A Place of Safety
I expect simple behaviours here. Friendship, and love.
Any advice should be from the perspective of the person asking, not the person giving!
We have had to make new membership moderated to combat the huge number of spammers who register
















You are here: Home > Forum > A Place of Safety > General Talk > Morality: right and wrong.
Morality: right and wrong.  [message #61748] Fri, 02 April 2010 11:09 Go to next message
saben is currently offline  saben

On fire!

Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537



To further explain my personal conception of morality (as we started discussing in an earlier topic)

My sense of morality isn't entirely arbitrary, even though it is personal. I look at the most heinous of crimes- like murder and slavery. The thing they have in common is that they compromise the victim's ability to act as a sentient individual.

That is why I take autonomy to be the paramount value in human existence.

It's hardly like the notion of a victimless crime is new. I just extend that to morality- I think the point of moral arguments is to discuss how humans should interact with each other- in isolation from other people there is no morality.

In response to Anthony I'd say that taking heroin in and of itself is not immoral. It may effect your mind and cause you to perform other immoral actions- but so does alcohol and few would say drinking is immoral. Similarly forming strong relationships can result in jealous which can result in violence. The violence is immoral, but forming relationships is not.

Actions do have consequences, and some actions are risky as they can take you down bad paths. But that doesn't necessarily mean the actions are immoral, even if they lead into immorality.



Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
Re: Morality: right and wrong.  [message #61750 is a reply to message #61748] Fri, 02 April 2010 11:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
acam is currently offline  acam

On fire!
Location: UK
Registered: July 2007
Messages: 1849



Dear Saben,
When talking about right and wrong it is easy to confuse what is with what ought to be. I think the definition of a crime is something that is against the law - and there are things the law prohibits which are good.

A victimless crime is something against the law that does no person any harm but as, in law, an insurance company is a person some crimes people speak of as victimless are not what they think.

And your autonomy is (I think) just what the rest of us call freedom. And we thank our lucky stars that we are living in 'the free world' where the bulk of the constraints on freedom are supposed to inhibit each of us from damaging other people's freedoms.

So I think I am agreeing with you - and I certainly agree that if what you do affects no other person it isn't likely to be extremely moral or immoral.

It's an interesting question whether things one does to oneself and that affect no-one else are ever moral or immoral. I think that if you were the last man alive then it wouldn't matter. But is that because moral and immoral are terms than only have meaning when it comes to judging actions in general? If we use the terms good and bad would it still be true that the last man alive couldn't do good or bad?

Since good and bad are the general adjectives of commendation and condemnation all that one requires for them to have meaning is the ability to choose beteween one course of action and another. Even if you were the last man alive you could do that.

Love,
Anthony
Re: Morality: right and wrong.  [message #61753 is a reply to message #61750] Fri, 02 April 2010 12:35 Go to previous message
saben is currently offline  saben

On fire!

Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537



To me morality is about freedom.

Every great moral wrong I can think of is able to be framed in terms of how it infringes on someone's autonomy.

Freedom to make decisions is what it means to be sentient and human. Morality, at its core, should discuss the nature of the human condition and how humans should relate to each other.

It is not really separate from politics, as politics seeks to enshrine moral codes into law. The law is there to uphold morality. There is a case that the law is less extensive than morality- morality should cover wrongs the law does not. But I do not think the law should ever legislate against something moral. Legal prohibitions should exclusively be a subset of immoral behaviour.



Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
Previous Topic: Shame and clothing
Next Topic: "Being homosexual is wrong!" What do you tell the speaker?
Goto Forum: