Toughest Philosophical Questions

Yes and no; and it depends on the singular issue that you identify. The yes and no can be subjective to the person answering the question; not all will agree that one answer is correct.

Fair enough. But doesn't your example of the school experiments show that when the environment, the social context, gets distorted enough, good intentions can lead to horrible acts?
It is an argument against your notion that "bad acts are bad acts regardless of the intent and the context we understand them in in retrospect".
I am not trying to rationalize and trivialize what happened during ww2, but I am saying that humans did it, and they weren't a special breed of extra evil, malignant humans either. They were normal people who believed that what they did was good. It was good according to their social context, the background on which they made their choices between right and wrong.

If the Nazis had won the war, they would have perpetuated the social context in which their actions were morally justifiable.

It creates poverty. It is built into the system itself. You feel it's the best economic system because you are on the end it is good to be on. Someone living in the parts of the world where all the wealth is taken from would perhaps not agree with you.
In the current system, because there is such a thing as interest, there will always be more debt than money, which means that someone has to be poor for others to have money at all.
Our social context perpetuates this situation, which is why we can justify it morally to ourselves.

How can you say that what Hitler did was immoral if you don't presuppose moral responsibility?

Who said that morality/immorality existed in the first place?

Come come now Cyacuz, you're very well aware of the presuppositions you're making here.

Capitalism doesn't "create" poverty. You're putting the wagon before the horse.

I am trying to argue against the notion that a "bad" action is bad absolutely, and that they follow "bad" intentions regardless of perspective.

Those beliefs are rooted in moral judgement.
But moral/immoral isn't something that exists or not. It is a way to categorize action and experience.

I'd say there is no necessity to 'categorize action and experience', who are you impressing with your categorizing?

I think he's a bit confused about morals; morals are influenced by culture and over time. What may be moral in one culture may not necessarily be considered moral in another. Moral to the individual can also be different from morals of any group. Each moral issue can be answered good or bad, and both can be true to any individual, but not all will agree.

Morals and legal issues are separate issues; attempting to connect the two only increases confusion about both.

I think you're confusing his confusion for your own confusion.

There are no 'morals'.

It does actually. There is always more money owed than owned, and it is a direct result of how the system works.

What are you suggesting then?
Have you read anything I've written?

That's what I'm saying, and what you keep denying.



You say that, but still deny my attempts to illustrate this using Hitler and his action.



Are you suggesting that they never come into conflict with each other?

I am suggesting that you make presuppositions that you do not think completely through.

Such as?

The existence of 'morality/immorality', how do we ascertain these 'things' as apart from what is 'found' within speech?

You cannot talk about existence regarding morality/immorality any more than you can talk about the existence of left/right.
You cannot say "left doesn't exist", or "there is no such thing as left". It is a subjective description and it is relative to your position. Moral/immoral is similar. It is a subjective judgment made on actions, and whether an action is moral or immoral is relative to many things.

We all judge other's morals having little else to judge them on save appearences... What is legal should be just because Jus is the Genus and Lex the species...And what is just is also moral; but one of the differences between legality and morality is that law often proscribes on the basis of morality, but morality prescribes behavior, in the sense that we know what to do by virtue of being moral, as in Love one another... The problem with proscription as opposed to prescription is that no amount of thou shall nots result in a positively moral person who is a law unto himself, as all moral people are because they need no law because they never do what is immoral...

When you ask: Whose Morals, you show you clearly do not grasp morals as a form of relationship... Morals are the equal of ethic, since Cicero coined the word Morals to translate the Greek word Ethics into a Latin meaning...And you can see in the word ethics the similarity with the word Ethnic, which ties in with the common definition of Ethics as meaning either Custom, or Character... Blood is thicker than water is an ethical rendering... We get our morals from our families, from our communities to the extent that I can say morality is community since no community can exist without morality...

And moral always justify every defense against strangers, who are considered on par with animals by primitive societies, so that ones morals is the quality that defines human beings as other than animals... In thinking of the individual as distinct from his community we tend to consider morals subjectively when they are anything other than subjective... The fact is, that while many people act as though they are raised by wolves, that some where they must have their abode with other people who share their morals unless they are totally outlaws, and really animals...

The view of individual subjective morals creates people without honor, and without culture, consciousness or conscience... Such people look at all other human beings from the perspective of a wolf in a flock of sheep, as preditors view prey... And all the evils a society must endure from within comes from this individualized perpective on morals which is totally wrong... Morals bind people with people, and it never justifies their exploitation or destruction...

Your attempts to rationalize Hitler's actions as good goes way beyond the pale of sanity.

Of coarse morals and legal issues can come into conflict, but you need to describe what specific issue you are talking about. For example, many find the death penalty shouldn't be allowed - on moral grounds. However, you'll also find advocates for the death penalty. There have been cases where family members have supported their loved ones killer not be put to death. Each case is different depending on the circumstances and who the people are that support one position or the other.

You wrote,

I'm not denying anything; only your example of Hitler's actions as having any positive consequences.

You can talk about morals existing as long as we exist, but it is very hard to determine whether they exist because of us, or we exist because of them... I am certain we would not have the moral form if we did not find it essential to our well being because these notions come out of our prehistory when we did not have the cartage for a lot of baggage, and humanity was everywhere on the move...