Jump to content
Premed 101 Forums

Abortion doc murdered in Wichita


Recommended Posts

But what if a law is immoral? Not arguing about this particular case, but in general, is an immoral law a law that should be followed?

 

Morality is subjective, as people hold personal morals that these might or might not be the same as others. Really if we want to be honest, Laws are just a collection of rules the (majority of) people of our country believe to be neccessary and moral, and agree that all who are in this country must abide by.

 

We can go aroung spouting morals this or morals that. That's how we had the crusades, and why so many muslim extremists (not all muslims just the one's with extreme views. If this isn't you than dont be offended) want to kill those of "western" ways because we are so immoral in our premarital sex and our scandaly clad women.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Morality is subjective, as people hold personal morals that these might or might not be the same as others. Really if we want to be honest, Laws are just a collection of rules the (majority of) people of our country believe to be neccessary and moral, and agree that all who are in this country must abide by.

 

We can go aroung spouting morals this or morals that. That's how we had the crusades, and why so many muslim extremists (not all muslims just the one's with extreme views. If this isn't you than dont be offended) want to kill those of "western" ways because we are so immoral in our premarital sex and our scandaly clad women.

 

Yes but for example. Slavery was an immoral law. Did those in American have a duty to follow it when it was in force? Apartheid too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Shim
that was then, this is now.

 

If law is the absolute morale in the world, how come did it change ? The people changed, you'd say ? You should know that the humans nature doesn't change. We were and we are still humans, even if you would have borned centuries before. There's nothing new to us or to our ways of thinking.

 

If the human can't change, our morale can't change neither. The laws used by some countries at the time of war (i.e. Germany, but spare me the Godwin's Law, Japan and many countries in the occident did the same way too) considered the humans as an object that had to be profitable to the economy of the said country.

 

In my opinion, and to many other liberals (in a philosophy way of thinking, not politics), it's a fact that laws have to be as less as possible. They just limit the human beings in their rights. ---> I didn't say here that murder or robbery should be legalized here, but many laws are just useless. Let people do what they wanna do.

 

I know Socrates said that you had to respect the laws, and this is true, but it's false to think that laws are wisdom. It's repression, nothing more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes but for example. Slavery was an immoral law. Did those in American have a duty to follow it when it was in force? Apartheid too.

 

 

Slavery was deemed to be immoral. It wasn't immoral before humanity decided it to be immoral. Some people have a difficulty realizing that just because there is something (such as slavery) which is absolutely abhorrent to them that the wrongness of it isn't concrete.

 

Violence and murder are considered immoral and many people believe this to always be the case and that people of the past were just horrible, immoral beings. Yet for many generations it was socially acceptable for two guys to whip out swords or pistols and duel to the death. Nowadays such actions would be considered abhorrent to others.

 

That is why things change, some acts becoming acceptable and others becoming unacceptable. There are some people who truly believe that showing too much skin is very immoral in women, and they believe this has always been the case. Morality isn't like the laws of physics. Gravity existed before we knew what gravity was, but killing another human was generally immoral until humanity as a whole decided it was.

 

Morality isn't set in stone, it is not a concrete law of reality. A very religious Christian would view many of my behaviors as immoral, and yet I consider myself a person with a strong sense of principles/morals. However I see no moral wrongness in pre-marital sex, drinking, showing of the human body, or questioning of the bible.

 

 

 

 

 

If law is the absolute morale in the world, how come did it change ? The people changed, you'd say ? You should know that the humans nature doesn't change. We were and we are still humans, even if you would have borned centuries before. There's nothing new to us or to our ways of thinking.

 

If the human can't change, our morale can't change neither. The laws used by some countries at the time of war (i.e. Germany, but spare me the Godwin's Law, Japan and many countries in the occident did the same way too) considered the humans as an object that had to be profitable to the economy of the said country.

 

Human nature doesn't change? Human's never change? There is nothing new to our way of thinking????

 

 

Wow...so how do you explain the shift from pagan beliefs to christianity? How do you explain the change in beliefs about science? How do you explain the change in views about race/ethnicity? How do you explain the condemnation of sexuality by christians (which was previously absent)? How do you explain the reemergence of sexuality being acceptable? How do you explain the change in views about slavery? How do you explain the change in views about women's rights? How do you explain the change in views about various political systems? How do you explain the change in views regarding was is appropriate parental care of children? How do you explain the changing views on personal health in the world? How do you explain the changing views about the environment?

 

I don't really need to continue, but really wow. I was floored by that post you got me there. Human thinking doesn't change, lol. Human's don't change lol.

 

I am trying to be understanding and put some weight behind what you are trying to say but really!? People don't change? Our morals can't change? Where did you get this stuff?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You made all of a tangeant here. tooty was talking about the value of life and laws, as if the truth behind this would change.

 

About the idea if human nature either change or not, you would know if you would be iniatiated to philosophy that a lot of people think that way. I don't mean to use this an argument, but simply to point out that it's not foolish as you seems to tell us. We could have a really serious debate on this.

 

To answer quickly, the "old" morale that you're refering about can be solely explained with specific human interests or social classes. As an example, you talked about the changing views about environment. A century before, during the industrial revolution, people were very confidant in science and progress. They were ignorant of any side-effects or pollution, and it would have obviously been not a good time to argue about it since industries solved a lot of crisis.

Now tell me how did you want these people to have opposite opinions, and have due consideration about this..?

Obviously if you want "nature human to change", you need controversy somewhere...

We weren't there back than, so it's quite easy for us to think that we changed. You should know that if we polluted our planet, it was to avoid famine, to avoid financial crisis or to be crushed during wars. Nobody had the idea of saying "hey, we got to change our view about environment and these new industries. We're going to have a lot of problems in future generations !" because as I said 1) they weren't enough educated so they didn't even know about these problems 2) they were necessary resolutions.

 

It's easy to simply answer "well, human changes", but I don't think we were much stupid than we are today.

 

I agree that I picked on the easiest subject you enumerated, but others could be explained as well. Not that I have the answer to all of them. If this interest you, let's pursue in PM, because we're not talking about abortion anymore.

 

 

edit: By the way, the "human nature" CAN'T change because it's the definition of the expression itself. The only thing you can do is neither include something or not as a component of the human nature. The ability to learn would be included in the human nature as an example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You made all of a tangeant here. tooty was talking about the value of life and laws, as if the truth behind this would change.

 

About the idea if human nature either change or not, you would know if you would be iniatiated to philosophy that a lot of people think that way. I don't mean to use this an argument, but simply to point out that it's not foolish as you seems to tell us. We could have a really serious debate on this.

 

To answer quickly, the "old" morale that you're refering about can be solely explained with specific human interests or social classes. As an example, you talked about the changing views about environment. A century before, during the industrial revolution, people were very confidant in science and progress. They were ignorant of any side-effects or pollution, and it would have obviously been not a good time to argue about it since industries solved a lot of crisis.

Now tell me how did you want these people to have opposite opinions, and have due consideration about this..?

Obviously if you want "nature human to change", you need controversy somewhere...

We weren't there back than, so it's quite easy for us to think that we changed. You should know that if we polluted our planet, it was to avoid famine, to avoid financial crisis or to be crushed during wars. Nobody had the idea of saying "hey, we got to change our view about environment and these new industries. We're going to have a lot of problems in future generations !" because as I said 1) they weren't enough educated so they didn't even know about these problems 2) they were necessary resolutions.

 

It's easy to simply answer "well, human changes", but I don't think we were much stupid than we are today.

 

I agree that I picked on the easiest subject you enumerated, but others could be explained as well. Not that I have the answer to all of them. If this interest you, let's pursue in PM, because we're not talking about abortion anymore.

 

 

edit: By the way, the "human nature" CAN'T change because it's the definition of the expression itself. The only thing you can do is neither include something or not as a component of the human nature. The ability to learn would be included in the human nature as an example.

 

 

 

lol I did go on a tangent in regards to your first post. Your second one doesn't make much sense to me either, but I will try to counter argue. (I dunno if it's the way you are wording things but I had a hard time reading things. I am not sure if english is your first language or not, but I apologize if what I read is not what you were meaning to say)

 

I agree tooty was talking about the value of life and laws, and did make the point that this value is something that changes.

 

 

In terms of the environment, you asked how I wanted these people to have opposite opinions and due consideration?

 

I am not sure what you are trying to get at. My point with environment was that at one time, Humans didn't care about the enivornment. In the begining we were not aware of how industry affected the environment and then later humanity was uncaring as to whether pollution damaged the atmosphere and wildlife. Nowadays humans are very aware of this,(not everyone) and realize there are serious reprecussions that will be involved with continued dumping of pollution into the environment.

 

It seems as if your trying to argue that those people back then never had a change in the their thought processes or how they viewed the environment. However when you say that human's way of thinking never changes, you are refer not to individual's but to human's as a whole. Thus the lifetime of certain individuals is negected and we look at the point of views, and thought processes of humans as a whole.

 

Even if we were to argue about the way in which an individual perceives the world, and their ways of thinking we can still see it is possible for people's ways of thinking to be changed. A good example of this is someone who is raised to be prejudiced against a certain ethnicity. Someone from the 1910 might have a certain way of thinking about Africans which degrades them and sees them as being inferior. However if that person ends up in a situation where they are on equal footing with a African person, and the two develop some sort of working relationship, there may be a change in which the racist drops his former beliefs and ways of thinking about Africans and adopts new views and new ways of thinking about people who are different from himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm French but I don't think that's the problem. I'm just being synthetic since we're not having a real conversation. Perhaps you're reading a bit too fast.

 

Anyway, I agree with most of what you've written and I can't see how it's a counter-argument. Your example in the third paragraph perfectly describes how our society can change and how we can eliminate these biased thoughts. However, the man is still the same man and he process the information the same way. The thing that changed here was the information. I'll illustrate my view so you really get it :

 

Human ---> Information ---> Reaction

Human ---> Foreign/had a bad experience/see profit/any other reason ---> Racism, slavery

Human ---> Cooperation ---> Not racism

 

Obviously we found out racism and slavery isn't in any mean a good practice. But it isn't by a "sudden" strike of conscience. We evoluated through reason (reason was cooperation in the example above). The human capacity to think didn't evoluate.

 

 

OK, we're out of subject and I don't have any more time for this. You can answer if you want, but I can't assure you I'll read it. Not sure that conversation would lead anywhere too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm French but I don't think that's the problem. I'm just being synthetic since we're not having a real conversation. Perhaps you're reading a bit too fast.

 

Anyway, I agree with most of what you've written and I can't see how it's a counter-argument. Your example in the third paragraph perfectly describes how our society can change and how we can eliminate these biased thoughts. However, the man is still the same man and he process the information the same way. The thing that changed here was the information. I'll illustrate my view so you really get it :

 

Human ---> Information ---> Reaction

Human ---> Foreign/had a bad experience/see profit/any other reason ---> Racism, slavery

Human ---> Cooperation ---> Not racism

 

Obviously we found out racism and slavery isn't in any mean a good practice. But it isn't by a "sudden" strike of conscience. We evoluated through reason (reason was cooperation in the example above). The human capacity to think didn't evoluate.

 

 

OK, we're out of subject and I don't have any more time for this. You can answer if you want, but I can't assure you I'll read it. Not sure that conversation would lead anywhere too.

 

Perhaps it is just the grammar, I am sure I wouldn't get my point across as well if we were doing this in french.

 

 

No no, I am saying it is different. The point I am making with my example of a racist man who loses his racial bias, is that his experience in life alters the way he perceives the world, and changes the his way of thinking. I say that the same can be applied to humans as whole.

 

 

Human's way of thinking is the past was different, and that is why we once found it acceptable to have duel's to the death to solve disputes. Over the course of time we have come to realize certain things about life and the world. It is this realization that changes the way human's perceive the world. It is the way in which a man perceive's the world around him that influences the way in which he processes information. Therefore if the way a man perceive's the world changes, so does the way he processes information.

 

 

New experience ---> new realization ----> change in perception ---> change in thought process.

 

So in the case of the man with racial prejudice. His experience with people of african decent showed that his beliefs about africans were incorrect. The realization that his line of thought about africans were wrong changes the way he perceives other races in the world. This change in perception about people of various ethnicities changes the way his way of thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Makes sense. At the moment, I tend to buy my theory instead, but maybe the future will get me wrong.

 

of course, my motivation was to clearly show what I believed, (without misinterpretation). I find it to be a waste of energy to try to change another's philosophy in this matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...