Is there really morality?

[RoadBLOCK]

What if you went to a country and asked you to kill a dog (the simplest example) for one million dollars, would your morals stop you? (You have six months of late rent and you were fired from your job) * It's just a question to test morals

 

[Darkover]

morality doesn't exist at all—there is no inherent right or wrong. moral beliefs are human inventions, created to control behavior or maintain order.

morality is subjective, meaning moral judgments are based on personal or cultural beliefs. What one person or culture considers moral, another might not.

 

[bitofftoomuch]

People are shaped by their material conditions. killing a dog for one million dollars isn't worth it if i'm already a millionaire. but if i'm as desperate as you describe, yeah, i'd probably do it.

 

[Kalista]

there's no such thing as morality besides what people have believed it to be for centuries or more up to now. with morality, what is good or bad is something society has agreed upon. "rules or laws" in place to prevent what could hurt the individual or the general population. the 'top belief' will win here. if you cross that created boundary, the masses will obviously fuck you up verbally and physically for it.

if anyone agrees to kill that dog for one million dollars, they will be judged and ostracized -- and they will most likely stay silent to avoid conflict.

 

[RoadBLOCK]

morality doesn't exist at all—there is no inherent right or wrong. moral beliefs are human inventions, created to control behavior or maintain order.

morality is subjective, meaning moral judgments are based on personal or cultural beliefs. What one person or culture considers moral, another might not.

there's no such thing as morality besides what people have believed it to be for centuries or more up to now. with morality, what is good or bad is something society has agreed upon. "rules or laws" in place to prevent what could hurt the individual or the general population. the 'top belief' will win here. if you cross that created boundary, the mass will obviously fuck you up verbally and physically for it.

if anyone responds to the question of killing that dog, they will be judged and ostracized. the ones who do want to or wouldn't mind killing the dog for one million dollars will most likely stay silent to avoid conflict.

What amazing minds on this site!

 

[lamargue]

you are going to get a variety of answers which are neither necessarily right or wrong, only because the discussion is so general and ungrounded that any particular judgement will seem like a personal opinion. philosophical progress on how moral rules are generated is sparse, and will likely continue to be so unless someone comes around to formalize these laws or put them into a measurable context

we have accrued some interesting ideas, though. kantian equilibria is useful for demonstrating that it is practically useful, in order to maximize player payoffs, to follow presumed categorical laws of cooperation that can be inferred indirectly. deontic reasoning may have evolved through context-sensitive policing mechanisms which have developed through evolution. also a little zircon in the sphere of out-there philosophy is Ron Maimon's belief that moral agents are superrational (in Hofstadter's sense). all very interesting reads, but goes to show that we have virtually no coherent way yet to tie these very disparate ideas together. essentially analytic philosophy in the sphere of morality revolves around working within an extremely well-defined series of premises within a highly technical area of research. translating these to explain away a philosophical problem involves a multidisciplinary approach, which will often conflate and confuse the issues at hand. in order to progress, we probably need a more concretely defined meta-philosophy which bridges interstitial assumptions

 

[Forever Sleep]

Are they handing me a gun to kill the dog? I wonder if I'd be brave enough to shoot myself and leave them with a big mess to clean up. Or, maybe threaten them with it. What kind of piece of shit sets such a sadistic test for someone? Doesn't seem like they have particularly high morals themselves.

I couldn't answer. I don't know what I'd do unless I was in that situation. I hope I wouldn't kill the dog though. How about- shoot them, take their money and go home with a new pet? Not really- I hope I wouldn't shoot a person either.

But- to turn the question back on you: Who would be more at fault if the dog dies? The desperate, possibly starving person who actually killed the dog or, the weirdo that set up this test to begin with? They clearly had a million dollars to spare. No scruples about devising such a test and obtaining the dog knowing it could well be killed. Surely, their morals are a whole lot more lacking- whatever the other person does.

Of course there is morality though. It's just that it varies person to person. Plus, some people will be more willing to abandon their morals than others. Some have fewer to begin with! I imagine a lot comes down to upbringing.

 

[JustA_LittlePerson]

As much as I'd like to say I wouldn't do it, I can't. I think it's wrong but the truth is I don't have six months of late rent and was fired from my job. I don't think really anyone can answer these questions because the context you'd be in is too different from the one you're in now

 

[avoid]

Everyone has their own set of morals. Whether you would betray these morals has to do with your integrity than the existence of morality. Do you stand for what you believe is morally righteous, or are you prepared to betray your morals for certain opportunities? If you choose the latter then you need to live with the guilt of having betrayed your morals. Others with similar moral principles may look down on you too, but I'd imagine that your own guilt weighs heavier on you.

In your example, I'd probably shoot a stray dog in a foreign country for a million US Dollars. But I would not shoot a beloved dog that's part of a family. I don't care much for the arbitrary line that people have drawn between which animals stand above other animals. I place a higher value on whether the animal is beloved by other animals, including humans.

 

[ijustwishtodie]

I would but only because I really want to be dead myself and having a million dollars would help me escape my parents and then obtain SN as well as whatever else is required. Though, in this hypothetical, since I'm dealing with late rent, that probably implies that I'm already independent meaning that I don't need the money to kill myself so maybe I wouldn't?