Questioning Morality Within

This thread will attempt to challenge your notions on what you consider to be moral and immoral. It will ask you to give valid reasoning as to why you believe the things you do. One of the main reasons I have created this thread is to illustrate that in my own opinion, Moral Absolutes (MA) do not exist and every person derives their set of morals from a collective consensus of what is and what is not moral. I do not claim to have discovered these concepts myself, but the examples I have constructed are completely my own work. This thread is not concerned with defining what Morality is, or which religious faith or culture has the most Moral customs.

Stop reading this thread and move along if the following describers you:
- If you feel you have a very strong sense of morality and are not open to having your own understanding of Morality questioned.
- If you find discussing hypothetical situations that test the boundaries of typical Moral beliefs to be offensive.
- If you think this thread was created because the author is seeking to find reassurance for his own twisted desires.

The following scenarios were created with the intention of the reader questioning their own views on Morality when encountered with the respective situations. They are hypothetical situations, but are realistic enough to warrant examination. Please keep an open mind and try to silence thoughts that have been moulded into you by religion or culture as best you can.

1) Mark and Serenity are first cousins. From an early age, they realised they were attracted to each other but have kept their strong feelings for each other well hidden from their families. They have both convinced themselves that any sexual act between them would be wrong and have not acted on their impulses.

Question: If Mark and Serenity are both consenting adults that wish to express their love for each other, have no plans to procreate and are not in relationships, is it wrong for them to have sex? Why?

2) Peter's father has asked if he can fix his computer. Peter says he can't because he needs to go study for a test he has the next day. (In reality he wants to practice guitar quietly in his room.) After heading to his room, he looks in his diary and realises that he actually does have a mathematics test the next day. He will need to spend the remainder of the night studying. His father walks into his room and sees his math books on the table and tells him the computer can be fixed another time.

Question: Did Peter lie to his father? Was the truth hurt by what he told his father?

3) Frank is driving towards his house after a long day at work. As he is about to turn into his driveway, he notices the neighbour's cat and immediately slams on the break pedal. He is relieved to see the cat has run, unharmed, to its home. After he parks the car, he notices the motionless body of a pigeon under his back wheel. Had he not stepped on the break, it is probable the pigeon would not have suffered a painful death.

Question: is Frank responsible for the death of the pigeon? Was Frank's decision to stamp on the break pedal the cause that led to the pigeon's death?

4) David is inside a supermarket and decides he wants a bottle of water and pack of mints. After realising he does not have enough money for both, he decides he will buy the mints (the more expensive item) but steal the bottle of water. He notes that there are many more bottles of water. After walking about 2km from the isolated shop and swallowing some mints, he opens his bottle of water. As he is about to take a sip, he notices a homeless man on the ground. The man looks very weak and in distress. He can hear faint cries of “water, I need water...”. He puts the cap back on the bottle, hands the bottle of water over to the man and smiles. The homeless man takes down most of the water in one big gulp and then smiles at David, his face full of thanks and appreciation.

Question: Had David not stolen the water, would the Homeless man's death be David's responsibility were he placed in the exact same situation without this bottle of water that he stole? Was David's act one of redemption?

5) Cedric has always found his mother's sister attractive. Ever since a young age he can remember finding her beautiful and nice to look at. Sometimes he masturbates while thinking about having sex with her. He is adamant that he would never do so in real life under any circumstances. He is fully aware of the consequences that would result if he did so in real life.

Question: is what Cedric is doing wrong? Is he harming anybody in the process of what he does for self-gratification? Are his thoughts negatively affecting him or his aunt?

---

I can think of a few others, but that will do for now. If there are enough people that show interest in this thread and would like to see some more examples, I will do so. Thanks for taking the time to read this thread.

[edit on 14/2/2010 by Dark Ghost]

For it's worth, here are my personal answers. I am an agnostic, so they don't reflect a religious tradition. People say I am not very cultured, either.

Hope the answers are of some use or interest to you, anyway.

1.

is it wrong for them to have sex? Why?

Yes. Because, according to the fact pattern, they would be acting against their own moral judgment.

... They have both convinced themselves that any sexual act between them would be wrong ...

2.

Did Peter lie to his father? Was the truth hurt by what he told his father?

Yes, Peter lied. No, as it turned out, it was a wrong without an injury, so far as we can tell.

3.

is Frank responsible for the death of the pigeon? Was Frank's decision to stamp on the break pedal the cause that led to the pigeon's death?

Yes, it would appear the driver is partly responsible for the pigeon's death. The pigeon bears some responsibility, as well. No, the driver's decision was not the cause of the pigeon's death, but it was a link in the causal chain that ended the pigeon's life.

4.

Had David not stolen the water, would the Homeless man's death be David's responsibility were he placed in the exact same situation without this bottle of water that he stole? Was David's act one of redemption?

No, David would neither have caused the homeless man's thirst, nor in the modified case would David have the means to remedy the crisis. David did a good thing in sharing the water, but I am unsure what you are looking for beyond that ("redemption"). He's still a thief - not that that's the worst thing in the world, but it is what he is.

It would also be nice if once David gets home, and finds the rest of his money, he compensates the shop owner. That is more like what I would call redemption, or at least, undoing the harm of what he has done.

5.

is what Cedric is doing wrong? Is he harming anybody in the process of what he does for self-gratification? Are his thoughts negatively affecting him or his aunt?

No, no, and I don't know: could be, I suppose, but there's nothing in the fact pattern that strongly supports this.

reply to post by Dark Ghost

Question: If Mark and Serenity are both consenting adults that wish to express their love for each other, have no plans to procreate and are not in relationships, is it wrong for them to have sex? Why?

No, what consenting adults do is no business of anyone else, there was a time (and in some places still is) that it was wrong for Mark and Dave to have sex but those were just other peoples opinions forced upon Mark and Dave.


However I don't honestly know whether 2 cousins could produce a retard like a proper incestuous relationship can.

Sex and reproduction are 2 different things unfortunate one can often lead to the other, this barrier is now being broken so the future looks interesting.

reply to post by Dark Ghost

Question: is Frank responsible for the death of the pigeon? Was Frank's decision to stamp on the break pedal the cause that led to the pigeon's death?

The pigeon flew into franks car, the death of the pigeon had nothing to do with frank.

On a personal note I would have run over the cat.

reply to post by Dark Ghost

Question: is what Cedric is doing wrong? Is he harming anybody in the process of what he does for self-gratification? Are his thoughts negatively affecting him or his aunt?

No, having a wank doesn't hurt anyone perhaps we should be more interested in why as a species we have these issues with sex.

reply to post by Dark Ghost


Morality is the concern of making a distinction between good and evil, or right and wrong. If all people are free to live life and pursue happiness, then this distinction becomes an important one. If people are not free to live life and pursue happiness, then murder is not evil nor is it wrong, theft is not evil, nor is it wrong, rape is not evil, nor is it wrong, assault and battery is not evil, nor is wrong, slavery is not evil nor is it wrong.

Ethics is often equated with morality, and ethics has long been defined as the greatest good to the greatest amount. Murder does not achieve this end, yet killing another in self defense does. Theft does not achieve this end, and it is a rare circumstance where such an action is justifiable, and in the end justifications become excuses for unethical behavior. Certainly rape does not achieve any greater good, nor does slavery.

Of the hypothetical situations presented, few qualify as actual moral dilemma's. The first question of consensual sex between first cousins is not a moral issue, but in the U.S. is a legal issue in 31 states. That so many states prohibit this form of marriage or consensual sex, is in all likelihood an attempt at legislated morality, based upon refuted science that suggests that genetic defects of children sired by first cousins is a probability. More recent science in genetics suggests otherwise, and given that, the moral issue becomes moot.

The second question of lying is a moral issue, as well as an ethical issue. The hypothetical, however, presents an incomplete scenario in that before Peter has any chance to truly allow his own conscience to kick in and correct the lie, he discovers he had in fact not lied. There is a high likelihood that while he desired to simply play guitar his own consciousness was fully aware of his responsibilities to his math class, and is supported by his own effort to check his diary.

The third hypothetical is not a moral issue at all. It may be a tragic one for the pigeon, but the hypothetical clearly presents a scenario where the driver has acted in good conscience to prevent the death of a cat, and had no knowledge of any pigeon until after the incident. If he was placed in a situation where he had knowledge of both the pigeon and the cat, and was forced to make a decision on which animal he would protect, there is still no moral issue involved, nor is their an ethical one. Clearly one animal must die in this hypothetical and the choice would belong solely to the driver, but the responsibility of that death is not his.

The fourth hypothetical is a moral issue as well as an ethical issue. David has stolen the water and his subsequent donation of the water to the "dying homeless man" does not change this theft. The hypothetical attempts to make David's subsequent donation of the stolen water a life saving event that defies all explanation. Water is still easily obtained without cost, and there are far too many other options available in order to help this homeless man gain access to water. It is merely a pretense that the stolen bottle of water is the only possible option in "saving" the "dying" homeless person.

The fifth hypothetical is only a moral issue in that thought is a powerful precursor to action and often times dictates a persons direction in life. Fantasies are necessary and this one may seem innocuous enough and may not even be a problem, if first cousins is not, then why so an aunt? However, it is a fantasy that involves an immediate family member and while it, according to this hypothetical, remains merely a fantasy, the hypothetical itself ignores the awkward feelings that follow, once Cedric is faced with is Aunt in reality. It is the hypothetical that presents the feelings for the Aunt as being wrong since Cedric is "adamant" he would never act upon these feelings. This means Cedric believes the feelings are wrong. However his masturbation's are actions, and those actions will lead to guilt.

His thoughts are powerful enough to masturbate over, and this suggest those thoughts will carry over in real life situations, and while they may remain thoughts, they will be thoughts Cedric has when near his Aunt, and this will create a sense of awkwardness. That awkwardness can lead to more awkwardness and Cedric will react in various ways that could very well lead to unethical behavior causing conflict and harm to he and his family. If David can not control his own thoughts, it is doubtful he will be able to control his emotions either, and this will more than likely cause many problems.

Morality is not some arbitrary set of rules established by arbitrary people. It is a distinction between right and wrong, because in a society, where people must live and work together, there is right and there is wrong.



[edit on 14-2-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

Explanation: S&F!

Here is my strong moral standard: Do what thou will and harm none.

1] No it wouldn't be wrong! Because they are doing what they will and harming none..especially not me!

2] Yes, Peter lied to his father, as that is quite obvious!

Yes the truth was hurt by what he told his father because it was not congruent with his actual aims. Honesty was harmed!

3] Yes, Frank was at least 50% responsible for the pigeons death because he was intimately involved with that relationship with the pigeon, who also bears 50% responsibility also. Both were responsible for the harm done.

Yes, Franks descision to stamp on the break pedal was directly implicated as his harmful act which combined with the pigeons own harmful actions that lead to the pigeons harmful death.

4] No, Davids lack of "stolen" water would not make him responsible for the homeless mans death, because he had no freaking idea that it would be required at all before the situation manifested and or came to his attention. There was no prior relationship and therefor the harm was not of his doing.

No, it is not an act of redemption because his debt to the store/owner for the water he stole still has not been repaid, as debts cannot be paid off by the debtor to an anonymous proxy and thereby clear any owed debts to the creditor, without PRIOR permission from the creditor. To do so would rob/harm the creditor AGAIN!

5] No it is not wrong because he is enjoying it [no harm there] and she doesn't need to be informed and made aware unless SHE asks him directly about it. Since she is oblivious to it and isn't complaining, there is no harm being done.

No, he isn't harming anyone in THAT pursuit of self gratification because the information supplied by you indicates no negetive consequences [i.e. harm] for such an act.

No, his thoughts are his alone, unless he shares them, and therefor they can't harm his aunt and can only harm himself, if he so chooses to allow them to.

Personal Disclosure: I look forward to more examples for me to answer and also anything you might wish to inquire of me about my posted answers! Thanks!

reply to post by Dark Ghost


1) I see no problem with it. I would probably never do that myself, but who am I to stand in the way of someone's happiness?

2) Depends on how much you subscribe to the whole "freudian slip" unconscious seeps out sort of theories. He lied, yeah. Was the truth hurt? No. What he said was true, he just didn't know it yet (or subconsciously knew it).

3) We don't know if Frank is responsible, it's probable, but not improbable. But, did he mean to do it? Of course not! If he has enough compassion to not run over a neighbor's cat, I'm sure he has enough compassion to not run over a pigeon. Accidents happen, so do accidental deaths.

4) Would the death be David's responsibility? Yes and no. I think we all have the moral obligation to help one another, and not doing so is ignorant and egotistical. We all rely on each other, even if it is not readily apparent. Was it redemption? Yes, negative and positive cancel each other out, in the mathematical community anyway.

5) He isn't hurting anybody. Having said that, repeated behaviour of that sort could very well lead to an unhealthy addiction with his aunt and/or very awkward family reunions!

Anyway, that's my take on your moral inquiries.. Very nice thread and some very pertinent questions asked

-Crazy...I'm so crazy...

reply to post by Dark Ghost


Question: Is the material in your original post your own or is it cut paste?

If it's cut paste would you please note the original text, a url link, etc.

If it's your own, I'd like to know that before going any farther.

Thanks

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
One of the main reasons I have created this thread is to illustrate that in my own opinion, Moral Absolutes (MA) do not exist and every person derives their set of morals from a collective consensus of what is and what is not moral.

Moral absolutes are used for judgment only, and they do not exist in justice.

I think the problem people have with moral is that they have been confused been judgment and justice.

Justice is a virtue. Morals are not virtues. The bible teaches morals, yet it does not teach virtue. Justice, however, needs a set of judges, as justice cannot be any of those judges.

You may be interested in the history of avatars and the virtues. Within virtue, there is no right, wrong, true, or false. There is only names of virtue as if it where defined by quantum mechanics (minus physics): Honor, deceit, spirituality, sin, compassion, lust, loyalty, death, etc...

... in qm, it would be like up, down, left, right, back, forth.

It seems some of the examples were not as well-expressed as I intended. I sometimes have trouble expressing my ideas into words on these kinds of topics. I'll try to elaborate on each example so readers know what I meant. Just to be clear: these examples are all the product of my own wild imagination. I did not copy them from anywhere, but my examples were inspired by concepts and ideas found in the fields of Philosophy and Morality.

Example 1: Many would say sex between the two would be wrong. But, they are both consenting adults, of the opposite sex and have no desire to produce children. It still seems wrong Mark wants too have sex with his Uncle's daughter. It seems wrong Serenity wants to have sex with her Uncle's son. If they were third cousins, would this seem less wrong or equally as bad?

Example 2: What is it that constitutes a lie? Is it the intent of the individual or the attack on the Truth of the matter? Has Peter actually lied to his father? The excuse he gave ended up being real and truthful. It is somewhat of a Paradox. What if Peter's father had walked in and had seen him playing guitar on his bed? Would the lie have seemed more real? Would his father have felt justifiably more angry at his son for lying?

Example 3: This deals with the idea of cause and effect. At first it seems Frank was well-intentioned and did not mean to kill the pigeon. However, his act of stepping on the break pedal led to the death of the pigeon. Had he not used the break pedal, the pigeon would not have suffered a painful death. If one removes the emotional angle (was trying to save the cat from being run over) from the equation, did Frank cause the death of the pigeon?

Example 4: I meant this to be seen as one long chain of events. Had David not taken part in a negative form of behaviour (theft of the water), he would not have been able to save the man later on. If you remove the theft from the chain of events, David not having the bottle of water meant the man would have died. Perhaps sometimes one negative action can be cancelled out with one act of kindness? Maybe David from now on will start buying materials for the homeless every time he shops. But if he is convicted for theft and placed in jail, he would not be able to embark on this life-changing behaviour.

Example 5: Cedric will never act out on these desires in real life. There is no chance he would do this and strictly keeps them confined to his mind. If one eliminates the potential danger of thoughts leading to actions, is his behaviour wrong? Would his mother object to the fact that he is achieving sexual gratification while thinking about her own sister? Does his fantasising harm his Aunt emotionally? Does it harm himself emotionally?

[edit on 14/2/2010 by Dark Ghost]

Q1: the cousins:

It's stated at the outset the cousins believe it would be wrong to sleep together. If they do so, they will believe they've done wrong. I'd make no attempt to convince them otherwise


Q2: Peter & his father:

Peter lied in the first instance. He'll know he's a man when he's able to say to his father: ' There are other things I'd rather do than fix your computer. Maybe later I'll help you '


Q3: Frank bears no guilt, in my opinion. He did his best with the best of intentions. Obviously, had the bird not been where it was, Frank's car would not have killed it


Q.4: David and the water:

David stole. He intended to steal. He could have chosen to live within his means and buy only the item/s he could afford

The fact he gave the stolen item to someone else, which yes, was a worthwhile act, does not redeem him. To redeem himself, he could repay the store, in person or anonymously

Q5: Cedric and his aunt:

Cedric is violating his aunt. The fact the act is imaginary is immaterial. It could be argued that thoughts have influence. It may be that his aunt suffers from recurring nightmares about being violated or simply suffers free-floating anxiety. Or is not influenced by Cedric's imaginary violations.

Regardless, Cedric is violating his aunt and her privacy and her right to choose for herself her sex-partners

OK, I'll play along.

1) "Mark and Serinity"

"If Mark and Serenity are both consenting adults that wish to express their love for each other, have no plans to procreate and are not in relationships, is it wrong for them to have sex? Why?"

... this may be a little harder than i thought?

-hmmm... it seems that it does not matter which way i look at this situation, that it is just wrong

-Maybe it's social conditioning, maybe its my personal belief... i really don't know?

"If they were third cousins, would this seem less wrong or equally as bad?"

-NEXT!

2) "Peter"

"Did Peter lie to his father? Was the truth hurt by what he told his father?"

-Yes, it was a lie, but we all SOMETIMES intend or say we are going to do something and secretly do whatever we really want anyway (well at least i do, not purposly though) and i believe the morality of the situation will mostly be in the eyes of the father.

"What if Peter's father had walked in and had seen him playing guitar on his bed? Would his father have felt justifiably more angry at his son for lying?"

-The fathers actions will determine the outcome of the situation. If the father were understanding, he would probably see himself in his son, at that age, and tell his boy to openly speak his mind, "If you don't want to do it tell me" kind of talk,

...but, if the dad is an angry drunk, of course he's going to be pi$$*d-off!!!


3) "Frank"

"Question: is Frank responsible for the death of the pigeon? Was Frank's decision to stamp on the break pedal the cause that led to the pigeon's death?"

-The way i see it, it is either "YOU" or "THEM" be it Cat, Bird, Rabbit, Deer, Elf, whatever. Of course, there are exceptions, but when it comes to animals is it logical to risk an accident and cause harm to yourself and/or other passengers/drivers to save a pigeon? I realize this is a little out of the criteria you present, but i feel my logic is still applicable.

-For example, i ran over a pigeon the other day and felt horrible, believe it or not, for a few hours. I then replayed the event in my mind and thought "maybe this thing wanted to die. I mean he flew right into my tire at 50 mph!!!" lets consider a differnt out come to the same situation. I see the bird comming and swerve into the next lane crashing my car into another and inadvertantly cause a 7 car pile up resulting in 2 fatalities...

-FOR A BIRD!!! not worth it to me.

- i already feel i might get some bad replies for saying that, so go ahead and bring on the flames!!!

bottom line: bird is dead, $h*T happens.

4) "David"

-Steal from the rich, and give to the poor... somewhat.

-He was wrong for stealing it, but to give it to another seems to have cancelled it out. I guess when it comes to bodily needs (like water) maybe it is wrong to withhold it from someone because they cant afford it. As for the homeless man... he COULD have died, but the assumption that he was in fact going to die i feel is wrong. He could have went in the store and stole it himself, would the homeless man still be wrong if he had to steal to survive?

-And finally...

5) "Cedric" has always found his mother's sister attractive."

-Really, another one of these...

"is what Cedric is doing wrong? Is he harming anybody in the process of what he does for self-gratification? Are his thoughts negatively affecting him or his aunt?"

-... When in doubt, Jerk it out

-i guess i dont really see a difference with that and Jessica Simpson... other than the fact that SHE's YOUR AUNT!!! sorry if i didn't reply naturally i would be lying to you and myself.


- Had a good time answering your questions and appreciate the hard work you put into a thought provoking thread S&F from me



[edit on 14-2-2010 by H4W4II4N_PUNCH]

Some good replies. Thanks for your input. I realise some examples could have been better worded or put into context better. I have taken in your comments and appreciate your input.

The only example I still feel isn't receiving enough attention is the second one. I really could be looking too much into this one, but it seems to me it is not a simple case of "yes, he lied!"

Did Peter actually lie to his father? Everything he says is the truth and he did not give false reasons. Perhaps he unconsciously told the truth because his mind realised he needed to study for a test the next day? So, even from the beginning, he might have known that he had a test and this was the only way his unconscious could get him to realise this.

[edit on 16/2/2010 by Dark Ghost]

reply to post by Dark Ghost


Dark Ghost,

Absolutely wonderful thread! Big S+F

Let me try to address these question.

Mark and Serenity:

I think Mark and Serenity, as consenting adults, should make up their own mind about their relationship. That does not, however, alleviate them of their responsibility to consider the moral standards of the group they live in. If general consensus is that family should not have an intimate relationship then they should respect that or address the issue before the act.

Peter and his father:

Fact is a fact, Peter lied to his father. If Peter has no problem with people lying to him then i guess it shouldn't matter to Peter that Peter lied. It does matter when Peter's father does have a problem with lying and Peter knows this. Then Peter will have ignored to act responsible towards his fathers feelings.

Frank:

I guess that Frank did not deliberately kill the pigeon so if anybody is at fault here, it's faith. From your story i cannot be sure if Frank's action led to the death of the pigeon but Frank's action was done out of care and the responsibility he felt for an other living being.

David:

Non-sense!! David stole the bottle out of own personal interest. Without regard to the shop owner and the family he has to feed. The homeless man dying in the street was indeed saved by the bottle David stole but this action is only excusable if he had stolen the bottle for the reason of saving an other man's life.

Cedric:

I think somebody should warn Cedric that he may turn blind if he does such things... , just kidding of course!! As long as nobody is affected by the actions of one man then that man should have the freedom to do as he pleases.

Thanks for those interesting question.

Peace

[edit on 16-2-2010 by operation mindcrime]

Perhaps he unconsciously told the truth because his mind realised he needed to study for a test the next day? So, even from the beginning, he might have known that he had a test and this was the only way his unconscious could get him to realise this.

That's all very interesting, and kudos to JPZ and crazy for first pointing out the possibility.

However, I took the fact patterns as ground facts to which principles should be applied. The second fact pattern states that the reason why Peter told his father what he did was so that Peter could play his guitar without paying the price for denying his father's request for assistance.

Peter says he can't because he needs to go study for a test he has the next day. (In reality he wants to practice guitar quietly in his room.)

Obviously, if Peter acted for another reason than the one stated in the fact pattern, then that would be a different problem.

For example, we could imagine the problem where, instead of "in reality," Peter only thought that he might want to play his guitar. So, we reach the end of the fact pattern and nobody knows what Peter's intentions actually were when he told his father about the test, including Peter himself. That's what unconscious means.

In that modified hypothetical, modified because you have changed the facts, then my answer would be "I don't know" whether or not a wrong was committed. And so, to the second question, my answer becomes if a wrong was committed, then it was a wrong without an injury, so far as we can tell.

[edit on 16-2-2010 by eight bits]

Thanks to everyone for the kind words.

Originally posted by operation mindcrime
Mark and Serenity:

I think Mark and Serenity, as consenting adults, should make up their own mind about their relationship. That does not, however, alleviate them of their responsibility to consider the moral standards of the group they live in. If general consensus is that family should not have an intimate relationship then they should respect that or address the issue before the act.

You raise a very good point about the "moral standards of the group" they live in. Moral standards in any group are usually enforced for the betterment or protection of society as a whole. I along with many agree that those living in society should respect and abide by the needs of that community. My question is why is this situation so taboo? Why is this sexual relationship between the first cousins judged so harshly by the majority?

Peter and his father:

Fact is a fact, Peter lied to his father. If Peter has no problem with people lying to him then i guess it shouldn't matter to Peter that Peter lied. It does matter when Peter's father does have a problem with lying and Peter knows this. Then Peter will have ignored to act responsible towards his fathers feelings.

I think my disagreement with most people's replies on this example shows that my understanding of what constitutes lying is different than most. I view the act of lying more to do with the effect it has on the truth and its use to deceive or mislead another person. Based on my feelings, the truth has not been hurt, Peter did not lie to his father and he did not gain in anyway by using the lie. But I understand and accept that most don't agree with me on this.

Frank:

I guess that Frank did not deliberately kill the pigeon so if anybody is at fault here, it's faith. From your story i cannot be sure if Frank's action led to the death of the pigeon but Frank's action was done out of care and the responsibility he felt for an other living being.

I am being a little harsh on Frank I think. His action was, as you and others have stated, done in good faith so that he would avoid harming the Cat. But from the sense of Cause and Effect, had he stepped on the peddle, the pigeon would not have suffered a painful death. I realise that morality cannot be judged on the basis of Cause and Effect alone, because there are things out of our control. I am playing DA in this example.

David:

Non-sense!! David stole the bottle out of own personal interest. Without regard to the shop owner and the family he has to feed. The homeless man dying in the street was indeed saved by the bottle David stole but this action is only excusable if he had stolen the bottle for the reason of saving an other man's life.

Again, you and other posters have made a valid point that I cannot really refute. His act of stealing the water was out of selfishness and self-fulfilment. Had he not done so and was confronted by the man and only had the packet of mints in his hand, he might have thought (if only I had bought the water instead.) This might have made him feel guilty that his earlier choice meant he could not save the man's life at the time.

Cedric:

I think somebody should warn Cedric that he may turn blind if he does such things...

, just kidding of course!! As long as nobody is affected by the actions of one man then that man should have the freedom to do as he pleases.

True, although society still considers this taboo. What is the actual difference between Cedric pleasuring himself whilst thinking about Jennifer Hawkins and his Aunt? Jennifer Hawkins is (or probably will be) somebody's Aunt. As you said, he is not hurting another person or actually affecting anything other than himself, so why is society so against this?

Originally posted by eight bits
That's all very interesting, and kudos to JPZ and crazy for first pointing out the possibility.

However, I took the fact patterns as ground facts to which principles should be applied. The second fact pattern states that the reason why Peter told his father what he did was so that Peter could play his guitar without paying the price for denying his father's request for assistance.

Maybe it was not because he wanted to disobey his father, but rather he had no interest in fixing the computer. Perhaps his strong desire to practice guitar overpowered his will to meet his father's needs. I guess I could have put it better into context. Maybe I should have put "asking him for the 3rd time today" to fix a computer problem he had.

Obviously, if Peter acted for another reason than the one stated in the fact pattern, then that would be a different problem.

For example, we could imagine the problem where, instead of "in reality," Peter only thought that he might want to play his guitar. So, we reach the end of the fact pattern and nobody knows what Peter's intentions actually were when he told his father about the test, including Peter himself. That's what unconscious means.

Good point, I agree.

In that modified hypothetical, modified because you have changed the facts, then my answer would be "I don't know" whether or not a wrong was committed. And so, to the second question, my answer becomes if a wrong was committed, then it was a wrong without an injury, so far as we can tell.

This is up for debate. I believe that considering Peter's "lie" to his father as being morally wrong is unsubstantiated. In my view, Peter was "lying" at the time he said this to his father. But in hindsight, his answer he gave was truthful. That is why I consider the situation to present somewhat of a paradox - it seems plausible to conclude that he both lied yet told the truth in this example.

Morality also extends to animals.

I am a weeper, a crier, a total wimp about this world.

So I probably am not in your research team.

Originally posted by kawacat
Morality also extends to animals.

I am a weeper, a crier, a total wimp about this world.

So I probably am not in your research team.

I welcome your input into this thread. Not looking for a research team. The "warning" I had at the beginning was to deter people that are not actually interested in discussing the content but rather who would attack me and somehow claim that I endorse or take part in the examples mentioned. I have seen this happening in other threads and didn't want it to happen here.

If you have something to add to the discussion then please do. I would much rather see quality replies - whether they agree or disagree with my views - than stars and flags.

Did you wish to comment on Example 3 (Frank scenario)? Maybe the content of that example interests you and you have an opinion you wish to express on the matter?