|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 5:46 am
All of our paths have a moral and ethical guideline. However we are all humans and it is in our nature to make mistakes and mess up from time to time. This topic is here to discuss ethical practices based on world events and the like in the context of your own path and ethical views.
So the current topic:
Unwanted prayer and or religious/magical actions
According to your religious views and ethical stances is it ever a moral act to steal under any circumstances?
Past topics:
Infanticide:
Theft
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:02 pm
I don't understand the question. Can you give me a hypothetical situation (that is not outlandish and could actually occur, or does occur, in real life), to illustrate this better?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 22, 2011 7:53 pm
Illiezeulette I don't understand the question. Can you give me a hypothetical situation (that is not outlandish and could actually occur, or does occur, in real life), to illustrate this better? Two examples come to mind. The first example would be the Hollocust. During that time some Jewish families survived by hiding in attics and what not of the gentiles (non Jews). If you had an infant and were hiding, would you kill the infant in order to keep the rest of the family safe (as in if he's dead he can't cry and thus you might not be found as easily as if they cried) or would you keep your baby alive and risk him wailing when there were German soilders around.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2011 1:47 pm
Loona Wynd Illiezeulette I don't understand the question. Can you give me a hypothetical situation (that is not outlandish and could actually occur, or does occur, in real life), to illustrate this better? Two examples come to mind. The first example would be the Hollocust. During that time some Jewish families survived by hiding in attics and what not of the gentiles (non Jews). If you had an infant and were hiding, would you kill the infant in order to keep the rest of the family safe (as in if he's dead he can't cry and thus you might not be found as easily as if they cried) or would you keep your baby alive and risk him wailing when there were German soilders around. If I was a Jew and the child was my own, I think I have an obligation to keep the covenantal decree that I shall not kill. I would probably ask whatever gentile I live with to find another safehouse for myself and my son, so that I might not endanger the lives of my other kinfolk. But, I am not a Jew, and my obligations to my gods are different.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2011 1:55 pm
Now lets say a similar event happened today and your social/cultural group was targeted. What would you do then?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2011 4:30 pm
Loona Wynd Now lets say a similar event happened today and your social/cultural group was targeted. What would you do then? More of the same: find a new location. Honestly this scenario is so intense it's hard for me to tell in the moment what I would actually do. But here's my thoughts anyway, if finding a new location is impossible: If killing one child will save us all, then I think that is the most righteous action. Either way, it seems like the child will die. Reincarnation seems a likely consequence of death in my path, so I did not damn the child to Hell or any such thing, but to be born again hopefully in a better world. I'm not sure German soldiers would bust down a door just because they heard a kid cry in a still-populated area. If my family was hiding in a deserted area, then, yes, I would kill the child. For virtue ethicists like myself, this is considered a moral tragedy--that there cannot really be a virtue acquired in such a horrific scenario, but we should make the most of what we can. In moral tragedy scenarios like this, I usually resort to either deontological or utilitarian reasoning, though it's hard for me to say which reasoning is inherently superior.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2011 8:22 pm
Illiezeulette Loona Wynd Now lets say a similar event happened today and your social/cultural group was targeted. What would you do then? More of the same: find a new location. Honestly this scenario is so intense it's hard for me to tell in the moment what I would actually do. But here's my thoughts anyway, if finding a new location is impossible: If killing one child will save us all, then I think that is the most righteous action. Either way, it seems like the child will die. Reincarnation seems a likely consequence of death in my path, so I did not damn the child to Hell or any such thing, but to be born again hopefully in a better world. I'm not sure German soldiers would bust down a door just because they heard a kid cry in a still-populated area. If my family was hiding in a deserted area, then, yes, I would kill the child. For virtue ethicists like myself, this is considered a moral tragedy--that there cannot really be a virtue acquired in such a horrific scenario, but we should make the most of what we can. In moral tragedy scenarios like this, I usually resort to either deontological or utilitarian reasoning, though it's hard for me to say which reasoning is inherently superior. The Nazi's almost always had lists of who lived where/who was in the family. If they heard a baby crying and a baby wasn't on the list, they'd know something was up. It's the reason so many people had to keep silent when in hiding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 25, 2011 5:12 am
Illiezeulette For virtue ethicists like myself, this is considered a moral tragedy--that there cannot really be a virtue acquired in such a horrific scenario, but we should make the most of what we can. I know. That's why it's one of the topics for this discussion. There will be some lighter and simpler discussions, but I thought I would start here as it was something I had discussed in my ethics class early in the semester. Illiezeulette In moral tragedy scenarios like this, I usually resort to either deontological or utilitarian reasoning, though it's hard for me to say which reasoning is inherently superior. I don't think there is an answer to this question. To be fair there are women in Africa that have the same issue that actually happens. This is why commandments like "Do no harm" and "Thou shalt not kill" are ideals,but not always the options if survival is in question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 26, 2011 2:01 pm
Right now just thinking about it I would say no I would not kill my child that child would be apart of me just thinking about killing the baby would make me sick and would be too painful. But if I was actually in that position I don't know what I would do or keep the same opinion I have now. I might be very desperate for survival I just don't know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 26, 2011 3:51 pm
The honor aspect for me would be difficult. If they found my child and myself as well as the rest of my family because of the baby, I would hand the baby off to another family member and then have them run while I defended my family and made up for giving up our location.
I would probably not kill my child simply because of how important family is to me, I also had some abandonment issues which I worked out a while ago in therapy. I am however not opposed to drugging my child so that they sleep more when danger is near.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 26, 2011 6:09 pm
A good way to really think about the situation is like this: Would you kill one child in order to keep your other children safe? What if there is another family hiding with you that has children? Would you kill your own child so that another family and their kids will be safe?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2011 3:14 am
To me, infanticide is a technical thing. It does not mean the killing/murder of a child.
Infanticide was brought to the victorian courts before there was such a defence as diminished responsibility. It allowed a mother to be convicted but not sentenced to death and it did so as recognition of temporarily altered psychiatric health following pregnancy, birth and lactation.
Thereore, the crime of infanticide is limited to being committed by the mother upon her child under the age of 12 months.
At the time, I think it was a very progressive piece of law and is one of the first instances of the law recognizing that there are occasions when people are not of their own mind and incapable of being held legally accountable to the same extent or in the same manner as they would were they of sound mind. Infanticide struck a balance between punishing an obvious crime, and tempering it with sympathy for what we now know to be Postnatal psychosis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2011 9:11 am
When I say infanticide I mean 0-18 months. The child is still new and relies on crying to tell people that it needs something. Which is why I specifically used crying as the word choice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 5:24 pm
If anyone should be killed it's whomever or whatever is going to try to kill me if my kid cries.
I don't really like hypotheticals like this because no one really knows how they're going to react under that kind of pressure until it happens. As of right now though, no, I wouldn't kill my child. I'd come up with another plan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sanguina Cruenta Vice Captain
|
Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 5:31 pm
The Norse practised infanticide by exposure. So religiously there's precedent for it not being an issue. I wouldn't do it, unless I or someone else was endangered by it in some way, but then hopefully I'd never be in a situation where I was responsible for a baby.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
