I'm at another moral crossroads...

[Tear Fan]

At the foundation of this thread is the question: "Is what I am doing morally right or wrong?" Today we all rely on the laws to determine right and wrong, when we should be able to look inside ourselves and make that determination. None of us is perfect by any standard, but we all have to look in the mirror. I try to use the internal compass to make these kinds of decisions. We are all born with a sense of right and wrong, and let laws be an excuse to override that sense. Whassup wi'dat?

Marvin

[Joseph]

Right you are, Marvin!
I wish I knew the source for the following quote, but it's one of my favorites:
A Gentleman does not confuse the Moral with the Legal. To him, Laws are not standards of behavior-they are a Last Resort. Laws are emergency measures to be invoked only when Morality and Civility have failed.

Joseph

[Ira]

A Gentleman does not confuse the Moral with the Legal. To him, Laws are not standards of behavior-they are a Last Resort. Laws are emergency measures to be invoked only when Morality and Civility have failed.[/b][/color][/size]

The thing is, this brings you down a dangerous path. While half the time this makes sense, it also leads people to kill abortion doctors.

Not everyone's morality uses the same yardstick. Not the LEVEL of morality, but what the INDIVIDUAL considers moral. In other words, who the heck is anyone to impose their morality on anyone, unless someone is breaking the law andhurting someone?

So although I may have mistitled the thread here by using the term "moral crossroads," I think this issue IS a 100% legal one. That morality really DOESN'T have anything to do with this, as long as it's legal and it's not hurting anyone.

Gee, even when I don't mean to be, I evoke fascinating discourse. I feel like I'm back in college philosophy.

I aced the courses, but only because there was a hot chick in there that I wanted to impress.

Didn't work at all.

[madjack]

and are are the copies of software on your PC legitimate licensed copies?

Mark

...they are on my PC...early on in my 'puter adventure which started about 5 years ago, I was on Kazaa, DL,ing everything I could find...programs, music and such...I found problems with cracked programs...first, you couldn't upgrade most of them, second, they didn't always work right and couldn't be easily reloaded, third, my consicence(even when told to shut up) bothered me....virtually everything I was using that was cracked has been dumped and legitimate or freeware versions substituted...there are freeware version of programs that will do virtually anything that paid commercial versions will do and often times, doit better....

I agree with Ira about the law versus morality thing...you only have look to the middle east to see my reasons for that...laws are what allow men of different moralities live together in harmony
madjack

[Joseph]

The thing is, this brings you down a dangerous path. While half the time this makes sense, it also leads people to kill abortion doctors.

By the same reasoning, it also leads people to kill their unborn children. Neither of which, by any reasonable yardstick, is moral behavior, even though the latter may be legal. And I fully grant that there are situations where abortion is the necessary lesser of two evils. But it is an evil, nonetheless.

Not everyone's morality uses the same yardstick. Not the LEVEL of morality, but what the INDIVIDUAL considers moral. In other words, who the heck is anyone to impose their morality on anyone, unless someone is breaking the law and hurting someone?

So who were we to impose our moral yardstick on Hitler? He was a duly elected official and what he and his minions did to six million Jews was perfectly legal under German law.

Joseph

[madjack]

Joseph, it becomes a slippery slope, apples versus oranges kinda thing...Hitler, Stalin. Pol Pot and others show what happens when inherently immoral men (by common standards) gain control of the law making apparatus...these are basic examples of dictatorships where absolute power corrupts absolutely and shoud not be used for examples, except to point out differences between them and when men of mostly moral character gather together in groups to write laws(of which we have too many)....there are SOOOO many sides and nuances to this argument/debate that rather than this forum, a campfire and a bottle would be a better place to debate them....
madjack

[Ira]

(I'll never learn the quote the quote the quote thing.)

Believe me, when I was typing the killing of the abortion doctor analogy, I of course thought about the abortions themselves--which I DON'T consider immoral and which are still legal.

Which kind of still proves my point, doesn't it?

That if a 16-year-old girl gets pregnant, finds out immediately and decides to abort something the size of a fingernail and has no emotional problem with it, and it's legal, what did she do "wrong?" Except in the eyes of some others.

As far as Hitler goes, I would certainly think that not killing innocent people for no reason is a moral yardstick that the vast majority of sentient beings holds true. And actually, and I doubt that I'm mistaken here, but capital punishment in Nazi Germany for anyone, not just Jews, had to be associated with SOME kind of crime, whether real or drummed up. You won't see that indiscriminate "capital punishment/murder" was written into or allowed under German law--because therein lies the evidence that no one wanted to leave behind. As far as the Jews going to the camps goes, at first, those were sanctioned under Germany's Racial Purity laws, I believe.

A direction in which some very civilized countries today, although not to that extreme but through law, are also moving towards.

Nazi Germany is such a tough example to bring up, because of the scope of it.

[Joseph]

Joseph, it becomes a slippery slope, apples versus oranges kinda thing...Hitler, Stalin. Pol Pot and others show what happens when inherently immoral men (by common standards) gain control of the law making apparatus...

Exactly! But it's not apples and oranges because you yourself cite "common standards." Those are the ones to which I refer, and the existance of which it appears (to me at least) that Ira is denying in favor of moral relativism.

these are basic examples of dictatorships where absolute power corrupts absolutely and shoud not be used for examples, except to point out differences between them and when men of mostly moral character gather together in groups to write laws(of which we have too many)....

Which brings me to another of my favorite quotes, this one I can at least attribute to Robert Heinlein":
"Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire."

there are SOOOO many sides and nuances to this argument/debate that rather than this forum, a campfire and a bottle would be a better place to debate them....

I agree, but lacking the latter, the former will do unless you decide to shut it down. I do hope you've noticed that despite our differences, Ira & I "play nice." Appropos of that, I'll add one more Heinlein quote: "I never learned anything from a man who agreed with me."

Joseph

[Ira]

I never thought I'd hear a guy in a pirate suit use the term "moral relativism."

And I agree that we DO both try to play nice, and that we're getting better at it.

Well, I myself HAD to. Just review that gun control thread!!!

I also get bad after lunch and a few beers.

[Joseph]

(I'll never learn the quote the quote the quote thing.)

Believe me, when I was typing the killing of the abortion doctor analogy, I of course thought about the abortions themselves--which I DON'T consider immoral and which are still legal.
Which kind of still proves my point, doesn't it?

Not at all. If we’re going by societal standards, moral relativism is not a “reasonable yardstick.” And abortion on demand would never have been the law of the land if “the people” had a say in the matter.

That if a 16-year-old girl gets pregnant, finds out immediately and decides to abort something the size of a fingernail and has no emotional problem with it, and it's legal, what did she do "wrong?" Except in the eyes of some others.

Did I not say there were times when it was a necessary evil? Never mind the evil that had a child engaging in sex to begin with…

As far as Hitler goes, I would certainly think that not killing innocent people for no reason is a moral yardstick that the vast majority of sentient beings holds true.

Well guess what? So is pulling a seven-month unborn child from the womb but for the head, sticking scissors in its skull and sucking its brains out. My daughter (now 31) was born at seven months, BTW...

And actually, and I doubt that I'm mistaken here, but capital punishment in Nazi Germany for anyone, not just Jews, had to be associated with SOME kind of crime, whether real or drummed up. You won't see that indiscriminate "capital punishment/murder" was written into or allowed under German law--because therein lies the evidence that no one wanted to leave behind. As far as the Jews going to the camps goes, at first, those were sanctioned under Germany's Racial Purity laws, I believe.

Yes. All nice and legal.

A direction in which some very civilized countries today, although not to that extreme but through law, are also moving towards.

Excuse me? I believe most civilized countries are moving away from capital punishment altogether.

Nazi Germany is such a tough example to bring up, because of the scope of it.

Why is it such a tough example? Along with the Lenin’s Soviet Russia it’s a perfect example of what happens when government gets too much power and lacks a moral compass.

I never thought I'd hear a guy in a pirate suit use the term "moral relativism."

Maybe I’ll start another thread on pirates. You do know they were the first true democracies the world had seen?

And I agree that we DO both try to play nice, and that we're getting better at it.
Well, I myself HAD to. Just review that gun control thread!!!

IIRC, the ball is still in your court on that one…

I also get bad after lunch and a few beers.

No fair!! I gots no rum!!

Joseph

[madjack]

Joseph, you, Ira and TomS have become Shining Examples of how to have a civil discussion about a difficult subject...good onya.....
madjack

p.s. I bet none of you ever thought to be held up as shining examples.......MJ

[Ira]

I bet none of you ever thought to be held up as shining examples

I know I didn't--but Joseph started to act like a doody head in the post above.

MOMMY!!!

There's only one point I'll address from above because I have other things to do to screw off from work. (I swear--I don't only screw off on this site. There's also eBay.)

About civilized countries moving in certain directions, I wasn't referring to capital punishment. I was talking about immigration laws, where certain countries, not necessarily the U.S. either, want to keep themselves racially pure. And there are a bunch of them.

[Joseph]

I know I didn't--but Joseph started to act like a doody head in the post above.
MOMMY!!!

Ira's picking on meeee!

There's only one point I'll address from above because I have other things to do to screw off from work. (I swear--I don't only screw off on this site. There's also eBay

OH good! I have a major inspection to conduct next week and I'm trying to get the last few scraps of my $#!+ into one sock...

About civilized countries moving in certain directions, I wasn't referring to capital punishment. I was talking about immigration laws, where certain countries, not necessarily the U.S. either, want to keep themselves racially pure. And there are a bunch of them.

Ah. Yes, I obviously missed your point on that one - now I get it, and agree.

Joseph

[Ira]

Crap, we have to end this on agreement.

That's no fun!

[Joseph]

Crap, we have to end this on agreement.
That's no fun!

YES IT IS!!

There. Happy?

Joseph