work at a concentration camp"
]
More Questions: |