Philosophy Flexible morality.

Here's a problem that has bothered me for some time:

Imagine that Adolf Hitler honestly believed that genocide of the Jewish race was the right thing to do. What then, does he suffer in hell in the afterlife? Is simply believing that an action is morally right make it so in the eyes of God?

Note: This is not a discussion about whether or not Hitler actully believed that, nor is it about the existence of an afterlife. I just used that situation as an example.

 

No! It is known that god forbids killing of people. One of the commandments states: do not kill! I think that Hitler knew that he was doing the wrong thing, but he just hated jews so much that he didnt care, he just wanted to kill evey single one of them.

 

one word and it changes the whole meaning. he said "do not murder", not "do not kill".
he sent his people to plenty of wars after that was done, and once even punished them for not killing everything. as for your question, God punishes people for their ignorance, since the writings are in the Bible to be found whenever you want.

 

well, to murder and to kill basically means the same thing.

 

Actually, to murder means to kill another human unlawfully or inhumanly. Technically speaking, then, in the eyes of God, if God told someone to dispose of someone for a good reason then it wouldn't be murder. It would be killing, yes. But not murder.

Really, if there is a God (and he's just too much of a p**** to show his face >: ) then I think he's just gonna **** with us and find some bull**** excuse to send us into Hell when we die. >D "What?! You didn't help this old lady across the street?! TO HELL WITH YOU!"

Anyways... yeah... Hitler is probably burning in Hell.. with Mussolini and Gandhi and Buddha and Voltaire and so on and so forth.

 

1. I don't believe in god, tried being jewish once, didnt really turn out

2. If your saying that if there was a mentally challanged person and lets say they didnt understand what they were doing because they could not comprehend it, and they killed someone, would that mean they would end up going to hell?

3. If the testament thingies say do not kill then what were the whole crusades????

 

I don't see why not.. I mean we ARE talking about the same people who came up with the moronic idea that a child is born sinful and if you don't get him/her baptized, they're going to Hell... so I wouldn't put it past them.

I'll refer to a Dogma quote here, that I believe goes a little something like this:

"When some yahoo claims he's talking to God, he's talking to me... or... you know.. he's just talking to himself." - The Metatron

I chalk it up to some delusional schizophrenics who thought God told them to kill people... I mean, Hell... we've got people claiming dogs told them to murder, I don't see why this couldn't happen.

 

Where on earth did you hear this? If they do not have the knowledge that their actions were wrong then there is no sin. If a person does not follow God's laws because they have never heard or have no knowledge of it, but they still live a moral life according to their own religion or morals, then they are still worthy of going to Heaven. Even if their lives are sinful according to our own norms. The same goes for law with actus reus and mens rea: for a person to commit a crime they must both commit the action and have intended to do something wrong.

Now Hitler was raised as a Roman Catholic. He knew that to kill was wrong, this was fed into his mind since early in his childhood. He was guilty and would have deserved to go to hell.

 

This is the whole 'Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil' story. I think that in the case of an unknowing person, it isn't a case of flexible morality; there's no morality in doing good or bad if you don't know it's good or bad.

Personally, I think that everybody, having different morals, could have 'flexible morality' in the eyes of another, but perhaps it isn't so extreme as to extend to murder.

One's morals become flexible when we start making exceptions, like say...if somebody kills somebody in self-defense, or in a war, or if a country kills a killer.

 

I think that u dont have to be familiar with bible to understand that killing, torturing, stealing, rape etc.. is wrong. I think that subcounsiously every person understands what is wrong and what is right. So, even if a person doesnt know christian rules he still knows that killing is wrong(even if its allowed in his culture). And if a person understands that what he is doing is wrong, but he still does it than he commits a sin.

 

But what if someone doesnt really know if its a sin? i know its far-fetched but what if they were raised in a cult of something in which they were tought that killing was a normal thing. I mean dont you have to be taught that killing is a bad thing?

 

There is also the possibility of a mental retardation that disallows a person from knowing what they are doing and judging whether it is right or wrong.

And accidental deaths, too. Are those considered sinful? Would you go to Hell for those, too?

 

That brings up an interesting point, it says in that bible thing that you cannot kill, would this mean that you go to hell b/c you might accidently hit someone while driving, or you hit a drunk driver by accident, which isnt your fault.

 

PRONUNCIATION: AUDIO: mûrdr KEY
NOUN: 1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entries/63/m0486300.html

In the Bible, the truest interpretation is "thou shall not murder." You wouldn't go to hell for killing someone by accident nor would you go to hell for a justified killing. Murder, is much different, it is deaath without justification, and does make one deserving of life in hell.

I'm not sure if everyone who isn't educated in morality/religion would have a sense of right and wrong. Could it be that we cannot imagine living without a sense of good and evil because of the way we were brought up?

 

i dont think that you have to be taught that killing is a bad thing. as i mentioned before that subconciously people know that killing, stealing, rape etc...is bad, no matter in which culture and religion you were raised. Even if you were raised in the society where its ok to kill u still have your own mind and own opinions and you can realize yourself that its wrong to kill and especially to murder.

 

I have a question. And I think mine is much better than any offered insofar.. Why are we leaving our decisions of right and wrong on a book written by men? No one knows for fact that "God" ever told or inspired anyone to write such a hypocritical, not to mention lengthy, mess. Whatever happened to common sense and personal morality? I can't take a book seriously that urges raped women to be killed (by stoning, no less) afterward if they didn't scream loud enough.

Has it never occurred to anyone that simply killing another human being is just wrong in the sense of the word instead of being wrong just because some invisible being written through a mortal coil says so? Let's not forget just how many wars have been created because of this book (perhaps the religion itself). But, of course, it's alright to kill as long as you're killing in the name of Christianity. Because God forbid (mind my pun) you do it for any other reason.

Life is sacred, supposedly, but why does that only stretch to cute animals kept as pets and other human beings? Oh, sure, vegetarians claim not to eat meat because of the pain of animals. What about the pain of plants? They feel it as realistically as we all do, they just cannot express their pain in a way humans can understand. In the end, no one can really tell you what morality is because it's different for everyone. Everyone makes rules. It's okay to kill a cockroach but not a ladybug.

It's okay for that mentally challenged person to murder that mother simply because he is retarded, but it isn't all right for that raving sociopath to kill his wife. Why is this? It is the same. Perhaps that person didn't know right from wrong, but does that really matter? They are dangerous, regardless, and should be dealt in a way everyone else is. Whatever happened to natural selection? Medicine, mental health counselors and so on and so forth. But I got a bit far from the topic. My apologies. :dizzy2:

Besides, I'm sure Hell is a much funner place.

 

Justified killing? Come on....that is worse than saying liquid ice.

No one has the right to take the life of another...(sounds sorta like trigun but it is true). We dont need to do any killing...but we do anyway and then we use god as an example to justify it. Its shallow thinking...

The only one that can do justified killing is god himself....not us. And if Iam athiest than that leads me to believe that there is no such thing as justifed killing.

 

Well... there ARE situations where people don't use God as an example to justify it... I mean, Hell, I'd believe him or someone told me that his neighbor's dog told him to kill people.

Also I would think that an accidental killing in the act of true self-defense would be justifiable. *shrug* But that's just my opinion I guess you think it's wrong to defend yourself too then, huh?

 

I dont see a situation where your only option is to kill someone.

 

That's the funny thing about the word "accident". It does not entail deciding of a rational decision among a list of possible options and outcomes. "Accidents" happen on a whim and are rarely able to be controlled. You trip over something and fall. That's an accident. You can't prevent yourself from tripping because you already tripped.

Of course there are such things as unreasonable accidents. Like, you bring a gun into school and try to look cool, you take it out, show your friends, BAM the gun goes off and you shoot the teacher through the skull and splatter chunks of bloody brain matter across the lesson plan on the chalkboard. Yeah. Bad choice.

However, let's look at another scenario. You're sleeping, and you hear glass breaking downstairs, sounds like a window. You remember your father hides a gun up in a shoebox in his closet, and your parents are away for the week on a vacation in a boat-trip to Alaska, so you run and get it. You tip-toe your *** downstairs and quietly peek around and next thing you know, you're spotted by some ****er in a ski-mask with the barrel of a gun pointing at you. Now this is where we'll twist it a bit...

Say you were walking, with the gun held up in a manner that is not unsurprising and you see this man. You're shocked, you get nervous, your hands are trembling, your finger twitches and the gun goes off, sending the burgular's blood into your sink and all over the dishes you didn't bother to wash that are piling up with filth.

OR... same thing, he points the gun at you and, what else can you do? You can try running, but he may knick you, and you can go down and he just might not hesitate to finish you off before he heads out the back door. Or, you could use the weapon to try and beat him to the punch. He shoot, on purpose, but your aim is off, you never were a good shot, and instead of hitting him in the shoulder, you get him in the throat, and he bleeds to death.

Now, in our first scenario, the weapon was taken into this enviroment with the intention to impress, or to look "cool". The second and third scenarios, however, were used in a manner to protect oneself, whether the intention was to truly use it or add a fear factor to whatever was down there, but it just so happens that by chance this fellow had a firearm as well. In either case, it was a situation in which you could have been killed. In all three situations, the final factor was not controlled... however do you really believe that the person in scenarios two and three deserves to go to prison because his life was in danger because some schmuck broke into his house and wanted to take away his PS2 and maybe a DVD player, or any brewskies he had in the fridge?

Hey, man, if YOU'D rather get shot than to protect yourself, fine by me... but I don't want to die, thank you very much.