Are there ethical and moral boundaries that no one will step over?

[Alan McDougall]

To a wife of an aboriginal, it is both moral and ethical to eat the brain of her dead husband to keep his essence within herself

 

To me killing a bird gives would be heart breaking and if I were to do it I would have a guilty conscience for killing an innocent creature and I feel it would violate my subjectively sense of what I think is moral (I have never killed a bird).

What I am aiming at here is to find by debate if there is an innate ingrained universal morality, which no human will step over?.

Is there a bar that no one will step over, or is it constantly being raised or lowered due to circumstances of the day?

These differencing in morals and perceptions of morals might account for most of the troubled history down the annals of human history and suffering.

 

Please add your thoughts!

Edited January 16, 2014 by Alan McDougall

[hypervalent_iodine]

I'm not an expert in the philosophy of morality, but I'm sure I read once about instinctive or base morality, which are traits that appear to be shared across people of different or no religious affiliation, ethnicities, etc., and form part of the social glue that has kept us working together in a cooperative fashion throughout the ages. IIRC, it's mostly in reference to things such as murder and theft.

 

A quick Google search gave back this wiki article, which is more or less what I recall having read about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_morality

[Alan McDougall]

I'm not an expert in the philosophy of morality, but I'm sure I read once about instinctive or base morality, which are traits that appear to be shared across people of different or no religious affiliation, ethnicities, etc., and form part of the social glue that has kept us working together in a cooperative fashion throughout the ages. IIRC, it's mostly in reference to things such as murder and theft.

 

A quick Google search gave back this wiki article, which is more or less what I recall having read about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_morality

 

I read the article and Darwin suggests that sympathy, is ingrained into us by evolution as a sort of survival tool. Other animals do also exercise altruism to an extent, I have seen that especially in elephants On the other hand our closest relative the chimpanzee is very selfish and does like to share with others of his species if they can avoid it..

 

I think what separates humans from apes and other higher animals, is our ability to emphasize with others of our kind, walk in their shoes so to speak. Psychopaths lack this survival aspect, and we see the result of zero empathy towards others, in the depravity of despots like Hitler.

[john5746]

I think what separates humans from apes and other higher animals, is our ability to emphasize with others of our kind, walk in their shoes so to speak. Psychopaths lack this survival aspect, and we see the result of zero empathy towards others, in the depravity of despots like Hitler.

I think other animals show empathy, but we are probably the only ones to worry about our species. At the same time, while most of us do have empathy for certain individuals or groups, we also can have zero empathy for huge groups of people.

 

Psychopaths are a problem, but it is normal people that carry out genocide.

[Delta1212]

Am I correct in believing that you are asking whether there is some act that is so evil, so unethical, that no one would ever do it?

 

Then I'd say the answer is: No, not for any act that it is within the power of enough people to accomplish.

[Alan McDougall]

I think other animals show empathy, but we are probably the only ones to worry about our species. At the same time, while most of us do have empathy for certain individuals or groups, we also can have zero empathy for huge groups of people.

 

Psychopaths are a problem, but it is normal people that carry out genocide.

 

Normal people would never commit genocide!, it the group or crowd that reduces a otherwise normal individual into a psychopathic beast, we see this in soccer hooliganism. I once asked my psychology professor, what made people follow despots blindly like they did with Hitler? He said it was his screaming oratory, combined with the loud noise of the huge crowds, whose shouting, eliminated individual thought, and reduced normal logically thinking people, down to the level of idiots, and convinced them to die for a cause that they knew nothing about.

 

Psychopaths are much, much more than a problem , they are a mistake of evolution, if we were all to turn into psychopaths tomorrow, the human race would quickly become extinct.

Am I correct in believing that you are asking whether there is some act that is so evil, so unethical, that no one would ever do it?

 

Then I'd say the answer is: No, not for any act that it is within the power of enough people to accomplish.

 

I think you are right, sadly human depravity has no boundaries. Most people would agree universally that rape or murder of a little innocent child or baby, is right at the top of the scale of human evil and would have very stringent laws against this horrible crime.

[imatfaal]

 

Normal people would never commit genocide!, it the group or crowd that reduces a otherwise normal individual into a psychopathic beast, we see this in soccer hooliganism. I once asked my psychology professor, what made people follow despots blindly like they did with Hitler? He said it was his screaming oratory, combined with the loud noise of the huge crowds, whose shouting, eliminated individual thought, and reduced normal logically thinking people, down to the level of idiots, and convinced them to die for a cause that they knew nothing about.

 

Would that the above were true. Ordinary people throughout history have committed genocide and gone back to their normal lives soon after. I have friends who have just returned from a holiday in country they described as the most welcoming and friendly they have ever visited (and they are well past the 100 mark in countries visited and intend to go to every country before they have to stop travelling). The people were happy, there was no hint of hidden or repressed violence, no bubbling tension - just small rural communities living in an idyllic setting and getting on with each other and the few tourists who dare to visit. The country is Rwanda - scene of one of the worst genocides (by proportion) of recorded history which took place very recently and in living memory of almost the entire adult population.

 

Psychopaths are much, much more than a problem , they are a mistake of evolution, if we were all to turn into psychopaths tomorrow, the human race would quickly become extinct.

 

I think you are right, sadly human depravity has no boundaries. Most people would agree universally that rape or murder of a little innocent child or baby, is right at the top of the scale of human evil and would have very stringent laws against this horrible crime.

 

There can be no proof or disproof of your statement - but I feel it is unlikely to be true. Our civilization might fall, and there would be far fewer of us - but I see no reason to claim we would become extinct.

[Marshalscienceguy]

 

To a wife of an aboriginal, it is both moral and ethical to eat the brain of her dead husband to keep his essence within herself

 

To me killing a bird gives would be heart breaking and if I were to do it I would have a guilty conscience for killing an innocent creature and I feel it would violate my subjectively sense of what I think is moral (I have never killed a bird).

 

What I am aiming at here is to find by debate if there is an innate ingrained universal morality, which no human will step over?.

 

Is there a bar that no one will step over, or is it constantly being raised or lowered due to circumstances of the day?

 

These differencing in morals and perceptions of morals might account for most of the troubled history down the annals of human history and suffering.

 

Please add your thoughts!

 

Of course not! If there is a rule it can be broken. Of course most people will follow these basic rules of ethics but some people simply do not care. We have people who have committed incest, had relations with animals and all other sort of morally questionable acts. We have free will and so the answer is no. Just because most people might be against it does not mean everyone is going to follow this rule. As well as that with every culture is a different set of moral codes. So what might be considered bad to some might be considered alright to others. An example would be in some places in India eating a cow is bad but in the US no one cares and eat mostly cow, pig and chicken. Pig is another thing that is considered unclean and bad too eat in other cultures such as jewdiusm. In fact most animals aside from people are not really bothered by the concept of incest either. So there is no such thing unbreakable moral boundaries and there will never be such a thing.

Edited January 19, 2014 by Marshalscienceguy

[Alan McDougall]

Of course not! If there is a rule it can be broken. Of course most people will follow these basic rules of ethics but some people simply do not care. We have people who have committed incest, had relations with animals and all other sort of morally questionable acts. We have free will and so the answer is no. Just because most people might be against it does not mean everyone is going to follow this rule. As well as that with every culture is a different set of moral codes. So what might be considered bad to some might be considered alright to others. An example would be in some places in India eating a cow is bad but in the US no one cares and eat mostly cow, pig and chicken. Pig is another thing that is considered unclean and bad too eat in other cultures such as jewdiusm. In fact most animals aside from people are not really bothered by the concept of incest either. So there is no such thing unbreakable moral boundaries and there will never be such a thing.

 

Hitlers ideology/hatred, led the attempt of genocide against the Jewish people did he really think he was doing the right and moral thing, that most of humanity though of as the act of a psychopathic monster. Could he be really thought of as an evil monster , if in his twisted mind he was doing the right thing?

[Dekan]

As soon as Hitler's mentioned, we must tread very cautiously.

 

The eggshells creak along the PC tightrope. A careless step could spell doom. Like plunging into the Reichenbach Falls.

 

I could reply to #9, by suggesting that to demonise Hitler as a twisted psychopathic evil monster, might possibly be an over-simplification.

 

However I don't want to get arrested and prosecuted.

[Alan McDougall]

As soon as Hitler's mentioned, we must tread very cautiously.

 

The eggshells creak along the PC tightrope. A careless step could spell doom. Like plunging into the Reichenbach Falls.

 

I could reply to #9, by suggesting that to demonise Hitler as a twisted psychopathic evil monster, might possibly be an over-simplification.

 

However I don't want to get arrested and prosecuted.

 

As soon as Hitler's mentioned, we must tread very cautiously.

 

The eggshells creak along the PC tightrope. A careless step could spell doom. Like plunging into the Reichenbach Falls.

 

I could reply to #9, by suggesting that to demonise Hitler as a twisted psychopathic evil monster, might possibly be an over-simplification.

 

However I don't want to get arrested and prosecuted.

 

Hitler had a lot of help so both he and his followers were guilty of attempted genocide.

[Marshalscienceguy]

 

Hitlers ideology/hatred, led the attempt of genocide against the Jewish people did he really think he was doing the right and moral thing, that most of humanity though of as the act of a psychopathic monster. Could he be really thought of as an evil monster , if in his twisted mind he was doing the right thing?

I already said different cultures have different sets of morals and rules. Which makes this argument pointless and irrelevant. The fact you picked something like Hitler makes it seems like you are doing this for shock value. Believing I will not answer your argument for fear of prosecution. Hitler was bad for the rest of us but he did in fact deliver prosperity and jobs to Germany. Though it might be arguable that the cost of this was too severe. So one might argue that winning is not worth it unless its done the right way. Which also goes to the argument "Does the means justify the end" or does the "end justify the means". Some people will do anything in search of that one goal and will stop at nothing to get there. Hitler was just one of those people who had one goal in mind and nothing could stop him from getting there at any cost. What he did was really very crooked.

Edited January 20, 2014 by Marshalscienceguy

[Alan McDougall]

I already said different cultures have different sets of morals and rules. Which makes this argument pointless and irrelevant. The fact you picked something like Hitler makes it seems like you are doing this for shock value. Believing I will not answer your argument for fear of prosecution. Hitler was bad for the rest of us but he did in fact deliver prosperity and jobs to Germany. Though it might be arguable that the cost of this was too severe. So one might argue that winning is not worth it unless its done the right way. Which also goes to the argument "Does the means justify the end" or does the "end justify the means". Some people will do anything in search of that one goal and will stop at nothing to get there. Hitler was just one of those people who had one goal in mind and nothing could stop him from getting there at any cost. What he did was really very crooked.

 

Hitler most definitely did not bring prosperity and jobs to Germany, all he did was leave Germany in ruins ruled by other countries and a humiliating defeat.