A Question of Morality

[Accountable]

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.

But it is the right thing to do.

 

[Minor Axis]

Lets use the progressive tax code as example of moral, immoral, fair, not fair. If you make $20k per year you pay 5% if you make $1 million per year you pay 40% The logic: If you make more money you can afford to pay a higher % to support society.

Is it logical? Sounds logical to me. If not logical, why not?
Is it fair? You mean the poor person making $1 million gets to keep $600k. Why would that not be fair?

Here we go down the slippery slope of morality.

 

[edgray]

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.

I see what you're saying.

But I wouldn't say it's completely against human nature to act on pure logic: it's the very foundation of the Enlightenment that happened a couple of centuries ago.

 

[edgray]

But it is the right thing to do.

Morally?

 

[Accountable]

Lets use the progressive tax code as example of moral, immoral, fair, not fair. If you make $20k per year you pay 5% if you make $1 million per year you pay 40% The logic: If you make more money you can afford to pay a higher % to support society.

Is it logical? Sounds logical to me. If not logical, why not?
Is it fair? You mean the poor person making $1 million gets to keep $600k. Why would that not be fair?

Here we go down the slippery slope of morality.

Is it immoral to keep 75 or 85% of one's income, regardless of what that percentage is?

 

[Minor Axis]

I see what you're saying.

But I wouldn't say it's completely against human nature to act on pure logic: it's the very foundation of the Enlightenment that happened a couple of centuries ago.

I need to read up on Enlightenment. I think you can also run into problems operating on pure logic as I expressed in my progressive tax policy. Just what is logical? Just what is equal? Where do we draw the line? I think you'll find that different people claiming to use logic can reach far different conclusions.

A socialist society places a high value on equality, but I know there are forum members who puke their guts up at the thought of it. So is it only equality for being judged by laws? I know for a fact that although the U.S. proclaims equality before the law, there is no such thing.

Is it equality for access to a social program like medical insurance? We seem to be moving in that direction.

Is it equality of possessions? Do we all deserve a big screen tv?

Capitalism rewards individuals for effort but the evidence shows it results in great inequality and being rewarded far in excess of what is deserved IMO. Socialism can do the same thing, (reward for effort but caps the reward) and it sets a minimum standard for existence. So if you are a worthless so and so, you'd still get an efficency apartment to live in instead of the gutter. Overall is this good for society? Or is it better as every man for himself? These questions are not easy to answer.

 

[Minor Axis]

Is it immoral to keep 75 or 85% of one's income, regardless of what that percentage is?

"regardless of what the amount is?" I guess it depends on your morality and your logic.

But I think I just proved that using logic, you can come up with different conclusions.

 

[edgray]

I need to read up on Enlightenment. I think you can also run into problems operating on pure logic as I expressed in my progressive tax policy. Just what is logical? Just what is equal? Where do we draw the line? I think you'll find that different people claiming to use logic can reach far different conclusions.

A socialist society places a high value on equality, but I know there are forum members who puke their guts up at the thought of it. So is it only equality for being judged by laws? I know for a fact that although the U.S. proclaims equality before the law, there is no such thing.

Is it equality for access to a social program like medical insurance? We seem to be moving in that direction.

Is it equality of possessions? Do we all deserve a big screen tv?

Capitalism rewards individuals for effort but the evidence shows it results in great inequality and being rewarded far in excess of what is deserved IMO. Socialism can do the same thing, (reward for effort but caps the reward) and it sets a minimum standard for existence. So if you are a worthless so and so, you'd still get an efficency apartment to live in instead of the gutter. Overall is this good for society? Or is it better as every man for himself? These questions are not easy to answer.

Logical decisions should be based on research, experiments and past experiences. Politics SHOULD do that, doubt they ever will. Politicians in the UK often grumble on about morals and the like, and as a result end up with stupid and senseless laws that cause more problems than they solve.

With regards to equality, countries like the US are based on the foundation of equality in rights, rather than results. It's a different angle to that which you and I would look at it.

 

[Accountable]

NASCAR would be awful boring if it required equal results, rather than equal chance.

 

[edgray]

NASCAR would be awful boring if it required equal results, rather than equal chance.

NASCAR is boring either way :jk :surrender

 

[porterjack]

NASCAR is boring either way :jk :surrender

actually if they drove both ways it would be fun to watch

 

[edgray]

actually if they drove both ways it would be fun to watch

if they drove both ways I'd be their biggest fan!

 

[Tangerine]

Simple answer:

No other person on this planet is in a position to decide for me what is moral or not, and no other person on this planet has the authority to allow or disallow me to engage in any such activity based on their sense of "morality."

 

[Accountable]

Is it moral to allow others to be immoral?

Simple answer:

No other person on this planet is in a position to decide for me what is moral or not, and no other person on this planet has the authority to allow or disallow me to engage in any such activity based on their sense of "morality."

............................................................ ??

A simpler answer would have been yes ... or no. As simple as your answer was, I still don't know what it is.