Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
The problem in this thread started with one word, 'morals'.
Its somewhat amusing to see just how easily people get offended if they even think what they do is being questioned. I'm guessing its in part due to insecurity over what they do.
Mention morals and you see moral outrage by those who think you are going to take their porn, take their cigarettes, take their out of the norm sex practices away, or whatever they feel is under attack or on shaky ground.
There is some justification to this fear. In the past, porn was mostly illegal, it wasn't illegal to own it but illegal to ship it, based on the professed morals of the day. My guess in some states its still illegal on paper for a man to stick his penis in another mans anus. Many cities are passing smoking bans in public places, my own is trying to do so this November, and odds are it will pass.
The problem here is that such judgements or miss judgements need not be the focus of reply to the original post. People are so afraid of their personal fetish or bad habit is going to be attacked that they strike out, crudely and without much fore thought, ironically passing moral judgements. It reminds me of the 'intolerant of intolerance' threads of a while back.
One needs to just look around them to see the original post is correct and not in a bad way. Look at wheelchair ramps, handicapped toilets, affirmative action, progressive taxes, social security, indecency laws, etc. All were moral decisions by part of society, imposed on others. If you don't think handicapped toilets are an imposition you never had to pay for one and use up extra space for one that will never be used by a handicapped person, I did.
Is it wrong to support a smoking ban? Is is less wrong to support affirmative action? Both are moral decisions, both have people who are negatively affected by it, both have people who are benefited by it, so how do you choose which is the correct thing to do unless you rely on your morals of what is right and wrong?
|
I find most of those examples to be more of 'fairness' than morality. In my mind, they are different entities, although not always mutually exclusive.
Putting in access for the handicapped portion of society is fair. It really doesn't hit on morals. However, banning porn is a morality issue. It's only really fair to do so in the case of child pornography.
Affirmative action falls under both fairness and morals, or at least righting the immorality and unfairness done so long ago.
What's perceived as wrong to you might be perfectly ok to me and vice versa-our senses of fairness and morals will never be equal. In making laws, a middle line has to be met, they can't be made simply because the action is unpleasant to some. Fairness balanced against morality. We accuse politicians and others of being immoral when they pass or even suggest laws that we deem unfair. But if we get past the personal affect of such a law and drop the morality quotient, we're able more to see the fairness of it.
I don't think a subject such as smoking falls into morality so much, but others do and hence, attack the character of the person lighting up. There are total immoral, unlawful cads lighting up as much as there are upstanding, churchgoing community leaders. They're being unfair to themselves and to others around if they're being rude about it, but it's not a moral issue unless you're a Mormon. And in that sense, caffeine is immoral as well.