NationStates Jolt Archive

Many people have been condemned for acts which most of us would consider morally wrong. e.g Hitler and the holocaust. However, if they are committed by someone who honestly believes what they are doing is right, are they morally responsible?

Most people would agree that every capable adult human being should be held accountable for their own actions. Therefore everyone is legally responsible for what they choose to do, but this is different from having a moral responsiblilty for their own actions.

Any comments?

I guess thats a no then?

you have to be held responsible _by_ someone - if you break the law you are accountable to the state, if you are immoral, who are you accountable to? god? your fellow human beings? the trouble is that your argument requires an objective definition of morality, i think, and just as the definition of what is legal can vary, so can the definition of what is moral.

it is dangerous to say things like "acts which most of us would consider morally wrong" since clearly the people committing the acts don't fall into that category. presumably by their own moral standards they are not responsible, by yours, they might be. but why does that make your moral standards more valid than theirs? just because the majority of people hold a view, it doesn't make it more "correct" than an opposing view held by a smaller number of people.

Of course they can. Unfortunately the moral standards today in our world are often set by the West. Example: The concept of terrorisme and freedomfighting/rebellion.

yes, thats actually how I see it. You cannot be morally responsible because no ones morals are more valid than anyone elses.

However it is necessary for people to be legally responsible for our society to maintain order.

The ends justify the means.

Anyway, we hold people accountable for what they do, not what they want to do.

If you kill millions based on their race/religion/sex/personal belief because "you think it's right" than the end you've accomplished wasn't a very desirable end and you better be held accountable for it.

personally, i don't think they can.

doesn't mean i would let them continue doing those unspecified acts, but i wouldn't pretend i was stopping them by virtue of some absolute authority of universal morals.

you have to be held responsible _by_ someone...


I agree with you on this. Of course you have to be held responsible for your actions. Only exceptions are under duress or are unaccountable due to mental illness.

Though I wish to emphasize that that even mentally ill SHOULD to some account be held responsible. For instance in matters of compensation to victims.

If someone has been brainwashed their entire life to believe they have a moral responsibility to kill people of other races or religions, how accountable are they for their actions?

If you kill millions based on their race/religion/sex/personal belief because "you think it's right" than the end you've accomplished wasn't a very desirable end and you better be held accountable for it.

i agree that accountability is necessary, but it seems that in practice it's the weaker masses which are held accountable to the powerful few.

The brainwasher is very accountable for his actions EVEN though he himself has not killed anyone directly. However; we always have the concept of choice. And we can't really rule out human kind ability of thought. A realization of what you are doing is "wrong"; ie atrocity against (wo)mankind, yet you CHOOSE to ignore your own moral sense of what is wrong and right. That makes you accountable as well in my eyes.

PM Kwanza Parranoyd

The brainwasher is very accountable for his actions EVEN though he himself has not killed anyone directly. However; we always have the concept of choice. And we can't really rule out human kind ability of thought. A realization of what you are doing is "wrong"; ie atrocity against (wo)mankind, yet you CHOOSE to ignore your own moral sense of what is wrong and right. That makes you accountable as well in my eyes.

PM Kwanza Parranoyd

But my point is that you may not have a realisation that what you are doing is wrong. Everyones moral sense is different, its not always about ignoring you morals, sometimes its about following your morals that are telling you to kill someone

If someone has been brainwashed their entire life to believe they have a moral responsibility to kill people of other races or religions, how accountable are they for their actions?

100%, as they can still chose not to do it.

Now the only exception I can think of is that if you literally have someone with a weapon drawn at you and they say "do this or you die". You're probably going to do it, and I wouldn't hold you responsible in that situation.

I suppose, if the brainwasher said "if you don't kill all the *insert religion*, I'll kill you", then I wouldn't blame the brainwashed. But it's going to be hard to brainwash someone that it's morally right to do action A when you're threatened with death if you don't do it.


But my point is that you may not have a realisation that what you are doing is wrong.

That still doesn't change the fact that you've done wrong. Hopefully if you come to your senses, you'll stop doing it or even better, try to right your wrongs.

If someone has been brainwashed their entire life to believe they have a moral responsibility to kill people of other races or religions, how accountable are they for their actions?

they are entirely accountable to the people of other races and religions who they want to kill. are they responsible for their own actions? depends how strongly they believe.

this is a bit like the "violent violetists demand blood" issue. can they be rehabilitated into more useful members of society?
if not, then you could say they are "insane" by your definition of the word and lock them away for the safety of your people.

100%, as they can still chose not to do it.

Now the only exception I can think of is that if you literally have someone with a weapon drawn at you and they say "do this or you die". You're probably going to do it, and I wouldn't hold you responsible in that situation.

I suppose, if the brainwasher said "if you don't kill all the *insert religion*, I'll kill you", then I wouldn't blame the brainwashed. But it's going to be hard to brainwash someone that it's morally right to do action A when you're threatened with death if you don't do it.



That still doesn't change the fact that you've done wrong. Hopefully if you come to your senses, you'll stop doing it or even better, try to right your wrongs.

Yes but while we believe what they have done is wrong, that does not make our morals any more valid than theirs. We cannot say that our morals are correct unless you believe in some sort of objective moral law which most people don't.

Anyway must go now. . .

Many people have been condemned for acts which most of us would consider morally wrong. e.g Hitler and the holocaust. However, if they are committed by someone who honestly believes what they are doing is right, are they morally responsible?

Most people would agree that every capable adult human being should be held accountable for their own actions. Therefore everyone is legally responsible for what they choose to do, but this is different from having a moral responsiblilty for their own actions.

Any comments? Yes, people are responsible for their actions morally because I think there is an objective meter of morality. I dislike the de-stability that a reletive system causes.

I guess for better or for worse I believe in the humankind. I believe our ability to think rationally, logically, with great empathy for one another.

I don't think if you asked an american soldier: "Did you enjoy killing "ragheads", "gooks", or nazis."

I am very confident that (wo)man are able to think beyond the limits the enviroment they are confined in. I mean that's how we manage to "invent" democracy... marxisme... feminisme... all kinds of isms. Ideology is based upon thinking beyond the borders of what "is".

P.S.: I totally understand you, guess I'm to naive in my belief in humanbeing.

What's the deal with all the moral relativism, the whole "one person's morals are no more valid than anyone elses"? I understand why people feel this way, or have been taught to feel this way, and to a degree it's admirable. But at the same time it seems to fly in the face of everyday experience. There obviously exist certian moral absolutes, no matter how bad people don't want to recognize them.

Judaism and Christianity have "Thou shalt do no murder". Murder is also condemed in Islam:
"If anyone harms (others), God will harm him, and if anyone shows hostility to others, God will show hostility to him." Sunan of Abu-Dawood, Hadith 1625
Bhudism's First precept is "Do not kill." In fact every major religion condems murder, yet many of these religions developed in very different parts of the world some unbeknownst to the existance of others. This pattern isn't just limited to religions either. One must look no further than the US Legal system than to see secular institutions also condem the act of murder. Some might argue that the US legal system is based upon the Ten Commandments (though this arguement doesn't really hold water upon scrutiny), but rather it be possibly that the legal system is built no more upon the Commandments than upon an underlying common morality? It would seem to me that the morallity of murder is not just a moral that happens to be common among the people of the world, but rather evidence of the existance of a univeral moral absolute.

Now, I don't want to be misunderstood. I'm not saying that all morals are absolute, I'm simply arguing that some, particularlly murder, is absolute. Under these conditions it becomes obvious that if a person acts in conflict with this universal morality than of course the person can be held 'morally responsible'. This easily makes the case for the moral responsiblity of Hitler and Stalin and their ilk.

What's the deal with all the moral relativism, the whole "one person's morals are no more valid than anyone elses"? I understand why people feel this way, or have been taught to feel this way, and to a degree it's admirable. But at the same time it seems to fly in the face of everyday experience. There obviously exist certian moral absolutes, no matter how bad people don't want to recognize them.

Judaism and Christianity have "Thou shalt do no murder". Murder is also condemed in Islam:

Bhudism's First precept is "Do not kill." In fact every major religion condems murder, yet many of these religions developed in very different parts of the world some unbeknownst to the existance of others. This pattern isn't just limited to religions either. One must look no further than the US Legal system than to see secular institutions also condem the act of murder. Some might argue that the US legal system is based upon the Ten Commandments (though this arguement doesn't really hold water upon scrutiny), but rather it be possibly that the legal system is built no more upon the Commandments than upon an underlying common morality? It would seem to me that the morallity of murder is not just a moral that happens to be common among the people of the world, but rather evidence of the existance of a univeral moral absolute.

Now, I don't want to be misunderstood. I'm not saying that all morals are absolute, I'm simply arguing that some, particularlly murder, is absolute. Under these conditions it becomes obvious that if a person acts in conflict with this universal morality than of course the person can be held 'morally responsible'. This easily makes the case for the moral responsiblity of Hitler and Stalin and their ilk.

Christianity also mentions that you should stone a girl to death if she is found not to be a virgin on her wedding day
Deuteronomy 22.20

There are similar passages in the Qu'ran, the book of mormon etc

Christianity also mentions that you should stone a girl to death if she is found not to be a virgin on her wedding day
Deuteronomy 22.20

There are similar passages in the Qu'ran, the book of mormon etc

Way to take things WAY out of context. You can hardly win the argument against objective morality by bringing up the Old Testament, so why try?

It doesn't matter if the New World Order government systems tell you what you're doing is wrong (ie. opposing the NWO or the UN) As long as you sincerely know in your heart that you are doing the work of God, then you are fine.

It doesn't matter if the New World Order government systems tell you what you're doing is wrong (ie. opposing the NWO or the UN) As long as you sincerely know in your heart that you are doing the work of God, then you are fine.

Except when you kill thousands of people because you honestly believe you are doing gods work.

Christianity also mentions that you should stone a girl to death if she is found not to be a virgin on her wedding day
Deuteronomy 22.20

There are similar passages in the Qu'ran, the book of mormon etc

Yeah, well christianity says a lot of things. And if you strip away all that deuteronomy, leviticus, and all that sort of craziness, you really get right back to the ten commandments, which really is the point of the arguement.

What about people who aren't religious?
In the end everyone has to trust their own conscience in everyday life even though it is obvious that some peoples conscience leads them astray

What about people who aren't religious?
In the end everyone has to trust their own conscience in everyday life even though it is obvious that some peoples conscience leads them astray

Well what I was trying to get at was that there are some morals that are above religion, and other such dogma. That things like "Murder is bad" is absolute and universal no matter what god you worship or country you live in.

Well what I was trying to get at was that there are some morals that are above religion, and other such dogma. That things like "Murder is bad" is absolute and universal no matter what god you worship or country you live in.

But some people don't believe that even if they are religious. Often murderers don't believe what they are doing is wrong

But some people don't believe that even if they are religious. Often murderers don't believe what they are doing is wrong

Yeah but the point is it doesn't matter what they believe, it's still wrong because it's absolute.

Yeah but the point is it doesn't matter what they believe, it's still wrong because it's absolute.

So you believe in some sort of Kantian moral law then?

So you believe in some sort of Kantian moral law then?

Well I can't say definately because I've not studied Kant. So far as I do understand Kant, I'd have to say no, but I could very well be wrong in my understanding. Basically what I think is that there are certian morals like "murder is wrong", "theft is wrong", and such, that are universal. That these morals are some deeply rooted part of the human 'soul', to which all people are answerable. That because various religions and systems of morals developed these same ethics in isolation of each other, that they must in fact be real everywhere. I can't explain how groups of people developed similar moral systems unless their morals are really reflections of some set of overall universal morals.

wow...that's a lot of uses of the word 'moral'.

All morals are subjective, there exists no absolute morals. Noone can claim his morals are more right or superior to anyone elses moral. The reason for this is that nature itself provides you with no morals, and noone can prove their religion to be true.

However, when my chosen ethics says that killing is wrong and that everybody has the right to not be killed, then this goes for everyone. If someone else thinks killing is right, that someones morals will conflict with mine.

If I allow him to follow his ethics, I compromise my own ethics. I becoma a moral hypocrite. The only moral thing for me to do is condemn that other persons actions, and I have also a moral duty to stop him from killing. It does not matter whether or not that person think he's got the right to kill, I have to follow my own morals!

Not doing this leads to moral relativsm. And moral relativism is the real root of all evil. Becaus a moral relativist can never say anything is wrong. Every conceivable action may be right in someone elses subjective moral. Terrorism may be right, from a certain viewpoint. Mutiliation of female genitalia may be right. Raping of children may be right. Everything, no matter how evil, can be seen as right from some subjective moral stand. Moral relativism takes away your ability to condemn any action.

That said, moral zealotry is also a dangerous path to walk down. Respect for other peoples views are important too. Understanding that moral is indeed subjective is important. You cannot force all your morals on someone else, you need to prioritise what's important.

All morals are subjective, there exists no absolute morals. Noone can claim his morals are more right or superior to anyone elses moral.

...[possible bad snip]...

And moral relativism is the real root of all evil. Becaus a moral relativist can never say anything is wrong. Every conceivable action may be right in someone elses subjective moral. Terrorism may be right, from a certain viewpoint. Mutiliation of female genitalia may be right. Raping of children may be right. Everything, no matter how evil, can be seen as right from some subjective moral stand. Moral relativism takes away your ability to condemn any action.

I don't see where your claim that all morals are subjective DOESN'T lead to moral relativism. Could you explain?

The most dangerous kind of person in the world is a person who thinks that what they're doing is right. Look through history. That's my two pennies

I don't see where your claim that all morals are subjective DOESN'T lead to moral relativism. Could you explain?

You may have your ethics, I have mine. For me, my ethics are right. If not, I would be without ethics.

My ethics include more than myself. My ethics say that all people have the right to not be killed. Now, if I allow other people to be killed, I'm violating my ethics. I am not acting moral, I am without moral.

To be moral, I have to follow my ethics. And my moral duty is to do something about other people violating these ethics. If I only protect my own right not to be killes, I'm being a moral hypocrite.

It does not matter where my ethics come from, whetger they're subjective or not. If I don't follow them, I have no moral. If I follow them only for myself, I'm a moral hypocrite.

The most dangerous kind of person in the world is a person who thinks that what they're doing is right. Look through history. That's my two pennies
Would you rather prefer people don't caring about right and wrong, or would you prefer people caring about right and wrong?

History is filled with zealots. But if you don't thing what they did was wrong, so what?

History is also filled with people who have done good, what do you think about them?

Would you rather prefer people don't caring about right and wrong, or would you prefer people caring about right and wrong?

History is filled with zealots. But if you don't thing what they did was wrong, so what?

History is also filled with people who have done good, what do you think about them?

to answer the first question: I perhaps was a bit unclear. Not every person who think that what they're doing is right is doing something bad, but at the same time, if an individual has that mind-set, then they could be killing an entire ethnic group, and they could see nothing wrong with that. Right and wrong are excuses. There's helpful, there's harmful, and there's negligible. Many things aren't clear cut as right and wrong. Often times, things that are thought of as being "right" to a group or individual could be very harmful to others, hence it would be regarded as wrong by other people. In summation, anything harmful to someone is wrong, at the same time, not everything that's not harmful is right, often times it's negligible, sometimes even wrong. That's why I think that right and wrong are useless classifications.

to answer the second and third questions: What I think about what someone did doesn't really matter on the grand scale of things. What they did to or for people is what matters. If they were helpful on a grand, or even a small scale, then so much the better. If they were harmful on a grand or small scale, then so much the worse. Every individual in some way affects the way that the world is going to progress. Whether on the grand or small scale, so I suggest that it's better to be helpful than harmful or negligible, but it's still better to be negligible than harmful. Hopefully my response answered your question.

Has anyone thought how depressing it is if you believe, as I do, that right and wrong do not exist in reality but just as a human concept?
I mean, people can feel so strongly that something is intrinsically wrong in itself, is that all an illusion?

Has anyone thought how depressing it is if you believe, as I do, that right and wrong do not exist in reality but just as a human concept?
I mean, people can feel so strongly that something is intrinsically wrong in itself, is that all an illusion?

That it is a human concept does not invalidate its worth. Plus, it is unavoidable, so I feel it is better to construct a clear and consistent framework and justification for your beliefs, in order to a.) persuade other people and b.) be more certain that your actions are correct before you make them, thus helping to limit the mistakes you make in life. Ultimately though there will always be preconceptions, the most common one the idea of a sort of balance, which would, as mentioned above, be a Kant-ish philosophy.

That it is a human concept does not invalidate its worth. Plus, it is unavoidable, so I feel it is better to construct a clear and consistent framework and justification for your beliefs, in order to a.) persuade other people and b.) be more certain that your actions are correct before you make them, thus helping to limit the mistakes you make in life. Ultimately though there will always be preconceptions, the most common one the idea of a sort of balance, which would, as mentioned above, be a Kant-ish philosophy.

Thank you, I feel happier! By the way everyone I know I ask a lot of questions but i like to hear lots of different views.

All has gone quiet. . . .

The most dangerous kind of person in the world is a person who thinks that what they're doing is right. Look through history. That's my two pennies

Well, EVERYONE thinks that what they do is right. No one simply kills because they know it's wrong. Well, I hope . . .

Anyway, here's a quote that you might find interesting:

"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

Many people have been condemned for acts which most of us would consider morally wrong. e.g Hitler and the holocaust. However, if they are committed by someone who honestly believes what they are doing is right, are they morally responsible?

Most people would agree that every capable adult human being should be held accountable for their own actions. Therefore everyone is legally responsible for what they choose to do, but this is different from having a moral responsiblilty for their own actions.

Any comments?

this is when you are the MOST morally responsible.

after all, you have thought it through, considered right and wrong, and then acted. how more morally responsible can you be?

so you go out and recruit men to learn to fly planes into skyscrapers. you know you are right. that this is a holy act.

too bad the rest of the world disagrees. the rest of the world has a moral responsibility to bring you to justice as you have violated THEIR moral codes to an egregious extent.

are you asking if such a person who acted with moral certainty should be PUNISHED for their acts? of course they should. this is why we have laws, so you have a clue what side of things you end up on when you act with a unique moral code.

a moral person acting in such a manner against the accepted mores of the rest of the world should come forward and accept the punishment as proof of his convictions. you accept the moral outrage of the rest of the world and stand up for what you think is right. to do less is both cowardice and lack of moral fiber.

Many people have been condemned for acts which most of us would consider morally wrong. e.g Hitler and the holocaust. However, if they are committed by someone who honestly believes what they are doing is right, are they morally responsible?

Most people would agree that every capable adult human being should be held accountable for their own actions. Therefore everyone is legally responsible for what they choose to do, but this is different from having a moral responsiblilty for their own actions.

Any comments?
There is a difference between personal morality and social/cultural morality

So just because your personal morality offers some justification you will still be held to the Social standard.
You are therefore morally responsible for your actions.
Even if YOU thought you were in the right.

There is a difference between personal morality and social/cultural morality

So just because your personal morality offers some justification you will still be held to the Social standard.
You are therefore morally responsible for your actions.
Even if YOU thought you were in the right.

I think there's no absolute moral. (Sorry for the possible errors...this is a bit hard issue to write in English) I think both moral and ethics are things which you learn. Maybe not by your social enviroment, but your parents or any other quite close to you when you're young. Of course your ethics comes clearer when you grow up and you have to think over different things; What's right and wrong. What I'm saying is that the basics to anyones morality developes in childhood and is (at least usually) very much culturally related.
Brainwashing...(I have to think this a little, I might chance my mind still...) that's a hard one, because people can be brainwashed. I think they really do believe in their new moral "education" and their actions to be judged by the culture they live in...or...no. It's always wrong to kill...There you see, my ethics argues with me already.
Very difficult question, nice brainteaser for a while.

Well, EVERYONE thinks that what they do is right. No one simply kills because they know it's wrong. Well, I hope . . .

Anyway, here's a quote that you might find interesting:

"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."


to the first part: The solution to that is to accept the responsibility of knowing you might be wrong. Nobody has all the answers in any forum, if they say they do, they are charlatans, looking for money, power, or your vote (which would bring them both) and should not be trusted.

I do like the quote.

I think there's no absolute moral. (Sorry for the possible errors...this is a bit hard issue to write in English) I think both moral and ethics are things which you learn. Maybe not by your social enviroment, but your parents or any other quite close to you when you're young. Of course your ethics comes clearer when you grow up and you have to think over different things; What's right and wrong. What I'm saying is that the basics to anyones morality developes in childhood and is (at least usually) very much culturally related.
Brainwashing...(I have to think this a little, I might chance my mind still...) that's a hard one, because people can be brainwashed. I think they really do believe in their new moral "education" and their actions to be judged by the culture they live in...or...no. It's always wrong to kill...There you see, my ethics argues with me already.
Very difficult question, nice brainteaser for a while.

This is regarding your statement on brain-washing. It's only possible if the individual allows themselves to be brain-washed. In extreme situations, that's achieved by various kinds of torture, some physical, some mental, not always both and sometimes neither. But at some point, the person has to consciously let go of their present reality. It's possible, and has indeed happened, but it's not as simple a process as people would think. Most of the people who are "brain-washed" are people who try so hard to believe in something (could be anything) and they want to believe in it, so if they continue with that, then they'll slowly start believing it. Most brain-washing is done by the person themselves.

This is regarding your statement on brain-washing. It's only possible if the individual allows themselves to be brain-washed. In extreme situations, that's achieved by various kinds of torture, some physical, some mental, not always both and sometimes neither. But at some point, the person has to consciously let go of their present reality. It's possible, and has indeed happened, but it's not as simple a process as people would think. Most of the people who are "brain-washed" are people who try so hard to believe in something (could be anything) and they want to believe in it, so if they continue with that, then they'll slowly start believing it. Most brain-washing is done by the person themselves.

Yes you're absolutely right. But as you mentioned, it is possible. What I had in my mind was the Japaneses and their methods between 1930's to 1940's. As far as I know they were pretty good at brainwashing by both physical and mental torture.
I think that brainwashing is one of the biggest crimes a human can ever do. Denying the truth and keeping people away from any education (and knowingly doing this) is maybe the biggest crime a person can do. (because knowledge is eveyrthing...)

this is when you are the MOST morally responsible.

after all, you have thought it through, considered right and wrong, and then acted. how more morally responsible can you be?

so you go out and recruit men to learn to fly planes into skyscrapers. you know you are right. that this is a holy act.

too bad the rest of the world disagrees. the rest of the world has a moral responsibility to bring you to justice as you have violated THEIR moral codes to an egregious extent.

are you asking if such a person who acted with moral certainty should be PUNISHED for their acts? of course they should. this is why we have laws, so you have a clue what side of things you end up on when you act with a unique moral code.

a moral person acting in such a manner against the accepted mores of the rest of the world should come forward and accept the punishment as proof of his convictions. you accept the moral outrage of the rest of the world and stand up for what you think is right. to do less is both cowardice and lack of moral fiber.

I definately agree that they should be punished. There is no doubt that they are legally responsible and must be imprisoned for societies protection but legal and moral responsiblility are two different things.

I definately agree that they should be punished. There is no doubt that they are legally responsible and must be imprisoned for societies protection but legal and moral responsiblility are two different things.
i guess i dont understand what you are asking
how can someone who has thought something through NOT be morally responsible?

i guess i dont understand what you are asking
how can someone who has thought something through NOT be morally responsible?

If they believe that what they are doing is right, they are not violating their morals. They do not see how their actions are wrong. To be morally responsible surely you must realise that what you are doing is wrong?

Sorry I'm explaining it badly.

If they believe that what they are doing is right, they are not violating their morals. They do not see how their actions are wrong. To be morally responsible surely you must realise that what you are doing is wrong?


I have some questions...

a) as posted before, if the result is good, is the deeds towards the results automatically good...(I think not)

b) is something good if as many people as possible get a good solution (but not everyone, some suffer on the way)

c) I think that you learn to be a somewhat moral person. Your annoying little sister hit you and you notice it hurts. Hitting is not nice. What if you have an illness (I don't what it's called, I know two guys who has it) which leaves you with no pain. So, they don't feel pain, how they learn hitting is bad, when they don't have any knowledge of it? Is it all learned then?

I think that as long as wht they are doing does not violate any laws of the area they are in, that they should not be held morally responsible for anything if it can be failry conclusively proved that they belive that it is right. You can't hold someone responsible to your individual code of ethics if theirs is different.

I think that as long as wht they are doing does not violate any laws of the area they are in, that they should not be held morally responsible for anything if it can be failry conclusively proved that they belive that it is right. You can't hold someone responsible to your individual code of ethics if theirs is different.
If my brother would ever even think that have cheated my man, the rest of the village is free to stone me to death and it's alright because it's part of their laws? And they are not morally responsible? I don't think so.
As I said earlier, I don't believe there are no absolute moral, I do think, that everyone (if not very ill) does know that stoning somebody is morally wrong and therefore morally responsible. Even if the laws in country doesn't punish for this action, you are morally responsible.

Nobody is right or wrong. However, with that said, there are only two situations:

a) You believe you are right. You must act as though this is fact.
b) You believe you are wrong. You must remedy this.

There is no use in allowing someone else to tell you what is right or wrong. As soon as two or more differing opinions exist, you would have no way of determining who knew the 'true' right or wrong.

There is no use is acting as though there is no right or wrong. If it's not right, there is no reason to do it. If it's not wrong, there is no reason not to do it.

Think of it like this: imagine that you want to get from point A to point B (literally, travel from one point to another). There is no north, south, east, or west. How do you decide what direction to travel in to get to point B? Without directions, you have no means of gauging where point B is, nor whether you are heading towards where you want to go.

Anything you do may actually be taking you away from where you want to go, and given the odds, it almost certainly will. Hence it defeats the purpose of trying to go anywhere at all.

Right and wrong serve as a crude type of compass. We navigate towards right, and away from wrong. If there was no right or wrong, no compass, we would just wander blindly.

Ok let me give an example of what I said earlier.
I believe firmly that I would be morally correct for taking the life of a child molestor, not Legally Correct, Morally Correct--you are not capable of telling me otherwise my moral compass says these people must die.
However, by the standards of our Social morality, while people might sympathize with my situation they say I am morally incorrect because one Socially immoral act does not justify another.
They demand that I be held accountable for my actions, not only legally but they would want me to see that morally I was not right.
I am right but that isnt for this thread.

Nobody is right or wrong. However, with that said, there are only two situations:

a) You believe you are right. You must act as though this is fact.
b) You believe you are wrong. You must remedy this.

There is no use in allowing someone else to tell you what is right or wrong. As soon as two or more differing opinions exist, you would have no way of determining who knew the 'true' right or wrong.

There is no use is acting as though there is no right or wrong. If it's not right, there is no reason to do it. If it's not wrong, there is no reason not to do it.

Think of it like this: imagine that you want to get from point A to point B (literally, travel from one point to another). There is no north, south, east, or west. How do you decide what direction to travel in to get to point B? Without directions, you have no means of gauging where point B is, nor whether you are heading towards where you want to go.

Anything you do may actually be taking you away from where you want to go, and given the odds, it almost certainly will. Hence it defeats the purpose of trying to go anywhere at all.

Right and wrong serve as a crude type of compass. We navigate towards right, and away from wrong. If there was no right or wrong, no compass, we would just wander blindly.

There are psychological explanations for our feelings of right and wrong. That does not mean that right and wrong exist in reality. For example, Freud's explanation of the superego suggests how our sense of morality may come from outside authority that becomes internalised. This explains how young children seem to have no morals and see everything only as it affects them.

Hmm, everyone seems to have died

lets use the example of tim mcveigh

here is a man who did a horrible thing for what HE thought was valid moral reasons. (he blew up the murrow federal buiding in OKC killing hundreds, including the children in the onsite daycare center that he was aware existed)

in HIS mind it was utterly justified as retribution for the waco disaster (the death of the branch davidians and the many children of david koresh)

he thought it through and decided that it was a blow for "something" im not really sure of how he actually justified it except in the most general terms.

yeah we had to hunt him down, yeah he didnt plead guilty. but in the end, he refused all appeals, admitted his guilt and was executed by the federal government (in my mind the one good thing he ever did)

should HE be held morally responsible? should we feel free to judge him when HE felt he was acting within his own moral system?

its easy for ME to say "hell yeah". but what do you think? is he immoral (freaking baby killer that he was) when he was following his own moral compass? should he be assigned to the depths of hell for eternity when he believed what he was doing what was right?

its easy to look at OTHER kinds of law breakers, like the civil rights marchers in the south in the 50s and 60s and say that well YES they were morally correct even if everyone around them thought they were wrong. and in the end even the white southerners agreed that they were right. but at the time they followed their own morality even to being jailed or murdered.

so i dont know where i really stand but both examples involve people who did things considered quite immoral at the time they were done (OKC being a way more vile example) by people who thought they were right and were willing (in the end) to face punishment and death for their actions

it our DUTY to judge i think. whenever someone breaks the law or goes way over the line in the face of common morality we MUST take a look at it to see if we are missing something in our OWN morality. in mcveighs case i would judge him to be dead wrong, in the case of civil rights activists we have all (except a few hardline racists) judged them to be correct and admire them for their courage.

There are psychological explanations for our feelings of right and wrong. That does not mean that right and wrong exist in reality. For example, Freud's explanation of the superego suggests how our sense of morality may come from outside authority that becomes internalised. This explains how young children seem to have no morals and see everything only as it affects them.

I'm not sure why that was added as a reply to my post... :confused: But yes, I agree that right and wrong don't actually exist. Hence why I said "nobody is right or wrong". We still have to assume that there is a right and wrong, as it acts as a compass for our actions.

I'm not sure why that was added as a reply to my post... :confused: But yes, I agree that right and wrong don't actually exist. Hence why I said "nobody is right or wrong". We still have to assume that there is a right and wrong, as it acts as a compass for our actions.

Ah, right, sorry I thought you were saying that there must be true right and wrong or else our compasses would have no direction

Ok another question. What about the death penalty? If someone cannot be held morally responsible, should they just be imprisoned to protect society? Or should they be judged and sentenced to death?

lets use the example of tim mcveigh

here is a man who did a horrible thing for what HE thought was valid moral reasons. (he blew up the murrow federal buiding in OKC killing hundreds, including the children in the onsite daycare center that he was aware existed)

in HIS mind it was utterly justified as retribution for the waco disaster (the death of the branch davidians and the many children of david koresh)

he thought it through and decided that it was a blow for "something" im not really sure of how he actually justified it except in the most general terms.

yeah we had to hunt him down, yeah he didnt plead guilty. but in the end, he refused all appeals, admitted his guilt and was executed by the federal government (in my mind the one good thing he ever did)

should HE be held morally responsible? should we feel free to judge him when HE felt he was acting within his own moral system?

its easy for ME to say "hell yeah". but what do you think? is he immoral (freaking baby killer that he was) when he was following his own moral compass? should he be assigned to the depths of hell for eternity when he believed what he was doing what was right?

its easy to look at OTHER kinds of law breakers, like the civil rights marchers in the south in the 50s and 60s and say that well YES they were morally correct even if everyone around them thought they were wrong. and in the end even the white southerners agreed that they were right. but at the time they followed their own morality even to being jailed or murdered.

so i dont know where i really stand but both examples involve people who did things considered quite immoral at the time they were done (OKC being a way more vile example) by people who thought they were right and were willing (in the end) to face punishment and death for their actions

it our DUTY to judge i think. whenever someone breaks the law or goes way over the line in the face of common morality we MUST take a look at it to see if we are missing something in our OWN morality. in mcveighs case i would judge him to be dead wrong, in the case of civil rights activists we have all (except a few hardline racists) judged them to be correct and admire them for their courage.
Good example.
We are forced to judge on the basis of our collective Social morality.
Do I personally agree with what he did? No.
Do I agree with him that Waco was a tyrannical act of a Government that has far exceeded its bounds? Yes.
Does our Society at large disagree with Tim's moral compass? Yes.
Therefore a man who believes to his heart of hearts that he acted justly, is and must be, judged, immoral by his own society because his morality excluded our accepted Social morality.

Also on the moral ambiguity thing, man excellent post you made Ashmoria.
I myself often sympathize with people like John Dilinger, Chu Teh, CHeggy, so forth and so on.
Villians as it were.
However my personal morality is seperate from my connection to the "Herd", I know many things are socially immoral, whether or not I find them immoral is another thing.

Good example.
We are forced to judge on the basis of our collective Social morality.
Do I personally agree with what he did? No.
Do I agree with him that Waco was a tyrannical act of a Government that has far exceeded its bounds? Yes.
Does our Society at large disagree with Tim's moral compass? Yes.
Therefore a man who believes to his heart of hearts that he acted justly, is and must be, judged, immoral by his own society because his morality excluded our accepted Social morality.

Hmm, something that also needs to be taken into account is the way societies moral values change over time. The views of the majority on issues like slavery, abortion, euthanasia etcetera have changed over time. What is likely to be seen as right in fifty years?

"Can anyone be held morally responsible if they believe what they are doing is right?"

One question, Does the person understand what is right and wrong among the members of the society they are living among?

"Can anyone be held morally responsible if they believe what they are doing is right?"

One question, Does the person understand what is right and wrong among the members of the society they are living among?

Uh, Do you mean do they understand what the moral values of their society are?

yep

Well most people tend to know what other peoples moral values are, at least to some extent, and for the example I am talking about a morally mature individual.

Then yes no doubt about it, they can be tried by a jury of thier peers for that immoral act(american laws). Moral and immoral as far as laws go, are exclusivley up to the society they are apart of. If you agree to be a part of a specific society or country then you are agreeing to live by thier laws and statutes, regardless of any beliefs that you bring into this society. If you break a moral code in that society then you know you did wrong. We don't get to live by our own beliefs in a civilized society, we must all adhere to whatever that specific community or state or country we are apart of at all times under any circumstance, otherwise you automatically throw away that society's moral reasoning for thier laws and should be held accountable under thier system that you have agree to live under. (by being a citizen or living among other citizens of that society)

Then yes no doubt about it, they can be tried by a jury of thier peers for that immoral act(american laws). Moral and immoral as far as laws go, are exclusivley up to the society they are apart of. If you agree to be a part of a specific society or country then you are agreeing to live by thier laws and statutes, regardless of any beliefs that you bring into this society. If you break a moral code in that society then you know you did wrong. We don't get to live by our own beliefs in a civilized society, we must all adhere to whatever that specific community or state or country we are apart of at all times under any circumstance, otherwise you automatically throw away that society's moral reasoning for thier laws and should be held accountable under thier system that you have agree to live under. (by being a citizen or living among other citizens of that society)

This post seems to be more about legal responsibility than moral responsibility

Ahh but legal responsibility is there to ensure the upmost adherance to ones society's moral responsibilitys. They go hand in hand... a major portion of laws are based solely on a moral standing, its not something I fully agree with, but its something I abide by because I enjoy living among my peers in this society. An individual does not make the societys moral codes, only the majority of that society can lead in order to make it a binding moral or legal law.

Of course they can. Unfortunately the moral standards today in our world are often set by the West. Example: The concept of terrorisme and freedomfighting/rebellion.

True - however, we, the US, started out from just a bunch of freedom fighters

Then yes no doubt about it, they can be tried by a jury of thier peers for that immoral act(american laws). Moral and immoral as far as laws go, are exclusivley up to the society they are apart of. If you agree to be a part of a specific society or country then you are agreeing to live by thier laws and statutes, regardless of any beliefs that you bring into this society. If you break a moral code in that society then you know you did wrong. We don't get to live by our own beliefs in a civilized society, we must all adhere to whatever that specific community or state or country we are apart of at all times under any circumstance, otherwise you automatically throw away that society's moral reasoning for thier laws and should be held accountable under thier system that you have agree to live under. (by being a citizen or living among other citizens of that society)

Yes but when slavery was considered right by the majority of society, people fought against it and i do not think they can be judged as immoral in relation to their society.

----"Yes but when slavery was considered right by the majority of society, people fought against it and i do not think they can be judged as immoral in relation to their society."

The thing about this is that it went against our Constitutional belief that every man was created equal. It is a moral obligation to know that not everything a majority wants is right under the foundations of our country, so a strict adherance to our Constitution (maintianing the union) is more important than what a majority wants.

----"Yes but when slavery was considered right by the majority of society, people fought against it and i do not think they can be judged as immoral in relation to their society."

The thing about this is that it went against our Constitutional belief that every man was created equal. It is a moral obligation to know that not everything a majority wants is right under the foundations of our country, so a strict adherance to our Constitution (maintianing the union) is more important than what a majority wants.

you mentioned earlier though that moral or immoral, rules are exclusively decided by the society you are a part of and that that is their ruight

Many people have been condemned for acts which most of us would consider morally wrong. e.g Hitler and the holocaust. However, if they are committed by someone who honestly believes what they are doing is right, are they morally responsible?

Most people would agree that every capable adult human being should be held accountable for their own actions. Therefore everyone is legally responsible for what they choose to do, but this is different from having a moral responsiblilty for their own actions.

Any comments?
Well I think it's right to kill people for acting like utter morons and intentionally sucking up government money, not like that's morally justified in anyway is it?

----"you mentioned earlier though that moral or immoral, rules are exclusively decided by the society you are a part of and that that is their ruight"

Who ultimatley decides moral and immoral clauses? Society puts the man in the whitehouse due to thier stances on certain moral and immoral issues and from the 'none of the above issues'. So if our society hires a man to do a job and he turns out to do not the job that was asked of him then it is the repsonsiblity of the society to rid them (in our civilized world we do it with elections). So of course it still ultimatley will fall on society to decide a issue on moral or immoral clarity. Abe lincoln was reelected by the minority that was the majority that opposed him prior. Maybe because they saw that he was right in the end.