...depends on whether or not it causes someone or something suffering, am I wrong?
2007-09-17 08:41:23 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Disobedience to God always causes you eventual suffering, even if it doesn't appear to cause someone else suffering.
2007-09-17 08:55:38 · answer #1 · answered by PaulCyp 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
That might be a good way to look at it.But it could be defined so vaguely that people could say that someone is suffering simply because they don't agree with that person or claim they are suffering because someone else is living differently or believing differently then they are.Calling out the word "victim" just to feel righteous and superior is immoral.
2007-09-17 15:53:12 · answer #2 · answered by Demopublican 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
you are looking for a black or white answer, when life is nothing but shades of gray.. oh and morals are society stand points, like rape, murder etc.. think about it, 100 years ago, it was allowed to have arranged marriages, which i'm sure a 11 or 12 year old girl probably didn't always want a 40 year old man sticky his no no in her uh huh.. and it was allowed, to kill a man cheating at cards, wow, i popped a dealer at a casino once and spent a night in jail. shade of gray, there is never a always right yes or always wrong no.
2007-09-17 15:52:28 · answer #3 · answered by RuG™ 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You are correct. Christians blather on about how you can't have morals without the Bible--if you didn't have a Bible you'd be running around killing others, etc--but that's usually the answer I give them. If a certain something causes suffering or pain or social imbalances, it should be illegal.
2007-09-17 15:48:33 · answer #4 · answered by Stardust 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Morally wrong according to who?
Example; just because a married woman had 'sex' (apparently consentual sex) with another guy; was she Wrong(sinning)?
Example; Bathsheba with David; and getting pregnent too.
2007-09-17 17:02:24 · answer #5 · answered by jefferyspringer57@sbcglobal.net 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That's the practical, observable side of it.
The more basic side of what is morally wrong would be "whatever is not loving."
2007-09-17 15:49:01 · answer #6 · answered by Acorn 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In a general sense, that's not a bad rule. But sometimes suffering is necessary.
2007-09-17 15:47:01 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
yes thats what i think. but when you have 2 options, and each will cause suffering, that is when the problema arrise.
2007-09-17 16:11:20 · answer #8 · answered by Me. 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
not necessarily
if some mom and her kid both wanted to ...have relations
and both were of consenting age and consented I'd still call that morally wrong
2007-09-17 15:46:43 · answer #9 · answered by Jenae, TV (tempter of the vile) 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
I'd agree with that. And I'd add that the "something" must be sentient or at least, somewhat alive.
2007-09-17 15:45:45 · answer #10 · answered by Eleventy 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋