Situational Ethics examples

[rtwngAvngr]

Hmmmm. Nope. Right off hand, I can’t think of an occasion in which it would be justified to sexually abuse infants for pleasure. Wait. Yes. Picture this: A sexual pervert got his jollies out of seeing adults abuse children. He held family captive and forced adults to sexually abuse children while he watched. Technically, the captive adults abused the children, but if they refused to abuse the children, the kidnapper/pervert would have killed all of the members of the family. In that case, I would say that it was okay for the abuse to have happened.

The ends (survival of the family members) justified the means (obedience to the kidnapper). So the answer is False.

It's still and evil, just a lesser evil. Read mom4's post. She splaind it the bestest.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Hmmmm. Nope. Right off hand, I can’t think of an occasion in which it would be justified to sexually abuse infants for pleasure. Wait. Yes. Picture this: A sexual pervert got his jollies out of seeing adults abuse children. He held family captive and forced adults to sexually abuse children while he watched. Technically, the captive adults abused the children, but if they refused to abuse the children, the kidnapper/pervert would have killed all of the members of the family. In that case, I would say that it was okay for the abuse to have happened.

The ends (survival of the family members) justified the means (obedience to the kidnapper). So the answer is False.

It's still an evil, just a lesser evil. Read mom4's post. She splaind it the bestest.

 

[mattskramer]

Matt,
There ARE moral absolutes. Killing an unborn child is ALWAYS wrong. But, the real world stinks. Sometimes your only choice is the lesser of two evils... like aborting the child so that at least one of the people involved can live.

The situation doesn't change the morality. Sometimes we are faced with decisions in which either choice will be wrong, and we just have to pick the best decision we can. But morality and truth still stand.

I’m sorry but your reply seemed very vague and ambiguous. You say that killing an unborn child is ALWAYS wrong. Yet, you also say “Sometimes your only choice is the lesser of two evils... like aborting the child (killing an unborn child) so that at least one of the people involved can live.” By applying logic in a cold and strict fashion, you are saying that a woman has a choice but that she would be wrong in having an abortion even so that at least one of the people involved can live.

Absolutes are big words. When an action is Always wrong it is not wrong except under rare and special circumstances. It does not mean that it is right for 1 person out of 10000000000000000000 to do it once in 1000 life times under a special situation. It means that it is always wrong no matter what (You provide no exceptions in your beginning statement).

I do agree that sometimes your only choice is the lesser of two evils. Due to the very example that you gave, I do not believe that killing an unborn child is always wrong. Under very very very rare circumstances, abortion would be the right action to take in my opinion. Please clarify your opinion.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I’m sorry but your reply seemed very vague and ambiguous. You say that killing an unborn child is ALWAYS wrong. Yet, you also say “Sometimes your only choice is the lesser of two evils... like aborting the child (killing an unborn child) so that at least one of the people involved can live.” By applying logic in a cold and strict fashion, you are saying that a woman has a choice but that she would be wrong in having an abortion even so that at least one of the people involved can live.

Absolutes are big words. When an action is Always wrong it is not wrong except under rare and special circumstances. It does not mean that it is right for 1 person out of 10000000000000000000 to do it once in 1000 life times under a special situation. It means that it is always wrong no matter what (You provide no exceptions in your beginning statement).

I do agree that sometimes your only choice is the lesser of two evils. Due to the very example that you gave, I do not believe that killing an unborn child is always wrong. Under very very very rare circumstances, abortion would be the right action to take in my opinion. Please clarify your opinion.

It's easy matt. It's still wrong, yet it may be the action taken to avoid a greater evil. It's crystal clear.

 

[Nienna]

I’m sorry but your reply seemed very vague and ambiguous. You say that killing an unborn child is ALWAYS wrong. Yet, you also say “Sometimes your only choice is the lesser of two evils... like aborting the child (killing an unborn child) so that at least one of the people involved can live.” By applying logic in a cold and strict fashion, you are saying that a woman has a choice but that she would be wrong in having an abortion even so that at least one of the people involved can live.

Absolutes are big words. When an action is Always wrong it is not wrong except under rare and special circumstances. It does not mean that it is right for 1 person out of 10000000000000000000 to do it once in 1000 life times under a special situation. It means that it is always wrong no matter what (You provide no exceptions in your beginning statement).

I do agree that sometimes your only choice is the lesser of two evils. Due to the very example that you gave, I do not believe that killing an unborn child is always wrong. Under very very very rare circumstances, abortion would be the right action to take in my opinion. Please clarify your opinion.

I think the trouble in understanding comes in the difference between the ways you and I view truth/morality. I see truth as something OUTSIDE myself, that will stand on its own, no matter what I choose to do. My belief (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that you see truth/morality as determined by each individual, that the best choices each individual makes are "right for him."

So you may view an abortion to save the life of the mother as the "right" choice. I view it as decreasing the harm in the situation. But it doesn't erase the fact that killing the baby was still wrong.

 

[5stringJeff]

Hmmmm. Nope. Right off hand, I can’t think of an occasion in which it would be justified to sexually abuse infants for pleasure. Wait. Yes. Picture this: A sexual pervert got his jollies out of seeing adults abuse children. He held family captive and forced adults to sexually abuse children while he watched. Technically, the captive adults abused the children, but if they refused to abuse the children, the kidnapper/pervert would have killed all of the members of the family. In that case, I would say that it was okay for the abuse to have happened.

The ends (survival of the family members) justified the means (obedience to the kidnapper). So the answer is False.

You've twisted the original proposition. The situation you've described is sexually abusing an infant for survival, not for pleasure. (I still say you're wrong, BTW. It is unjustifiable in my eyes to do such things, even for your survival. I would take my chances with the perv trying to kill me.)

So do you then concede that there is no situation in which it is morally justifiable to sexually abuse infants for pleasure?

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Hmmmm. Nope. Right off hand, I can’t think of an occasion in which it would be justified to sexually abuse infants for pleasure. Wait. Yes. Picture this: A sexual pervert got his jollies out of seeing adults abuse children. He held family captive and forced adults to sexually abuse children while he watched. Technically, the captive adults abused the children, but if they refused to abuse the children, the kidnapper/pervert would have killed all of the members of the family. In that case, I would say that it was okay for the abuse to have happened.

The ends (survival of the family members) justified the means (obedience to the kidnapper). So the answer is False.

Ok, they survive after how long? What mental state are the kids in after the ordeal is over? For that matter, what mental state are the adults in after the ordeal? If the entire family becomes mentally unstable and needed expensive medication that would put them into a financial position that would bankrupt them, would committing mass suicide be the only answer?

Sometimes you come up with some pretty good stuff. This entire argument was just stupid. Maybe you need to go hang out with Fred.

 

[mattskramer]

You've twisted the original proposition. The situation you've described is sexually abusing an infant for survival, not for pleasure. (I still say you're wrong, BTW. It is unjustifiable in my eyes to do such things, even for your survival. I would take my chances with the perv trying to kill me.)

So do you then concede that there is no situation in which it is morally justifiable to sexually abuse infants for pleasure?

Hmmm. Okay. I think that I see your point. I cannot think of a situation in which it is morally justifiable to sexually abuse infants strictly for one’s own personal pleasure (perhaps for the survival of all subject involved - but not just for one's own pleasure). Therefore, I tentatively concede that such activity is absolutely wrong (until I can come up with some bizarre and imaginative scenario in which such behavior may be okay considered to be okay).

I don’t know. This just sort of became an interesting topic for me. I’ve been reading about Ethics – the philosophies and such. (Absolutism, utilitarianism, pragmatism, etc.)

Sorry if I can in “heavy handed”.

 

[mattskramer]

I think the trouble in understanding comes in the difference between the ways you and I view truth/morality. I see truth as something OUTSIDE myself, that will stand on its own, no matter what I choose to do. My belief (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that you see truth/morality as determined by each individual, that the best choices each individual makes are "right for him."

So you may view an abortion to save the life of the mother as the "right" choice. I view it as decreasing the harm in the situation. But it doesn't erase the fact that killing the baby was still wrong.

I agree. More to the point, I think that the difference is in our definitions of right and wrong and how we view those terms. I understand the concept of “the lesser of two evils” but I also apply the term right to the seemingly appropriate choices one makes in given situations. I suppose that in that since you could consider my ethical philosophy to be subjective (as it is determined by general consensus and critical thinking).

I just don’t know how best to explain my view on ethics but I will try. To have an abortion is bad, evil, and deplorable. (Personally, I think that abortion should be illegal except to save the life of the mother and (perhaps) in cases of rape and incest.) At the same time, there may be situations in which a woman must decide to have an abortion so that at least one of the people involved can live.

I would say that it was justified (right) for her to have an abortion in this case. Can you say that it was wrong for her to have an abortion? Abortions are wrong in the since that they are to be avoided but in some rare cases they are right because they are the better of two evils.

I think that I understand where you are “coming from” but correct me if I am wrong. You recognize special situations but at the same time you see ethical rules (absolutes) that still apply above the situation. In a general since, I can identify with that. It is comforting to rely on rules that almost always apply. Also, subjective/situational ethics can be abused to make practically anything permissible. At the same time, I believe more strongly in situational ethics and the ability of people to think critically about situations and come to conclusions about the right or wrong of something on a case-by-case manner.

 

[mattskramer]

Ok, they survive after how long? What mental state are the kids in after the ordeal is over? For that matter, what mental state are the adults in after the ordeal? If the entire family becomes mentally unstable and needed expensive medication that would put them into a financial position that would bankrupt them, would committing mass suicide be the only answer?

Sometimes you come up with some pretty good stuff. This entire argument was just stupid. Maybe you need to go hang out with Fred.

Wow. Nice extension of the scenario. That was a nice piece of independent critical thinking. I’m proud of you.

:tng:

If the choices were that the family obeys the kidnapper or every member of the family dies, (face certain death for everyone or possibly be traumatized for life) I think that the right thing would be for the family to obey the kidnapper. The family would work things out after the ordeal and/or become dependent on charity/welfare.

 

[Bonnie]

sophistry - a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sophistry

Nope. It doesn't seem to fit but thanks for the funny Ad hominem. Now, how about giving some rebuttals to the examples in the actual post.

Well Matt Ill say this..anyone can justify anything if they try hard enough. Are there exceptions to absoluteism? Sure and I suppose each person can come up with a million scenarios for the "but what about if". Exceptions are made everyday, and everywhere...Does it really matter who is for and against? It would seem like you are just looking for validation to cop-out?? If you think it's okay to take your life then why ask someone who does not? I don't get your point?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I agree. More to the point, I think that the difference is in our definitions of right and wrong and how we view those terms. I understand the concept of “the lesser of two evils” but I also apply the term right to the seemingly appropriate choices one makes in given situations. I suppose that in that since you could consider my ethical philosophy to be subjective (as it is determined by general consensus and critical thinking).

I just don’t know how best to explain my view on ethics but I will try. To have an abortion is bad, evil, and deplorable. (Personally, I think that abortion should be illegal except to save the life of the mother and (perhaps) in cases of rape and incest.) At the same time, there may be situations in which a woman must decide to have an abortion so that at least one of the people involved can live.

I would say that it was justified (right) for her to have an abortion in this case. Can you say that it was wrong for her to have an abortion? Abortions are wrong in the since that they are to be avoided but in some rare cases they are right because they are the better of two evils.

I think that I understand where you are “coming from” but correct me if I am wrong. You recognize special situations but at the same time you see ethical rules (absolutes) that still apply above the situation. In a general since, I can identify with that. It is comforting to rely on rules that almost always apply. Also, subjective/situational ethics can be abused to make practically anything permissible. At the same time, I believe more strongly in situational ethics and the ability of people to think critically about situations and come to conclusions about the right or wrong of something on a case-by-case manner.

Is general concensus really a good way to determine morality. IF five murderers voted to kill a lone mother of four and take her grocery money, does that make it right? This is why socialists tend to think like you.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Wow. Nice extension of the scenario. That was a nice piece of independent critical thinking. I’m proud of you.

:tng:

If the choices were that the family obeys the kidnapper or every member of the family dies, (face certain death for everyone or possibly be traumatized for life) I think that the right thing would be for the family to obey the kidnapper. The family would work things out after the ordeal and/or become dependent on charity/welfare.

If I'm the father, my option is to stomp a mudhole into the kidnapper.

 

[mattskramer]

Soldier A was taken as a POW. He was being severely interrogated. He was under so much torture that he gave information to the enemy. The enemy used that information and killed him and his fellow soldiers. He believed in absolutes and never questioned authority. Many people died as a result.

Soldier B was also taken as a POW. Word got to him as to what would likely happen to him. He managed to kill himself and take his secrets with him.

I don’t know if the two examples above actually happened or not. They could have happened. I guess that we agree to disagree. My point is that there are very few, if any, absolutes. One can almost always find exceptions to “the rule”. I, for one, will always think carefully about the situations in which I may find myself before jumping into any course of action. Question authority and think for yourself.

--------------

Jimmy –

The kidnapper saw you raise your foot. He shot you dead before you could stomp a mud hole. Then he killed the rest of the members in your family. Then he left late at night. There was not one live witnesses left to report on his crime.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Soldier A was taken as a POW. He was being severely interrogated. He was under so much torture that he gave information to the enemy. The enemy used that information and killed him and his fellow soldiers. He believed in absolutes and never questioned authority. Many people died as a result.

Soldier B was also taken as a POW. Word got to him as to what would likely happen to him. He managed to kill himself and take his secrets with him.

I don’t know if the two examples above actually happened or not. They could have happened. I guess that we agree to disagree. My point is that there are very few, if any, absolutes. One can almost always find exceptions to “the rule”. I, for one, will always think carefully about the situations in which I may find myself before jumping into any course of action. Question authority and think for yourself.

--------------

Jimmy –

The kidnapper saw you raise your foot. He shot you dead before you could stomp a mud hole. Then he killed the rest of the members in your family. Then he left late at night. There was not one live witnesses left to report on his crime.

There's logic behind moral codes. It's not just all supernatural puffery, though often it's presented as such, because kids and stupid people won't understand it. If you can trust a person not to kill you, steal your stuff, or screw your wife, you can put those petty fears and competitions to rest to focus on objectives and goals which require you to work together. Kapiche?

How do you justify the inordinate amount of time you spend trying to subvert morality? And yes, you must justify to me. I am your master.

 

[5stringJeff]

You've twisted the original proposition. The situation you've described is sexually abusing an infant for survival, not for pleasure. (I still say you're wrong, BTW. It is unjustifiable in my eyes to do such things, even for your survival. I would take my chances with the perv trying to kill me.)

So do you then concede that there is no situation in which it is morally justifiable to sexually abuse infants for pleasure?

So Matt, I'm assuming you agree with the last sentence, since you haven't replied?

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Soldier A was taken as a POW. He was being severely interrogated. He was under so much torture that he gave information to the enemy. The enemy used that information and killed him and his fellow soldiers. He believed in absolutes and never questioned authority. Many people died as a result.

Soldier B was also taken as a POW. Word got to him as to what would likely happen to him. He managed to kill himself and take his secrets with him.

I don’t know if the two examples above actually happened or not. They could have happened. I guess that we agree to disagree. My point is that there are very few, if any, absolutes. One can almost always find exceptions to “the rule”. I, for one, will always think carefully about the situations in which I may find myself before jumping into any course of action. Question authority and think for yourself.

--------------

Jimmy –

The kidnapper saw you raise your foot. He shot you dead before you could stomp a mud hole. Then he killed the rest of the members in your family. Then he left late at night. There was not one live witnesses left to report on his crime.

That's during a time of war. Normal "rules" don't apply.

Matt -

I shoot the fucker in the face as he comes through the door. No way he could see me raise my foot.

 

[mattskramer]

So Matt, I'm assuming you agree with the last sentence, since you haven't replied?

Look back at previous posts for this thread. You will see that I said, “Hmmm. Okay. I think that I see your point. I cannot think of a situation in which it is morally justifiable to sexually abuse infants strictly for one’s own personal pleasure (perhaps for the survival of all subject involved - but not just for one's own pleasure). Therefore, I tentatively concede that such activity is absolutely wrong (until I can come up with some bizarre and imaginative scenario in which such behavior may be okay considered to be okay).”

 

[mattskramer]

That's during a time of war. Normal "rules" don't apply.

Matt -

I shoot the fucker in the face as he comes through the door. No way he could see me raise my foot.

I could probably come up with several examples where your normal "rules" don't apply.

 

[mattskramer]

There's logic behind moral codes. It's not just all supernatural puffery, though often it's presented as such, because kids and stupid people won't understand it. If you can trust a person not to kill you, steal your stuff, or screw your wife, you can put those petty fears and competitions to rest to focus on objectives and goals which require you to work together. Kapiche?

Nope. I'm afraid that you would need to make your statement less abstract and more concrete. Could you explain your point in a more simple way or provide examples.

How do you justify the inordinate amount of time you spend trying to subvert morality? And yes, you must justify to me. I am your master.

Nope. You are not my master. Practically no person or abstract idea is my master. Yet, I will reply anyway. One man's honey is another man's vinegar. How do you justify the "inordinate" amount of time you spend trying to support the notion of moral absolutes? I merely choose to spend some time in this "room".