2006-12-04 16:30:41 · 12 answers · asked by starbucksluvrxoxo 3 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
It isn't. If you're a shark.
2006-12-04 16:36:18 · answer #1 · answered by Voodoid 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Sigh,,,, Consider this, or these examples
A violent behavior: I get angry and punch a hole through a wall. Is that strictly immoral? Certainly it's an act of violence.
I get angry and smack another. That should be considered both violent and immoral.
How do you define either? Are there immoral acts that aren't violent? Sure!
What positive, moral purpose does violence serve? What consequences result? Even if it wasn't strictly immoral, is violence ever a logical answer to any question or situation?
Steven Wolf
2006-12-05 00:38:58 · answer #2 · answered by DIY Doc 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
An action is immoral if it results in negative consequences.
However, there are times that violence is not immoral. There are good reasons to go to war.
2006-12-05 00:44:30 · answer #3 · answered by Michael M 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's immoral because violence tends to violate, destroy, kill, etc. people and things in the public. Sane people appreciate non-violence or peace since we don't live in an anarchic world, they prefer living/working in such a friendly society. Violence in the public is also illegal and we don't expect any in any developed or developing community.
2006-12-05 01:19:45 · answer #4 · answered by Arigato ne 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Possession is nine tenths of the law. Too purposely damage something that does not belong to you is wrong. The most fundamental thing that everyone owns, is their own life, and body. Therefore the most fundamentally wrong thing you can do is to purposely harm someone.
There is one basic right that every human being has. Everyone should have the right to live their lives however they choose to live it, so long as the living of their lives does not interfere with the same right of someone else.
All laws, and questions of moral right and wrong essentially begin with the application of this rule. Violence against another person obviously violates it. Therefore it is wrong.
2006-12-05 01:13:10 · answer #5 · answered by Batman 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Violence is ubiquitous.
Only certain 'rebellious' tokens are "immoral" because it doesn't jibe with the greater dominion.
2006-12-05 02:21:27 · answer #6 · answered by -.- 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
because our standards of morals mandates it to be so i however disagree violence is a part of nature by which i mean living somethings can only be accomplished through action I'm looking in your direction hippies put down the hackie sack and do something
2006-12-05 17:12:11 · answer #7 · answered by dan w 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Anything that harms another person, with intent, is immoral.
2006-12-05 01:07:38 · answer #8 · answered by Miss Suki 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes!
viollence is immoral.
evryone is born free and has natural right to be remain so. violence is physical transgresson without consent of the subject and is also a condition that violates the right of freedom.
2006-12-05 00:35:17 · answer #9 · answered by magnux999 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It is immoral because it brings harm to others, or to oneself...not to be rude, but isn't that kinda obvious...
2006-12-05 00:37:11 · answer #10 · answered by jennycf2 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
because, as much as we hate to admit it, we have a moral compass inside us. it's called a conscience, hon.
(heck, i don't really know what i'm talking about, but, hey, 2 points!)
2006-12-08 08:29:12 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋