A Question of Morality

[Accountable]

Contractors are not public.

Contractors are employees by contract. When it's a gov't contract, they are public. I don't know a lot, but trust me on this one.

That's what stores in the South did pre-1960s and yes I'd have a problem with it. It's a public store.

But you dodged the basic statement that if they called themselves private and exclusive. Why couldn't they do that if a bar can?

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.

Yeh okay okay. It was fun, though.

I still think there is a point where fair and equal is a straighter arrow than morality, which can be bent and twisted to justify evil.

 

[Accountable]

Short answer is "no", no head spinning involved. Example: serial murderer. Immoral response: have a great day. Moral response: stop him. Note: even the immoral response is a moral choice, but it is used to describe a negative morality.

If it is not moral to allow morality, how can we claim to be a moral nation and allow

• criminals to walk free on a technicality?
• Evangelists to take money from the poor?
• China to take over Tibet without a shot?
• most politicians to even fucking draw breath?

 

[porterjack]

Then that's a no, isn't it?


Ever??

correct i mis read the OP, the answer is no

second part yes, surely morals are personal and whilst I might prefer you share my viewpoint, it is what i see as morally wrong that is the issue

 

[Minor Axis]

Contractors are employees by contract. When it's a gov't contract, they are public. I don't know a lot, but trust me on this one.

Contractors hire who they want. If a law was not in place that prevented discrimination based on sex, race, or religion, they could do so. You advocate no such laws.

But you dodged the basic statement that if they called themselves private and exclusive. Why couldn't they do that if a bar can?

It boils down to are they a store open to the public or not? If you say "all white folk" allowed, that is basically public.

I still think there is a point where fair and equal is a straighter arrow than morality, which can be bent and twisted to justify evil.

When you talk "equal" you sound like you are against discrimination. Our history shows that laws were necessary to fix the problem. Even when someone is allowed to use a service but forced to sit in the back to avoid mingling, that is still forcing second class citizen on a particular group. I find that abhorrent. You, like Rand Paul also find it abhorrent, but would do nothing about it. I'm not impressed by this so called "fair and equal" thinking.

Btw, just what is "fair"? That to is a moral decision.

 

[Minor Axis]

If it is not moral to allow morality, how can we claim to be a moral nation and allow

• criminals to walk free on a technicality?
• Evangelists to take money from the poor?
• China to take over Tibet without a shot?
• most politicians to even fucking draw breath?

Ignoring the last choice, I assume you think these things should not be allowed?

You are really sounding naive and I say that in the friendliest of terms. Is it moral to execute an innocent person? (Sorry about that!) We have a legal framework to operate within to protect individual rights. Something that should be near and dear to your Libertarian heart.

You still don't get it. We are stuck with morality or the relative lack of it. You want to replace "morality" with "equal and fair". Really now. As in we should all be equal? That's good socialistic thinking. And "fair", now you are really into morality. For all most 200 years a large portion of society thought it was "fair" to treat a group of people as inferiors. It took the government to fix it... a war* and laws.

* The civil war was mostly about economics but the race card got thrown in.

You've all ready staked out a position where things can be abhorrent, but don't need any laws or any official actions (government intervening) to correct the problem. Morality is just one part of the thought process. Morality is flexible depending upon the situation and must be weighed against the outcome and it can easily be discarded because we are humans. I'm not saying that is good, but it is a fact. For example, #3 should the U.S. have launched war against China to save Tibet? I'd say do other things like sanctions. But big business along with the U.S. government has forged a dependent relationship with China so they can get away with it because we let them. So as Rand Paul would say, we can detest what has happened to Tibet, but it's not worth doing anything about it.

Maybe it would be helpful to review the definition of morality from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

The term “morality” can be used either

1. descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a society or,
   1. some other group, such as a religion, or
   2. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

 

[Minor Axis]

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.

What if their morals include robbing, murdering, and raping those who can't defend themselves? By your reasoning, you'd be immoral if you stopped them? Morals is a code of conduct as adopted by prevailing society. At some level we force our morals on the minority. There is no way you can make a blanket statement that it is moral or immoral to force you "code" on others. It depends on the situation. Civilizations lay down a code of laws with enforcement, to enforce the prevailing morality. Is that immoral?

 

[Thornless]

Is it moral to allow others to be immoral?

Tricky... mainly on the 'allow' aspect. For the most part, you can't make anyone do anything, that even goes for your own offspring. We can explain and teach them morals, but whether they use them of not... if entirely out of your hands really.

Same for the general public.

You can address someone being immoral, and explain your feelings on the situation, but short of knocking them unconscious and putting them into a coma, you can't stop them from continuing or doing it again.

I think a better question is, "Would you stand back and do nothing if someone was being immoral?"

 

[Minor Axis]

I think a better question is, "Would you stand back and do nothing if someone was being immoral?"

and hurting others in the process.

 

[Thornless]

and hurting others in the process.

Thought that went without saying

 

[Accountable]

morality is personal to the believer, it matters not what others think

Ever??

yes, surely morals are personal and whilst I might prefer you share my viewpoint, it is what i see as morally wrong that is the issue

I agree that we can't control one's thoughts and opinions on morality, but don't people act on their morals? Is it moral to allow that behavior?

 

[Accountable]

Contractors hire who they want. If a law was not in place that prevented discrimination based on sex, race, or religion, they could do so. You advocate no such laws.

For a federal contract, a company has to show it toes the gov't line, even if no anti-discrimination law existed they could still require the practice of contractors, just like they require other behaviors they don't normally practice.

When you talk "equal" you sound like you are against discrimination.

Absolutely I am.

Our history shows that laws were necessary to fix the problem.

Correction: our history shows that we enacted laws to fix the problem, resulting in yet more long-term problems. I've already addressed what I would rather have seen.

Even when someone is allowed to use a service but forced to sit in the back to avoid mingling, that is still forcing second class citizen on a particular group. I find that abhorrent. You, like Rand Paul also find it abhorrent, but would do nothing about it.

Not true. As I said, I believe public pressure would force a business to act correctly, making legal action unnecessary.

 

[Accountable]

I think a better question is, "Would you stand back and do nothing if someone was being immoral?"

That's encompassed in my first question. I wanted to keep it broad.

 

[satinbutterfly]

Is it moral to allow others to be immoral?

As an individual, yes. You can't control the actions of others nor should you try. If they ask your opinion then you can give it, but otherwise there's not much you can do other than turn someone in if you know they've broken the law.

But I believe as a society there should be laws that govern morality, such as murder, stealing, etc.

 

[porterjack]

I agree that we can't control one's thoughts and opinions on morality, but don't people act on their morals? Is it moral to allow that behavior?

so I believe theft to be immoral and i witness my neighbour stealing food, he claims to have no money to provide for his family, I have the opportunity to persuade him to return the food and I promise to pay for it - yet i fail to do this, turning a blind eye to his theft

i am both immoral and negligent - he may consider his act moral as he is convinced that the store can live without profits yet his children cannot live without the food

 

[Accountable]

As an individual, yes. You can't control the actions of others nor should you try. If they ask your opinion then you can give it, but otherwise there's not much you can do other than turn someone in if you know they've broken the law.

But I believe as a society there should be laws that govern morality, such as murder, stealing, etc.

Morality is a very broad term. Isn't there a point that morality-based laws go too far?
I believe that if we keep laws based on protecting life, liberty, and property - which fall under the morality umbrella without going too far - we have a chance to reach our ideal as a nation.

 

[Accountable]

so I believe theft to be immoral and i witness my neighbour stealing food, he claims to have no money to provide for his family, I have the opportunity to persuade him to return the food and I promise to pay for it - yet i fail to do this, turning a blind eye to his theft

i am both immoral and negligent - he may consider his act moral as he is convinced that the store can live without profits yet his children cannot live without the food

Outstanding! :clap

Not sure if it meshes or contradicts your earlier post, but this one is spot on. :thumbup

 

[satinbutterfly]

Morality is a very broad term. Isn't there a point that morality-based laws go too far?
I believe that if we keep laws based on protecting life, liberty, and property - which fall under the morality umbrella without going too far - we have a chance to reach our ideal as a nation.

Yes, they can go too far, especially when they are based on a specific religion. It's a fine line.

 

[Azazel]

​

 

[JanieDough]

I don't really get the question....I mean first one has to define moral and immoral.....therein lies the whole problem....

you had trouble grasping this when I asked it in the abortion thread too


you're getting too wrapped up in the details


just this - think of something - ANYTHING - you think is immoral

now pretend some one wanted to do that thing. - would it be moral or immoral for you to let them do it?

and don't say "they can do what they want"

of course they can - but is it moral of you to let them???

 

[Minor Axis]

Thought that went without saying

Said just to emphasis.

Bottom line regarding the OP, the attempt to separate "morality" from human actions and thinking is not only unrealistic, it is impossible.