Subnostr

Thanks for your input. I do disagree with your statement that everyone has their own “moral” standards though. So is there no objective morality?

boston wine 2y ago

I wouldn’t say that there’s no objective morality. (In fact, I personally believe that there is a right and wrong in most situations, but this isn’t a debate on meta-ethics 😉)

I do believe that most peoples’ moral compass, while usually aligned, aren’t always in sync. More importantly, I don’t think that morality, with the unfathomable situation-dependent complexity of moral actions, should be the sole basis of lawmaking, because laws are effectively one-size-fits-all, and morality is far more nuanced, often beyond the capability of a bureaucratic system to handle.

So while I may hold myself (or others) to a high standard of moral expectation, I believe our legal system should allow people to behave in ways that are considered by some to be immoral. (Again, very situationally dependent, so this would be “permissible” in many ways and “wrong” in many others).

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Contra 2y ago

Thank you for the input🤝. I do believe this is a morality issue though in this situation. I’d there is a right in wrong for most situations, where does it come from? By what standard?

Paul Jones AIR 2y ago

The point about morals is that we disagree on them.

And you saying "my morals are superior" cuts no ice. You follow yours, with it's really bonkers and restrictive view of sexuality, and I'll follow mine.

Human sexuality is wide and varied. You stick to the type your morals accept, but DO NOT claim that other people who simply have a different framework shouldn't follow theirs.

Vegans tend to think eating animals is immoral. Catholics have strong views on abortion (based mainly on misreading the Bible). Europeans have issues with eating dogs. But horses are OK, and smart pigs are delicious.

Society and it's laws tend to reflect the "broadly agreed morals" of that societies elite, and sometimes they are fine, and sometimes they are Nazis.

Prostitution is a fact of life. If it's a moral issue for you, don't visit one. End of.

Contra 2y ago

So what about anything that happens. Molecules colliding into more molecules.

Contra 2y ago

I think what you stated is defined as Moral nihilism. Does that follow suit with what you believe?

boston wine 2y ago

That’s the meta-ethics. Not “is action A right or wrong”, but “what is the source of moral code and how do we know”?

Answers include religion, utilitarianism, intuition, local/cultural/social agreement… but that’s why it’s tough to argue that moral truths should always be equivalent to legal regulations.

In the specific example, it comes down to whether you think the moral question of sex work is “significant” enough to warrant legal restrictions.

(I’d hold that any form of abuse is both wrong and should be illegal, but voluntary activity that doesn’t harm another should be legal, regardless of whether it can be defined as morally wrong - or not!)

In a simple world, those significant things include the big ones: murder, theft, blatant fraud, etc., but perhaps not the controversial topics like personal drug use or sex work.

Contra 2y ago

Moral nihilism

boston wine 2y ago

Moral nihilism, moral relativism, moral absolutism - these are all metaethical schools of thought.

Personally I land between relativism and absolutism: there is always a right or wrong choice but the action’s moral evaluation is deeply embedded in the relative situation. Some actions are “always” wrong but much more often it depends on the context, so the same action may be right in one scenario and wrong in another. But it still carries moral weight.

I separate my moral views from my opinions on law, to some degree. I am certainly not a moral nihilist; I just think there are circumstances where someone should be legally free to make a “morally wrong” decision. If morality and societal law were identical, there would be insufficient freedom to choose the “right” path and thereby develop your soul/spiritual self/personal growth.

If law and morality are identical, then all moral choices are coerced and therefor not a freely-chosen good action.

Contra 2y ago

I see. Gotcha.

Contra 2y ago

So to each’s own? If it’s always changing, then nothing is for certain. All laws and morals are based on the cultures norms?

boston wine 2y ago

So I wouldn’t say that, either. Thanks for helping me articulate this one clearly.

It’s more along the lines of this example:

1. It’s typically wrong to punch someone in the face.

2. It’s right to physical defend someone you love if they’re in danger.

3. Sometimes, I’m certain scenarios, it’s right to punch someone in the face, but otherwise it’s probably wrong.

Or this:

1. It’s wrong to arbitrarily murder a living thing

2. If your continued existence requires food, and you need to eat something that is alive, it is natural to take that creature’s life to preserve your own

3. Killing animals for fun is wrong, but for sustenance is okay.

(Note, I am not actually making an argument for veganism-unless-starving. Just using an example argument to try and explain my stance on morality in general).

Essentially, I believe a person’s choices *do* carry moral significance. It’s just that the significance is dependent on the situation itself, and upon the person’s condition when making the choice. Not always. But enough that legal “blankets” based on a moral code would fail to accurately represent the nuances of life.

Contra 2y ago

Gotcha. So in those examples…who cares? Why is it wrong?

boston wine 2y ago

The point is that it may or may not be wrong, but that in certain situations a potentially “immoral” action shouldn’t be illegal

Partly because it’s hard for society to agree on what’s right and wrong (even though some things are definitively right or wrong). And partly because law will not always handle these questions in a fair/just way.

Contra 2y ago

I appreciate the conversation

boston wine 2y ago

Me too!