a moral question

[fadingCaptain]

Jenyar,
Good question. No, I would not think it compatible if someone unnecessarily suffered because of his overt inaction, especially if it was my son. I read into the description that he doesn't "actively" seek to help others. But I didn't gather he "wouldn't" help someone in need...after looking at the post again I may be wrong. I agree with your last statement, that is why it is hard to say in this case without specific examples/detail.

One thing is for sure: making a late payment on a credit card has little to do with morality.

 

[StrayDogStrut]

To begin with, morality is of course, subjective.

Now that that's out of the way, a hypothetical situation. Imagine a faceless person sitting in a blank room with nothing, doing nothing. Would you consider him moral? I wouldn't. Someone suggested that the lack of immorality equals morality, but that's not really true. Nothing is nothing. But once you start to establish faith in something, such as the coworker guy has faith in the Bible, you are bound by those values. In which case, I think it may be a problem for said coworker to be judging robtex and not helping his fellow man.

People develop their own moral code. If someone thinks that stealing is alright if you need it and the victim doesn't, and they don't mind when they're at the receiving end of it, sure, that's cool. But that's where the whole line in the sandbox o society comes in. So, to end my incoherent message, I think the coworker is immoral but social acceptable. He's not really doing anything social unacceptable, but he is breaking his own moral code


(I found it pretty funny that google gave Bible links for the ads on this thread)

 

[Jenyar]

One thing is for sure: making a late payment on a credit card has little to do with morality.

Absolutely. But that a person could make that connection says something about his grasp on morality. And makes for interesting discussion .

To begin with, morality is of course, subjective.

Subjective to what? I would say, at most, our experience of it is subjective. Our application of moral guidelines depends on our understanding of its requirements. But I would like to see you substantiate whether those requirements are so subjective.

But once you start to establish faith in something, such as the coworker guy has faith in the Bible, you are bound by those values.

This is exactly where the discussion went, this "distancing" from responsibility. Are you saying that if you don't profess faith in something, you are not bound to it? This why the statement "morality is subjective", might itself be considered immmoral. If you apply that belief consistently, you are exonerating yourself from responsibility towards another person - which is the essence of morality. It says, "I might not be responsible for the things others think I should be responible for". If don't say which morals you consider subjective, who can trust you? That's why we make laws - to compensate for those who might actually live as if all morals subjective.

People develop their own moral code. If someone thinks that stealing is alright if you need it and the victim doesn't, and they don't mind when they're at the receiving end of it, sure, that's cool. But that's where the whole line in the sandbox o society comes in.

Those lines are the last frontiers of depravity, and they become increasingly blurry. On the one hand we have a government that protects freedom, and on the other we have individuals who distance themselves from the government yet profit from that freedom. People who develop their own moral code are moral parasites, but so are people who simply rely on others to dictate their morality to them. If you don't live a moral life, you are not being moral - not subjectively or objectively.

So, to end my incoherent message, I think the coworker is immoral but social acceptable. He's not really doing anything social unacceptable, but he is breaking his own moral code

Is a criminal only guilty when he commits the crime? There are socially acceptible crimes, committed by people who have distanced themselves from any higher moral responsibility ("since it's relative, anyway"). They're not breaking any moral code, by your definition. Should we wait until they do, before we show them the road they're on?

 

[cybercom]

They're not breaking any moral code, by your definition. Should we wait until they do, before we show them the road they're on?

It depends on your own morality/loyalty to that person. I've always looked on morality as a guide to happiness. So, a scenario, a man is cheating on his wife, granted he is having fun but it isn't happiness. Its a momentary enjoyment and when his wife finds out they both go through living hell. Happiness...no. So, shall you tell this man he's screwing up his life? You can but he probably already knows so he either didn't care when he got himself into the mess or he's really stupid. So usually pointing out to a moral transgressor that he's got a problem is pointless cause chances are they already know and they do it anyways to reap the short term benefits. They just aren't thinking about the big scheme of things.

 

[wesmorris]

Dude seems moral by his standards.

That he doesn't do charity work explicitely doesn't mean he doesn't help people.

I agree with FC on the morals tip. Jenyar have you considered that he may be helpful informally? Even if he isn't particularly, he still contributes to the over-all good by not being a pain in everyone's ass... basically by not causing problems he's good.

Maybe he's kind of a dick though for telling people they're immoral.

I help people all the time in the ways I can, but I don't generally go out of my way to do it. If I cross your path and you need a hand and I've got a free one, I'll extend it to you unless you creep me out (seem dangerous) or whatever. I don't have any money to give to charity and I don't volunteer, but I'll jump your car for you, push you to the side of the road and let you use my phone, break up a fist fight between kids or offer you the wisdom you need if I have it.

Honestly I think Bill and Ted spelled out morality as clearly as anyone. Something about going forth and being righteous to one another. I suppose I'd translate that as "hey, if you can help it try not to be a dick."

*shrug*

but what the fuck do I know.

 

[Maria]

I agree with the subjective nature of morality in terms of

I think everybody is moral if they obey their own moral code.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those 'every opinion is the right opinion' people.
If, for example, someone I knew decided to have an abortion based on their belief in the right to choose, I would accept that (once I knew it was the right decison for that person) I would not take the 'moral highground' (don't think it exists)I would not view the action as 'immoral'
If I, however, got pregnant it would be different. Pregnancy would be so bad for me right now, just starting college, but abortion disagrees with my morals. I think it would be immoral for me to have an abortion, eventhough looking at the situation it seems like the only solution.
I think morals are a personal thing, the same way I believe life to be a primarily personal experience, loaded with responsibilities to oneself rather than to others.

 

[philocrazy]

morality is MORALITY

A MORAL QUESTION IS morality -(MINUS) MORALITY


Philosopher Philocrazy

 

[Jenyar]

I agree with FC on the morals tip. Jenyar have you considered that he may be helpful informally? Even if he isn't particularly, he still contributes to the over-all good by not being a pain in everyone's ass... basically by not causing problems he's good.

That might be. Whether or not he is, saying that paying your bills late is immoral indicates a legalistic grasp of morality that will make it difficult for others to accept his help. How moral is it if people have to deserve your help first? Even if he doesn't cause problems he might still be part of a problem. I don't wish to take it out on him personally, but his attitude certaintly warrants discussion. If this turned into an argument about Christianity, my guess is that people wouldn't have been so quick to give him the benefit of the doubt. Words like 'indoctrinated' and 'meme' would have shown up early in the discussion, and instead of a 'kind of dick' he might have been the bane of humanity. By calling his action in this case 'immoral', I basically said it wasn't Christian.

Honestly I think Bill and Ted spelled out morality as clearly as anyone. Something about going forth and being righteous to one another. I suppose I'd translate that as "hey, if you can help it try not to be a dick."

*shrug*

but what the fuck do I know.

There's no need for that. We can all appreciate what you know and you can call it moral without having to excuse yourself.

I think everybody is moral if they obey their own moral code.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those 'every opinion is the right opinion' people.
..
I think morals are a personal thing, the same way I believe life to be a primarily personal experience, loaded with responsibilities to oneself rather than to others.

Morals are indeed a personal battle, but they are fought on social frontiers. Personal convictions are tested when they meet the boundaries of other people's moral standards. Even an intensely private decision, like having an abortion, is a moral struggle because it involves another life. It's a subjective decision, but only to a limit.

Morality becomes more objective in relation to abstracts. Someone who sees society not just as a bunch of real people with eyes, but as an abstract reality, will formulate his decisions differently. Instead of not stealing because someone's looking, it becomes a consideration of *if* someone *were* looking.

I have first hand experience of this. There are groups in South Africa for whom this is their morality: 'if you don't get caught, you haven't done anything wrong'. That's why I'm adamant that a laissez-faire attitude can actually be morally destructive. Even if a criminal attitude doesn't affect you directly, it's dangerously irresponsible to dismiss it as inane. It's immoral to approach morality that subjectively.