A Question of Morality

[JanieDough]

oh and to answer the question myself - I don't know - because I don't really think anything is immoral except for things like child rape, etc.

and of COURSE I'm against that and would try to stop some one else...

so maybe it is immoral to let some one else do something immoral...

 

[Minor Axis]

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

If you don't mind waiting 100 years or so. It was still going on when the U.S. government enacted laws.

 

[dkwrtw]

there is no definite moral or definite immoral, it's all subjective, what one person finds morally reprehensible another person will see nothing wrong with, who are you to tell someone they're being immoral?

 

[Minor Axis]

there is no definite moral or definite immoral, it's all subjective, what one person finds morally reprehensible another person will see nothing wrong with, who are you to tell someone they're being immoral?

Regardless of how subjective, the OP is trying to say morality can be seperated from human thinking. My position is that is not possible. All of our laws are based on a code of conduct otherwise known as morality.

 

[dkwrtw]

since you put it that way, as long as they aren't doing something that will hurt me or somebody else I don't care, I do "immoral" things all the time, I am not going to try to stop somebody from doing what they want to do as long as they are not hurting anybody by doing it.

 

[Accountable]

If you don't mind waiting 100 years or so. It was still going on when the U.S. government enacted laws.

As I said several times now, the gov't never should have discriminated and it was good for them to change their policies. They did not have to force private businesses to do the same, they would have fallen in line out of public pressure. Yes it would have taken longer. No it wouldn't have been nearly 100 years. The end result would have been better.

 

[Accountable]

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

Regardless of how subjective, the OP is trying to say morality can be seperated from human thinking. My position is that is not possible. All of our laws are based on a code of conduct otherwise known as morality.

I figured that was what you read into it. The separation isn't between moral thought and moral actions. The separation has to be between personal moral standards and behavior which society will allow.

The earlier poster was absolutely right, imo. If you personally witness someone else doing something you personally feel is immoral, it would be immoral for you to say nothing, simply allow the behavior without at least trying to get the person to see the immorality of his actions. However, to enact laws to force people to adopt your personal moral code crosses a line.

Murder, theft, and other such crimes are not only immoral, they also deprive a victim of life, liberty, and/or property. Laws against such actions are not just moral, they are just.

Abortion is immoral to many people, but it does not deprive a legal person of life, liberty, or property. It would be moral for someone to speak out against abortion; indeed, it would be arguably immoral not to do so, but unless/until a fetus is declared a legal person (another moral stance), laws against such actions, while moral, would not be just.

 

[Minor Axis]

As I said several times now, the gov't never should have discriminated and it was good for them to change their policies. They did not have to force private businesses to do the same, they would have fallen in line out of public pressure. Yes it would have taken longer. No it wouldn't have been nearly 100 years. The end result would have been better.

The civil war ended about 1856. (I'm too lazy to check the exact date.) The Civil Rights Act was passed in the early 1960's and that adds up to? :humm: I disagree with your conclusion.

Murder, theft, and other such crimes are not only immoral, they also deprive a victim of life, liberty, and/or property. Laws against such actions are not just moral, they are just.

moral=just at least in the person's mind making the judgment. They can not be separated. You are trying to say/imply morality is bad while "equal and just" is good. They are the exact same thing when you speak of people and their values. I'm going to try real hard now to stop repeating myself. :horse

Is there anyone participating in this thread that think that "just" is somehow different than morality in the mind of the person making the judgments?

 

[Accountable]

The civil war ended about 1856. (I'm too lazy to check the exact date.) The Civil Rights Act was passed in the early 1960's and that adds up to? :humm: I disagree with your conclusion.

That's because you're looking at the wrong evidence. During that time the gov't was supporting the segregation.

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.

I myself conceded your point without even noticing it. I think we actually agree on this. I believe morality is too broad a base for law; it needs to be narrowed to the more specific moral basis of protecting life, liberty, and property.

Good enough?

 

[GameCrazed]

My cousin Jason is not actually related to the fgamily, escept through his half-brother, Christopher.

I think it's horrible that they have never told him the truth, yet I hasve never told him the truth.

What does that make of me, I wonder.

 

[Accountable]

My cousin Jason is not actually related to the fgamily, escept through his half-brother, Christopher.

I think it's horrible that they have never told him the truth, yet I hasve never told him the truth.

What does that make of me, I wonder.

That depends on the answer to this:

If you told him, would it be because it is immoral to keep the information from him, or because you want relief from carrying around such a big secret?

 

[Minor Axis]

That's because you're looking at the wrong evidence. During that time the gov't was supporting the segregation.

They supported it by doing nothing about it?

You missed it. I gave it to you and you missed it. I didn't even notice until it came to me on my way to work.
I myself conceded your point without even noticing it. I think we actually agree on this. I believe morality is too broad a base for law; it needs to be narrowed to the more specific moral basis of protecting life, liberty, and property.

Good enough?

Yep I did miss it. How did that happen? Yeah good enough but in your moral equation, I would include equality across the spectrum and equality does not allow for discrimination anywhere but in your private domain.

 

[GameCrazed]

Accountable- Answer "A". Though, by the way, it wouldn't really matter, it's for his sake, anyway.

 

[Accountable]

They supported it by doing nothing about it?

Nothing?!? Segregated military units, schools, seating in courtrooms, courtrooms themselves; disparate voting registration rules; disparate victim support, law enforcement, and punishment ... Hardly nothing.

Yep I did miss it. How did that happen? Yeah good enough but in your moral equation, I would include equality across the spectrum and equality does not allow for discrimination anywhere but in your private domain.

Me too; we just differ on the definition of public and private.

Accountable- Answer "A". Though, by the way, it wouldn't really matter, it's for his sake, anyway.

It absolutely matters! Morality is a judgment of the heart. Most times people really want to tell bad news to unload the weight from themselves, rather than truly having the other person's best interests at heart. That reason is evil, imo.

 

[Minor Axis]

My cousin Jason is not actually related to the fgamily, escept through his half-brother, Christopher.

I think it's horrible that they have never told him the truth, yet I hasve never told him the truth.

What does that make of me, I wonder.

As a rule, I think the truth is best, but there are probably exceptions. Some people might not want to know the truth.

 

[edgray]

this blog shows just how personal and ambiguous morality can be:

http://moraldilemma.wordpress.com/

it's a good read, but surely should never be used to form governing laws.

 

[Minor Axis]

it's a good read, but surely should never be used to form governing laws.

You are sounding like Accountable. Every action we take in our lives including the creation of laws has a moral basis. 1) First we decide what is right and what is wrong based on our moral code. 2) Then we in-act laws based on that. Why is this so hard for you morality adverse people to understand?

Am I saying that is the most wonderful thing? NO, because I can't make everyone agree to my moral code.

This has all ready talked about but, at what point does societies need trump, individuals rights? The only rule I can think of is when your action hurts others. Accountable thinks that it's ok for individuals to discriminate indiscriminately. I don't, so discrimination is within bounds when it comes to jobs and access IMO. Keeping a toxic dump in your back yard would also qualify.

 

[edgray]

You are sounding like Accountable. Every action we take in our lives including the creation of laws has a moral basis. 1) First we decide what is right and what is wrong based on our moral code. 2) Then we in-act laws based on that. Why is this so hard for you morality adverse people to understand?

Am I saying that is the most wonderful thing? NO, because I can't make everyone agree to my moral code.

Well on this particular subject, I totally agree with Accountable.

Morals, whilst many are shared, are valued differently. An example from the wiki page:

Jonathan Haidt and Jesse Graham have studied the differences between liberals and conservatives, in this regard.[18][19][20] Haidt found that Americans who identified as liberals tended to value care and fairness higher than loyalty, respect and purity. Self-identified conservative Americans valued care and fairness less and the remaining three values more.

Laws are seldom made on a moral basis. They're made normally to protect interests, be it of the wealthy or of a minority group or something, however they might be painted as being moral. Morality shouldn't and generally doesn't come into it.

 

[Minor Axis]

Well on this particular subject, I totally agree with Accountable.

Morals, whilst many are shared, are valued differently. An example from the wiki page:

Laws are seldom made on a moral basis. They're made normally to protect interests, be it of the wealthy or of a minority group or something, however they might be painted as being moral. Morality shouldn't and generally doesn't come into it.

Maybe the problem here is when you say "moral" you mean the "right thing to do". In other words when you say moral it equals good and when I say moral it equals a code of conduct good or bad. The problem is that morality is a wide scale. It varies among groups of people. The people passing those laws are doing so because they think it is the right thing to do. It is their moral code like it or not, most likely reeking of favoritism and corruption. The people who don't think their code meets a high enough standard would call them immoral. Morality is decided by 1) the majority or 2) those in power.

I might agree that it could be possible to enact laws based on pure logic and not favoring any particular group but that is completely against human nature to do so.

 

[Accountable]

You are sounding like Accountable. Every action we take in our lives including the creation of laws has a moral basis. 1) First we decide what is right and what is wrong based on our moral code. 2) Then we in-act laws based on that. Why is this so hard for you morality adverse people to understand?

Honestly, I started pulling away from the morality argument because too many people equate any moral argument with hard-right evangelical fundamentalism. The best way I've found to get these bigots against religion to listen is to not use morality in any of these conversations.

It seems to be getting ever rarer to find people who can see the balance and absolute indespensibility of both church and state, and the importance of keeping them separate.