I'm only sitting the Standard grade prelims this week and next which are my first proper exams, (Scottish equivilent of GCSEs btw) but I'm expecting the equivilent of 6 As and 2 Bs. Hopefully.
I watched the intro, the guy posted it so that other people could see how it was done. Presumably so that they can see what will happen if their dog has to be put down.
Or what if I think the positives to a killing outweigh the negatives?
But... but it's not! :cry: :P Surely suffering is wrong by definition though. If the positives outweigh the negatives, then it's justified. What if someone is a masochist, they seem to like pain, which some suffering is.
For some reason maths and sciences just seem to click for me. It just works so I find it quite easy. I prefer History though, much more interesting though I do get satisfaction from solving a hard question.
Then how can you say that killing is objectively bad?In my defence, I actually didn't, Gabu just assumed I did. :P What I think is that when killing is bad, it is objectively so, no matter what people think, and no matter what any culture thinks, and no matter what time period it's in. And the same would apply to the rare cases in which it is good.
Only problem with saying that some killing is right and some is wrong is what decides it? Let's say a dictator of a country is cruel to a minority group but benevolent to the rest of the people in the country and the UN decides that this dictator should be killed and he is. Would this be morally right or wrong? Sure with him dead the minority no longer suffers, but what about the rest of the countries residents who adored their leader? Or the dictator's family?
That's why I say that morals are relative to who the majority factor is. Let's say that an Islamic extremist bombs a church, killing 1 person. That one person happens to be a wife and child beater. With him dead his family do not fear him anymore. Was this killing morally right or wrong. For me it comes down to the question as to what to base right or wrong on. The action, the motive or the consequences.
[QUOTE="The_One_White"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Sure, it was thought morally right, but that doesn't mean that it was.Funky_Llama
By our standards no it wasn't but thats what I'm saying, morals are relative to what the majority of people concieve is right and wrong.How do you know? So you think there has always been a set moral code? So did someone like Stalin have the same moral code as you? Did he know he was doing horrendous things? No one knows but I'm guessing that he though he was right in doing it.
Log in to comment