Moral Logic?

Question

Can someone help me understanad the phrase MORAL LOGIC?
I am taking a class on suicide terrorism and authors throw it around like it is common knowledge. I thought I had a handle on it, but I read another article and they don't seem to be talking about the same thing.

Answer 1

Do you have moral logic to understand?

Answer 2

Simply put, suicide is a moral sin in almost every religious belief there is. I could use mortal sin, but it is not really necessary here.
In any case, the convictions of a "suicide bomber" are a belief that dying for a religious or loyalty based reason is an acceptable end to justify the means of the greater cause. Otherwise known as a martyr.
The statement of moral logic is representative of a question:
Does flying a jet into a building, killing yourself and everyone present sound logical for any cause? Some say yes, some no. The morality of killing is wrong, suicide is morally wrong, so where is the logic? What did you prove, bomber? What was the end result, bomber? That people die? Well, duh.... That's all it is saying. The attacks on 9-11 are a prime example of moral logic. Was it "logical" to fly into the WTC, killing all those people for a belief? Logically and morally, NO!! Murder is morally wrong, and logically what can you do for "the cause" dead?
One the other side, moral logic can be applied to fighting for a moral issue using logical means. Playing by the rules sums it up fairly well. You don't like a law, use the rules and change it, that kind of thing.

Get it?

Answer 3

Well, in Aristotle, you have a practical syllogism, or a syllogism of practical reason.

Basically, it goes like this:

A major or universal premise, which contains some general ethical guideline.

A minor or particular premise, which judges a particular thing with respect to the universal guideline.

A conclusion, which is what you end up doing.

For example . . .

You may know that stealing is wrong and should be avoided. So, your universal premise would be:

UP: Stealing is wrong and should be avoided.

However, for some "fringe situations," you may not know exactly whether something is stealing or not. For example, whether you should use a Metro ticket that you found on the ground near a subway entrance. If you think that it is stealing, you would make this second particular premise:

PP: Using a found Metro ticket is stealing.

Then, the conclusion would follow . . .

C: Using a found Metro ticket is wrong and ought to be avoided.

If you didn't make that second judgment, then the conclusion would not follow.

A better example involves gluttony.

UP: Eating to excess is wrong and should be avoided.

PP: Eating five hamburgers is eating to excess.

C: Eating five hamburgers is wrong and should be avoided.

If you decided the particular premise differently (if you thought that ten hamburgers is excessive but not five), then the conclusion would not follow, and you might eat five hamburgers.

So, we need to have the universal knowledge about what is right and wrong generally AND we need to be able to apply it wisely in the real everyday situations that we encounter.

This is what is called moral logic. However, the article that you're reading may be using a fast and loose way of describing someone's ethic code as "moral logic."

I hope that this helps.

Answer 4

I've never heard of those two words being used together as a special term with any certain meaning. Usually when I've read "moral logic" in any of my reading the author was only referring to logic applied to moral issues. If your getting the impression it has some special meaning you're not being let in on the only thing you can do is ask your professor. You might try looking it up in a philosophy dictionary, but I don't think it's a term on it's own, so it probably won't be listed. Also, you might want to consider that these authors are using a lot of words without worrying too much about what they mean. You know? Muddying the waters to make them appear deep. There's a chance that your confusion may be the reaction of an intelligent person reading gibberish. But I'd have to know more about the context to really have a clue.

Answer 5

The responsibility of communication is with the author. If he is using catch phrases that he does not define, then he is failing as a communicator. However, just a general note about logic. Logic is always based on a premise. For example: Premise -- all dogs have five legs. Logic - no dogs exist. Just because the logic is flawless, doesn't mean the premise is true. Authors normally have a premise they want the public to accept.

Answer 6

If you are studying suicide terrorism and are using terms that suicide terrorists have never heard, then I would seriously question the value of the class.
Maybe you should be like the child that told the emperor that he was wearing no clothes and ask the teacher to define "moral logic" in terms a terrorist would understand.
Keep in mind that a lot of authors make their living explaining terms that they themselves invented. Maybe you should ask how many lives have been saved through an understanding of "moral logic".

Answer 7

Voltaire always use to say: if you want to talk Philosophy with me, then you must define your terms!

Moral Logic to me suggest that Humanity and Compassion are the principle guidelines based upon philosophic considerations, whereas what is purely logical can be morbid in that same context,and morals independent of logical considerations can be religious notions of faith depending on the author!

Does that help?

Answer 8

Moral logic is the knowledge people are urged to correct errant ideas.
Morals are not some arbitrary rules imposed by an "oppressive" Church, or things God established at random to prevent us from being happy. Rather, they are rules for avoiding harm, both of the physical and spiritual sort.

Physical ones are rather easy to intuit for most people - obviously, killing people, stealing, coveting your neighbor's things, lying, and cheating tend to be things that shorten one's life span, result in a beating, imprisonment, or other losses. Plus, it's easy to identify a victim in these circumstances, be it oneself or others. The big problem element has been sexual morality, since from time immemorial, people have been trying to get around the rule that sex in any situation outside of a husband and wife open to kids is harmful

Answer 9

another writer trying to start a new phrase.
moral woud refer to the definiton set by the culture in mind.
and the reasoning that regulates it.

simple the cultural ideals and thoughts of what is rifgt and wrong and reasoning of it being so.

if you know any real gang bangers you would have a better undersanding of the tarrorist. like the gang wars of the crips and the bloods

holy crap people love to type

Answer 10

are morality and logic one and the same? seems to me it means that they are one and the same, yet as far apart as they can be. morality and logic should align in my view, in that it is moral not to kill, and logically that is the right thing to do, not kill, yet moral and logic do not go hand in hand in many instances. especially in the middle east.

for instance, hezbollah is a terrorist organization, and a political party, YET to listen to members of hezbollah, there is no party, there is no membership; to be muslim is to be a member of hezbollah. nothing the people in the middle east do is aligned with anything in our experience in the west. muslims live their faith in many ways, there is no distinction between their faith and anything else; faith is part of business, goverment, everything-here it is different. we have seperatin of church and state. they have morality, but no seperate logic.....the logic is tied up within their religion. yet their logic and faith is only towards other muslims........every other human being that is NOT MUSLIM is in an infidel!!!!!!!!!! see? backwards logic, backwards faith. at the same time, they are very logical, and live their faith so well.

Part of the problem is that Muslims have yet to experience "enlightenment" as the west has. remember we used to be the same way!!!! in the time of the puritans, every thing Puritans did was according to faith, everything. if there was a famine, pray to god for deliverance.....do nothing to help fix the situation, god will provide. they had faith watchers and lived close enough to look into each others homes....to make sure no one in the community was doing anything different, or not within their faith. the difference is this.....the puritans simply banished you for not believeing........unless you were a witch, then they burned you.

muslims will kill you, blow you up....and do anything and everything in their power to destroy you...........if you are not muslim. still do not get me wrong, the muslims that feel that way are fundamentalists. hard right wing muslims.....and again their logic and morality are intertwined......and scued! have you ever known any religion that told you to outright kill? because others are not your religion? no they tell you to convert, but not hard line right wing muslins. moral logic....intertwined and backwards!!!! these muslims want to live in a state controlled by clerics of their faith. that is fine with me....let them live that way if they like, as long as they isolate themselves with their morality and logic....and stay away from myself and my family....the problem is they won't. so we have to find a way to understand and deal with their brand of "moral logic".......and it will not be easy, simply because it is not moral, and it is not logical.....not in the western sense.