by Fisherman 92 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
I was thinking in terms of when creatures are not affected like when people dump trash for example and it affects the beauty and naturalness of nature - Fisherman
Of course other creatures are affected by pollution. You are struggling to think of an actual example of a moral action that does not impact the wellbeing of others aren't you?
I understand what you mean about tatoos because as a witness i thought of it as a defilement of our God made bodies. But there is no harm involved to others so there is nothing 'wrong' in it once you abandon belief in a set of external religious rules of behaviour. Now, after being out of that witness mindset for many years, tatoos don't bother me. I wouldn't like on myself particularly but that's just a matter of personal taste. Tastes are fluid. Other cultures like the Maori seem to love them and that is fine and dandy. Tatoos are nothing to do with morality.
Of course other creatures are affected by pollution.
I didn't disagree with you or are am trying to find flaw with your view. Actions can affect others physically, emotionally, etc. either directly or indirectly, and that goes for pollution too. I was just looking for another dimension if such exists and expressing my feelings, not making any statements. You can expand more on your view; I am all ears.
Okay let's look at your tattoo example...
I respect people's rights but I feel very very hurt to see someone with tattoos all over their body. It does not hurt people from having them but it hurts me - Fisherman
This is an excellent illustration of a moral puzzle.
Is it anybody else's business if somebody gets a tattoo and can it ever be immoral or unethical to do so?
I personally don't think it is as simple as "live and let live". All healthy humans have a moral instinct for sanctity/degradation. It has helped to protect our ancestors for thousands of years. We avoid contact with things that look, feel or smell repulsive. We view our bodies as needing to be guarded from contamination.
For example it is this instinct that has led religions to label sex unhelpfully as "dirty". It is probably this same instinct that makes you recoil from the sight of excessive tattoos. There is a lady in Edinburgh who advertises as the most tattooed lady in the world. I too find her appearance repellent.
So where does the problem lie? Is it with the person who brazenly ignores the feelings of others or with others who would like to put their feelings ahead of individual freedoms? If the latter, then what about those who wish to challenge our sense of sanctity far more extreme ways. Where should we draw a line?
My point is not to provide an answer but to show that these things are legitimate moral questions that are concerned with the well-being of other creatures and that have roots in our social evolution.
Fisherman - If morality exists, is justice moral and if so, when ? What if justice defies well- being or vice-versa?
Morality most definitely exists as a concept and a social construct, so that's not a legitimate question. A legitimate question would be whether an objective or absolute morality exists. (I noticed a lot of people here are conflating the two, but they're different.)
Justice is sometimes moral, and sometimes it's not. It depends on the situation and the corresponding circumstances. When it's not, mercy is, and mercy is the suspension of justice.
Fisherman - Another thing, I respect people's rights but I feel very very hurt to see someone with tattoos all over their body. It does not hurt people from having them but it hurts me.
The fact that it hurts you does not mean the action of getting a visible tattoo is immoral. The fact that it hurts you means that you have deep problems related to your emotional reactions, likely as a result of past religious experiences. There are other things that go into well-being, such as the axiom that it's better to live than to die, and the axiom that it's better to have autonomy over your body than the opposite. Those are just two axioms involved in metaethics. Having started with them as the default positions, then we take away from them by finding exceptions. Would it be a valid exception to limit a person's autonomy (with regards to getting tattoos) just because someone else feels hurt by seeing tattoos? You look for arguments for and against. Would it be a valid exception to limit a person's autonomy because s/he is a psychopathic murderer who kills at every opportunity? Again, you look for arguments for and against. Now, I'm not trying to say that the first case (tattoos) is the same as the second case (psychopathic murderer.) The point I'm trying to raise is that it is always assumed that all people should have autonomy over their bodies, and then we argue about the exceptions.
Of course, you can disagree with the axiom. To see the history of the moral discussions about autonomy (in several contexts) and why it should be considered very important in modern ethics, look into Autonomy in Moral and Political Philosophy.
This is actually a good question Fisherman!
Morality is about having principles to uphold the distinction between right and wrong, where wrong inadvertently has negative consequences on ourselves and/or other living being. As humanity gains a better understanding of its environment and the consequences of its actions, morality changes accordingly.
Though many would say that it is God that defines morality, they must, nevertheless, admit that morality has changed since the bible was written. For instance, having many wives, owning concubines and slaves was accepted even by God’s people at one point. Should your wife cheat on you, or simply tell you that she did not believe in your God, then, the moral thing to do was to bring her out and stone her to death! However, overtime, these religions have found various reasons not to uphold such beliefs, finding that such behavior would conflict with modern morality.
Hence, it is not religion (God) that dictates morality, but human society itself. Religion will than adapt their message by adjusting their understanding of the will of God.
how some individuals and organizations have used copyright laws, not to protect their intellectual rights, but to suppress legitimate criticism.
That's what Fair Use legal proceedings are all about.
Fisherman when you are posting on multiple threads at the same time please try to post your comments to the correct one.
So when we do something good for someone else where does that little glow that we experience come from?
Justice is sometimes moral, and sometimes it's not. It depends on the situation and the corresponding circumstances. When it's not, mercy is, and mercy is the suspension of justice.
Says who?
