What would you like to do?
Is animalistic act of man moral?
Animalism is the doctrine that humans are merely animals with no spiritual nature; or the enjoyment of vigorous health and physical drives. It is totally unrelated to the ancient religious practices of animism. It need not be associated with bestiality, which is of course a totally immoral act. Animalism by and of itself need not be moral or immoral.
9 people found this useful
Was this answer useful?
Thanks for the feedback!
Answer . The interpretation of "morality" is subjective and cannot be quantified.. Actually, morality can be measured by the "harms" involved in any given action. for inst…ance, it's not moral to kill because you are causing "harm", likewise stealing cause harm and distress to the one being stolen from. on the other side, it would be perfectly moral to walk down the street or to pay for something, because no harm is being done. Also, typically moral codes of conduct exist within societies, so any arguments about sociopaths and others who don't have the same sense of morality within their allotted society, can be returned with the fact that those individuals are abnormal to their societies and therefore still bound under the moral ideals of said society.
In philosophy and theology we speak of "human acts". Since human beings have an intellect and will, the main faculties of the soul, all acts are are human acts. This is becaus…e every act we do is done with intention, either implicit or explicit and thus is a human act. Acts that we do while the will is suspended or forced or damaged, such as cases were we might be sleeping, tortured and under extreme duress or inebriated or psychologically affected, are not human acts. Any act that is done in line with the natural law, observing the laws of God and with a good intention would be a moral act, as in morally correct. Any action that is done in defiance of the natural law, or laws of God, or is poisoned with a bad intention, is an immoral act, and is morally wrong. Often, it depends on circumstances and intention as to whether an act is moral. For instance, if you kill someone, this is obviously a morally evil act, however, if it is done in self defense, this act is morally correct. Moral theology is the study that is solely considered with human acts and the circumstances and intentions that affect them. Catholic priests must study moral theology during their seminary studies, specifically as part of their training to correct administer and advise souls in the sacrament of confession.. Therefore, to specifically address the question, any act for it to be morally right must be a human act, so indeed, any right act is a moral act by definition.
A moral act is an act or law that is put into place based on a codeof ethics. Most moral acts are based on a religious set of moralcodes accepted by the societies majority.
A Moral act (with an uppercase "M") refers to an act that has either a moral or immoral consequence. Moral acts involve intent, free will, passive moral agents, and active mor…al agents. A moral (with an lower case "m") act is the "right" one, the one that will either bring about good consequences (consequentialism) or adheres to a formal set of rules (deontology). An immoral act is the "wrong" one, the one that will either bring about detrimental consequences (consequentialism) or does not adhere to a formal set of rules (deontology).
It seems to me the moral distinction or demarcation of human acts such as right and wrong, good and bad, must be determined by the views and opinions of the majority at differ…ent time and place, taken into account of its prevailing political system and religion as well as its cultural traditions.
The basis of morality in a human action is well defined and prescribed in all religions and their scriptures. A person who is religious or believes in religion shall not commi…t an immoral act
From who's viewpoint? Eating a bald-eagle is offensive to Americans, yet it was practice of some native tribes in Alaska. Its all about perspective. An act is moral when YOU f…ind that it coincides with what YOU believe. Its how i find a fair fight with no weapons morally just, but the bombing of hundreds of men women and children in their sleep more similar to genocide.
Who said that the purpose of the state is to control the evil nature of man and compel him to act morally?
A hardcore, high intensity, total body fitness system created to develop an elite level of physical, mental and psychological conditioning using your body weight as the primar…y means of resistance.
First define morality. . Next consider how would you like to be treated, perhaps with respect, with honesty. . Then do that to others who are around you. . When you conside…r how you don't want to be treated let those thoughts be unmoral acts. Every person differs on how they expect to be treated, or better said how they want to be treated. Still one of the things that really help is the Holy Word of God. The Bible. Reading the ten commandments could be a start to see morality, and anything opposite of that would be immorality.
It basically means that you describe something based on the ideathat man is nothing more than an animal.
very dramatic, kind of like bold and the beautiful
Naturally as this acts for a perception, you will have differing answers. Answer 1 Killing innocent people, kicking them out of their houses and constructing your own lux…ury houses over their lands is moral then yeah its a very moral act. Commentary on Answer 1 The first answer, above, is quite a perceptive, if sarcastic, summary. Except for all the people, innocent and guilty, who were not killed, and still live there. And except for all the people who were not kicked out of their houses, and still live there. And except for all the houses in Israel that could never be mistaken for luxury. And except for all the land that was bought and paid for. Answer 2 Israel is usually construed as a unique instance in the formation of a nation-state. In almost every other case, the majority of the population of the land on which the nation-state would be made was already the majority ethnicity for that future nation. For example, most people living in what would become Greece were Greeks. There were certainly some people that had to leave non-Greek areas to join with the Greeks and some non-Greeks in Greece (usually Turko-Greeks or Turko-Cretans) who had to leave for Turkey, but the population exchanges were always less than 20% of the overall population. The Jews in Mandatory Palestine in 1914 were less than 10% of the overall population. Therefore, to create a Jewish State, a massive influx of Jews and/or a massive decrease in non-Jews would have to occur in addition to population swaps. The person who advocates that the founding of Israel is a moral action must therefore overcome two hurdles: First, there is the question of whether the foundation of any nation-state is a moral act. Nation-states are intentionally created to benefit and protect one ethnic group at the cost of all other minorities and establish a certain set of general goals and symbols that are not representative of those other minorities. Second, there is the question as to whether a nation-state should be created in a place where the local population must be substantially altered to create a majority of the proper ethnic group. My view is that Israel succeeds on both accounts, but that is not the universal view. The barrier to nationalism in general is a much lower bar. Anyone who would disagree with Israel purely on these grounds would also have to object to the founding of Greece, Croatia, Kosovo, Germany, Italy, Algeria, Turkey, Bulgaria, Poland, etc. They would also have to openly disagree with the attempts to create an independent Kurdistan, Balochistan, Palestine, and Darfur, since each area would become a nation-state for a certain ethnicity. Therefore, any true opponent of all nationalism must believe that both the founding and creation of Israel and of Palestine would be immoral acts. As for why such a thing should be a moral act (as opposed to being just neutral or the lesser of two evils) is that every ethnic group on Earth has the right to autonomy at a minimum to prevent whole-scale slaughters, deportations, and massacres, and general repression of culture, language, religion, and history which are quite common in the Old World for minorities. The Jews have the same rights as the Greeks, the Armenians, the Turks, the Azeris, and the Arabs to determine their future. What seems to confuse people about this is that Judaism is commonly seen as "a religion" like every other religion. Religions are not interchangeable just as sports are not interchangeable and many have vastly different aspects. Judaism is relatively unique among the major world religions in that it also has an ethnic and cultural component, making the Jews a singular ethnicity different from that of any host country (much like the perception of the Romani/Gypsies). The second bar, that the general population of an area should be altered significantly to create this state seems to be the main objection and a much higher bar. In this regard, since Israel is specifically unique, it needs a unique defense. (1) The first and probably strongest defense was that the Zionists had no outward attempt to remove the Arabs to create this social engineering. The Arabs who fled did so as circumstances changed. If the writings of Herzl, Ahad Ha'am, and even right-wing Zionists like Jabotinsky and Trumpeldor are read, it quickly becomes apparent that the Jews imagined themselves working the land side-by-side with the original Arabs. Zionist Jews purchased much of their land from distant Ottoman landlords and significantly developed the economy, building a state infrastructure that actually attracted more Arabs. It was not until Arab riots began to target Jewish settlements in the late 1920s (like Hebron in 1929), that Jewish Militias were organized to defend the settlements. The skirmishes ultimately led to fights over Jewish sovereignty, which the Arabs unwisely tested. (2) Secondly, the land was important to Jews throughout their history. Arab writers as recent as the late 1800s wrote about how the region of Palestine was holy and special primarily to the Jews and that only Al-Aqsa was holy to Muslims. Given that both Arabs and Jews recognized the Jewish historical claim to the land, it is not unreasonable that it should be moral for that claim to be vindicated. (3) Thirdly, Israel became independent through completely legal channels, petitioning the United Nations for recognition of a right to declare independence. Unlike the Arab States which refused to negotiate at all about the future of any Jewish State in Palestine, the Jews were willing to make serious concessions to have any state at all. Typically, the party that follows the law is acting morally. (4) Finally, Israel was proved necessary to accommodate a large percentage of the Jews fleeing a post-Holocaust Europe and 500,000 of the 850,000 fleeing Jews from the Arab World who now saw pogroms being waged against them. Considering that the Arabs at the time saw themselves as one nation, was the reciprocal Jewish/Arab exchange any different that Greco-Turkish exchange in 1923 or the Pakistani-Indian exchange in 1947?
When a man entertains adultery in his desires and thoughts and intents to consummate his acts but fails did he incur any moral guilt and is he morally responsible?
Yes. Intending to do something bad is the same as doing the bad thing. If you attempt a crime and are caught in the act (and stopped from doing the crime) you are still …guilty and will go to jail. There is no difference here, just because he was stopped from committing adultery doesn't mean he is not guilty of it, he made the attempt. ----- Now.. this entirely different from THINKING about doing something bad and CHOOSING not to do it. If he changed his own mind or simply never INTENDED to commit the act, than there is nothing wrong with that. You can engage in intellectual curiosity on any number of subjects and so long as you never intend to follow through AND never attempt it, there is nothing wrong with only thinking about it. But if its someone or something else stopping you, than you are 100% guilty just for making the attempt whether or not it was successful. The guilt is always based on intention, and nothing proves intention more than the attempt itself. Failure or success of the attempt is irrelevant.
Animalistic was created on 2006-11-15.
An animalist is a believer in animalism, the belief in the dominance of man's animal nature of behaviour.