Are there any moral tenants that are true no matter what?

[Tinkerbell]

Basically what the title says...

Example: Under certain circmstances, murder can be acceptable (self defence, etc.). Rape is never ok.

Are there any things other than rape that are never acceptable, no matter what the circumstances are?

[Darth Wong]

The human race must survive.

[Lord Zentei]

I'm not sure whether these qualify as moral tenets, rather than as guidelines for framing them:

"The purpose of morality is to guide the interactons of human beings".

and

"The principles of morality must not be based on demonstrably false postulates".

Without these, morality becomes useless. Moreover, these reflect the extent to which morality can be made objective.

[Lord Zentei]

GHETTO:

Are there any moral tenants that are true no matter what?

I think you meant to say tenets.

[Darth Tanner]

Rape -

I believe that very early in Roman history the city of rome was grosly underpopulated by women, so the roman army went out, abducted and raped neighbouring women and raised the children as romans.

Not nice but justifiable to the romans who were doing it for the survival of their civilisation

[haard]

Rape -

I believe that very early in Roman history the city of rome was grosly underpopulated by women, so the roman army went out, abducted and raped neighbouring women and raised the children as romans.

Not nice but justifiable to the romans who were doing it for the survival of their civilisation

How does that make it acceptable? I don't think securing a bloodline, culture or family makes rape acceptable.

[Darth Tanner]

im not in any way accepting this as a good moral practise
but

to the Romans it would have been acceptable as survival is the overriding goal of any situation

[Molyneux]

The human race must survive.

I would like to amend that to:
An intelligent culture must survive.

There are situations under which I think it would be morally required to allow humanity to die in order to save another civilization.

[Lord Zentei]

How does that make it acceptable? I don't think securing a bloodline, culture or family makes rape acceptable.

What about - hypothetically - the human race as a whole? Say we're dealing with the last survivors of a nuclear holocaust, and they forsee the decline and extinction of humanity as a result.

Pretty far out and implausible, I'll agree, and in no way would I accept rape in any realistic scenario - but as a thought experiement, it does suggest that a great many things in morality are dependant on context.

[Lord Zentei]

Example: Under certain circmstances, murder can be acceptable (self defence, etc.). Rape is never ok.

Just a question: is it technically "murder" as opposed to "killing" if it is self defence?

[Mobiboros]

Basically what the title says...

Example: Under certain circmstances, murder can be acceptable (self defence, etc.).

I'd ammend this to "Under some circumstances taking a human life is acceptable". "Murder" generally has the connotation of being "unacceptable". Which is why people generally say "Killing in Self-Defense" rather than "Murder in Self-Defense".

Also, Rape is universally unacceptable? I don't buy that. We view it as unacceptable, but it was a common practice for thousands of years in wartime. The conquerors would kill all the adult males and rape the women to breed out a populace. Hell, it's even in the bible I believe.

I'm not sure if I can point at one universally accepted moral that doesn't become altered depending on the situation.

[Wicked Pilot]

If some sicko puts you in a situation where you either rape someone or many other people die, would rape then not be acceptable?

[CaptJodan]

Sex with children. I can't see any circumstance at all for any reason this would be morally acceptable, or socially necessary for the survival of the human race in any capacity.

[Lord Zentei]

Basically what the title says...

Example: Under certain circmstances, murder can be acceptable (self defence, etc.).

I'd ammend this to "Under some circumstances taking a human life is acceptable". "Murder" generally has the connotation of being "unacceptable". Which is why people generally say "Killing in Self-Defense" rather than "Murder in Self-Defense".

Also, Rape is universally unacceptable? I don't buy that. We view it as unacceptable, but it was a common practice for thousands of years in wartime. The conquerors would kill all the adult males and rape the women to breed out a populace. Hell, it's even in the bible I believe.

There is a lots of bad shit in the Bible - that does not make it right. Moreover, the fact that it has long been accepted does not make something right; that's just a variant on the Ad Populem fallacy.

And Wicked Pilot mentioned the angle that I was going to bring up. Of course, that is an action under coercion.

[Mobiboros]

There is a lots of bad shit in the Bible - that does not make it right.

No, it doesn't. I completely agree.

Moreover, the fact that it has long been accepted does not make something right; that's just a variant on the Ad Populem fallacy.

Except that the OT was asking if there were things that are morally never acceptable. So my pointing out populations who found something we consider unacceptable to be acceptable is exactly in line with what the OT asks.

[Lord Zentei]

Except that the OT was asking if there were things that are morally never acceptable. So my pointing out populations who found something we consider unacceptable to be acceptable is exactly in line with what the OT asks.

Except my point was that certain populations finding something morally acceptable does not make it so.

[Mobiboros]

Except my point was that certain populations finding something morally acceptable does not make it so.

I see the disconnect. I'm not saying rape is 'right'. I'm saying it was, at times in history, 'acceptable'. Something can be accepted, but that doesn't make it right.

[Alferd Packer]

Expanding a bit on DW's idea, consider the following scenario.

A man and a woman find themselves to be the last humans in existence. Obviously, for the species to survive, they must have sex. The woman wants to get pregnant so that the species may survive, however, she refuses to have sex with the man. Artificial insemination is not an option, and you may assume that they are both sexually mature.

In this situation, however outlandish it is and unlikely, is rape moral, or merely necessary?

[Ou des]

Wouldn't there be massive genetic problems after only a few generations? In that case it might be better to just let humanity die out.

[Alferd Packer]

Wouldn't there be massive genetic problems after only a few generations? In that case it might be better to just let humanity die out.

Well, all things being equal, nature may select humanity for extinction the scenario. But, not being a geneticist, I can't say what the odds are that at least some of the offspring are strong and viable. Assume, then, for argument's sake, that it is at least possible for a viable human species to continue from this man and woman.

[AMX]

While there are things that are unacceptable under any reasonably probable circumstance, I can't imagine any action that would be unacceptable under any circumstance; simply because, under sufficiently insane circumstances, doing it once might stop somebody else from doing it several times.



Also, killing in self defense isn't murder. Just FTR.

[Fuzzy]

Wouldn't there be massive genetic problems after only a few generations? In that case it might be better to just let humanity die out.

Well, all things being equal, nature may select humanity for extinction the scenario. But, not being a geneticist, I can't say what the odds are that at least some of the offspring are strong and viable. Assume, then, for argument's sake, that it is at least possible for a viable human species to continue from this man and woman.

On that note, iirc, the Californian Condors were down to 4 known animals left at one point. 2 male and 2 female, and I don't think they died out yet.

As for the orginal post, correct me if I'm wrong, but based on the format of the question, I think Tinkerbell meant, "Is there anything that is true in our society no matter what." This raises an issue depending on what moral code we use. For the thread I'd assume it to be humanism, but hey, what do I know? Heh.

In that sense, killing could be acceptable if it saved others. As far as rape is concerned, I'm probably not the best person to answer that, since violence towards females (especially rape) causes me to get more angry than is probably normal.

[wolveraptor]

There are lots of outlandish scenarios involving crazed hostage-takers or blackmailers that might validate rape, though none of them would occur in real life.

Sex with children. I can't see any circumstance at all for any reason this would be morally acceptable, or socially necessary for the survival of the human race in any capacity

This, too, can be justified if doing so would save many lives. I stress that there would be no such realisitic situation, but this thread requires some thought experiment to come to fruition. Also, suppose that by children, you mean pubescents or anyone of child-bearing or producing age. There could be a disease, similar to one that afflicts red kangaroos, that causes all large specimans of humanity to die, i.e. adults. Maybe a few adults would be resistant, but the majority of the population would die as they reached adulthood. Pedophillia in that context might save humanity.

[Rye]

Regarding "the human race must survive" ...why? From all apparent observations, that is impossible, not only is the majority of the universe hostile to human habitation for the forseeable future, but eventually the entire universe will be intrinsically uninhabitable.

The human race surviving permanently, then would seem to be a less sound moral ideal than increased quality of life as we go extinct.

To borrow someone else's posted example, last 2 humans alive... the human race can exist beyond the present generation, and undoubtedly a few more after that. However, we also know it's futile, and that the quality of life will get worse for the survivors. Why bother, then? Why not just give the species a clean break?

I think the rape issue is good too, if there were enough women left to repopulate the earth after a catastrophe, and enough men, but none of the women could be reasoned with to be impregnated, would rape, sex slavery or forceful insemination be the morally right thing to do over just dying out? What if every subsequent generation was going to be the same, and would require the same brutal methods to get offspring, why would we be worth saving?

As for the original post: remember murder is just a legal term, rather than a moral one.

I'd imagine pretty much any act has a moral value attached that can be outbalanced with a greater amount of duress, though those situations do end up getting mighty contrived.

[haard]

I'd still say rape is immoral; I do not believe that something such as the survival of the human race makes it moral.

I guess it depends on your definition of moral; to me, threats and inevitability cannot make an immoral act moral. I believe it is my right to kill to defend myself and others - however I do not believe it is my right to kill 'innocents' to protect myself or others. I might do it, but I would not attempt to sell it as moral.