Originally posted by jammerNo, because the answer to bbarr's question, clearly, is that the two statements are not incompatible (as Ivanhoe acknowledges).
Totally agree .. but not allowed to rec
I'm asking what it means to have rights that we should not, in certain circumstances, exercise. Are these examples best understood as "competing rights"?
1.
Let's say a close relative of mine has been raped and murdered on Monday. Does your freedom of speech include the right to make gratuitously offensive jokes about this when you meet with me on Tuesday?
2.
My body is such that my bone marrow is an exact match for two young children who are dying of a rare disease. I am aware of this. It has been arranged that they will receive a transplant from me on Tueday.
Does my right to autonomy include the right to kill myself by setting myself on fire (destroying my body completely) on Monday?
Originally posted by PalynkaI'm not sure I understand your question.
How then do you justify the need to separate people morally?
The problem here is that it is impossible to find a universal notion of evil (it's shorter, sorry) therefore, there are many "grey" areas where the restriction of such rights would lead to huge impositions of the morality of the majority.
Then, the cultural majority considers that the cost of ...[text shortened]... son of control) can be permissible, even if the cultural majority find these behaviours evil.
Originally posted by ivanhoeLike I said before, I consider the right to do wrongdoing (with application to your example) as part of personal choice. I have a right to do what I like to myself as long as I do not hurt others in doing so. Thus I have a right to take drugs. Ought I to take drugs? Well, that depends on how I value my own health.
Starrman: "Then I should say that Bbarr's post is the real question to this topic."
It certainly is an important one, although it lacks the conciseness of the thread's title, don't you agree ?
Please, do not forget the issue of the "right" to take damaging drugs.
Originally posted by dottewell
1.
Let's say a close relative of mine has been raped and murdered on Monday. Does your freedom of speech include the right to make gratuitously offensive jokes about this when you meet with me on Tuesday?
Of course, but that doesn't mean I ought to do so.
2.
My body is such that my bone marrow is an exact match for two young children who are dying of a rare disease. I am aware of this. It has been arranged that they will receive a transplant from me on Tueday.
Does my right to autonomy include the right to kill myself by setting myself on fire (destroying my body completely) on Monday?
Again, yes it does, but that doesn't mean you ought to do so.
People seem to be labouring under the impression that to have the right to do something means you have a necessity to carry it out.
Originally posted by dottewellYes.
Well, for the sake of argument I'll offer an example.
Let's say a close relative of mine has been raped and murdered on Monday. Does your freedom of speech include the right to make gratuitously offensive jokes about this when you meet with me on Tuesday?
It wouldn't be freedom of speech otherwise.
Having the right and being right are two different things .. should be obvious.
If I was "wrong" enough to make light of your grief, you'd be "right" to go caveman on me. It wouldn't be your right (the law calls it assault).. but you'd be right IMO.
If i'm willing to accept the consequences of my actions I surely have the right to be as wrong as I want to be.
Originally posted by dottewellOf course you do.
And here is another example:
My body is such that my bone marrow is an exact match for two young children who are dying of a rare disease. I am aware of this. It has been arranged that they will receive a transplant from me on Tueday.
Does my right to autonomy include the right to kill myself by setting myself on fire (destroying my body completely) on Monday?
You have the ability (right) of free choice, therefore, if you CHOOSE to burn yourself up.. you can.
Is it right (In accordance with fact, reason, or truth; correct: the right answer.?) to kill yourself?
That's a moral question that each person answers for themself if and when the situation arises.
Personally.. i'd give up the bone marrow .. a little karma insurance.
Originally posted by jammerjammer:"Is evildoing and wrongdoing the same ?
I'll try..
I find the reality of evil in everyday life to be obvious. Don't you?
I'm not a religious person although I was raised Chrictian and believe in God .. I don't attend a specific Church, I may walk into any Church/Temple/Mosque on any given day.
I take God where I find him.. and I find Him everywhere, every day.
The notion of evil being fo so .. unless they're talking about Bush or the USA.
Then it's clearly evil.
........................................
No.. and I can't believe you don't see a distinction.
Wrong would be something like insulting someone just for the hell of it.
Evil would be going to his house and killing his family."
" ...... and I can't believe you don't see a distinction."
English is not my native tongue. That's why.
If I understand you correctly there is a difference in gradation ....
The trouble I have with the term "wrong" is that it does not cover the cargo, so to speak. For instance you can miscalculate in a math problem. As a result your answer is wrong, but this doesn't refer to a moral wrongdoing.
Stealing a pencil is not a big deal but it is morally unacceptable. Strictly speaking it is evil but it is not éééééévil. Know what I'm saying ?
"Evil" is referring to the things that are morally unacceptable while "wrong" is a too neutral term for me if we are talking about ethics.
Oh well, we'll manage I guess.
Originally posted by jammerjammer: "If i'm willing to accept the consequences of my actions I surely have the right to be as wrong as I want to be ... "
Yes.
It wouldn't be freedom of speech otherwise.
Having the right and being right are two different things .. should be obvious.
If I was "wrong" enough to make light of your grief, you'd be "right" to go caveman on me. It wouldn't be your right (the law calls it assault).. but you'd be right IMO.
If i'm willing to accept the consequences of my actions I surely have the right to be as wrong as I want to be.
"Does one have a right to do evil ? "
If we refrain from the religious connotations you actually react to the thread's question in the affirmative. Correct ?
...............................................
English is not my native tongue. That's why.
.................................................
Didn't know that.. sorry for any misunderstanding
..................................................
If I understand you correctly there is a difference in gradation ....
.................................................................
You misunderstand me, perhaps because we haven't defined terms.
Clarity should be the goal.
Evil and wrong both have several different definitions.
wrong..
1.Not in conformity with fact or truth; incorrect or erroneous.
2.
a.Contrary to conscience, morality, or law; immoral or wicked.
b. Unfair; unjust.
3.Not required, intended, or wanted: took a wrong turn.
4. Not fitting or suitable; inappropriate or improper: said the wrong thing.
5. Not in accord with established usage, method, or procedure: the wrong way to shuck clams.
6. Not functioning properly; out of order.
7. Unacceptable or undesirable according to social convention.
8.Designating the side, as of a garment, that is less finished and not intended to show: socks worn wrong side out.
evil..
1.Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
3. Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
4.Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
5. Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper
..........
We are 'wrong' all the time without being evil, but when we do something evil we're wrong every time.
....................................................................
Stealing a pencil is not a big deal but it is morally unacceptable. Strictly speaking it is evil but it is not éééééévil. Know what I'm saying ?
.....................................................
I see stealing a pencil as wrong.. but not evil.
Killing someone in order to steal his pencils .. that's evil.
.....................................................................
The trouble I have with the term "wrong" is that it does not cover the cargo, so to speak. For instance you can miscalculate in a math problem. As a result your answer is wrong, but this doesn't refer to a moral wrongdoing.
.........................................................
Nothing wrong their IMO
Evil implies a moral choice that is "wrong" IMO.
Wrong can be much more obvious.. as in your example. Moral questions are never that clear .. it's not a science.
................................................................
"Evil" is referring to the things that are morally unacceptable while "wrong" is a too neutral term for me if we are talking about ethics.
................................................................
You're right .. that's why we need to define terms
Originally posted by ivanhoeWe have the ability (right) to do evil.
[b]jammer: "If i'm willing to accept the consequences of my actions I surely have the right to be as wrong as I want to be ... "
"Does one have a right to do evil ? "
If we refrain from the religious connotations you actually react to the thread's question in the affirmative. Correct ?[/b]
We choose what to do.
It's what sets us aside from the animals IMO. For a wolf to gut Bambi for dinner is not evil. If I choose to kidnap and BBQ my neighbors daughter .. that's evil.
The wolf goes on instinct .. man has the ability to reason. Therefore, he decides what (for him/her) is right/wrong, good/evil.
The little voice inside (conscience) should tell you what is simply wrong and what is truely evil. Are you in tune with it?
.........................................
If we refrain from the religious connotations you actually react to the thread's question in the affirmative. Correct ?
................................................................
I can't figure out the origional poat at all .. to vague and ambiguous.
It did lead to a decent discussion about evil though.
Originally posted by ivanhoeIs offending/insulting somebody morally wrong/evil ?
What is your stance on this ?
Is offending/insulting somebody morally wrong/evil ?
Is taking drugs that damage your body and psyche morally wrong/evil ?
Possibly morally wrong, but not necessarily.
Is taking drugs that damage your body and psyche morally wrong/evil ?
Possibly morally wrong, but not necessarily.
I don't believe that evil is anything more than a degree of immorality, and I don't think either of the above cases can rise to the level of evil.
Originally posted by ivanhoeBecause the answer is so obviously No.
BBarr: "Do you think the following two claims are inconsistent?
1) I have a right to say things to people I know they'll find offensive.
2) I ought not say things to people I know they'll find offensive.
This is an interesting ethical question, what do you think?"
I'm sure Bbarr hasn't reserved this conundrum for me. Why don't y'all answer the question ?
Holding (1) and (2) as inconsistent means that one ought do everything that one has a right to do.
I have a right to buy a blue car, and a right to not buy a blue car. It can't be the case that I ought not buy the car and that I ought not not buy the car. But if you hold (1) and (2) as inconsistent, you must accept that I ought not buy the car and ought not not buy the car, an absurdity.
So the consensus is that I have a right to do these things, but shouldn't do them.
But what does it mean to say I have a right that I shouldn't exercise (in those circumstances)?
That if I do exercise it, I should not be criticised? That I should not be punished by society but should be criticised? And if the latter, then why not punished?
Originally posted by dottewellThis does not follow from finding that (1) and (2) are not inconsistent.
So the consensus is that I have a right to do these things, but shouldn't do them.
What follows from that finding is that given that you have some right, it is not necessarily the case that you ought to exercise it.
Originally posted by dottewellIt's not that you have a right to do that specific thing, but that you have certain broader rights under which these things can be placed. You have a right to free speech and as such one could exercise that right in such a way as to insult someone else. But the right to insult someone specifically is not given as a direct allowance. I think people are given the (perhaps unwise with some) benefit of the doubt that they should exercise these broader rights in a sensible way and not reduce them to justify actions which most would accept as morally unsound.
So the consensus is that I have a right to do these things, but shouldn't do them.
But what does it mean to say I have a right that I shouldn't exercise?
That if I do exercise it, I should not be criticised? That I should not be punished by society but should be criticised? And if the latter, then why not?