What's new
By:
Filters

At what point does it become moral for a collective to do immoral things?

Fuzzydog said:
morality, ethics, right, wrong.....they are all human constructs. unless you are all about the ten commandments and stuff, humanity didn't come with a guidebook that says you shouldn't kill. we made them up as we evolved, likely because they served the purpose of strengthening our society and increasing our chances of survival
it could just as easily have gone the other way. presumably most people feel it is immoral to terminate a pregnancy when it is known that the child will have a serious disbility. Some people feel it would be the moral thing to do.
That is just the way it worked out for us. If society had gone down a path of keeping humanity 'clean', and the majority grew up with the value that terminating such pregnancies is the right thing to do....then that is what we would be doing and most of us wouldn't be batting an eye about it.

to the original question, I would say when you have a large percentage of people in agreement. doesn't have to be 50% or more though -they just have to be strong and willing to fight for it. such a group could overpower a passive majority.
Click to expand...

Disagree there. CS Lewis talks about most ancient civilizations with zero interaction having a very similar “code of conduct” as evidence for God. Basically we all have a conscience rather than being self serving, and when we violate it we attempt to justify it.

Obviously modern laws have gone way beyond that, but we are so far down the “everything is relative” lie that they have been pushing we end up at men competing in women’s sports as “normal.”

Male and female is not a Christian social construct, it’s a fact of nature. Killing your own children is also against nature, a mother is supposed to protect and defend their young at all costs. They have to push lies like “abortion is healthcare” to justify it.
 
Landslide said:
Well, that one Frenchman stood up against the rioters to protect his property and they broke his bones and cut off one of his hands. That’s a pretty good deterrent for others to stand up against them.

It’s no different here really, people who stand up or get caught in the middle of riots here don’t fair very well and never have.
Click to expand...
look at rittenhouse there

if every property owner were doing their 'rooftop korean' duty ('duty' to themselves) then riots would necessarily be much more focused and orderly affairs
 
Gatorgrizz27 said:
They have to push lies like “abortion is healthcare” to justify it.
Click to expand...
to my mind that's more an artifact of arguing for some system of collectivized medicine

it is built upon the chant they've got going about 'healthcare is a human right' which is entirely asinine, as no right is dependent upon the labors of another... it isn't a right, but a transaction
 
gt1guy said:
If China attacked the US tomorrow, you don't think folks wouldn't look twice at the Chinese living here, wondering if they were spies?
Click to expand...
Legally they already are. Per ccp law any Chinese citizen living abroad must provide any information request of them about the country they are living in and the company they work for. Going to the morality thing - to their culture it is immoral for them to not aid their government.

Even what we consider our base morals have not always been that way
Murder - but what if it's a sacrifice to ensure rains so the crops grow
Slavery - still practiced in parts of the world
Theft - look at Nigerian and Indian scammers. To them it is moral to take advantage of those they see as less than them
Bribery - well, india again. Along with a lot of central America. Its part of doing business
 
Landslide said:
You’re using a blanket statement when it’s more then likely just one or two religious factions that disapprove of alcoholic beverages.
Click to expand...
No idea, there's other stuff too. Talking "vulgar", not giving $$ to church, working on Sunday, watching beyond G rated movies, etc.
 
gt1guy said:
There shouldn't be life without parole, life, 20+ year prison terms. All that shit should be death. You've had a jury of your peers agree that you should no longer be a part of society. Bullet, cremation, ashes thrown in the trash.

No reason to keep someone alive who isn't allowed to be part of society.
Click to expand...
Humanity has yet to invent a system that can make those decisions with sufficiently low false positive rate and other nasty side effects.

The state cannot and should not get the power of life and death over people.
 
[486] said:
bullshit, when is it necessary to put someone in prison for 25 years

if they're irredeemable then they'll eventually try and take from someone that ain't having it and end up dead
if they're going to 'mend their ways' how does forcing them to associate with similar outcasts speed that along? you become who you associate with
Click to expand...
I see your point but from a pragmatic perspective it's pretty easy to do away with the death penalty, do away with lifelong prison sentences, etc, etc rather than amass the support to challenge the whole system.
 
arse_sidewards said:
I see your point but from a pragmatic perspective it's pretty easy to do away with the death penalty, do away with lifelong prison sentences, etc, etc rather than amass the support to challenge the whole system.
Click to expand...
Then what do we do with all the shitbags that need killing? Rely on the fairness of random vigilantes or lynch mobs? Rapists, pedophiles, murderers, kidnappers, and folks who drive slow in the #1 lane must be executed.
 
ExWrench said:
Then what do we do with all the shitbags that need killing? Rely on the fairness of random vigilantes or lynch mobs? Rapists, pedophiles, murderers, kidnappers, and folks who drive slow in the #1 lane must be executed.
Click to expand...
What happens when the majority think you are the shitbag that needs killin'?
 
arse_sidewards said:
Humanity has yet to invent a system that can make those decisions with sufficiently low false positive rate and other nasty side effects.

The state cannot and should not get the power of life and death over people.
Click to expand...

I agree. Innocent people have been convicted since the beginning of time. Sometimes it's just bad luck and sometimes it was an excuse to get someone. Look a the Jan 6th folks.

Does not a jury of your peers take the state at least somewhat out of the equation?
 
[486] said:
It's how society worked before power-seeking maniacs decided to institutionalize murder.
Click to expand...
Those "maniacs" function in the streets as well as the .gov. With the .gov we have some checks and balances even though they are eroding away.
 
MuntCuffin said:
What happens when the majority think you are the shitbag that needs killin'?
Click to expand...
Well then, there's an increased likelihood of someone being killed.

What you were quoting was my inquiry re: feasible alternative. Feel free to provide an answer that's not a question.
 
ExWrench said:
Then what do we do with all the shitbags that need killing? Rely on the fairness of random vigilantes or lynch mobs? Rapists, pedophiles, murderers, kidnappers, and folks who drive slow in the #1 lane must be executed.
Click to expand...
What's stopping you from doing that now? Laws built to protect the legal system from becoming superceded by a strong social fabric.


Regarding vigilantes, if an individual has to nut up and kill their antagonist, then deal with the fallout of doing so, doesn't that act as enough of a deterrent?
punisher skull boomers still ain't gonna do fuckall
 
Mr.Ratbastard said:
Those "maniacs" function in the streets as well as the .gov. With the .gov we have some checks and balances even though they are eroding away.
Click to expand...
reread that post you quoted
the morally bankrupt maniacs I mention are those who wrote the laws which creates more or less concentration camps
 
[486] said:
reread that post you quoted
the morally bankrupt maniacs I mention are those who wrote the laws which creates more or less concentration camps
Click to expand...
Understood just pointing out that removing them from a position of power in the government, even removing the government completely doesn't remove the maniac from the equation. They find a way to thrive regardless.
 
[486] said:
What size group of supporters is necessary for such immoral acts to become moral?
Click to expand...
That which is immoral can never become moral simply because the majority decide it is (even with a unanimous decision).

Now, if your question is what percentage of the population is required for something immoral to be acceptable by society, then we need only to look at history to conclude that it only needs a very small vocal minority that gains the ear of the media and government so long as the vast majority of dissenters remain silent or at least inactive.
 
Last edited:
MChat said:
That which is immoral can never become moral simply because the majority decide it is (even with a unanimous decision).

Now, if your question is what percentage of the population is required for something immoral to be acceptable by society, then we need only to look at history to conclude that it only needs a very small vocal minority that either gains the ear of the media and government so long as the vast majority of dissenters remain silent or at least inactive.
Click to expand...
The majority of the population doesn't care about the majority of issues.
 
Andy Ngo is pretty knowledgeable on the ‘antifa’ thing….. he estimates there are roughly 800 members nationwide…..
If that’s the case….Look at the disruption less than 1000 people can cause!!!!!!
 
Gregj50!!!!! said:
Andy Ngo is pretty knowledgeable on the ‘antifa’ thing….. he estimates there are roughly 800 members nationwide…..
If that’s the case….Look at the disruption less than 1000 people can cause!!!!!!
Click to expand...
I think he pegged that number based on those he thought were part of the command structure and probably getting a paycheck, not the useful woke idiots doing what they are told for free, but point still stands.
 
IowaOffRoad said:
I think he pegged that number based on those he thought were part of the command structure and probably getting a paycheck, not the useful woke idiots doing what they are told for free, but point still stands.
Click to expand...

I think they ship a lot of the goons around the country. I'm sure there's many that call themselves Antifa online, but never get off the porch. I'm sure they have a............pro class.
 
Gregj50!!!!! said:
Andy Ngo is pretty knowledgeable on the ‘antifa’ thing….. he estimates there are roughly 800 members nationwide…..
If that’s the case….Look at the disruption less than 1000 people can cause!!!!!!
Click to expand...


The only difference is the support of the media and the Dems. Don't go thinking your gonna get that same support. Remember J6?



.
 
Poke said:
Morality is relative to society (and sub pockets of small groups within) so it’s fluid with time.

You have to define morals and distinguish it from evolving social norms to answer the question but that said, they are linked

In other words, if a group, even 5 people, think something is ‘right’ an argument can be made that it’s moral


“
Morality (from Latinmoralitas 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actionsbetween those that are distinguished as proper (right) and those that are improper (wrong).[1] Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.[2] Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness".

Moral philosophy includes meta-ethics, which studies abstract issues such as moral ontology and moral epistemology, and normative ethics, which studies more concrete systems of moral decision-making such as deontological ethics and consequentialism. An example of normative ethical philosophy is the Golden Rule, which states: "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself."[3][4]

Immorality is the active opposition to morality (i.e. opposition to that which is good or right), while amorality is variously defined as an unawareness of, indifference toward, or disbelief in any particular set of moral standards or principles.[5][6][7]
Click to expand...

So pedophilia can become moral if enough people agree?

Not in my world.

Or rape.

Or stealing, murder, etc.

There are absolutes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Back Refresh