My OperaWhat is Morality?
Monday, March 6, 2006 4:44:40 AM
One simple test as to the morality of an act is this question:
What would the results be to society if everyone who could do it in fact did it quite frequently?
It is clear that the act of helping each other would provide a society with many benefits and many people would be happier and this can be judged a good outcome. So, the act is morally correct.
It is clear that the act of freely fucking each other, whether for pay or not, would provide a society with many unwanted children, sexually transmitted diseases, jealousies and rivalries between participants, and many people would be sick and unhappy and this can be judged a bad outcome. So, the act is morally incorrect.
Whether something is legal or not is just up to a legislative body, and has nothing to do with morality. It is not possible to legislate morality. Every attempt has of course failed.
I am not sure about this but I suspect that the more selfish a person is, the more immoral he will behave. Morals deal with ideas that promote the welfare of the society as a whole.
Some people don't believe in any God or gods. They don't believe in a heaven nor hell. Still, I think they would agree that a world filed with tens of millions of sick people, millions of orphans, and incredible pain and suffering, is very hell-like. That world - our world - is the result of the spread of HIV through one-at-a-time sexual activities that must very often fit into the class 'immoral.'
Looking only at one poor girl's attempt to survive by taking up the world's oldest profession takes us away from the whole point of morality: How do you make a happier and more successful society?
What would the results be to society if everyone who could do it in fact did it quite frequently?
It is clear that the act of helping each other would provide a society with many benefits and many people would be happier and this can be judged a good outcome. So, the act is morally correct.
It is clear that the act of freely fucking each other, whether for pay or not, would provide a society with many unwanted children, sexually transmitted diseases, jealousies and rivalries between participants, and many people would be sick and unhappy and this can be judged a bad outcome. So, the act is morally incorrect.
Whether something is legal or not is just up to a legislative body, and has nothing to do with morality. It is not possible to legislate morality. Every attempt has of course failed.
I am not sure about this but I suspect that the more selfish a person is, the more immoral he will behave. Morals deal with ideas that promote the welfare of the society as a whole.
Some people don't believe in any God or gods. They don't believe in a heaven nor hell. Still, I think they would agree that a world filed with tens of millions of sick people, millions of orphans, and incredible pain and suffering, is very hell-like. That world - our world - is the result of the spread of HIV through one-at-a-time sexual activities that must very often fit into the class 'immoral.'
Looking only at one poor girl's attempt to survive by taking up the world's oldest profession takes us away from the whole point of morality: How do you make a happier and more successful society?
You must be 
MarcusFXM256 # Monday, March 6, 2006 8:27:31 AM
This is quite a study on morality. Many kids in American schools are now being taught that morality is "relative." If it feels good to you, then it is not bad or immoral. Can you believe that? If that's the case, then how about I go about robbing people on the streets? Hey, it feels good to me, right? Forget about how the victims might feel (honestly, I would never do such a thing, but I was just using that as an example of moral relativism). Imagine if everybody in the world believed that. The result would be worldwide anarchy, I believe.
Thanks for this study on morals and for your comments in my blog. I always enjoy hearing your thoughts and ideas.
Sincerely,
Marcus
Allanricewood # Monday, March 6, 2006 4:03:12 PM
I think that there are moral values applying to every society - as an example, stealing from your neighbour is amoral. I cannot think of any society where stealing wouldn´t be harming the society. Most moral values, however, seem to change in time and space.
Let´s talk about the one-child-policy in China. In Denmark where I live it would be very immoral if the government would force legislation like that on us. But in China it seems to be considered good - because the country is and has been in an entirely different situation than most other countries.
Or what about homosexual people being married in the City Hall, as it is done in Denmark? Is that good moral. In Denmark it is, most people would say, because we value individual freedom and fail to see the damaging effects on society.
Thank you for an interesting subject.
Jonchinajon # Tuesday, March 7, 2006 1:54:45 AM
I don't think this is either moral or immoral. It is a legal act with no balance scale being brought into play, so it is not a 'just' nor 'unjust' act. It is simply a legal act in a particular society.
Applying the question from above to it: What would happen if every magistrate followed the laws of his society in granting a marriage to people who could legally be married?
It is obvious that this would be a benefit to society and the behavior would be considered moral.
Applying the question to the parties: What would happen if every person followed the laws of his society in obtaining a marriage to another person when both could legally be married?
It is obvious that this would be a benefit to society and the behavior would be considered moral.