Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (147) | Ignore Thread Prev | Next
Author: Frydaze1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 196868  
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/3/2012 12:05 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Doesn't it depend on what we mean by "real"? And "wrong"?

I mean objective, existing outside of the human mind. You and Frydaze don't believe that morality exists objectively.

If it's not objective is it real? You don't think so, so I'm not sure what your beef is.



There's a difference between "wrong" and "immoral". The words have completely different meanings. Let's not mix them up, since that muddies the discussion.



Again, I wasn't saying she thinks it is ok for others to rape someone. I'm saying she has no objective basis for saying someone else's code is immoral.

True... though not the way you meant it.

A man sees a hole in a wall, and his friends tell him he should have sex with that hole. He does so. Unbeknownst to him, there is a woman (or a little girl - though it should make no difference), tied and gagged, on the other side of that hole and he has actually raped her. Was his act immoral? No. In order for it to be immoral he has to have known that he was hurting her. It was, however, wrong. Because his knowledge was incomplete.

Rape is such an emotionally charged subject, which makes it difficult for people to even discuss it objectively. So let's try this instead:
A parent, honestly believing their child to be demon possessed, and honestly believing that the only cure to this condition is a beating, beats their child. Is this act immoral? No. They are doing what they do out of a genuine good intent even if I find it repulsive. This makes their act wrong (since there are no demons and beating the child wouldn't drive them out) though not immoral. So here we have a situation where someone is abusing another person against their will, but they are not doing it with intent to be immoral. It is therefore not immoral. Just seriously wrong.

A rape, though we consider it one of the worst abuses, is (objectively) only a degree of abuse. And all abuse can be discussed in the same terms. If the abuser feels their act to be immoral, it is. If they don't, it isn't. That doesn't have anything to do with whether or not their act is wrong. Only with whether or not it is immoral. If they believe their act is not immoral, but that belief is based on a lack of knowledge or understanding, the act is objectively wrong. Not immoral, merely wrong.

If I say someone else else is acting immorally, what I usually mean is that their act is wrong. Meaning, if they had more information, they would also feel their act to be immoral. But I have to accept that my judgement of their act is based on my own understanding, which may also be imperfect. So unless I have specific knowledge that they don't have, it still becomes only a subjective judgement.

Example you may understand better:
Let's assume for a moment that you are correct about God. I believe that if there is a God, for him to permit someone to die in a car accident is wrong. If I committed such an act, it would be immoral. But, according to your beliefs, God has an overriding reason to permit such an act. If that is true, then His act is neither wrong nor immoral. My perception of it is exactly that: MY perception. In other words, subjective. Still, even though I'm mistaken, it would still be immoral for me to intentionally allow someone to die in a car accident. Even though God actually wants it to happen for his own reasons and the act is not truly wrong.

If you can find an example of someone committing rape when they do not actually believe *themselves* that it is an immoral act, then I will agree with you that the act wasn't immoral. And therefore, no, rape isn't objectively immoral. However, I don't think you'll find such a situation that isn't caused by a lack of knowledge or understanding; therefore such an act would still be wrong.


Frydaze1


P.S. I noticed you didn't respond to my question about various acts committed unknowingly by people. Can someone be moral or immoral if they aren't aware of the consequences of their actions? Or does morality depend on the person's intent? Your response to that will show very clearly why "wrong" and "immoral" don't have to go together.

Actually, that's the point of a barmitzvah. A Jewish child is not responsible for keeping laws he doesn't know. So he is taught the laws. He then proves to his society that he understands all of them... at which point he is considered a man, because he's now responsible for following them. Clearly they consider morality to be tied to understanding and intent.
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post  
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (147) | Ignore Thread Prev | Next

Announcements

Pencils of Promise - Back to School Drive
"Pencils of Promise works with communities across the globe to build schools and create programs that provide education opportunities for children."
Post of the Day:
Macro Economics

Russia Collapsing Again?
What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Community Home
Speak Your Mind, Start Your Blog, Rate Your Stocks

Community Team Fools - who are those TMF's?
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and "#1 Media Company to Work For" (BusinessInsider 2011)! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.
Advertisement