Not an issue of morality - gay marriage, prostitution, etc

[Norsefire]

Arguing over the morality of things like prostitution and gay marriage is pointless; we all are going to disagree.


People seem to overlook the relevant point: it's choice. If you find it immoral, you can avoid it. And if you find it desirable, you can indulge it.


It really is as simple as that. The morality of it is irrelevant, because morality is an opinion anyway and people who find it immoral aren't forced to participate.

Choice is the relevant point, often overlooked.

 

[James R]

Morality is fundamentally a social thing. It is concerned with how we interact with respect to other persons.

Where your actions impact on other people, that's where morality becomes relevant. The people on whom your actions impact have every right to judge you on a moral basis.

 

[snake river rufus]

I'm not sure that prostitution is always a choice. A lot of women have been forced into selling their bodies over the years. Assuming that it is indeed a persons choice- I have no heartach against it.

 

[Baron Max]

Where your actions impact on other people, that's where morality becomes relevant. The people on whom your actions impact have every right to judge you on a moral basis.

Exactly! But without the threat of or application of force, making that judgement of the person means nothing ...and damned sure means nothing to the person impacting the others.

Morality comes from the muzzle of a gun!

Baron Max

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Exactly! But without the threat of or application of force, making that judgement of the person means nothing ...and damned sure means nothing to the person impacting the others.

Morality comes from the muzzle of a gun!

Baron Max

How many times have you been shot in the head?

 

[Norsefire]

Morality is fundamentally a social thing. It is concerned with how we interact with respect to other persons.

Where your actions impact on other people, that's where morality becomes relevant. The people on whom your actions impact have every right to judge you on a moral basis.

But the morality might differ between individuals, and therefore the result of their judging will be different and there is no "correct" judgement.

Besides, that is besides the point. The relevant point is that the above practices are voluntary, which renders their morality irrelevant. You can avoid them if you want.

This applies to all voluntary practices, including gay marriage, prostitution, drug use, duelling, etc

 

[James R]

Morality comes from the muzzle of a gun!

You have a bee in your bonnet, Baron Max. You know, it doesn't matter how much you repeat yourself. You're still wrong.

But the morality might differ between individuals, and therefore the result of their judging will be different and there is no "correct" judgement.

It might differ, but in many many cases it does not, in fact, differ.

Besides, that is besides the point. The relevant point is that the above practices are voluntary, which renders their morality irrelevant. You can avoid them if you want.

This applies to all voluntary practices, including gay marriage, prostitution, drug use, duelling, etc

Interesting that you mention marriage, which is an explicitly public declarative act. As such, it concerns the entire community. Prostitution, drug use and duelling also all have impacts on people other than the participants, so they are also a valid community concern.

 

[swarm]

You have a bee in your bonnet, Baron Max. You know, it doesn't matter how much you repeat yourself. You're still wrong.

Specifically he is confusing morality with its enforcement via authoritarian martial power.

Of course the long standing issue with attempting to enforce in this way is that such power is inherently corrupting.

 

[swarm]

Morality is fundamentally a social thing. It is concerned with how we interact with respect to other persons.

Where your actions impact on other people, that's where morality becomes relevant. The people on whom your actions impact have every right to judge you on a moral basis.

I think you are not correct here.

Only people who are directly harmed have a right to call foul. Some one who is merely offended or indignant is not really a concerned party.

This is necessary to preserve individual freedom since as norsefire as alluding, there is always some one who is going to get their nose bent out of shape.

 

[Baron Max]

..., it concerns the entire community. Prostitution, drug use and duelling also all have impacts on people other than the participants, so they are also a valid community concern.

And if that society has no enforcement of the morals, then people like Norsefire can do anything they want without fear of reprisal. Thus, the morals mean nothing in and of themselves.

You have a bee in your bonnet, Baron Max. You know, it doesn't matter how much you repeat yourself. You're still wrong.

Well, James, tell me ...how can there be morals in a society without some form of enforcement of those rules? Even social shunning is a form of reprisal.

Would the "morality" of freedom and human rights for the southern slaves have meant anything without the enforcement of those rules and laws? The slaves were freed in 1865 or so ...the National Guard had to be called into the south in 1960s and 1970s to enforce those "morals". That's about 100 years, James! No enforcement, no freedoms for the blacks in the south.

Sorry, but you're just going to have to face it ...without enforcement, morals are nothing but talk or words on a piece of paper. Ditto for any laws.

Baron Max

 

[visceral_instinct]

Thus, the morals mean nothing in and of themselves.

Wrong. Murder or rape, for example, are still wrong whether you have the power to punish someone for it.

 

[James R]

Max:

Well, James, tell me ...how can there be morals in a society without some form of enforcement of those rules?

Morals aren't necessarily rules. Laws and rules are not the same as morals. Nor is having rules the same as being able to enforce them. Why do you have so much trouble understanding these simple distinctions?

Would the "morality" of freedom and human rights for the southern slaves have meant anything without the enforcement of those rules and laws?

Of course. Just because you can't force somebody else to do the right thing doesn't mean you don't know what the right thing is. Just because you don't always do the right thing doesn't mean you don't know what the right thing is. People often do things they know are wrong.

The slaves were freed in 1865 or so ...the National Guard had to be called into the south in 1960s and 1970s to enforce those "morals".

I think you'll find they were enforcing laws.

Sorry, but you're just going to have to face it ...without enforcement, morals are nothing but talk or words on a piece of paper. Ditto for any laws.

If you don't bake the cake, the recipe is just words on a piece of paper. But nobody would argue that the recipe doesn't exist without the cake.

 

[Baron Max]

Baron Max: “ Would the "morality" of freedom and human rights for the southern slaves have meant anything without the enforcement of those rules and laws?"

Of course. Just because you can't force somebody else to do the right thing doesn't mean you don't know what the right thing is. Just because you don't always do the right thing doesn't mean you don't know what the right thing is. People often do things they know are wrong.

Which means, basically, that morals don't mean shit! The south kept the blacks "under control" for some 100 years even with your silly morals being talked about all the time. Nothing would have happened for another 100 years if the National Guard hadn't been called in.

Ask those blacks, James, what your silly morals meant for them at the time. Perhaps that'll open your eyes to the ideals of morals.

I think you'll find they were enforcing laws.

Yep, your silly morals had virtually nothing to do with it. With your silly morals in place, the south continued to oppress the blacks for some 100 years. 100 years, James! It wasn't until the National Guard was brought in that southern blacks began to live free. Your silly morals did nothing to help them ....for 100 years! Why can't you get it straight ....morals are simply things to talk about and argue about, unless they're enforced in some way.

If you don't bake the cake, the recipe is just words on a piece of paper. But nobody would argue that the recipe doesn't exist without the cake.

I never said the morals didn't exist, James, ...only that they don't mean shit until they're enforced. In the same way as the cake recipe ....it ain't shit until someone actually follows it (enforces it!).

Baron Max

 

[Baron Max]

Wrong. Murder or rape, for example, are still wrong whether you have the power to punish someone for it.

Osama bin Laden didn't think murder was wrong. And in fact, he made a video tape celebrating that murder and carnage.

So ....what's "wrong"? And who decides?

Baron Max

 

[James R]

Max:

The south kept the blacks "under control" for some 100 years even with your silly morals being talked about all the time.

Many people in the south knew that slavery was wrong, not least the slaves themselves.

Ask those blacks, James, what your silly morals meant for them at the time.

They considered morals as important as anybody does today. Notions of being a righteous person, I think you'll find, were quite prevalent among black people, and still are today.

Yep, your silly morals had virtually nothing to do with it.

Laws often follow from morals, and in this case the laws had everything to do with the morals.

With your silly morals in place, the south continued to oppress the blacks for some 100 years. 100 years, James! It wasn't until the National Guard was brought in that southern blacks began to live free. Your silly morals did nothing to help them ....for 100 years!

That's a law enforcement problem, which is quite distinct from the moral question. Understand yet?

Why can't you get it straight ....morals are simply things to talk about and argue about, unless they're enforced in some way.

Many people act morally with no compulsion at all, other than doing what they know is the right thing.

I never said the morals didn't exist, James, ...only that they don't mean shit until they're enforced.

Why have police catch murderers?
Answer: because the law creates the police force to do that job?
Why does the law say the police should catch murderers?
Answer: because the law is based on the idea that murder is wrong.
Question: what came first - the police or the moral idea?
Hint: without the idea that murder is wrong, police don't mean shit.

 

[James R]

Osama bin Laden didn't think murder was wrong. And in fact, he made a video tape celebrating that murder and carnage.

Nonsense. I'm sure that Osama bin Laden thinks murder is wrong. He just doesn't think that killing heathen infidel oppressors of Muslims is wrong.

So ....what's "wrong"? And who decides?

Society argues it out and it decides.

 

[Baron Max]

Many people in the south knew that slavery was wrong, not least the slaves themselves.

Agreed, but those morals didn't help prevent the oppression of the blacks in the south for some 100 years AFTER the Civil War. So knowing something is immoral doesn't seem to help much, does it?

That's a law enforcement problem, which is quite distinct from the moral question. Understand yet?

Yeah, I understand that morals are just for talking and arguing ....in themselves, they mean nothing whatso-fuckin'-ever!

Many people act morally with no compulsion at all, other than doing what they know is the right thing.

They've been taught from childhood, the same for generations, and the threat of spankings or court or jail always hung heavily over them. Morals have nothing to do with it.

Answer: because the law is based on the idea that murder is wrong.
Question: what came first - the police or the moral idea?

The moral ideal might have been there for years, but it wasn't until the law was passed and police formed did it actually mean anything.

Hint: without the idea that murder is wrong, police don't mean shit.

No! Without the law the police don't mean shit. That moral might have been talked about for decades, but it did nothing ....UNTIL... they made it a law and added enforcement of that law.

And once again, morals don't mean shit until they're enforced in some way.

Baron Max

 

[scott3x]

Many people in the south knew that slavery was wrong, not least the slaves themselves.

Agreed, but those morals didn't help prevent the oppression of the blacks in the south for some 100 years AFTER the Civil War. So knowing something is immoral doesn't seem to help much, does it?

I think it helped some, but what is needed is enough people to make something deemed to be immoral illegal. When -that- happens, things really get moving. Depending on whether the law is just or not, it can be for the better or for the worse.

Fortunately, people are -generally- allowed to dissent with laws they deem to be immoral. If one goes for the idea that the truth wins in the end, then we're simply on a journey towards better things; admittedly in a more polluted planet, but I'm sure that as we lose more and more of our precious environment, we will assign it more and more worth until we will finally stop destroying it because we will realize that our 'productivity' is not worth more environmental sacrifices.

 

[Norsefire]

It might differ, but in many many cases it does not, in fact, differ.

People looking at a painting might all agree that it is beautiful; and most might not differ. That doesn't mean it is, in fact, beautiful.

Just because alot of people think x is wrong, it is no less of an opinion. Just because alot of people like a certain color best, does not mean it is the best color.

Interesting that you mention marriage, which is an explicitly public declarative act. As such, it concerns the entire community. Prostitution, drug use and duelling also all have impacts on people other than the participants, so they are also a valid community concern.

Marriage is personal; drug use, duelling, gambling, etc are all voluntary acts.

Wrong. Murder or rape, for example, are still wrong whether you have the power to punish someone for it.

In your opinion. Murder and rape being wrong are your opinion, not fact.

 

[Baron Max]

I think it helped some, but what is needed is enough people to make something deemed to be immoral illegal. When -that- happens, things really get moving.

But, Scott, those laws to free the slaves in the south happened about 1865 after the Civil War. Those laws were in effect for some 100 years ...with the blacks in the south being treated as second- or third-class citizens. 100 years those morals and laws were in place and in effective.

See? Morals NOR the laws ...bullshit on pieces of paper.... did any good at all for the blacks of the south ...for some 100 years!! It was ONLY when the armed National Guards were sent in that the REAL freedoms began.

See how ineffective morals and laws are ...WITHOUT... enforcement?

Fortunately, people are -generally- allowed to dissent with laws they deem to be immoral. ...

I think most protestors join those protests because their buddies do or they hope to meet someone of the opp sex and get laid! People are soon going to start protesting that there's too many protests.

People are generally idiots or worse ...and depending on a bunch of 'em in a protest to actually know what the fuck they're all about is giving them far too much credit. I remember one news reporter, covering a protest of some kind, and he asked a group of people what it was all about .....and they didn't have a fuckin' clue!! They even said that they were just having fun.

And people want to depend on such people, such protestors, to change the course of their government or nation's policies????

Morals are like farts in the wind without enforcement.

Baron Max