Is immoral behavior accurately described as unnecessary harming another?

Morality is founded upon empathy, is it not?

It appears, from other posts in this thread and other threads, that "morals" has a very wide range of definitions and bases. For some definitions, the "empathy based" would appear to be true. My own personal definition bases it on "optimum survival", which does not exclude empathy, but makes it simply one factor out of many.

What do you mean by optimum survival?

The reaons I ask, is because I am having trouble understanding how survival equates to morality.

Survival requires two things, the avoidance of danger and the gathering of resources.

Life aims to survive, with or without morality.

I think it kind of works like this...

Survival is the primary task of the individual. The better one is at surviving, the more time (also a resource required for survival) and energy one has. Therefore, any advancement or technique that increases survival efficiency is a value.

If this is true, then cooperative action is a value. Hence, rules of behavior that aid cooperation are beneficial. Slavery is one example of a technique that would increase survival efficiency, but when compared to others (such as team work where each member benefits) it is not as effective. I think that is one reason why more complex social structures move away from slavery and serfs. In fact, I believe that the complexity of a society is limited by the rules of interaction of its members. (NOTE: I think that complexity might not be the best word to use here since some societies have very complex rules to justify why one group has more value than another....maybe productivity or efficacy would be better words)

So with the previous discussion of ethics in mind we get:

Life aims to survive.
We must decide what is right or wrong for that survival (ethics)
We must apply those ethics to a variety of situations.

If ethics/morality is the determination of right and wrong/good and bad for survival, then everyone must utilize ethics whether they are part of a group or not. If the primary question is: "What is good or bad for my individual survival?" the answer might very well be: to work cooperatively with others. Hence, rules or "rights" would be used to govern those interactions.

Maybe someone else has a better response since mine is pretty much entrenched in my own view.

I don't know about that.

The 'better' one is at surviving? Compared to what?

How is that measured?



We do not walk around killing everybody else that we do not like because we have empathy for them. We place a certain moral value upon life itself, and respect it as such.

Cannibals place quite a different moral value on an outsider.

Finally, after so many pages we're back to where we've stated from: "Ultimate Survuval" is the primary reason which gives the carnivous humans the right to kill animals.
* *(I said that way back on page 4(when I joined the discus-sion)!!!*********************************

I'd take it even further:
IN "EXREME" SITUATIONS, that same Primary Instinct might (and most probably WILL) force YOU to kill another Human Being! * * * * * * * * * *
In a "Life or Death" situation -- when both cannot survive, but only ONE of you -- all of the hypothetical values of morality and ethics WILL suddenly disappear from your head, as if you never heard of them...

When the question concerns the "Ultimate Survuval", WHO CARES ABOUT the ethics, morals, schmorals???...

I did not know ultimate survival meant kill or be killed. That is still not morality, it is anything but morality.

At the risk of being berated, allow me to offer this small piece of information.

During World War II, the United States Army gathered combat information to determine how effective their troops were. They found out that contrary to personal recollections, more than half of their infantry troops fired their weapons less than reported with a substantial number never firing at all.

They concluded that there was something keeping the soldiers from firing when they should have been. In response they altered their training techniques.

Using Skinner's ideas, they started to train troops using pop-up silhouettes. This developed a stimulus-response reaction that bypassed thinking. It was successful and in the Vietnam action troops fired their weapons far more often.

However, the larger picture should also include examining the after effects. Soldiers returning home generally have a higher incidence of suicide then the general population. In fact, the suicide rates among Iraqi War vets are higher than they have ever been. It seems that these young men and women have an extremely difficult time reconciling what they experienced with peace time life and vets often express extreme guilt over war time actions.

While life and death situations are a rarity for most of us, perhaps it is too simplistic to assume that ethics and morality are situational.

This is usually not an issue in here. However, there are a few cases where it is highly likely. With me, after ongoing engagements in which I am being repeatedly belittled, the opponent can expect it back.

In most cases, others show respect as do I.

As usually, PSting, you bring up a bad example:
The idiots who join the army are there only for one purpose -- colecting the pay! -- that's the greatest weakness of the U$ Army! They aren't there for combat! i.e. they don't want to know about a Life/Death situations!!! (why bother, if you get paid either way?)
I mean THERE ARE NO PATRIOTS!!! As your example implies, they shoot only whe SCARED_SHITLESS!!! There ain't no LIFE/DEATH situations! * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

In Vietnam, the fools would rather lay their arms and become prisonners than risk being killed! (the same fools that mutilated , burned, and tortured innocent women and children...)

None of them have ever experienced a real LIFE/DEATH situation...

* Michael, looks like you would have to fend for yourself after all, in the absence of better defence (i.e. "respect") * * * * *

P.S. Sorry, guys, I'd have to respond tomorrow -- its late...

Builds a stronger community.

Stronger community's survive.

Morality (as the community defines it) becomes a glue that binds the community into a stronger whole.

Life comes in many quanta.

Personal, community, Humanity... Just to name a few.
Faith, hope, love...

I idiot...

I join...

Pay sucked compared to what I could have been doing...

I am an American...

I joined because I love this country.

As far as I'm concerned, it can only be compared/measured against goals/purposes/wants/desires.

Basically, survival equates to the attainment of goals. The better one is attaining at one's goals, the better one is at surviving.

This boils down to a definition of “survival”. If one considers that survival is a black-and-white “alive or dead” issue, then yes, it would be very difficult to relate the generally accepted view of morals with that concept of "survival".

I personally do not use that definition of survival. As I said in an earlier post, to me, survival is a very broad spectrum. For example, eating a good tasting meal constitutes “higher survival” than eating a poor tasting meal. (All else being equal – i.e. both meals having the same nutritional value.)

When you 'join' the service you give your life over to what is now, a very questionable government. You become their property to do with as they wish. They can send to in to certain death, give you experimental drugs without your knowledge or consent etc. They will lie to you and make you serve longer than your apparent contract was.

When you 'join' the service you may think you are doing it because you "love' your country, but today, we need our young men, our soldiers closer to home to protect THIS COUNTRY not some third world war over drugs or oil. But even the national guard 'joiners' end up on some third world country. How many are available to guard our shores? If we were invaded now, how long would it take to bring troops home to protect THIS COUNTRY?

Are there any soldiers who would use their weapons AGAINST the citizens of this country if ordered to do so? YOU BET YOUR *** THERE ARE. Some have been asked this very question.

Deluded are so many young men who trust completely the government that they serve. You should always STILL keep your mind and keep your ethics and ability to disobey an order if it goes against what you KNOW IS RIGHT.

But our military is trained to follow orders. What if those orders are wrong? What if our commander in chief is a ruthless dictator? Will our soldiers, like the soldiers of Hitler still obey orders?

One day we will know the answer to these questions.

Wow, I really don't know where to begin with this. How about economic?

-- During both WWII and Vietnam, troops were drafted. While this does not suggest that no one volunteered, it does show that your argument that troops are only there for the money is dubious at best.

-- After 9/11 the military had a surge of volunteers. Now, when unemployment is high, jobs are scarce and trust in the governments motives is low, enrollment is down. Again, this casts doubt on your argument.

--To suggest that only idiots join the military is both baseless and inflammatory.

--You state there are no patriots. Maybe there are no patriots where you come from, but where I live there are many. The number of men and women who have lost their lives and body parts to save their fellow soldiers is staggering. As are the number of men and women who have been killed fighting for what they believed in.

-- My previous example showed that EVEN THOUGH troops were scared and in fear of their lives they did not shoot.



It must be wonderful to live in a delusion this deep. But it would be interesting to see how you reconcile this quote with your previous quote:




In any event, my statement still stands. Troops in life and death situations found themselves unable to fire their weapons until they were trained to by-pass thinking and to run strictly on a stimulus-response basis. To me this shows that at some level your ethics will continue to shape your actions even in a life and death situation.
Additionally, I would say that in specific cases our society reinforces that behavior. Whenever someone risks their life to save another's our society heralds them as heroes.

I would rather not get into why survival is not quality of life, or one's proficiency in determination.

I'll check back and see where the conversation leads, because at this time the some words are being used against a perfectly adequate and comprehensive pre-existing definition.

Right on poison!

Keep in mind that that person lives in a country which needs no military to speak of... we protect them!

Nobody has the right to life.

If you are drowning in the middle of the ocean, you cannot argue with it and say that it cannot kill you. Far be it from me to suggest the powers that be cannot instill whatever beliefs they choose for the faceless masses.