Friend

As people make decisions, are there specific do's and dont's that exist that limit the actions and decisions one is capable of making (_________ is wrong no matter what), or is a person able to do any action, but the means of getting there are what is criticized(It is okay to do__________, but your means of getting there are incorrect)?

Thanks.

~ Friend ~

excreationist

Hi Friend,
It's hard for me to understand what you mean exactly. Does this have anything to do with objective vs. subjective morality? (Objective morality involves a universal morality that is objectively "correct"... and subjective morality involves no truly "correct" morality - just people's opinions). I mean many people don't believe that objective morality exists... maybe your post was assuming that it does exist. Could you explain what you are talking about and maybe give examples?

People have personal moralities that limit their actions... and many people think that murder is sometimes ok. I don't think there is a universal (objective) morality that affects everyone.

Well it is physically possible for people to break the law (a particular action), but the act is usually believed to be not "ok" regardless of the means taken to break the law.

I probably misunderstood you though.

meritocrat

I don't fully understand what you are attempting to state.

The 'limits' to one's decisions basically are rooted in their own personal ethical code. Could I steal my neighbour's car? In theory, yes. Would I think it ethical to do so? No. Ergo, that is the 'limit' of my action in this instance.

melinie007

I think your asking about judging things by objective moral norms verses judiging things by consequences (which you called 'means')?

I think it is a combination of both. I think when making decisions some things are ruled out of contemplation (like deciding to rape, deciding not to repay money lent by a friend, etc) but a lot of other things should go on consequences.

A guy I knew once called one of my (and once his) best friends a 'hussy', and then some I have since 'decided' he is no longer my friend.

In making that decision it wasn't because I was being limited by a norm that 'calling somebody a hussy and then some is an absolute moral wrong'. He thought this was the issue, and spent a great deal of time explaining to me the truth in what he said.

Rather, I looked at my friend and saw how devestated she was. I looked at him looking at her devestation, and the fact that all he did was try to rationalize why what had happened was morally justified rather then react to how crushed she was.

To me, what mattered was that my friend was upset. He could have found a better means to do what he did. And if not, he could have responded to human emotion on the surface - found a better means to deal with it after the fact.

That's the problem with judging evreything on absolute moral rules. It can miss the reality that other things can be bad - not a decent way to act/treat people. We need to judge the means as well.