US marines urinated on bodies of taliban fighters

[Tefal]

My point is that morality is absolute, though we may not always interpret it or understand it correctly, or behave appropriately even if we do.

We can be right or wrong about what we believe to be right or wrong, basically.

how is it absolute?

or are you saying there is some hidden set of moral rules no one knows that's right?


For example do you think the death penalty in american is morally correct?

whatever your answer I can find someone who will believe it's the opposite.

So we now have two opposite moral views of the same event.

Which is correct?

 

[Vonhelmet]

how is it absolute?

or are you saying there is some hidden set of moral rules no one knows that's right?

I am saying that there are absolute rules that are clouded by human judgement.

For example do you think the death penalty in american is morally correct?

No.

whatever your answer I can find someone who will believe it's the opposite.

So we now have two opposite moral views of the same event.

Which is correct?

Let's cut to the chase...

Where this discussion ends up going is that I introduce your interpretation of morality (being flexible and subject to individual circumstances) as a shim before reaching my interpretation of morality (being absolute). You deny the existence of my absolute morality, and I assert that your morality is merely the fickle flawed interpretation of my "higher" morality. NB When I say "my" I don't mean "the morality that I have invented", I mean a morality that exists beyond all of us, to which I ascribe a belief. You will nevertheless say that it is a morality of my invention, at which point I will retort that the morality I have invented is my own flawed interpretation of the true morality.

And then we say that it's down to personal belief and whatever other things you choose to base your views, beliefs, whatever on.

Is that about right?

 

[Castiel]

Do you not think that your view on morality changes over time and circumstance?

Aye, I considered that, which is why I altered the premise to include the frame of reference at any given point.

for example, murder being an immoral act. Murder is simply killing without permission from your government/the relevant authority.

why does having permission make it moral?

Again, as I said you would need a universally accepted definition of Murder to have a Universally accepted morality on Murder...

Remember Killing is not necessarily Murder......and killing is not necessarily immoral.

 

[nickrose]

Irrespective of the interpretation of morality, there is absolutely no excuse for what they are being accused of doing.

Would we find it acceptable fot the enemy to be doing this to our dead troops?

 

[Vonhelmet]

Irrespective of the interpretation of morality, there is absolutely no excuse for what they are being accused of doing.

Would we find it acceptable fot the enemy to be doing this to our dead troops?

No, but then that would mean imposing our morality on them.

 

[ubersonic]

Depends how you view fighting for one's country, I guess.

Well in the case of the Taliban their (in their eyes) fighting for their country against invaders.

In our case... its kinda hard to justify it as actually fighting for our country, I suppose you could say that as fighting an American war is beneficial to our country as it helps maintain strong US ties? and is thus fighting for our countries interests /shrug

 

[Tefal]

Let's cut to the chase...

Where this discussion ends up going is that I introduce your interpretation of morality (being flexible and subject to individual circumstances) as a shim before reaching my interpretation of morality (being absolute). You deny the existence of my absolute morality, and I assert that your morality is merely the fickle flawed interpretation of my "higher" morality. NB When I say "my" I don't mean "the morality that I have invented", I mean a morality that exists beyond all of us, to which I ascribe a belief. You will nevertheless say that it is a morality of my invention, at which point I will retort that the morality I have invented is my own flawed interpretation of the true morality.

And then we say that it's down to personal belief and whatever other things you choose to base your views, beliefs, whatever on.

Is that about right?

works for me.

less fun though

 

[crinkleshoes]

Morality is most definitely not absolute - it's dependant entirely on the person and environment they've been brought up in.

Look at one particularly bad example... a woman is raped in Afghanistan... who goes to jail? Surely it should be the man who committed the rape? Nope - the woman is sent to jail for having sex out of wed-lock. The majority of the world see this as an unfathomably ridiculously bad set of morals in order to subject someone to that. Over there, it's seen as the correct thing to do.

The most basic definition of morality is "conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct"... key word = "rules".

Rules cannot be imagined out of thin air, they need to be set and thus they are open to the abuse of those who set them and interpretation of those who must abide by them.

The question more comes down to - is there a default set of rules that humans will automatically follow?

Again, most definitely not - our definition of moral actions has changed dramatically in only the last 100 years, let alone dating back to the days of cave men when it was common practice to bash someone over the head to steal his woman!



The best way to look at this would be peoples' varying degrees of empathy, coupled with their upbringing (which may have a bearing on the former).

There are quite a few people out there who carry out actions that could be considered "evil"... there is no such thing as good and evil, just varying degrees of empathy, goals, selfishness and who the action is deemed to be good for.

Look at various governments / "freedom fighters" - both sides believe they are doing the right thing, whether it be for themselves, for others or both.

To say morality is absolute is a very childish, black and white way of looking at things. I wish it could be that simple... it never is. The world would be a utopia if it was...

 

[elmarko]

Personally, I don't believe in moral absolutism - I think our morality should be reasoned & justified based on the situation - besides "harm caused" is a better judge.

The actions of the soldiers are liable to cause emotional harm to the family of the people on the film & this act was meant to dehumanise them, the act brands the dead as "less than human" - in society we already know full well the dangers of these kinds of actions & should rightly combat it.

We should condemn all involved in this incident, along with any violent repercussions of this & what happens when US soldiers are caught.

In this case it's more of a moral consistency that's the point - it's rational to act in such a way in which you want to be treated.

If person A does not wish to be killed - it's irrational for person A to kill people randomly - because he would be appealing to a set of values he does himself possess, there would also be no reason for others to respect his wishes.

The same applies to this situation, if we as as society don't want the remains of our soldiers to be desecrated, it's morally consistent to not do the same to them.

The age old line "Treat others how you wish to be treated" is the basis of most of our social evolution & one of the most important things people need to understand.

I do believe morality exists - but that's based upon a specific definition, for me a moral act is "reducing total human suffering" & an immoral act is "increasing total human suffering".

As suffering is something we can measure (neurobiology/brain scans/psychology) it's somebody which can be objectively defined.

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/the-moral-landscape/

A very good read to anybody who has an interest in morality.

 

[ants83]

i bet a hell of a lot worse goes on!!
They should just thank allah that they werent alive having a golden shower.

 

[Dave M]

My point is that morality is absolute.

What kind of morality affords more respect to you dead than alive?

 

[grimm]

So in summary, it's OK to shoot each other and blow each other up, but urinating on each other is a big no-no.

What do people thing about spitting on corpses? acceptable? (I'm sure that happens all the time on both sides of the fighting).

 

[elmarko]

So in summary, it's OK to shoot each other and blow each other up, but urinating on each other is a big no-no.

Nobody has said that.

Also, does it matter that killing is worse?, this is a discussing about the act of urinating on corpses.

Killing can be justified in certain conditions (self defence, defence of innocents) - I'd be interested to hear a justification for allowing the desecration of the oppositions dead (during attempted peace talks).

 

[grimm]

I think it's wrong of anyone here to judge what the soldiers do out there, even if they're urinating on corpses and such.

They have to put themselves into a completely different state of mind to be able to do their job effectively, to the point where they're losing their humanity and coming home with all sorts of mental problems.

It could have been something that was completely out of character for all we know, or it could have been a case that there are some nasty people out there, but they are the ones willing to risk their life to get the job done.

They might not have the best moral compass but perhaps that makes them best placed for the job of killing people for a living?

The problem is probably part of what makes them suited to a job like that. Someone like you and me would probably die because we weren't prepared to do what it takes without hesitation, or at least we would take some mental conditioning and probably a short term change in our personality and morals to be capable of getting the job done.

 

[Vonhelmet]

What kind of morality affords more respect to you dead than alive?

None that I'm advocating. Why, do you think I'd say it was OK to urinate on the Taliban if they were alive?

 

[e36Adz]

The reason why they have to get themselves into a different 'state of mind' is because they are criminals. No one needs to get into any frame of mind to do what is right, or just. You would defend your family if they were being attacked without a second thought. It is no wonder that so many of these soldiers break down and have mental problems once they return home and are treated like heroes, deep down they know they are criminals. They know the crimes they have committed, they have to live with that day in day out and the ounce of humanity that they have in them doesn't allow them to be at peace. You can be sure that the natives fighting to defend their homeland do not suffer these sorts of mental problems if they kill invading foreign aggressors.

Killing someone may be justified depending on the circumstances. If someone broke into your home and attacked and killed your family and you retaliated and killed them, very few would say you were in the wrong. You have to stand up to oppression. Yet I can not think of any circumstance why anyone would justify urinating on a dead body, unless you are mentally not all there, as many people in this thread and generally on this forum show.

This act would be just as deplorable if the Taliban did the same to the dead corpse of a US soldier, or if any human being did this to anyone else.

 

[Qhorin]

So I was suspended for wishing death on these degenerates, yet the bloke who suggests nuking an entire country gets only agreement. The hypocrisy is astounding.

Nothing but a bunch of morally bankrupt ********.

 

[Vonhelmet]

So I was suspended for wishing death on these degenerates, yet the bloke who suggests nuking an entire country gets only agreement. The hypocrisy is astounding.

Nothing but a bunch of morally bankrupt so-and-sos.

Seriously... I'd edit the insult before you get banned.

You're right, mind.

 

[Robbo]

I doubt his nuke comment was really serious, those soldiers coming home in a body bag is considerably more likely. If you think they deserve to die for being mentally disturbed as a result of war, you're no better than them or the people they are fighting to protect you from.

Still, you're probably a returnee anyway.