Till
Adventurer
I'll leave it to wiser men to decide whether morals are subjective or not, but Mengele's action don't fit into any moral system i have heard of.
I totally agree with you, and didn't mean to insinuate you think some persons are less than others (sorry you took it wrong, English is not my main languagesanabas said:Huh? I'm not saying any homo sapiens is sub-human. I'm saying that some people are quite capable of saying that not all homo sapiens are equally important, and using that to justify doing things tothe less important animals. And that a very similar argument is used to justify doing all sorts of things to less important members of the animal kingdom.
I think it should go like this : "hello sir, i'd like to kill you because xyz". If the person shares your ethical values, he will kill himself immediatly. I'm serious (not beeing ironical or anything). You still have to ask him because you have to respect him and respect his difference of point-of-view and morale... Or else your just a terroristsanabas said:It doesn't work because murder laws aren't particularly subjective, and because you don't get to pick which murder law you're going to be judged by. But it's very possible to be convicted of murder for a killing that was entirely morally justified according to your morals. That's because the morals you're using are subjective, and just because it's morally ok to you doesn't mean it's morally ok to someone else.
I don't mean to be rude, but I ask you to find me one individual without a redeeming feature (ugh, I feel so dirty,....that sounds like Cierdan-speak).Sidhe said:Morals are both subjective and objective that is self evident, but beyond the scope of this thread, try setting up a thread on what you consider morality to be is my advice.
cairo140 said:Even if morals are subjective, they should be consistent within oneself. Mengel performed tests without consent on others, and these are tests that he would not have performed on himself.
Therefore, NO.
King Alexander said:I don't see what morals have to do when pure murder is involved: he DID murdered and tortured(the later is still used by civilized countries...) all those subjects-people and was a pure killer.
From the moment he hurted people, he violated the laws, and were against people's instict to protect other people from death-danger.
I sincerely hope you are never, ever, allowed to hold any position of power or authority over any group of people in your life as long as you hold that viewpoint.Bill3000 said:Science is and should be above all morals. The knowledge of the universe is the ultimate goal of humanity regardless of what sacrifices we need to take, including sacrificing our own humanity for said knowledge.
As much as I may agree with you regarding Bill3000's views of so-called "knowledge" over morality or others who voted yes, I have to say that I am no fan at all of that particular argument. Family being involved will always change things. It's not hypocritical or a cop out, it's just the way things are.cody_the_genius said:For those who voted "yes," how would you feel if one of these experiments were done on your friends/family members?
Bill3000 said:Science is and should be above all morals. The knowledge of the universe is the ultimate goal of humanity regardless of what sacrifices we need to take, including sacrificing our own humanity for said knowledge.
what he said.VRWCAgent said:I sincerely hope you are never, ever, allowed to hold any position of power or authority over any group of people in your life as long as you hold that viewpoint.
nonconformist said:I don't mean to be rude, but I ask you to find me one individual without a redeeming feature (ugh, I feel so dirty,....that sounds like Cierdan-speak).
I'm sure you could find redeemingfeatures in all of them.Sidhe said:Why would you consider an honest question rude?
Pedro Lopez maybe? A serial child killer and rapist who killed 110 children and boasts about it to this day saying that he will be the most remembered man of the century, he's actually proud of it. Even knowing about what made him a sick child rapist and murderer is no excuse, he could of become wealthy with his talent for stealing cars instead after being imprisoned for it and being raped in jail he turned into a psychopath and went on a killing spree of such overwhelming depravity that it taints your soul just to read about it, a man who has bought nothing to no one, spent his whole life killing and raping children and should rot in hell for a very long time. I'd say he might qualify? Probably subjective though?
I'd say Vlad the Impaler had nothing in the way of redeeming qualities either, I'm sure there are many more I could dredge up if I had time. Unless you count warmongering a redeeming feature or fighting wars one in which case, I supose so.
Erik Mesoy said:@Perfection:
But it says nothing about the relative correctness of the observer claiming the action is morally positive with regards to the observer claiming the action is morally positive, so while observers may have opinions, subjective morality itself can't pass judg[e]ment on Mengele's actions, but has to leave them morally neutral. I can't see that there is any such thing as subjective morality, just an opinion of "I dislike this action" combined with "My opinions are the only thing that matter to me".