Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

"If there is no alternative it cant be immoral"

Philosophy Forum
» Ethics
» "If there is no alternative it cant be immoral"

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

I'm starting this thread as an offshoot of a discussion I'm having in another thread. The subject title of this thread is quoted from a fellow member of the forum. Is moral judgment absolved when there is no alternative, and what does it mean for there to be no alternative? Theoretically speaking, isn't there always an alternative to any given action? Does there being no alternative mean that ultimately free will either doesn't exist or is a useless concept?

Here are some examples:

1. If I'm starving to death and there is no food around, is it OK for me to kill another person and eat their bodies for survival?

2. If there are only two people left on the planet, one man and one woman, and the woman doesn't want to have sex with the man, is it OK for the man to rape her to propagate the species?

@hue-man,

No. You can live without sex and your own survival does not depend on you propagating the species. As for food, you can eat the grass if need be, I believe there is no excuse to hurt a fellow human being unless it was in self-defense.

@Caroline,

Caroline;84511 wrote:

No. You can live without sex and your own survival does not depend on you propagating the species. As for food, you can eat the grass if need be, I believe there is no excuse to hurt a fellow human being unless it was in self-defense.

I agree with you on not hurting another person, but grass is not enough to survive on. We need protein and fat as well as fiber and carbs.

@hue-man,

hue-man;84513 wrote:

I agree with you on not hurting another person, but grass is not enough to survive on. We need protein and fat as well as fiber and carbs.

It's a tough one, would you offer up yourself instead? Would you eat yourself intsead, therefore is it selfish to kill the other person to survive?

@Caroline,

Hi there hue-man,

What one does very much depends upon his/her view of life and how this view effects their actions.

If I believe that things will continue, no matter what happens to my physical body, and this belief is enough part of me that it effects my Will to Live, then there are many new alternatives to consider. So the alternative not only lie in what one can physically do but also in what one believes (thinks). Changing belief systems, under duress, many times leads to unforeseen choices and actions. This has happened to me many times in my life. In fact, one can argue that the purpose of extreme circumstances is precisely to create change in belief systems.

Rich

@hue-man,

Hey Rich,
Yes I was going to mention that you do not know what happens to you when you die.
People have died fot their beliefs, they would rather die then save themselves by conforming, it's the principle as ridiculous as it may seem to some, to die but I think I would.

@Caroline,

Caroline;84524 wrote:

Hey Rich,
Yes I was going to mention that you do not know what happens to you when you die.
People have died fot their beliefs, they would rather die then save themselves by conforming, it's the principle as ridiculous as it may seem to some, to die but I think I would.

Hi Caroline,

We all have heard of stories of how parents, friends, neighbors, fellow soldiers, even strangers behave in extreme circumstances. People do things that one would never believe possible. Not always what we might consider good, but alternatives none the less.

But in much less dramatic ways, life continues to challenge me. In my relationships with others, in what I think of myself, etc. The challenges are a way of forcing me to seek and find alternatives that I had never considered. For me, life challenges are the way to cause change. And the way one looks at things and believes affects what alternatives may manifest in the mind.

Rich

@hue-man,

I don't think it is so bad necessarily to die for one's beliefs, however I think it is a million times worse to kill because of what one believes.

If you are risking your life because you believe something is worth doing that will put your life in jeopardy that can be honorable in some cases. But to kill others because you believe they should be killed is never honorable no matter how you want to spray paint it.

@Krumple,

Krumple;84533 wrote:

I don't think it is so bad necessarily to die for one's beliefs, however I think it is a million times worse to kill because of what one believes.

If you are risking your life because you believe something is worth doing that will put your life in jeopardy that can be honorable in some cases. But to kill others because you believe they should be killed is never honorable no matter how you want to spray paint it.

There are wars fought all the time because of what one believes. Should the Allied powers have fought the Axis powers during World War II?

Rich

@Krumple,

Krumple;84533 wrote:

I don't think it is so bad necessarily to die for one's beliefs, however I think it is a million times worse to kill because of what one believes.

If you are risking your life because you believe something is worth doing that will put your life in jeopardy that can be honorable in some cases. But to kill others because you believe they should be killed is never honorable no matter how you want to spray paint it.

You think that if a suicide-bomber is about to blow up a school full of children, he should not be killed before he does it? Would you stop someone from shooting him to stop him, and be responsible for the deaths of the children? If you did that I would consider you an evil person.

@richrf,

richrf;84535 wrote:

There are wars fought all the time because of what one believes. Should the Allied powers have fought the Axis powers during World War II?

Rich

Yes, they needed to defend themselves.

@Caroline,

Caroline;84538 wrote:

Yes, they needed to defend themselves.

I agree Caroline. There are always circumstances which makes it difficult to set a moral code in cement. The line seems to be always moving.

Rich

@richrf,

richrf;84541 wrote:

I agree Caroline. There are always circumstances which makes it difficult to set a moral code in cement. The line seems to be always moving.

Rich

Not for me Rich, I would kill a human if I had to, to defend myself, I can't really think of any other reasons.

@Caroline,

Caroline;84542 wrote:

Not for me Rich, I would kill a human if I had to, to defend myself, I can't really think of any other reasons.

Well, suppose that the Germans attacked Russia and Great Britain and in the meantime were committing genocide. Should the U.S. enter the war? No one in the U.S. was attacked.

Rich

@Caroline,

Caroline;84521 wrote:

It's a tough one, would you offer up yourself instead? Would you eat yourself intsead, therefore is it selfish to kill the other person to survive?

Of course I wouldn't offer myself up instead. That's rational self-interest, not to mention that my subconscious self probably wouldn't allow me to eat myself.

My concern is this - when do we allow the amorality of nature to absolve us of moral judgment, or should we still consider the act wrong?

@richrf,

richrf;84543 wrote:

Well, suppose that the Germans attacked Russia and Great Britain and in the meantime were committing genocide. Should the U.S. enter the war? No one in the U.S. was attacked.
Rich

Yes they should but only to help the other countries and not for any other reasons because the other countries are being attacked and are killing people for the wrong reasons, ie,genocide. And definitely if they needed help, wouldn't you help a friend in need?

hue-man;84544 wrote:

Of course I wouldn't offer myself up instead. That's rational self-interest, not to mention that my subconscious self probably wouldn't allow me to eat myself.

My concern is this - when do we allow the amorality of nature to absolve us of moral judgment, or should we still consider the act wrong?

Well, what I'm trying to say is, that I haven't reached that stage yet where my morality has dissolved because I'm still grappling with my conscience, I still do not know what will happen after I die and IMO you'd be surprised what the subconscious is capable of but you are probably right in this case.
Thanks.
Just to throw a spanner in the works, if you ate the person and there is no food around like you say, well you're going to starve anyway/sooner or later.

@Krumple,

hue-man;84510 wrote:

I'm starting this thread as an offshoot of a discussion I'm having in another thread. The subject title of this thread is quoted from a fellow member of the forum. Is moral judgment absolved when there is no alternative, and what does it mean for there to be no alternative? Theoretically speaking, isn't there always an alternative to any given action? Does there being no alternative mean that ultimately free will either doesn't exist or is a useless concept?

Hello Hue. Before I continue, IMO, let me offer a thought: In lieu of our very many definitions of what is moral, I believe we do many immoral things to survive, for if we lived in a fair and just world, there would be no reason to "effort" to survive.............

hue-man;84510 wrote:

Here are some examples:

1. If I'm starving to death and there is no food around, is it OK for me to kill another person and eat their bodies for survival?

......such as the above statement suggests. In my opinion there is absolutely no morality in that act for it is of desperation to survive and can be equated to power and greed. IMO.

hue-man;84510 wrote:

2. If there are only two people left on the planet, one man and one woman, and the woman doesn't want to have sex with the man, is it OK for the man to rape her to propagate the species?

Again, same scenario though more erroneous, for it would indeed be about power but instead of survival, it would be also justify selfish desire neither of which can be defined as moral. IMO.

Caroline;84511 wrote:

No. You can live without sex and your own survival does not depend on you propagating the species.

Well said.

Caroline;84511 wrote:

As for food, you can eat the grass if need be, I believe there is no excuse to hurt a fellow human being unless it was in self-defense.

Even if there are no "alternatives" available, such as the OP suggests, still it would be of a selfish nature as the powerful overtake the weak in their greed to survive, which my opening statement illustrates as this is so very evident in "this" reality in so great many contexts. Of course in this reality, there are so many other alternatives and that is what is so very sad.

Caroline;84521 wrote:

It's a tough one, would you offer up yourself instead? Would you eat yourself intsead, therefore is it selfish to kill the other person to survive?

Great point and if I might offer when one commits such an act, he is indeed offering up himself for what life can be conceived if commiting such an act were moral?

Krumple;84533 wrote:

I don't think it is so bad necessarily to die for one's beliefs, however I think it is a million times worse to kill because of what one believes.

K, I don't think, IMO, the OP is about 'belief's' per se, for there are a great many who would never consider such acts as Hue suggests. As far as killing because of what one believes cannot be considered if we stick to what the thread is implying. Again, it does not suggests beliefs of any sort but to an assumed moral deifintion that would justify such an act, of which I have offered mine.

Krumple;84533 wrote:

If you are risking your life because you believe something is worth doing that will put your life in jeopardy that can be honorable in some cases. But to kill others because you believe they should be killed is never honorable no matter how you want to spray paint it.

Again that is not what the thread is about, IMO.

William

@William,

William;84551 wrote:

......such as the above statement suggests. In my opinion there is absolutely no morality in that act for it is of desperation to survive and can be equated to power and greed. IMO.

It's not equal to power or to greed. Power is the realization of the will to transcend elements of the self or to transcend others. Greed is the excessive desire to acquire more than what you need or deserve. The example of killing someone for food when there is no other source, though I couldn't see myself doing it, is due to the will to live.

@hue-man,

Quote:

K, I don't think, IMO, the OP is about 'belief's' per se, for there are a great many who would never consider such acts as Hue suggests. As far as killing because of what one believes cannot be considered if we stick to what the thread is implying.

I am sticking to the thread. I just generalized the issue. If two people were to be stranded and starving, if one of them suggests killing the other to survive, that in one way it implies they are assuming their existence is more important than the existence of the other person. However if the other person freely hands over their life, that is completely different. So my point is, that people trick themselves or assume that what their cause is, since it benefits them, must be good. This is not true. Just because it might be beneficial to yourself, doesn't make it good or right.

Quote:

Again, it does not suggests beliefs of any sort but to an assumed moral deifintion that would justify such an act, of which I have offered mine.

Morals are not set in stone, no matter what you want to argue. I can say killing anything to eat is morally wrong. But there are thousands who would argue that killing a cow is in no way morally wrong. This is my point. Morals are THE WORST tool to use to measure the accuracy of a situation or decision because they are often WAY overly biased by culture, or dogma.

@hue-man,

That's a good question. I'd say the answer is both yes and no.

No:
The problem with hypothetical situations is that you control all the variables. In a real situation, you can go Jacky Chan on the situation and discover that there are options all around you.

If I say that I have only one choice, that only reflects my belief that I'm limited. I had that experience vividly one time when someone due my respect told me that it was impossible for me to do something that I was shooting for. I felt the world around me becoming the world he described, and I said... no. I told myself that logically there was no reason that I couldn't.... and I felt myself stepping into the world where I could do it. By the way: I did it.

Yes:
Morality is basically a post-event perspective. We compare an event to some image of the ideal. The more they're different, the more 'sinful' the actuality is. Some people say the word sin is derived from a word that means 'missing the mark.' From a deterministic perspective, no one ever has any choice in what they do. Therefore none of us can be held responsible for our actions... there is no morality because morality implies that there was a choice. So where there's no choice, there's no morality.

Thanks for the post!

Philosophy Forum
» Ethics
» "If there is no alternative it cant be immoral"

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

"If there is no alternative it cant be immoral"

Quick Links

My Account

able2know