"Try telling that to a judge after you're charged with murder."

The court does not decide whether or not murder is immoral, the court only decides whether or not your guilty of murder.

Quote:BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:


Quote:
The moral side of the road is that which the government decides that it is, whether left or right.
So, if a government passes allowing the sexual assault of children, child rape become a moral act?

Boru
No.

How do you reconcile the two?

Boru

(May 8, 2016 at 3:09 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: "Try telling that to a judge after you're charged with murder."

The court does not decide whether or not murder is immoral, the court only decides whether or not your guilty of murder.

And then it throws you in jail for it if you are. Society condemns murder, herein lies the enforced morality.

(May 8, 2016 at 3:45 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

Quote:BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:


Quote:
The moral side of the road is that which the government decides that it is, whether left or right.
So, if a government passes allowing the sexual assault of children, child rape become a moral act?

Boru
No.

How do you reconcile the two?

Boru

Why couldn't I?

(May 8, 2016 at 3:49 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(May 8, 2016 at 3:09 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: "Try telling that to a judge after you're charged with murder."

The court does not decide whether or not murder is immoral, the court only decides whether or not your guilty of murder.

And then it throws you in jail for it if you are. Society condemns murder, herein lies the enforced morality.

But isn't it perfectly plausible that one can go to jail for a moral act?

Boru

(May 8, 2016 at 3:50 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(May 8, 2016 at 3:45 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: How do you reconcile the two?

Boru

Why couldn't I?

I didn't say you couldn't, I'm asking how you do so.

Boru

(May 8, 2016 at 3:51 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(May 8, 2016 at 3:49 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: And then it throws you in jail for it if you are. Society condemns murder, herein lies the enforced morality.

But isn't it perfectly plausible that one can go to jail for a moral act?

Boru

I never said it's perfect.

(May 8, 2016 at 3:51 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(May 8, 2016 at 3:50 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: Why couldn't I?

I didn't say you couldn't, I'm asking how you do so.

Boru

I see no problem reconciling the two, you're the one questioning it, so maybe you should come up with a reason why I couldn't.

(May 8, 2016 at 6:40 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: There are some actions that are almost universally regarded as moral or immoral.  For instance, giving to charity is generally regarded as moral, while stealing is generally regarded as immoral.  Two examples:

1.  John has donated $1000 to Oxfam.  He simply donated the money, and didn't talk about it.  James, through whatever means, found out and donated $2000 to Oxfam, and immediately went round crowing about how he donated twice as much as John, that cheap fuck.  Further, James' motivation for his giving was solely to get one up on John, who he never liked.  Does John's motivation (helping hungry people) make his action more moral than James' motivation (making himself look better than John)?  Remember that in both cases, the end result is the same - people are helped.

2.  Susan sees a money clip lying on the floor of a restaurant.  No one is about, so she scoops it up and uses the money to buy the shoes she's had her eye on but just couldn't afford.  Brenda finds a wallet on a park bench and takes $50 from it to buy the medicine her 6 years old son needs, but which she can't afford.  Does Brenda's motivation (helping her sick child) make her action more moral than Susan's motivation (really cute shoes)?  Remember, in both cases theft has occurred and innocent parties are out money due to the actions of both women.

Boru

I think these two scenarios just highlight a difference between good moral character and good moral actions.  I think EP was saying a similar thing.  James's moral action was good but his moral character was boastful and spiteful, character traits that are usually considered immoral.

(May 8, 2016 at 12:06 pm)Mermaid Wrote:

(May 8, 2016 at 11:51 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: What moral wrong? How was one act selfless, and an act of survival? You would also only donate to publicly compete with some other person who donated?

How is it a good thought exercise?

Maybe I should've just replied with a big question mark.

I am talking about the found money scenario, but the donation scenario is an equally interesting thought. It makes me think about the motivations behind my own charitable acts. 

In that case that wasn't an act of survival, but one of parenting. I would classify selflessness as an instance where you help more distant people, preferably strangers, I wouldn't it call it selfless exactly to help your kid.

Quote:Did I think it was the right thing to do, or was I motivated by appearing moral and good by other people?

That's the same thing.

Quote: Have I made charitable donations because I am selfless, or because it makes me look better to others? Or is it done to feel better about myself? Is that a selfish act itself? 

You're not "selfless", nobody is. You did it to look better to others and also to feel better about yourself - we tend to think of ourselves in the third person as well. It was naturally selfish, you've got nothing to worry about.

Quote:The selfless act committed with the found money was not a material purchase for self gratification. But it was motivated by that just the same, the health of a child, or at least one could argue that it was.

Are you saying it wasn't so selfless after all to take care of that child, because I completely agree if so.


Look, none of this means we're twisted and life doesn't have any meaning. It's all the same, and we're the same, and it's still more morally sound to treat your sick child than to buy new shoes. We're just a little confused about language and social status, that's all.