A Question of Morality

I think you have a moral obligation to maybe try to tell them whatever they are doing is immoral, but everyone has different ideas of what is or is not moral, so it would be immoral to try to force your morals on them.

That makes perfect sense, by the way, and I am stone sober.
 
Peter Parka said:
If it's immoral to allow others to be moral, they you're immoral its its moral to allow others to be immoral then you're moral. Wait...what? :willy_nilly:
Click to expand...

HottyToddyChick said:
I think you have a moral obligation to maybe try to tell them whatever they are doing is immoral, but everyone has different ideas of what is or is not moral, so it would be immoral to try to force your morals on them.

That makes perfect sense, by the way, and I am stone sober.
Click to expand...

Now you can see why my head was spinning :D
 
hart said:
I don't really get the question....I mean first one has to define moral and immoral.....therein lies the whole problem....
Click to expand...
not at all, there is no need to define it just to be consistent

i.e. if i say somehting is immoral to me, and i let you do that same thing, when i have an opportunity to stop it then surely my allowing it to happen must be offensive to my moral viewpoint
 
Since the very nature of morality is variable, I would honestly say that at it's core it is immoral to assume that another's actions (assuming they are not impeding upon your right to exist or experience your morality) are immoral and there fore it would be immoral to call someone out on their actions.

However if you know that they actions the other is doing is viewed by they themselves to be immoral, you then have every moral freedom to point it out... just be prepared for that finger to come right back.
 
Brujahpriest said:
Since the very nature of morality is variable, I would honestly say that at it's core it is immoral to assume that another's actions (assuming they are not impeding upon your right to exist or experience your morality) are immoral and there fore it would be immoral to call someone out on their actions.

However if you know that they actions the other is doing is viewed by they themselves to be immoral, you then have every moral freedom to point it out... just be prepared for that finger to come right back.
Click to expand...

that I can't disagree with
 
Brujahpriest said:
.. just be prepared for that finger to come right back.
Click to expand...


26078-quot_the_finger_quot.jpg
 
Brought over from this thread: http://www.offtopicz.net/showthread.php?p=1615554#post1615554

Accountable said:
Once again you try to mix government and private industry. The gov't even now has for-profit contractors fighting battles in the Middle East. All gov't contracts call for contractors to treat their employees as if they were union employees, whether the company is unionized or not. When I worked construction we always looked forward to gov't contract jobs because our pay almost doubled and we got time-and-a-half overtime pay.
Click to expand...

Contractors are not public.

You're right, and it seems that you have a problem with people calling themselves public rather than actually practicing discrimination. Had that Walgreens in 1964 called itself an exclusive drug store for whites only, your posts (and Tim's) seem to indicate that you would have no problem with them keeping blacks out.
Click to expand...
That's what stores in the South did pre-1960s and yes I'd have a problem with it. It's a public store.

Oooooohhh! And you were doing so well,too. I understand about the moral underpinnings. I would expect and hope that the individual decision-makers use their morals. But the laws themselves have no morals and must not dictate morality. We stand for freedom and liberty, even the freedom to be immoral, so long as everyone else's freedom is not compromised. But let's move this into the other thread.
Click to expand...
You are having a mental block about this. Again, you are kidding yourself regarding the role of morality in our lives, it's everywhere, there is no denying it is a primary factor upon which we act daily and is reflected in our laws. We have reached a point where our discussion is circular. I'm going to leave this particular exchange alone, unless you can bring a new revelation to the discussion. The best I can say is that we agree to disagree. I just happen to know that in any poll, my view would prevail. :p
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Brujahpriest said:
Since the very nature of morality is variable, I would honestly say that at it's core it is immoral to assume that another's actions (assuming they are not impeding upon your right to exist or experience your morality) are immoral and there fore it would be immoral to call someone out on their actions.

However if you know that they actions the other is doing is viewed by they themselves to be immoral, you then have every moral freedom to point it out... just be prepared for that finger to come right back.
Click to expand...
But you can point out immorality while still allowing it to happen. Some would say that words without action is even more immoral.
 
Back
Top