Working on a Sunday to keep me in beer and bets

A forum to seperate the more serious discussions from the lighter topics in Off-topic.

I agree that these are immoral

Porn - immoral
11
9%
Smoking - immoral
10
9%
Obesity - immoral
6
5%
Gambling - immoral
8
7%
Drunkenness - immoral
12
10%
Breaking a promise - immoral
33
28%
Losing your patience - immoral
6
5%
Holding a grudge - immoral
12
10%
Not keeping the Sabbath holy - immoral
10
9%
Sex before marriage - immoral
9
8%
 
Total votes : 117

Re: Working on a Sunday to keep me in beer and bets

Postby TheCraw » 16 Nov 2011, 18:37

dlbrenner wrote:
TheCraw wrote: Nope. I'm saying:
If it is moral - it is legal.
If it is immoral - it is illegal.


Please explain how your view coincides with the temperance movement in the U.S.

Easy peazy.

"That was then, this is now. Things will change and you don't know how."
As times goes on, and more people get educated, laws change. It is only the inflexibility of Religious Rule that refuses to evolve.
(whoops, I forget, that whole "evolution" thing don't go over too well with some god-fearin' folk!) :oops:

And yes Sinny, the law can be corrupted by crooked politicians, meddlesome religious organizations, and uneducated citizenry. PROPERLY created, Laws should reflect the will of the majority of people within a society.
Very clever, Mr. Smart...
User avatar
TheCraw
Premium Member
 
Posts: 17275
Joined: 05 Dec 2008, 23:39
Location: lurking, baby.... lurking.
Class: Shropshire slasher
All-game rating: 1,000,000
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Working on a Sunday to keep me in beer and bets

Postby dlbrenner » 16 Nov 2011, 18:53

TheCraw wrote:
dlbrenner wrote:
TheCraw wrote: Nope. I'm saying:
If it is moral - it is legal.
If it is immoral - it is illegal.


Please explain how your view coincides with the temperance movement in the U.S.

Easy peazy.

So, prohibition of alcohol was immoral - then moral - and now immoral again - making the sale of alcohol moral - then immoral - and now moral again...

Meanwhile, never addressing the real moral problem of alcoholism.

Yea, that was easy peazy... :roll:

TheCraw wrote:As times goes on, and more people get educated, laws change. It is only the inflexibility of Religious Rule that....

...allows morals to remain unchanged.

Because "what is legal" and "what is moral" are two different things.


TheCraw wrote: PROPERLY created, Laws should reflect the will of the majority of people within a society.

Which STILL does not make them right.
“… this thing we call 'failure' is not the falling down, but the staying down. " ~ Mary Pickford

Stabbing in Diplomacy is like fighting in Hockey...
though it's part of the game - it doesn't HAVE to be.
User avatar
dlbrenner
 
Posts: 2557
Joined: 07 Jan 2009, 01:00
Location: The Heart of Texas
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT-6

Re: Working on a Sunday to keep me in beer and bets

Postby musashisamurai » 16 Nov 2011, 21:41

dlbrenner wrote:
musashisamurai wrote:
dlbrenner wrote:
So much no that I don't know where to not no. :roll:


Heres a start to that no-a no to Christian gay marriage, a no to Gays being accepted (it is a sin), and oh, I don't know, a no to pretty much gay rights. But yes, Jesus and the Church loves gays



musashisamurai, I formally invite and respectfully request that you share your opinion on the "Is Homosexuality Wrong?" thread.


I find there to be no immorality in homosexuality or being gay. Its just who they are, and there is nothing wrong with it. I can understand if a church doesn't want to marry a couple if it doesn't go with their theology (obviously that couple should attend Mass or prayer service elsewhere), but I don't think the government needs to be in our beds telling us what we can and cannot do. I find it ironic though that in Lev 19:22, homosexuality is called an "abomination", yet Jesus tells us to love everybody. Also God's forgiveness is infinite too, and I think God would prefer there to be more happiness and love and friendship in this world than less
¸,,¸_____}\,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,...,,,,,,
`’’´¯¯¯¯¯}/’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’¨¨¨¯
The simulacrum is never that which conceals the truth-it is the truth which conceals that there is none. The simulacrum is true.
musashisamurai
 
Posts: 16517
Joined: 16 Dec 2010, 21:54
Location: Galactic Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Working on a Sunday to keep me in beer and bets

Postby Wellington » 17 Nov 2011, 01:02

dlbrenner wrote:
Dar Krum wrote:
Wellington wrote:
If morality is subjective, on what basis do you judge an action moral or immoral?


Harm and intent.


I see that as the basis for how an action is judged to be either legal or illegal.

Legality is judged based on the content of laws and its interpretation by courts. Do you disagree with that, dlbrenner?
User avatar
Wellington
 
Posts: 819
Joined: 03 Oct 2008, 19:38
Location: Takarazuka, Japan
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (912)
All-game rating: (918)
Timezone: GMT+9

Re: Working on a Sunday to keep me in beer and bets

Postby Wellington » 17 Nov 2011, 05:40

Dar Krum wrote:Sounds like you might be saying we need an empirical moral norm against which we can measure the morality of any given action.


Not exactly. I am arguing against TheCraw's statement, "morality is subjective," that is, exiting only in the mind of an individual person with no relevance to any other persons. I believe that for the concept of morality to be meaningful, it must necessarily relate to values that transcend the individual and apply to all human beings. I'm not talking about needs, but about the nature of morality itself. The degree to which moral norms are accessible to empiricism, that is, derivable from experience or experiment, is a separate question.

You make moral judgements based on the standards of harm, intent, and human flourishing. Do you believe those standards are subjective, that is, they apply only to you and others may apply completely different standards to their own judgements and still be as moral as yourself? Or do you believe your moral standards are objective, that both your own and others' actions may be judged accordingly?

The idea that we cannot fully comprehend the essence of morality seems pretty ridiculous to me. If we cannot comprehend something it is like it does not exist for all practical purposes.


Note that I stated that we may not be able to fully comprehend the essence of morality, not that we cannot. Obviously, if humans are unable to understand anything about morality, it wouldn't have occurred to beowulf7 to start this thread or for any of the rest of us to have chimed in, and would make the whole question of moral behavior moot.

I raised the possibility that we may be unable to completely understand morality to answer dlbrenner's question differences in personal concepts of morality implied equal validity of all such concepts. If morality is objective, then it provides a single standard by which all individual judgements may be judged. However, the imperfection of human understanding leads to different opinions on what action objective morality requires in a given situation. Therefore people can have different or even contradictory concepts of morality even when all are sincerely seeking to make moral judgements.
User avatar
Wellington
 
Posts: 819
Joined: 03 Oct 2008, 19:38
Location: Takarazuka, Japan
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (912)
All-game rating: (918)
Timezone: GMT+9

Re: Working on a Sunday to keep me in beer and bets

Postby steelfish » 17 Nov 2011, 06:26

Morality should be like a cork float, that floats on the surface of a fluid, as the level of the fluid rises and falls should does the cork. Any morality system that is rigidly fixed in one place will either become submerged or get left high and dry. Both situations do nothing to help the person(s) that believe in such a morality system. In order to survive they have to become hypocrites. That is why a morality system should be as minimal as possible and as nonspecific as possible. In medical schools budding doctors are taught “Primum non nocere” a Latin phrase that means "First, do no harm". This is a maxim that could be applied to life. By remembering that your actions even when in the best of intentions can cause harm to others, you should weight the value versus risk of your actions on other people. That is why a practical morality system should be minimalist and non-specific.It could be something as simple as this.
1) Your actions should be controlled and regulated by yourself upon reaching legally recognized adulthood.
2) Your rights and freedoms are only curtailed when they impinge on the rights and freedoms of others.
3) If it harms no one then your behaviour is permissible.
4) If your actions (inaction) pose a credible and actual hazard to others then refer to rules 2 and 3.
5) Behaviour between consenting adults is the domain of said consenting adults.
6) Minors are the responsibility of their parents or legally recognized assigned adult(s). Any legal actions and punishments that are the result of acts committed by the minor shall be administered equally to the parents or legally recognized assigned adult and minor (when medically possible).
steelfish
 
Posts: 776
Joined: 09 Mar 2011, 05:39
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1097)
All-game rating: (1099)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Working on a Sunday to keep me in beer and bets

Postby beowulf7 » 17 Nov 2011, 10:38

There's a lot of good stuff in Steelfish's last post...I'm going to give the cud a bashing
User avatar
beowulf7
 
Posts: 2431
Joined: 07 Jan 2009, 17:55
Location: Kent, UK
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (938)
All-game rating: (946)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Working on a Sunday to keep me in beer and bets

Postby Dar Krum » 17 Nov 2011, 16:47

Wellington wrote:I believe that for the concept of morality to be meaningful, it must necessarily relate to values that transcend the individual and apply to all human beings.


I believe that we agree.

Wellington wrote:You make moral judgements based on the standards of harm, intent, and human flourishing. Do you believe those standards are subjective, that is, they apply only to you and others may apply completely different standards to their own judgements and still be as moral as yourself? Or do you believe your moral standards are objective, that both your own and others' actions may be judged accordingly?


My belief would be that human flourishing is something that can be measured and is objective. Harm and the intent that can be associated with intent, can be subjective, which is why I would put it up against the metric of human flourishing. An action can be morally neutral or it can slide along a scale of being very moral or immoral. But I do feel it must relate to human flourishing. That seems to be the only reasonable metric that is universal.

Wellington wrote:
Dar Krum wrote:The idea that we cannot fully comprehend the essence of morality seems pretty ridiculous to me. If we cannot comprehend something it is like it does not exist for all practical purposes.


Note that I stated that we may not be able to fully comprehend the essence of morality, not that we cannot. Obviously, if humans are unable to understand anything about morality, it wouldn't have occurred to beowulf7 to start this thread or for any of the rest of us to have chimed in, and would make the whole question of moral behavior moot.


Fair beans. I retract my above statement.
Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been,...If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods,...will have lived a noble life and live on in the memories of your loved ones. - Marcus Aurelius
User avatar
Dar Krum
 
Posts: 5129
Joined: 12 May 2008, 20:58
Location: New Brunswick, Canada
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1164)
All-game rating: (1115)
Timezone: GMT-4

Re: Working on a Sunday to keep me in beer and bets

Postby Wellington » 17 Nov 2011, 17:15

Dar Krum wrote:I believe that we agree.


That's a happy discovery. It makes me flourish. ;)

I'm curious what TheCraw and other "none of the above" reponders think about this line of discussion.

My belief would be that human flourishing is something that can be measured and is objective.


Human flourishing is an interesting concept as a standard for morality. How do you measure it? How do you make trade-offs between different forms of human well-being (e.g. how to make the choice of a pay cut that comes with improved work conditions)? Is human flourishing different from Utilitarianism?
User avatar
Wellington
 
Posts: 819
Joined: 03 Oct 2008, 19:38
Location: Takarazuka, Japan
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (912)
All-game rating: (918)
Timezone: GMT+9

Re: Working on a Sunday to keep me in beer and bets

Postby TheCraw » 17 Nov 2011, 17:51

Wellington wrote:I'm curious what TheCraw and other "none of the above" reponders think about this line of discussion.

The Craw is getting 5 hours of sleep a night and is presently running on petrol fumes, so "thinking" ain't my strong suit today, I'll take a rain-check. Image
Very clever, Mr. Smart...
User avatar
TheCraw
Premium Member
 
Posts: 17275
Joined: 05 Dec 2008, 23:39
Location: lurking, baby.... lurking.
Class: Shropshire slasher
All-game rating: 1,000,000
Timezone: GMT-5

PreviousNext

Return to Debates

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests