Ethics and Morality

[The_Gabe]

Ethics and Morality are crap. They're just made up feelings to try and calm your conscience and guilt. They are just words with different meanings throughout history, and even undefined in eras such as today. They've never been defined nor they can never be defined.

 

It's all just how one perceives reality.

[Assume Nothing]

I've edited the original post.

[Assume Nothing]

Is it moral to hire a prostitute, or a stripper?

[Jonanananas]

If you are sure he/she does it out of free will, I see no issue with it. Problem is obviously that a lot of prostitution is at least half-forced.

[Assume Nothing]

If they're not forced into it through exploitation - but rather, through financial pressure... does that make it immoral? You have to factor in all the diseases they could get too.

[Omar]

If it were immoral, then at least one person would be at fault. If we assume prostitution is not forced by anyone (i.e. a pimp):

- it's not the person selling their body, because they don't have a choice.

- I don't see what harm the client is causing, unless he has a disease and is aware of it or hasn't taken the necessary precautions to make sure he doesn't. Seems rather like a win/"best possible situation" to me, because without a client the prostitute is even worse off. He/she can back away before the deed, and the client's responsability is simply to make sure the person in question is okay with what's about to happen.

- it is the people who have caused the circumstances which forced prostitution (if applicable), but in that case the wrong action is not prostitution--that would only be a symptom.

[Jonanananas]

It would if you know it, yet this would also be the case if it was not prostitution but something else. It just happens that prostitution is often the last choice here.

 

As for diseases, if there's the slightest chance you could transmit one you would obviously have to use condoms...I at least hope this is common practice anyway.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Morally, what's the difference between someone paying someone else to be filmed having "consensual" sex (pornography, which is legal), and someone paying someone else to have "consensual" sex (prostitution, which is illegal), assuming the safeguards on diseases, exploitation etc. are the same in both cases?

[Jonanananas]

There's none. The reason why porn is legal and prostiution illegal in some countries is merely that the chance of exploitation is far higher with prostitution.

[Furah]

Is it moral to hire a prostitute, or a stripper?

 

Ignoring outside factors, yes.

[Omar]

Here's a problem:

- determinism is the idea that everything is predetermined, and that if one knew the position of all particles, and the laws which rule over them, one could predict the future.

- there is only one possible future if determinism is true.

- there is a reasonable chance that it might be.

- therefore, there is a reasonable doubt that anyone could be objectively responsible for their own actions. Mental illness could result in a murder, for example, but also in forgetfulness in everyday life.

 

Subjectively, one can affirm their own freedom. Here's a rough translation (French-English) of a text I found on the matter:

 

[hide=http://lebrindherbe.free.fr/index.php?id=30]Determinism is an astonishing hypothesis.

 

First of all, because it is true. Or at least we should hold it to be true: all arguments agree with it, none don't.

 

Next, one must understand what it says: namely, that nothing is possible, except for one thing, one future. The concept of possibilites is an illusion. The world stands as one, past, present, and future [...].

 

In concrete terms: I think I can do this or that, but it is untrue: I "can" only do one thing. And yet, we feel and we witness that we are "free". That is indeed the most astonishing aspect. How can life and action be possible if possibility is a mere illusion? It is on that very basis we act every day.

 

What is possible? That which is not impossible. [Rough:] What is possible is what cannot be stopped. I can go over there–there is no wall. But the concept of impossibility is absolutely legitimate [in contrast to possibility, which if determinism is true is actually a necessity]. The concept of possibility really refers to incertitude: what is possible is what we don't know to be impossible. [...] [Will John become a movie director? It's possible, because I can't hold anything which might stop him from becoming a movie director (like heart failure) to be certain.]

 

Better yet : what seems possible is indeed effectively possible, but only to me. Therein lies a paradox, because there is a circularity. My brain is involved in the process, and as such possibility to it. For in its point of view, it must be erased : a machine cannot integrate itself in its own calculations. I cannot be data in the problem; I cannot be an independant variable, because I am a dependant variable. Which is all a rather complicated way of saying that the eye is not within its own field of vision.

 

I am indeed free, but only in my point of view. Only in the moment during which I think, because this thought will determine my action and thus the futur. For anyone else, I am not free. Freedom exists in the point of view of a man or of any acting machine. It does not, however, existe in the "point of view of nowhere", which is usually the point of view science takes. One could speak of subjective indeterminism to refer to this liberty. It seems to me that this is a rigorous functional concept.

 

To say it once again, perhaps in a clearer manner: it is rational to use this concept of liberty as a human being. It is rational to think that what we don't know to be impossible is possible. That is the paradox I wanted to underline: although the world is determined, it is rational to do as though it was not.

[...]

[/hide]

 

So, as a human being, if one wants something, one should consider oneself to be the determining factor of the equation. But morals don't take that point of view; courts take the "point of view of nowhere", and this is the one that tells us we're all puppets. What do we do?

[Assume Nothing]

I don't think a hypothesis could be put forth that could contradict it, therefore making the idea unfalsifiable and ultimately redundant. I'm not sure what relevance it has on morality though, care to explain?

[Jonanananas]

Well, I personally believe in being determined, and it's one of the reasons why I prefer a justice system based on rehabilitation and prevention instead of vengeance. I do not believe the person is responsible for what he does, yet we still have to punish him, if we didn't, there would be no deterrent and there would be more people committing crime. As the text says: We are determined yet we have to act as if we aren't in order for our society to work. It's almost like doublethink.

[Omar]

I don't think a hypothesis could be put forth that could contradict it, therefore making the idea unfalsifiable and ultimately redundant. I'm not sure what relevance it has on morality though, care to explain?

The question isn't whether determinism exists or doesn't, or whether it can be a true scientific theory; it's that it might, and that someone might be held responsible for a wrongdoing despite the fact that external causes (such as mental illness, when pleading insanity wasn't an option, or an upbringing under a different moral system) could be at work.

@Jonananas: I am indetermined in my point of view, but I am not in yours. You can't afford to hold me responsible for something that might not be my fault.

[Assume Nothing]

I may be perceived as an immoral deviant here, but Ginger_Warrior brought up a topic I've been considering for a while.

 

Is consensual cannibalism moral?

[Ginger_Warrior]

I honestly meant that post as a joke, not a serious debating point, lol.

[Assume Nothing]

I realise that. It's a fun thought experiment though.

[obfuscator]

If you're eating a body that's already dead, sure. Even though it's a little odd...

 

If you're killing someone to eat them, no.

[Jonanananas]

Well...it does happen, though rarely.

 

If the killing is involved, then no, as the "victim" likely has a mental disorder of some kind that has led him to that decision which means it shouldn't be acceptable to do something based on that.

 

 

If he is dead and his express wish being eaten...I would still say no but I have to say I cannot really justify it, maybe apart from the feelings of relatives...

[Assume Nothing]

I think the interesting part is trying to explain why we have an innate connection with humanity, so much that we still feel a sense of 'that's wrong', although we can't clearly express why we think it's wrong.

[Distracted]

I think it's the same part of us that thinks incest is wrong, which is a biologically completely natural thing (you won't see plants pollinating themselves either). Both, from a biological viewpoint, are seen as extremely last resort solutions, that should only be applied in extreme cases to further the species. And like incest, there are certain detrimental effects which make it naturally (and subconsciously) unappealing.

 

So basically, I see it as immoral, but it can be a necessary evil at times.

[obfuscator]

That's interesting. I had no idea cannibalism might actually make you physically sick (or at least any more so than any other meat).

[Assume Nothing]

I think it might be an evolutionary thing to discourage cannibalism, since it's going to be against the species' interest to eat each-other.

 

Going beyond that - I see nothing wrong with consensual cannibalism - not to suggest that I would partake in it.

[Ginger_Warrior]

I think it's the same part of us that thinks incest is wrong, which is a biologically completely natural thing (you won't see plants pollinating themselves either). Both, from a biological viewpoint, are seen as extremely last resort solutions, that should only be applied in extreme cases to further the species. And like incest, there are certain detrimental effects which make it naturally (and subconsciously) unappealing.

 

So basically, I see it as immoral, but it can be a necessary evil at times.

Some plants can pollinate themselves and produce viable offspring actually. There's also a few countries in the modern, developed world which haven't legally prohibited incest when it occurs between two consenting adults (re: 'victimless crime'). You might be confusing the strength of society's opposition to incest with us being biologically hard-wired to believe it's wrong. It could also be that when it comes to forming our morality, psychosocial factors play far more of a part on a personal level than biological factors.

 

If two adult siblings had consensual sex with each other without knowing they were related, would they still know it was 'wrong' through some innate biological response? Or would they only think it was wrong after they were told they were related? That's the difference between the biological and the psychosocial.

[Assume Nothing]

If the crime is indeed victimless, then what's wrong? I'd say marijuana is pretty victim-less too, or at least, no more so than any commercial drug like tobacco or alcohol.

 

EDIT - I think it's the latter, based on some of the incestery reports/articles I've seen on the topic. I'm wondering though - is there any difference between a girl having intercourse with her biological father, than say, with her step father?