StarGateWars Forums

"The problems with absolute ethics are many, chief of which is "what is the basis of the ethical rules?". Since we cannot derive these morals on a scientific, logical basis, we have to conclude that they are either religious based or simply a set of rules that the community agrees to.

Religion as the basis for morality presents major problems in that not everyone who would like to be moral is ready to accept a religious life style. And even for those who would accept religion have to admit that there are other religions in the world and they don't all share the same ethical rule set.

Of course if we concede that morals are just a set of rules that the community agrees to, we are admitting that morals are not absolute.

Relative morality -- more commonly referred to as "moral relativism" or "ethical relativism" -- fares no better. Since the concept is relative, it is inherently vague and can lead to contradictory ethical judgments."

Since ethics seems to be so vague and fluid, What changes do you foresee in the future of the conscience of society. More towards ethical absolutes or acceptance of contextual morality? If it becomes more contextual who decides what contexts apply?

Also, given the logical dichotomies among absolutes and relativity can true justice ever exist?

where is that qoute from?

to answer your question,
1) i think we would get to extreme reletivism. in your words, more contextual.
2) the relevent society decides which context applies.
3) it depends on your definition of morality and justice...

many philosophers tried to base morality on reason. plato, aristotle, descartes, mill and kant to name a few.
mill defined an ethical (moral) action is an action that will benefit the society.
now, the problem is not that we don't know what the consequences of our action will be, since mill refers to action that will reasoneably benefit society. the question is, what is beneficial to society?
there is no universal moral. for every moral value you can find an example in history it was considered imoral.
every moral value

hitchkok wrote:where is that qoute from?

to answer your question,
1) i think we would get to extreme reletivism. in your words, more contextual.
2) the relevent society decides which context applies.
3) it depends on your definition of morality and justice...

many philosophers tried to base morality on reason. plato, aristotle, descartes, mill and kant to name a few.
mill defined an ethical (moral) action is an action that will benefit the society.
now, the problem is not that we don't know what the consequences of our action will be, since mill refers to action that will reasoneably benefit society. the question is, what is beneficial to society?
there is no universal moral. for every moral value you can find an example in history it was considered imoral.
every moral value

excellent example of the utilitarian ethics, but benefits are contextual. Action and decisions that might be seen for the betterment may actually be the detriment; this has been seen countless times through history.

On what criteria would you judge a decision to be either beneficial or not?

If the criteria is fluid and contextual in your view. The decisions made in the past; made upon that cost benefit analysis of morality, that infact turned out to be detrimental; must have been based on flawed morals. What will stop this trend from continuing?

will the cycle refine the benefit criteria into absolute morals?

if not , the cycle continues and we have to continually re-evaluate what principles are beneficial. How can we trust that any of the new re- visioned principles are any more ethical than the ones that failed?

If i told where the quote was from i would have to shoot you

Thriller wrote:excellent example of the utilitarian ethics, but benefits are contextual. Action and decisions that might be seen for the betterment may actually be the detriment; this has been seen countless times through history.

well, techniclly it's not an example, it is the definition of utilitarian ethics.

Thriller wrote:One what criteria would you judge a decision to be either beneficial or not?

If the criteria is fluid and contextual in your view. The decisions made in the past; made upon that cost benefit analysis of morality, that infact turned out to be detrimental; must have been based on flawed morals. What will stop this trend from continuing?

will the cycle refine the benefit criteria into absolute morals?

if not , the cycle continues and we have to continually re-evaluate what principles are beneficial. How can we trust that any of the new re- visioned principles are any more ethical than the ones that failed?

If i told where the quote was from i would have to shoot you

i don't think i fully understood that.


any way, i think we're way too "up in the air".
do you have a concrete example?
if not, consider this one:
the current war in iraq (so called "operatiopn iraqi freedom") is justified as "bringing democracy to the iraqi people".
why is it moral to force democracy on the iraqi people?

hitchkok wrote:the current war in iraq (so called "operation iraqi freedom") is justified as "bringing democracy to the iraqi people".

is that what its being called?! and here's me thinking all this time that with all the depleted uranium we're dropping on the Iraqi people we was actually engaged in genocide...man did i have that backwards or what?!



regardless, on to your question...

hitchkok wrote:why is it moral to force democracy on the iraqi people?

i see no morality at all when one society forces its culture/way of life on another, regardless if its democracy or any other form/style of Govt.

hitchkok wrote:

Thriller wrote:excellent example of the utilitarian ethics, but benefits are contextual. Action and decisions that might be seen for the betterment may actually be the detriment; this has been seen countless times through history.




One what criteria would you judge a decision to be either beneficial or not?

If the criteria is fluid and contextual in your view. The decisions made in the past; made upon that cost benefit analysis of morality, that infact turned out to be detrimental; must have been based on flawed morals. What will stop this trend from continuing?

will the cycle refine the benefit criteria into absolute morals?

if not , the cycle continues and we have to continually re-evaluate what principles are beneficial. How can we trust that any of the new re- visioned principles are any more ethical than the ones that failed?

If i told where the quote was from i would have to shoot you

well, techniclly it's not an example, it is the definition of utilitarian ethics.

i don't think i fully understood that.


any way, i think we're way too "up in the air".
do you have a concrete example?
if not, consider this one:
the current war in iraq (so called "operatiopn iraqi freedom") is justified as "bringing democracy to the iraqi people".
why is it moral to force democracy on the iraqi people?

Basically, how do you trust a set of morals that are constantly changing, the old ones fail, why put faith in the new ones.

[KMA]Avenger wrote:

hitchkok wrote:why is it moral to force democracy on the iraqi people?

i see no morality at all when one society forces its culture/way of life on another, regardless if its democracy or any other form/style of Govt.

well, the devil's advocate might claim that democracy is more moral then dictatorship, and that sadam forced a culture as well.

you know if you just hit the quote button it makes it much easier hitchcok

Thriller wrote:you know if you just hit the quote button it makes it much easier hitchcok

i thought i did that...
no idea why it hadn't worked. twice!

Thriller wrote:"The problems with absolute ethics are many, chief of which is "what is the basis of the ethical rules?". Since we cannot derive these morals on a scientific, logical basis, we have to conclude that they are either religious based or simply a set of rules that the community agrees to.

Religion as the basis for morality presents major problems in that not everyone who would like to be moral is ready to accept a religious life style. And even for those who would accept religion have to admit that there are other religions in the world and they don't all share the same ethical rule set.

Of course if we concede that morals are just a set of rules that the community agrees to, we are admitting that morals are not absolute.

Relative morality -- more commonly referred to as "moral relativism" or "ethical relativism" -- fares no better. Since the concept is relative, it is inherently vague and can lead to contradictory ethical judgments."

Since ethics seems to be so vague and fluid, What changes do you foresee in the future of the conscience of society. More towards ethical absolutes or acceptance of contextual morality? If it becomes more contextual who decides what contexts apply?

Also, given the logical dichotomies among absolutes and relativity can true justice ever exist?

Morality cannot be measured, and cannot be created, and cannot be scientifically explained. Morality is the compass of ones being that guides them to the right or wrong. There is no religious basis for morality, religion is based on morality

Laws do not give us morality, morality gives us our laws..as with conduct and other things...for out of the wellspring of things we say and do is an indicator of our morality, not the creation of it.

hitchkok wrote:

[KMA]Avenger wrote:

hitchkok wrote:why is it moral to force democracy on the iraqi people?

i see no morality at all when one society forces its culture/way of life on another, regardless if its democracy or any other form/style of Govt.

well, the devil's advocate might claim that democracy is more moral then dictatorship, and that sadam forced a culture as well.

BUT, who are we (the western powers) to go around the world forcing anything on anyone?

because you have used Iraq as an example i'll clarify and expand on what i mean with sole regard for Iraq...Saddam was trained by MI5 or the CIA, i can never remember which-was also funded by the west and was used by the west to carry out Anglo-American foreign policy in the middle east. take Kuwait for example, Saddam was given the green light to attack Kuwait after Saddam had caught the Kuwaitis using Horizontal drills to siphon off Iraq's oil. Saddam asked for and received permission to invade Kuwait to put a stop to it, and as i said...he got the green light from the west...in short, Saddam was an unknowing patsy for the west, nothing more...so maybe using Iraq as an example is maybe not the best thing to do when you know Saddams background and declassified history...maybe we cant even call Saddam a true dictator since he worked for the west anyways?!

@Thriller, hopefully you wont think i'm trying to hijack your thread or anything like that, but when one uses an example its best to have all the facts otherwise as you would agree, the argument falls to pieces.


PS, i agree with Jeditank.

[KMA]Avenger wrote:

hitchkok wrote:

[KMA]Avenger wrote:

hitchkok wrote:why is it moral to force democracy on the iraqi people?

i see no morality at all when one society forces its culture/way of life on another, regardless if its democracy or any other form/style of Govt.

well, the devil's advocate might claim that democracy is more moral then dictatorship, and that sadam forced a culture as well.

BUT, who are we (the western powers) to go around the world forcing anything on anyone?

because you have used Iraq as an example i'll clarify and expand on what i mean with sole regard for Iraq...Saddam was trained by MI5 or the CIA, i can never remember which-was also funded by the west and was used by the west to carry out Anglo-American foreign policy in the middle east. take Kuwait for example, Saddam was given the green light to attack Kuwait after Saddam had caught the Kuwaitis using Horizontal drills to siphon off Iraq's oil. Saddam asked for and received permission to invade Kuwait to put a stop to it, and as i said...he got the green light from the west...in short, Saddam was an unknowing patsy for the west, nothing more...so maybe using Iraq as an example is maybe not the best thing to do when you know Saddams background and declassified history...maybe we cant even call Saddam a true dictator since he worked for the west anyways?!

@Thriller, hopefully you wont think i'm trying to hijack your thread or anything like that, but when one uses an example its best to have all the facts otherwise as you would agree, the argument falls to pieces.


PS, i agree with Jeditank.

I think allot of that is political positioning m8..and the media is rediculous in being used to put out a thought process.

[KMA]Avenger wrote:

hitchkok wrote:

[KMA]Avenger wrote:

hitchkok wrote:why is it moral to force democracy on the iraqi people?

i see no morality at all when one society forces its culture/way of life on another, regardless if its democracy or any other form/style of Govt.

well, the devil's advocate might claim that democracy is more moral then dictatorship, and that sadam forced a culture as well.

BUT, who are we (the western powers) to go around the world forcing anything on anyone?

because you have used Iraq as an example i'll clarify and expand on what i mean with sole regard for Iraq...Saddam was trained by MI5 or the CIA, i can never remember which-was also funded by the west and was used by the west to carry out Anglo-American foreign policy in the middle east. take Kuwait for example, Saddam was given the green light to attack Kuwait after Saddam had caught the Kuwaitis using Horizontal drills to siphon off Iraq's oil. Saddam asked for and received permission to invade Kuwait to put a stop to it, and as i said...he got the green light from the west...in short, Saddam was an unknowing patsy for the west, nothing more...so maybe using Iraq as an example is maybe not the best thing to do when you know Saddams background and declassified history...maybe we cant even call Saddam a true dictator since he worked for the west anyways?!

@Thriller, hopefully you wont think i'm trying to hijack your thread or anything like that, but when one uses an example its best to have all the facts otherwise as you would agree, the argument falls to pieces.


PS, i agree with Jeditank.

Its okay, but Hitchcock is talking more about applied moral concepts, your talking American imperialism. If you could just talk ethics as applied to war in general. It'll stop this thread from turning into another anti cap / pro cap, big brother kind of thing.

But i agree with Jedi Aswell, and its nice to see some eloquent input from him instead of just another question.

as i said, i wasn't trying to turn the discussion into something it is not, and my reply was only used to question the pitfall of using Iraq as an example...

having said that, point taken, i'll stick to the topic at hand from now on

well i far as i am concerned it is imposible for any person, group of people or even every person on the planet to decide what is moral, what is right or wrong as our understanding is far to limited as has been said we never know the full consequences of our actions and so can never fully way up the options let alone pick the moraly right one.


but i will pose another question for those that belive we can

if a moral choice is made with bad intentions is it still moral?