This happens all the time, and the problem is your definition of "correct." The most obvious example being, of course, religiously-motivated terrorism. And religiously-motivated mutilation. Or how about arranged marriages? Many people find these practices to be morally correct. That's the problem.
I think this also answers your other question. To what extent should "morality" be based on rules? Well, the examples I gave are all based on "rules." People need to use their own heads, before just buying into "rules." It's a tough call sometimes, pehaps.
This happens all the time, and the problem is your definition of "correct." The most obvious example being, of course, religiously-motivated terrorism. And religiously-motivated mutilation. Or how about arranged marriages? Many people find these practices to be morally correct. That's the problem.
I think this also answers your other question. To what extent should "morality" be based on rules? Well, the examples I gave are all based on "rules." People need to use their own heads, before just buying into "rules." It's a tough call sometimes, pehaps.
Yes, a correct moral decision in a culture could be incorrect and even harmful to another society with a different culture and conception of what is ethical and moral.
It depends on when the "correct moral decision" is evaluated. Some would argue that the evaluation of a "moral decision" can only be made after its outcomes are known. In that case, if an evil outcome occurs, these evaluators would say that "a correct moral decision" was not made in the first place.
Dennis
Dennis Mazur
Dear Kirk,
This is subjective and it varies between cultures based on their value and belief systems.
For an example: Prayers are considered as good moral activities. However, in many part of the world, for prayers, goats, hens and other livign beings are sacrificed. Can we classify them as evil activities ?.
Another example: In some parts of the world, even human beings are killed in the name of religiion.Can this evil activities be clasified as religion based moral activities.
One more example: A hungry lion, which needs to feed it's kids went onto hunt a deer and killed it to feed the kids. Is this activity moral or evil ?.
Thus, it is a subjective matter of interest. It varies across people, across religions, across natural eco systems.
Having said the above, across scholars, it is a common understanding and acceptance that, good moral activities should not end up in evil results. However, this depends on everyone's "KARMA". Good practices will lead to good Karmas and will eliminate evil results. This is a big subject. May we have the wisdom to understand.
Hope this helps.
Regards.
Dr. Sekar Gopal.
Almost always in our today's world. Especially in politics and diplomacy which seem to govern every thing. See the consequences of interventions in Libya.. the interventions were and probably are still being justified by rhetorics of the highest " moral "motivations.
The theory of consequentialism holds that the morality of an action is to be judged solely by its consequences. So, if we evaluate the consequence of a moral action as evil, then Yes! But what complicates matters is the element of intentionality. Some consequences may not be a direct result of a moral action but an extension of what was not intended.
An example would be incarcerating a drug addict who also happens to be the family's provider. The children end up being deprived both of a father and stable economic environment. Children may end up in the foster care system where they are often abused and their chances of a normal life are very slim.
That depends on the situation and the time.. It doesn't related to morality..
A correct moral decision can result in a lot of evil. From the Telegraph, 06 Jan 2012:
'The Donauzeitung-Danube newspaper described how "a young fellow" was pulled out of the River Passau by a "brave comrade" after he fell through thin ice. The priest is said to have dived into the icy water after spotting the child struggling to stay afloat in the strong current.'
That was in 1894. Guess who the "young fellow" was. ;-)
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Moral Philosophy