To reach any conclusions about morality we have to be able to talk in the abstract. But we also have to tie it down to something concrete.

If you are trying to debate whether the ends justify the means, you will quite rightly ask or be asked to provide an example. Let's say you do, and you go with the classic "Man's wife is dying, he has no money, he robs drug store for medicine".

To reach any conclusions about morality we have to be able to talk in the abstract. But we also have to tie it down to something concrete.

The problem is, when we discuss in abstraction we use reasoning, but when we try and make it concrete (i.e. apply it in some useful way) it becomes the sort of thing our instincts will make a judgment on. But our instinct ignores the little qualifiers that thought problems include in order to hone in on the issue.

If you are trying to debate whether the ends justify the means, you will quite rightly ask or be asked to provide an example. Let's say you do, and you go with the classic "Man's wife is dying, he has no money, he robs drug store for medicine". In the abstract, one would rationally argue that it is better to save a life than to not steal. But instinctively, we know that they choice is really between stealing, and finding another solution, that the person who robbed the store had other options.

Now maybe the thought problem includes lots of qualifiers and reaches the point where it is truly one action or the other. This creates two problems:

1) Our instinct is already biased against it.
2) It is now so convoluted that one could argue it never occurs in reality


The solution? I can't think of a particular form of argument that would work perfectly well for morality. I would say:

• Be aware of your instincts and what is driving them
  
• Be aware that if you are convinced of an abstract moral rule it could be because of an instinctual bias
  
• Most of all, you just have to take the time to think about it, and question every piece of it. This is the hardest, but I've been in arguments before where I wouldn't take a 2nd look at my preconception. You just end up arguing semantics and missing the broader perspective.
  

As a starter. But this is hardly a solution. There has to be a better way...

.Morality is learned before all other knowledge, or not learned at all...Morality cannot be taught, nor rationalized...

It may be true that your concrete example may show that in this particular case, the end would justify the means. But suppose my example were that his wife wanted a vanilla ice-cream cone, so he steals, at the point of a gun, the ice-cream. Now, that would be a case when the end does not justify the means, don't you agree. So, isn't the answer to the question whether the ends justify the means that it depends on the end, and it depends on the means? Sometimes it does, and sometimes it does not. There is no general answer to that question, for it is too abstract.

Yes, I agree with this, and with what jgweed said as well.

But the purpose of debating morality is presumably to be better able to determine whether something is moral or not. Fido seems to be promoting the idea that morality is instinctual and that talking about it serves no purpose, I disagree.

Is the process of debating whether the ends justify the means helpful? Surely just saying "sometimes" doesn't help us.

How can something be learned, but not taught? That is a contradiction? Not very clarifying.

It is the first thing that a child learns, who his friends aree....To teach Morality, it must be understood, as with all thing taught, the reason behind it, and there must be some reason to it, and while I can agree that there is some reason for it, there is little objectively reasonable to it...

Consider, that when one risks life to save life there is little rational and much irrational in the behavior and motivation...How would you teach irrationality???

What has that to do with it?

Morality is the social expression of a prelogical, or irrational feeling between people with a common element in their character...

IMO keeping your morality would be to respect others' life, liberty, and as much as i hate to say it, property. These are the most fundamental values that when violated becomes a moral discrepancy. Therefore any violation of these rights would be a violation of our fundamental moral code, anything else, could theoretically be argued.

But, as you yourself say, this is in "your own opinion". Now, of course, that does not mean that you are not right. You may be. What you say may be true. But if what you say is to be lifted from being "your own opinion", you have to present reasons for believing it is true. Otherwise, it remains only your own opinion.

Are you just looking to argue for the sake of it? That's exactly what i said, it's my opinion, no need for you to comment.

SO what you should have said was, "Well why do you believe that?". Not just restate over and over again that i gave my opinion that's pretty obvious. There are better approaches to finding out why i have such an opinion than just stating that what i wrote is my opinion, because that is what i originally said in the first place.

Again yes, again that's what i said, now your just being annoying.