Where is the Line Between Ethical and Unethical

JulesKorngold

The core ethical principle:  Do no harm.

Joeseph

                           Where is the Line Between Ethical and Unethical

Depends on who is setting it and what they deem  ethical. If the benchmark is DO NO HARM how does that fit with the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Barnardot

@Joeseph Well I should draw the line and go right down to the bottom of the unethical pile.

For example it is really scraping the unethical barrel when some one falsely represents a cheap copy product as being the same as the real thing. Thats really low and deceiving.
Also how about when some one makes false claims about professional people and finds bogus links on the internet to support them hoping that no one will look them up. Now thats just plain dishonest.
And what about people who get kicked off of social websites and come back on using a different name. Now thats so unethical that it proves that that person completely lacks any ethics what so ever.

Joeseph

@Barnardot

I've encountered truly st-pid people in my time no one comes close to you in terms of st-pidity. All you ever do is whine , and bi-tch you never in all your time here actually debated .......you're a truly sad little f-ck wad

Barnardot

@Joeseph ;I've encountered truly st-pid people in my time no one comes close to you in terms of st-pidity. All you ever do is whine , and bi-tch you never in all your time here actually debated .......you're a truly sad little f-ck wad

Well thats not a bad example of some one who is so unethical he would do all the examples I just gave plus more like not being able control his thinking and what he says to the point that a little mouse just mentioned that that person is about to be kicked off a website again.

Joeseph

@Barnardot

Well thats not a bad example of some one who is so unethical he would do all the examples I just gave plus more like not being able control his thinking and what he says to the point that a little mouse just mentioned that that person is about to be kicked off a website again.

Just because you got ripped off by buying Pakistani made Nikes and a Nigerian made fake Hermes phone case you seem very annoyed , buyer beware I always say.

Your second whine is about the fact that 78 of the worlds best academics fully agreed with my remarks about Psychology and collectively we laughed at your assertions that criminal profiling was cutting edge science when we agreed its no better than guesswork.

Your third whine is about no matter how many times you go running to mods here I still am and here I will remain till I  decide otherwise.

I kicked your buddy off the site the other day ( Rickey) after teaching  him manners I may do the same with you next.

just_sayin

If you are an atheist, then there is no objective basis for morals in your world view.  If the universe is just the randomness of particles interacting then it is a faulty notion to see things as good and evil.  At most the atheist can say they prefer one action over another.  However moral 'oughtness' is not possible in a system created by randomness.  That's why atheistic scientists have argued that things like rape are 'good' because they have evolutionary benefits:

"Human rape appears not as an aberration but as an alternative gene-promotion strategy that is most likely to be adopted by the 'losers' in the competitive, harem-building struggle. If the means of access to legitimate, consenting sex is not available, then a male may be faced with the choice between force or genetic extinction." - Wilson, Glenn. The Science of Sex: Glenn Wilson on Rape. The Great Sex Divide, pp. 128–131. http://www.heretical.com/wilson/rape.html

Without an objective moral foundation, which atheism lacks, any evil act can be rationalized away.

MayCaesar

elijah44 said:

Challenge the argument not the person.

I would, but that would be unethical, so... I challenge you for a duel, old school style! Name time and place and choose your second.

just_sayin said:

If you are an atheist, then there is no objective basis for morals in your world view.  If the universe is just the randomness of particles interacting then it is a faulty notion to see things as good and evil.  At most the atheist can say they prefer one action over another.  However moral 'oughtness' is not possible in a system created by randomness.  That's why atheistic scientists have argued that things like rape are 'good' because they have evolutionary benefits:

"Human rape appears not as an aberration but as an alternative gene-promotion strategy that is most likely to be adopted by the 'losers' in the competitive, harem-building struggle. If the means of access to legitimate, consenting sex is not available, then a male may be faced with the choice between force or genetic extinction." - Wilson, Glenn. The Science of Sex: Glenn Wilson on Rape. The Great Sex Divide, pp. 128–131. http://www.heretical.com/wilson/rape.html

Without an objective moral foundation, which atheism lacks, any evil act can be rationalized away.

I do not know... "Listen to what a preacher says and do the opposite" sounds like a pretty good objective basis for morals to me. What do you think about it, friend?

just_sayin

MayCaesar said:

elijah44 said:

Challenge the argument not the person.

I would, but that would be unethical, so... I challenge you for a duel, old school style! Name time and place and choose your second.

just_sayin said:

If you are an atheist, then there is no objective basis for morals in your world view.  If the universe is just the randomness of particles interacting then it is a faulty notion to see things as good and evil.  At most the atheist can say they prefer one action over another.  However moral 'oughtness' is not possible in a system created by randomness.  That's why atheistic scientists have argued that things like rape are 'good' because they have evolutionary benefits:

"Human rape appears not as an aberration but as an alternative gene-promotion strategy that is most likely to be adopted by the 'losers' in the competitive, harem-building struggle. If the means of access to legitimate, consenting sex is not available, then a male may be faced with the choice between force or genetic extinction." - Wilson, Glenn. The Science of Sex: Glenn Wilson on Rape. The Great Sex Divide, pp. 128–131. http://www.heretical.com/wilson/rape.html

Without an objective moral foundation, which atheism lacks, any evil act can be rationalized away.

I do not know... "Listen to what a preacher says and do the opposite" sounds like a pretty good objective basis for morals to me. What do you think about it, friend?

Is your preacher human?  Is she fallible?  Now she may be a better source than atheism, because she has an objective source of morality that isn't based on randomness and chaos creating things.  However, she herself is fallible, even if her source is not.

JulesKorngold

Joeseph said:

                           Where is the Line Between Ethical and Unethical

Depends on who is setting it and what they deem  ethical. If the benchmark is DO NO HARM how does that fit with the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

The bombings prevented a costly invasion of Japan, potentially saving millions of American and Japanese lives.

Joeseph

@JulesKorngold

The core ethical principle: Do no harm.

So was there no harm done?

MayCaesar

just_sayin said:

Is your preacher human?  Is she fallible?  Now she may be a better source than atheism, because she has an objective source of morality that isn't based on randomness and chaos creating things.  However, she herself is fallible, even if her source is not.

Randomness such as picking one fantasy book out of millions to adopt morality from? Thanks for enlightening me! I will go grab my copy of The Kingkiller Chronicle and learn the Great Kvothe's wisdom.

May I also express my delight in hearing every religious person claim that it is their religion that is an objective source of morality? It is not Odin, not Allah, not Zeus, not Ra, but the Christian god who is the objective source. It is just so cute.

Factfinder

@just_sayin

If you are an atheist, then there is no objective basis for morals in your world view. If the universe is just the randomness of particles interacting then it is a faulty notion to see things as good and evil. 

I have morals with no god. I do not rape, kill, torture, steal because I choose not to do those things as I see them as evil. It's not something that comes and goes randomly. Only an could think such a thing. 

You admit you have no morals. God does and imposes them on you. So what is it you're itching to do? 

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

If you are an atheist, then there is no objective basis for morals in your world view. If the universe is just the randomness of particles interacting then it is a faulty notion to see things as good and evil. 

I have morals with no god. I do not rape, kill, torture, steal because I choose not to do those things as I see them as evil. It's not something that comes and goes randomly. Only an could think such a thing. 

You admit you have no morals. God does and imposes them on you. So what is it you're itching to do? 

Fact, I am sure you are a very moral person.  I am not saying you can't have morals.  I am saying that atheism has no basis for an objective moral system and that often the morals of atheists are borrowed from other moral systems like Christianity, Judaism, etc.  

God has given you and me free will.  And just because I can do something, does not mean I am above the law and not to be held accountable for my actions.  This is an illogical claim, that because one has free will, he should have free reign and not be held accountable for his actions.  

For we are each responsible for our own conduct. - Galatians 6:5 NLT

MayCaesar

Could anyone please explain me how an old and dusty book is a basis for objective moral system, but scientific observations are not? This guy will never do, but maybe someone will? I do not want to die without ever uncovering this mysterious knowledge. Please do not make me die in ignorance!

just_sayin

MayCaesar said:

Could anyone please explain me how an old and dusty book is a basis for objective moral system, but scientific observations are not? This guy will never do, but maybe someone will? I do not want to die without ever uncovering this mysterious knowledge. Please do not make me die in ignorance!

That's an easy question.  Matter responds to its environment.  Matter has no morals.  So if your science is about observations of matter, they can tell you what natural process is occurring, but it can't tell you what it 'ought' to do in a moral situation.  Science can explain to you what happens when a gun fires and the velocity of the bullet, but it can't tell you it is morally wrong to murder.

MayCaesar

@just_sayin

I am sorry, but this does not answer my question. I will repeat: "Could anyone please explain me how an old and dusty book is a basis for objective moral system, but scientific observations are not?" The old and dusty book is made of matter, so it seems that, if anything, your argument contradicts your own claim.

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

If you are an atheist, then there is no objective basis for morals in your world view. If the universe is just the randomness of particles interacting then it is a faulty notion to see things as good and evil. 

I have morals with no god. I do not rape, kill, torture, steal because I choose not to do those things as I see them as evil. It's not something that comes and goes randomly. Only an could think such a thing. 

You admit you have no morals. God does and imposes them on you. So what is it you're itching to do? 

Fact, I am sure you are a very moral person.  I am not saying you can't have morals.  I am saying that atheism has no basis for an objective moral system and that often the morals of atheists are borrowed from other moral systems like Christianity, Judaism, etc.  

God has given you and me free will.  And just because I can do something, does not mean I am above the law and not to be held accountable for my actions.  This is an illogical claim, that because one has free will, he should have free reign and not be held accountable for his actions.  

For we are each responsible for our own conduct. - Galatians 6:5 NLT

So you admit eternal punishment isn't for choosing lives of crime or bad deeds. If it were there'd be no reason to send me there. I'm still destined because I refuse to acknowledge that what I do not believe in, period. How can you say (other then circular reasoning) gods morals holds everyone accountable when it's more important for your god to punish people it intentionally created with a mind of reason; who do not believe in things that are actively and purposely hidden beyond the reach of evidence gathering? What a petty, petulant god you worship. 

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

If you are an atheist, then there is no objective basis for morals in your world view. If the universe is just the randomness of particles interacting then it is a faulty notion to see things as good and evil. 

I have morals with no god. I do not rape, kill, torture, steal because I choose not to do those things as I see them as evil. It's not something that comes and goes randomly. Only an could think such a thing. 

You admit you have no morals. God does and imposes them on you. So what is it you're itching to do? 

Fact, I am sure you are a very moral person.  I am not saying you can't have morals.  I am saying that atheism has no basis for an objective moral system and that often the morals of atheists are borrowed from other moral systems like Christianity, Judaism, etc.  

God has given you and me free will.  And just because I can do something, does not mean I am above the law and not to be held accountable for my actions.  This is an illogical claim, that because one has free will, he should have free reign and not be held accountable for his actions.  

For we are each responsible for our own conduct. - Galatians 6:5 NLT

So you admit eternal punishment isn't for choosing lives of crime or bad deeds. If it were there'd be no reason to send me there. I'm still destined because I refuse to acknowledge that what I do not believe in, period. How can you say (other then circular reasoning) gods morals holds everyone accountable when it's more important for your god to punish people it intentionally created with a mind of reason; who do not believe in things that are actively and purposely hidden beyond the reach of evidence gathering? What a petty, petulant god you worship. 

God will judge our conduct.  Grace is available to those who will accept that gift, but if you want to reject it, that is your right and God will honor your decision.  God will force you kicking and screaming into heaven.  You were created with the capacity to choose your own way, God did not make your choice for you, you did that.  

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

If you are an atheist, then there is no objective basis for morals in your world view. If the universe is just the randomness of particles interacting then it is a faulty notion to see things as good and evil. 

I have morals with no god. I do not rape, kill, torture, steal because I choose not to do those things as I see them as evil. It's not something that comes and goes randomly. Only an could think such a thing. 

You admit you have no morals. God does and imposes them on you. So what is it you're itching to do? 

Fact, I am sure you are a very moral person.  I am not saying you can't have morals.  I am saying that atheism has no basis for an objective moral system and that often the morals of atheists are borrowed from other moral systems like Christianity, Judaism, etc.  

God has given you and me free will.  And just because I can do something, does not mean I am above the law and not to be held accountable for my actions.  This is an illogical claim, that because one has free will, he should have free reign and not be held accountable for his actions.  

For we are each responsible for our own conduct. - Galatians 6:5 NLT

So you admit eternal punishment isn't for choosing lives of crime or bad deeds. If it were there'd be no reason to send me there. I'm still destined because I refuse to acknowledge that what I do not believe in, period. How can you say (other then circular reasoning) gods morals holds everyone accountable when it's more important for your god to punish people it intentionally created with a mind of reason; who do not believe in things that are actively and purposely hidden beyond the reach of evidence gathering? What a petty, petulant god you worship. 

God will judge our conduct.  Grace is available to those who will accept that gift, but if you want to reject it, that is your right and God will honor your decision.  God will force you kicking and screaming into heaven.  You were created with the capacity to choose your own way, God did not make your choice for you, you did that.  

You're purposely leaving out the fact one can choose a life of sin, then repent at their last hour as the thief on the cross. As your own book points out, it wasn't the repenting of crime that saved him but the repenting of the cardinal sin, unbelief.

(Luke 23:43). A thief who woke up in the morning on his way to hell had his eternal destiny changed with a simple plea to the Savior. “Jesus, remember me.”

MayCaesar

Something I have realized as a result of discussions with people about morals here is that many people are afraid of seeing where their views lead if applied consistently. I had not realized that before: I thought that all people, just like me, constantly thought about the implications of their views, and if the implications were clearly problematic, they revised their views. It seems, however, that many people have very half-baked views that they lazily apply when convenient, and pretend to not have when inconvenient. For example, someone might say that they do not believe that people should not be able to offend each other - but when asked if therefore they should be silent because anything they say possibly can offend someone, they fold and switch the subject, instead of addressing the problem with their belief.

That is a very shaky way to live one's life. You never know when your inconsistency is going to fail you. What if you end up in a situation where having a solid system of views is crucial for your well-being? You will be taken out then. You walk around accusing everyone of saying offensive things and get away with it because your social circle consists of people like you - then you go apply for a job, and the interviewer tells you to shove off for their organization does not tolerate this kind of behavior, and when you try to object, the cunning interviewer will say, "You are offending me by this objection". And not only are you screwed materially now, but you cannot even really debug the issue and prepare better for the next interview, for you have not developed the habit of identifying flaws in your reasoning and correcting them.

A lot of people here and elsewhere hold views that fall apart upon the slightest scrutiny, yet it does not bother them. It is like they are holding a sheet of paper, believing that it is a sheet of hard steel, and never allow anything to hit this sheet out of fear that they will be proven wrong... And then someone comes over and does hit the sheet, and surprise Pikachu face ensues. Followed by a visit to a hospital.

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

If you are an atheist, then there is no objective basis for morals in your world view. If the universe is just the randomness of particles interacting then it is a faulty notion to see things as good and evil. 

I have morals with no god. I do not rape, kill, torture, steal because I choose not to do those things as I see them as evil. It's not something that comes and goes randomly. Only an could think such a thing. 

You admit you have no morals. God does and imposes them on you. So what is it you're itching to do? 

Fact, I am sure you are a very moral person.  I am not saying you can't have morals.  I am saying that atheism has no basis for an objective moral system and that often the morals of atheists are borrowed from other moral systems like Christianity, Judaism, etc.  

God has given you and me free will.  And just because I can do something, does not mean I am above the law and not to be held accountable for my actions.  This is an illogical claim, that because one has free will, he should have free reign and not be held accountable for his actions.  

For we are each responsible for our own conduct. - Galatians 6:5 NLT

So you admit eternal punishment isn't for choosing lives of crime or bad deeds. If it were there'd be no reason to send me there. I'm still destined because I refuse to acknowledge that what I do not believe in, period. How can you say (other then circular reasoning) gods morals holds everyone accountable when it's more important for your god to punish people it intentionally created with a mind of reason; who do not believe in things that are actively and purposely hidden beyond the reach of evidence gathering? What a petty, petulant god you worship. 

God will judge our conduct.  Grace is available to those who will accept that gift, but if you want to reject it, that is your right and God will honor your decision.  God will force you kicking and screaming into heaven.  You were created with the capacity to choose your own way, God did not make your choice for you, you did that.  

You're purposely leaving out the fact one can choose a life of sin, then repent at their last hour as the thief on the cross. As your own book points out, it wasn't the repenting of crime that saved him but the repenting of the cardinal sin, unbelief.

(Luke 23:43). A thief who woke up in the morning on his way to hell had his eternal destiny changed with a simple plea to the Savior. “Jesus, remember me.”

Yep, God has provided a means of forgiveness he offers as a free gift to those who accept it. 

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

If you are an atheist, then there is no objective basis for morals in your world view. If the universe is just the randomness of particles interacting then it is a faulty notion to see things as good and evil. 

I have morals with no god. I do not rape, kill, torture, steal because I choose not to do those things as I see them as evil. It's not something that comes and goes randomly. Only an could think such a thing. 

You admit you have no morals. God does and imposes them on you. So what is it you're itching to do? 

Fact, I am sure you are a very moral person.  I am not saying you can't have morals.  I am saying that atheism has no basis for an objective moral system and that often the morals of atheists are borrowed from other moral systems like Christianity, Judaism, etc.  

God has given you and me free will.  And just because I can do something, does not mean I am above the law and not to be held accountable for my actions.  This is an illogical claim, that because one has free will, he should have free reign and not be held accountable for his actions.  

For we are each responsible for our own conduct. - Galatians 6:5 NLT

So you admit eternal punishment isn't for choosing lives of crime or bad deeds. If it were there'd be no reason to send me there. I'm still destined because I refuse to acknowledge that what I do not believe in, period. How can you say (other then circular reasoning) gods morals holds everyone accountable when it's more important for your god to punish people it intentionally created with a mind of reason; who do not believe in things that are actively and purposely hidden beyond the reach of evidence gathering? What a petty, petulant god you worship. 

God will judge our conduct.  Grace is available to those who will accept that gift, but if you want to reject it, that is your right and God will honor your decision.  God will force you kicking and screaming into heaven.  You were created with the capacity to choose your own way, God did not make your choice for you, you did that.  

You're purposely leaving out the fact one can choose a life of sin, then repent at their last hour as the thief on the cross. As your own book points out, it wasn't the repenting of crime that saved him but the repenting of the cardinal sin, unbelief.

(Luke 23:43). A thief who woke up in the morning on his way to hell had his eternal destiny changed with a simple plea to the Savior. “Jesus, remember me.”

Yep, God has provided a means of forgiveness he offers as a free gift to those who accept it. 

Of course, every depraved sin you can think of, can be forgiving, except failure to believe in that which hides. Twisted god for sure, you agree?

Barnardot

@just_sayin ;If you are an atheist, then there is no objective basis for morals in your world view. 

Whatever thats supposed to mean and I suspect that in actual fact it means totally nothing at all. If your trying to insinuate that for some reason atheists have different morals than non atheists then you have a real peculiar world view and your being as abjective as a snail with its head stuffed up its behind. But Ill tell you this through. If any one has to go to some book or organization to get there morals then it doesnt say much for that person at all.