On moral imposition and being a good person
 

As one can see from the smoking thread, pretty much everybody is up in arms about my decision to impose my moral views on other people. Essentially, I think it makes you less of a person (a worse person, as I phrased it earlier) to smoke cigarettes for two reasons:

1. Smoking cigarettes needlessly harms the smoker.
2. Smoking cigarettes needlessly harms people near the smoker.

It is my sincere moral belief that needless harm (as defined on a case-by-case basis by me) to human beings is immoral. Obviously, some people disagree either with my principle or would dispute the fact that cigarette smoke actually causes needless harm.

I created this thread to address a slightly different argument, however. In the smoking thread, Cynthetiq is harshly critical of my using a particular action or characteristic of an individual to rate them based on my own conception of right and wrong. I cannot say it strongly enough: it is absolutely essential that humans in general are willing to impose their moral values on other people. We'll start with the obvious examples and then work from there:

Acts that harm innocent people must be criminalized simply for stability's sake. So, we criminalize murder, rape, battery, etc. If you so choose, you can essentially leave morality out of the equation here, except insofar as you are imposing on others your moral belief in the superiority of stable society over its alternatives.

Next, you have the category of negative freedoms. The government is prohibited from arresting people without charging them with crimes, abridging the freedom of speech, employing cruel and unusual punishments, etc. Someone made decisions in each of those cases that we as citizens have a right to be free of those unwanted governmental practices, that it would be better to live without them. Again, there is a degree of self-interest involved in this calculation, so it is possible to argue that this is not a purely moral judgment. The question remains, however, as to how one decides which negative freedoms to preserve and why. The answer to that question will eventually lead to one's personal moral principles (right to privacy, e.g.).

Moving on, we reach mandatory taxation, the pooling of collective resources for governmental use. It is preferable, we seem to believe, to tax people and use their money collectively than it is to allow those people to spend their money as they see fit. That is, we hold that the projects undertaken with taxpayer funds are morally superior to the individual projects that would be undertaken by people who spend their money individually. (Yes, you can say that the only principle in operation is the maximization of societal utility, but that in itself is a moral principle.)

Most obviously, we have laws that regulate individual behavior. One cannot provide alcohol to minors, bring a firearm into a school zone, drive faster than the posted speed limit, etc. This category of laws consists of moral judgments on the relative value of, for example, minors having the freedom of having alcohol given to them and protecting minors from the ill effects of having alcohol given to them. Society has come to conclusions on such matters. Even though those conclusions are not always correct, it is extremely important that society remains willing to impose morally-derived preferences on itself.

Returning to the issue of smoking, there are legitimate moral reasons why one might think it is desirable to ban smoking in places of employment or in high traffic areas. There may even be legitimate reasons for banning tobacco use alltogether.

That, however, is not what I am advocating. I was merely passing judgment on the moral wrongness of a private action, albiet an action I do not believe the government should completely ban through legal means. When you condemn an abortion doctor, a homophobe, a rapist, a child molestor, a NASCAR fan, a Muslim, a deadbeat parent, a crack addict, or anyone else, you are making a moral judgment about that person. It is vitally important that we continue to make these sorts of judgments because this is the method through which society shapes its prohibitions, expectations, and priorities.

So.. what if you're morals are harmful to people? I mean you could think that any black man is a bad person just because he's black. You made a moral judgement "on a case-by-case basis". That doesn't mean it's correct.

Morality is a tricky thing, becuase not all morals are universal. Part of living with other people is the ability to pick and choose what morals to share. I am friends with a lot of people who support abortion, espically considering how liberal I am. I am able to simply look past this and allow their other morals and traits to make up for what I personally consider an immoral belief. Other morals I will make a stand for, though. I had a friend in HS who was a slave to the wangster lifestyle. He thought himself to be a thug, and acted accordingly. He treated women with a great deal of disrespect, and quite often was needlessly confrontational. It was always something that bothered me until one day when it came to a head and he attacked another friend of mine without provocation. I am unwilling to compromise my moral belief that attacking someone without provocation is wrong. That moral expands to situations like Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, and soon Iran.

Moral judgment of others is also tricky. Yes, I can say that man who raped a child is wrong...but only because I have not done something equally immoral. I do commit immoral acts every once in a while. I have a really beautiful wife, but every once in a while I do sneak a peak at another woman. Is that wrong? I think so. What that means is that if I were to catch my wife checking out another man and were to call her on it, I would be hypocritical. That is why we often seeing people trying to take the moral high ground in an argument. It makes them more justifiable in passing judgment.

Aside from morality, there is legality, or universal rules based on morals that one must follow in order to live in a given society. While there is a connection betwen law and morality in that laws are based on morality, laws are enforcable by the state. There isn't the same wiggleroom and freedom with the law that you see in morality. Because of this, it's necessary to seperate the two in your mind.

To each their own. I can not force my beliefs on someone nor do I wish to. Thankfully my friends and I are very understanding of eachother and our individual quirks and wishes are honored in turn. Its called friendship.

Your principle has nothing to do with harm, it's self-imposed moralistic righteousness. I doubt you are that altruistic, simply by your insistence that you are a better person than me because of one fault.
No, it is NOT essential. Moral values are subjective. Do you engage in premarital sex? Do you masturbate at all? Gay? Ever buy a porn magazine? Good, we may now put you up for scrutiny. Ever hear the quote, let he who is without sin cast the first stone? Sin, morals, whatever you want to call it, are only essential to the one that lives with them, not the observers.
Of course we criminalize murder and rape, et al; they're acts of purposeful violence against another human being. And if I go up to you and blow smoke in your face on purpose, you have the right to charge me with assault. A stable society is one without violence. But it is also one without forceful limitations.
Not necessarily. White supremists come to mind. They're more than willing to use the constitutional freedoms for themselves but no one else. Not much in the way of what most would consider 'moral principles'; more like falsely based ideology.
Taxation has NOTHING to do with moral principles. There's nothing moral about it, it's a method of spreading the costs of running a government in a (supposedly) fair distribution of income and expenditure, nothing more. If morals were attached to taxes, there'd be no poor or homeless and the most wealthy would not be so wealthy.
And, unless you own a black robe and sit behind a very high desk, you do not have the right to pass judgment on another based solely on a singular action and when that person is otherwise an unknown.
In the nicest way possible, I will ask: who the hell do YOU think you are that you can sit there and point fingers?
In that line of thinking, fundamentalist christian righters would be making all sorts of strides in lawmaking. It is NOT vitally important to make judgments. It IS vitally important that you do what you can to not infringe on others' rights. Apparently, you feel differently.

Teehee, ng is pissed.

Damned skippy.
It's absolutely abhorant to me when anyone tries to impose their moralistic self-righteousness on others. NO ONE is without fault, no one.
And to do it to people you have absolutely NO connections with is reprehensible.
If you're in a position to say to another, 'please don't do that near me, it bothers me',that's fine. To sit in judgment with the thought that you have not only every right to judge an unknown person by their faults or habits, but to vocalize it haphazardly with some sort of phony moral stance, well, that is just beyond rude.
I'm not running for office. I'm not even running for friendship. Until I am, STFU.

all I know is I try to be the best person I can be....there is only one entity that has the right to judge me and thats God.

Jesus said "But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,"

"Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also. Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise."

(as well as what ngdawg said about casting the first stone)

Think what you want about me, in the end its not my loss if what you think causes you to not associate with me, thats between you and your higher power. Jesus sought out the sinners, he did not sit on a mountain acting better than everybody else....THATS the kind of company I want to keep

So what do you do with those of us with the sincere and fervent moral belief that self-righteousness and being judgemental is inherantly immoral?

Would you mind quoting where I said I was a better person than you? I'm afraid you're attributing viewpoints to me that I have never endorsed.

The natural result of your statements above, it would seem, is that imperfect people are not able to judge the goodness or badness of the actions of others. Why would this be so?

If you know smoking is harmful to yourself and to those around you, how are you not purposefully harming human beings?

I take it you're not a socialist?

Who am I? I'm a person who understands the difference between right and wrong and isn't afraid to let it be known. So are you, incidentally.

I have colored the places in your post where you are imposing your moral principles on me. You say, among other things, that taxation would be fairer if it were more progressive, that sinners cannot accuse others of sin, that purposeful acts of violence against human beings is wrong, that there is such a thing as fair distribution of income, and that it is vitally important that I not infringe on the rights of others.

The difference between us, then, is that, although we both confidently impose our different moral beliefs on others, I do so consciously and you do not. That, and you're getting quite upset about my audacious viewpoint. Need I color the unnecessary ad hominem comments as well?

I suppose I would indicate the inherently contradictory nature of that position and use the lesson to show you that even someone who believes they abhor moral judgments actually makes them with confidence.

wow, I get to quote myself...and you again.

I guess you're going to use the Tu Quoque method in defending your position and validating your own way of thinking. It seems pretty effective since that's how you've answered everyone since you've posted this.

It's quite simple for me. Live and let live. I don't need to wake up next to you, so your opinion on my lifestyle doesn't matter, the only person who does have that implication to me is my spouse.

*smack ratbastid for being a smartass* ;)

The problem here is absolutist thinking - that smoking in public is the moral equivalent of assault. It might be harmful to your health (so is eating fatty food) and harmful to other people's health (so is causing stress), or rude (so is not holding the door open). You can get all up in high dudgeon about it, but really the only thing you're doing is giving yourself an aneurism.

My advice? Chill. Choose your battles. There's a HUGE difference between occasionally being exposed to cigarette smoke in a public place (speaking as an asthmatic, it's annoying) and, say, working in a smoke-filled restaurant for 20 years, and, say, being hit over the head and mugged. There has to be some room for gray area, and the more tolerance for ambiguity you have, the easier you will find it not only to get along with others (and tolerate the conversations in your own head) but to actually effect social change. Nobody wants to listen to a self-righteous blowhard. Not that I'm calling you one, but you'd do well to learn where the line is and steer clear of it.

You know right and wrong in your own mind. But right and wrong to you, or the society you belong to could be compeletly different to someone else, or someone from another culture. While killing yourself by flying your airplane into a battleship might not be right in our society, it might be a the highest sign of respect in another community. We are all different. We all need to learn to respect each other.

I agree that smoking in public is not the greatest thing, we as people should have enough respect to ask someone who is bothering us doing something like smoking to respectfully ask them to stop what they are doing. They as a respectful person in our society I believe would be curteous in obliging.

Thanks for voicing your opinions, but coming out saying "This is Right, This is Wrong, there's the fucking line." While for yourself that works, it establishes discipline, and it works for certain people. You take that same line, and apply it to everyone, in reality it become quite blurred. If we all lived with the same right and wrong line our lives would be as bland as your standard Mormon. I'll stick with trying to understand others, rather than judging them.

As everyone has been saying, your judgement of right from wrong is not the definition of right and wrong. Morality is based on behavior and personal experience. As willravel said, "morality is tricky." Those moral issues which are shared by most have formed our ideas on what is right. Inhereted morality also has alot to do with it. To impose moral value on someone is out of the question. It is not for one person to decide what is moral and force everyone else to agree. Each and every one of us deserves their free will, and autonomy. Any imposition that squelches those values is wrong.

Edit: Happy birthday.

Yes I am.
And you are wrong.

What is this called, a Mexican standoff?

Then exactly who am I worse than? Ring a bell?I don't have to be perfect to know that what you're doing is wrong. You are a worse person because you smoke. Period.


They're not paid to do it. It's one thing to think that something is a negative for yourself, perhaps even for others(and we're talking personal issues, not legal ones). When you start sitting on a self-made throne tossing around moral judgments, then you cross a line. The only ones who should be the least bit concerned about any values you hold are your kids.
Tell me where I said I wasn't harming? Unlike yourself, I have a somewhat working memory and I can't recall saying I don't harm anyone else, including myself. I'm not that stupid, despite your preconceived judgments.


Libertarian. Problem?


I'm not imposing anything on you. I have no clue what you do and really couldn't care less. My 'moral principles' haven't even been discussed.
What you see as inherently contradictory, I have no idea. I've made no moral judgments on you or pointed out your immoralistic tendencies. It's not me you have to answer to, and I certainly don't have to answer to you by cowtowing to your demands.
What you are doing is pointing fingers and saying who is wrong or right. I have full knowledge of my actions. You're not the one who has to live with them unless I force you to do so.
If you're screwing around with hookers, that's your business as long as it's not in MY house. There's my moral judgment. Repeat after me: not in MY house. Since I'm not in yours, what I do is not for you to judge. Period. You can dislike something all you want; you can live with whatever values you want. When you push those on others and make the stance that you are better than they are simply because they aren't doing what you do, you're actually the 'worse' one.

Tu Quoque-che!!!!

Why do you hate Mexicans, Sultana?

I can't really get behind the majority of the op, but I will say I strongly agree that there isn't anything wrong with making judgements on issues\actions\whatever as long as you have reasons you think are good and you understand you could be wrong.

Is that good or bad?

I agree with this. The problem, as I see it, is that as far as morality is concerned, there are no absolute truths. Sure we can agree that harming other humans can be considered immoral but then, how do we deal with things like corporal or capital punishments.

Some can draw a clear line and say, anything that harms another human is immoral. Other's will say, hold on! That person did something to harm another human. I am not immoral in harming that person in return. I want "justice", Off with his head! ...and morality goes out the window. It goes without saying that supporting any war, to someone who believes harming another human being is immoral, is immoral.

Morality, or better yet, how we apply our morals on the world around us, is on a continuum. Judge not, lets ye be judges applies.

I wasn't going to put myself anywhere near this emotional clusterfuck of a thread, but I just have to say the following in response to what ratbastid said:

BA-ZING!

That is all.

I think I have explained my position to the best of my ability, so I'm more or less done here. If you don't understand why having a moral objection to individuals having moral objections is self-contradictory, I can't help you. This isn't about tu quoque fallacies because the point I am trying to prove is that people do (and should) make moral judgments about others. By pointing out that other people make moral judgments in the same way I do, I was attempting to directly advance that argument. The inapplicability of this term will become clear if you reread the acticle from which I quoted when I introduced it.

Although the group's general moral judgments towards me have been harsh, they have nonetheless reinforced my claim that everyone makes such judgments. In fact, the general concensus seems to be that moral judgments should be morally judged to be inappropriate. If nothing else, the entire situation has given me a new appreciation for irony.

Ignoring ndawg's continued, repeated attacks on my intelligence and character, I would like to clarify an earlier statement that has recently been misconstrued: When I said "I don't have to be perfect to know that what you're doing is wrong. You are a worse person because you smoke. Period." what I meant was "You are a worse person because you smoke than you would be if you did not. Period." I did NOT mean "You are a worse person than me because you smoke. Period."

You may resume your insults now.

Thank you, thank you. I get smacked by my own wife, but I know I can count on analog.

Seriously though, thinking in black and white is just wrong. WRONG! And people who do that have no value as a human being. NO VALUE! They're AWFUL PEOPLE!

(God forbid we lighten up a little around here...)

Politicalphile, again, I agree completely that it is important to take a stand on moral issues.

The question becomes where does anyone draw the line and impose their morality on others?

To live in an absolutist world is to live in a constant state of war with your neighbours. It just isn't practical.

How do you square the practicallity of everyday life in face of absolutism? Surely something has to give?

Can you clarify this for me?

That is not what you said.
I could say 'I am a better person' and just 'mean' it to say I'm a better person alive than dead...
Would you take it the first or second way?
If you think I've insulted you, you don't know me very well at all. When I insult, the target knows it.
No one has made 'moral' judgments about you...your paranoia is showing. What everyone HAS done is tell you not to do so to others. No one here knows your moralities, save your disgust for cigarette smoke. And no one here gives a rat's ass how you live, as long as you're not some whacked abuser.
Whatever 'point' you were trying to make fell back on yourself. It's pretty damned clear the majority of the posters have a 'live and let live' attitude and don't like being told it's wrong.
So, exactly where are these attacks on your intelligence and character? What's that phrase again? It's twice you pointed out something I said without actually showing what was said.....

I'd also like to say that attempting to establish a universal set of moral code is impossible, at its very root, due to simple societal differences throughout the world. Different societies have different ideas on morality AND the way that immorality is punished.

Additionally, moral code cannot be established without taking into account the morality requirements of one's religion, spirituality, etc.- and since the entire world is not of one religion, we again have an impossible factor.

In my opinion, the best we can do for a moral code is don't do intentional harm to others, try to help others if you can and want to, and try to be a good person in general.

Does smoking where others can inhale your smoke make it immoral because it can harm them? I think using the word "immoral" is a vapid, self-righteous hyperbole in this case. Does it make you a bad person? If you did it on purpose, with the specific intent of causing harm, then sure- but is this the case in the vast, overwhelming majority of smokers? Obviously no.

I think it's crass, at best, to call someone immoral for just smoking around others. The specific act of calling someone immoral is a conscious application of your morality on another person- and while this is a necessary act in a general sense, I think it's absurd to apply this severe type of judgmental language on another person for smoking.

Occasionally being near someone who is smoking, and getting a whiff of their cigarette, is not going to harm you. Second-hand smoke is harmful when you're in a room with smokers over time, when you live with a smoker, when you work with people who smoke in the same area, or when you go to places in which people smoke- like restaurants, bars, clubs, etc. Then, you're sitting there inhaling it for the length of your meal, or your time there drinking, or your time there doing whatever it is you're doing. You then repeat that every time you go there to eat, etc. That is why it is now banned in so many places. Occasionally getting a quick whiff of an errant exhaled puff from someone who happens to be near you (out in the open air) is not going to send you to an early grave from cancer. It's just not.

The anti-smoking policies in many states and countries of the world are progressively eliminating the second-hand threat by taking it away from public areas so that you're not exposed to it.

Yes, I can clarify this. Essentially, the way to compromise and live with one's neighbors without starting a crusade every time you have a moral disagreement is to agree to disagree on some issues. That is, although I personally believe smoking is immoral, I also believe that it is not my obligation to prevent my neighbor from smoking, so long as he doesn't do so on my property. The fact that I don't impose the consequences of my moral judgment on my neighbor saves us from fighting about it, but it in no way prevents me from making that moral judgment.

I would only be open about moral judgments with the person I was judging if I believed they would be receptive to discussing the issue with me, rather than getting into a nasty fight about it. That's the reason I felt comfortable about posting my moral views on smoking on TFP. Whether I was justified in feeling comfortable is another issue at this point.

So yes, like everyone else, I make moral judgments with great regularity. This does not mean, however, that I am unable to sit by and watch others suffer the consequences of their immoral actions. My goal is to engage others in dialogue about their contrasting moral conceptions, not to force everyone to comply with what I hold to be true. I'm in the business of argument, not coercion.

What we have seen from other TFPers, especially ngdawg, is a series of denials about my underlying premise, which is that everyone is constantly making moral judgments about other people. In her post denying that she made such moral judgments, I went through and highlighted the moral judgments in magenta. The highlighting was intended to prove my point that she was making such judgments, not to criticize the substance of those judgments (except where they were self-contradictory).

What is perhaps more interesting, ngdawg asserted the moral principle of the wrongness of harming other human beings, as well as the fact that cigarette smoke harms human beings. Thus, not only is it clear that both ngdawg and I make moral judgments, but we actually have come to the same conclusion on the morality of smoking: namely, that it is immoral because it harms other people. The insults, the belittling, the taunting, were all in vain, it seems.

EDIT_________________________________


"Your principle has nothing to do with harm, it's self-imposed moralistic righteousness...I doubt you are that altruistic...In the nicest way possible, I will ask: who the hell do YOU think you are that you can sit there and point fingers?...And to do it to people you have absolutely NO connections with is reprehensible...STFU...Unlike yourself, I have a somewhat working memory...your paranoia is showing."

That's all from you ngdawg. I'm self-righteous, not altruistic, reprehensible, forgetful, and paranoid. And here I was thinking I was presenting a personal opinion in an open forum for debate.

what in the fuck is going on here? is this thread really necessary? pardon my french, but WTF!!!

Well said.

I suggest a study on the adverse effects of 2nd-hand judgementalism.

Between your post and Charlatan's I can't say much more. Some of us will be more senstive to certain "sins" from individual experience, and some of those may become personal causes. Fine. There's much in this world that could use help. We need principles and things to keep us busy. But it's important we recognize what's helping us live and what's a boat anchor, for ourselves or those around us. We're human, so out with the absolutes. Find your happy place. And be happy, goddamnit. Ideally without going too far in forcing your idea of happiness on my sorry ass.

Politicophile, is this part of a larger exercise?

it looks like the primary problem with using this language is tactical, politicophile.

strangely enough, in reading through your posts what i get mostly is a kind of aesthetic attraction for this kind of language---the claims you make could easily be transposed into a more neutral kind of terminology, but would i suppose loose some of their emphatic character--it is almost like stripping out the moral terminology would leave you having to type the word "really" alot of times as in "i really really really really do not like smoking." (which is, of course, your prerogative).

reverse version of the same thing: i do not see how your use of this language functions except as an intensifier in this context.

the argument you outline in the op works from a generalization of the notion of harm, which you follow with a series of riffs that presuppose agreement on the premise (that you can generalize the category of harm as you do to include cigarette smoking, then move from harm to the notion of a social harm, then to the question of law, then to a series of examples of other laws in other domains that regulate social harm, etc.)

but the static generated by the language itself effectively prevents any such agreement from happening.
so the tactical problem apparently wins out.


an alternative might have been to pose the op more as a question about the place of the discourse of morality or ethics in this kind of debate.

i like to pretend to myself that i am good at this kind of defusing of potentially volatile debates, but i think roachboy's actions in politics show that to be a nice internal fantasy that i, the person who pulls roachboy's strings, prefers to have around. like a stuffed bear or a chia pet.

happy birthday, btw.

I do not believe in morality because I do not believe in final judgement. Morality is so muddled and mixed up - it varies too much between person to person. So much so that I'd venture to call anyone who speaks too much on morals to be quite vain. Vain in the preacher sense. Go on and tell me again all about myself.

In the stead of morality, I view things based on 2 values. Hurt and help. Ultimately in life, if you do enough of either, you earn immortality in the hearts of your fellows. All of that bullshit gluttony, lust, sloth and greed are nothing but character charms and are easily forgotten with time.

Jesus Fuckin' Christ...

Did your daddy not play catch with you? Mommy not tell you that she loved you as much as you'd have liked? Sister touch you in a wierd way in the bathtub at a young age?

You know politicophile, I'm pretty impressed with all the big words you've used. And just because you can use thoes word in the right place and at the right time doesn't mean people actually care about what you have to say. It's an odd thing. The people that want the most attention are rarely the ones that get it. In your case. You got all the attention you asked for. And I'm kind of angry about that. Cause I don't feel you should've gotten it. I'm happy that you've found a soap-box to stand on. Not everyone feels so strongly about things like you do. And in your case it appears that you care about something that has nothing to do with you. Wow. I'm not really sure what to say. You don't seem to have actually taken a side on the matter either. You're just kind of spouting off and not really saying anything. Stating facts that everyone already knows. "Smoking hurts people." No shit? How'd you figure that one out?

I smoked for almost ten years. Not a long time compared to most smokers. I quit about four months ago. Just up and stopped. No real reason. Shortly after I quit Colorado banned smoking in most public places. Did I care? Yes I did. It's not right to treat one section of society as animals and force them to stay outdoors. It's discrimination. Even if it has to do with smoking.

It's like telling all blondes with big tits that they have to stay outside 'cause one day I might get a blow job from one in the bathroom of a bus station which means I would be cheating on my girlfriend and she might kill me.

Does that make sense? Go outside and smoke cause a small amount of people that inhale second hand smoke might get cancer which might end up killing them.

And oddly enough... I'm more likely to get a hummer on a dirty toilet seat from a hooker than die of second hand smoke.

Worst. Moderation. Ever.

This thread should now be closed.

Why should it be closed? Cause I was a little harsh? If you wanna discuss hot button issues... you have to be prepared for negative energy.

Pearls before swine.

A well reasoned and coherent response to an interesting question if ever I read one. Thank you for your rational, respectful reply.

Not to mention that your entire post is about smoking, not about the topic actually being discussed in this thread. So if I may, let me sum up your entire response to this article:

"Politicophile, you make me really mad."

There. That's all you said in relation to the thread. But thanks for that information on smoking in Colorado and getting hummers from hookers on dirty toilet seats.



World's King is not, however, the only one to respond in such a manner. It's only the most blatant. Most of the responses I've read in this thread have been either a) completely irrelevant to the original question (i.e. lambasting Politicophile for his particular morals) or b) just plain irrelevant.

In response to the original question: I believe that society by its nature must impose a certain set of morals in order to exist. There are some absolutes, some of which have been mentioned, namely "don't intentionally harm others who are not harming you." If you can't agree with this, then you have no place in a society that provides you any sort of protections or freedoms. You are an anarchist.

If you do agree with this, and you enjoy the safety and stability of government and society at large, then you agree with the original poster. Of course there are different shades of grey between the two standpoints, but I think most of you are getting caught up in the emotions of disagreeing with Politicophile's lofty opinion of himself. Ultimately, that is irrelevant to the argument.

Allow me to recap the general idea, for the many of you who either forgot or intentionally skipped that part of the post:

Moral imposition and direction is necessary for a society to remain stable. Without laws and directives based in an agreed upon code of morality, society cannot exist.

The large portion of you arguing about everything else, you're missing the point.


I agree in a large part with the original point, mainly for the reasons already stated: a society, by its definition, must have laws. Those laws, in order to be effective at keeping the peace, must be based on something, and that something is moral imposition. Morality will shift with time, as will laws. There is no end to this game, no one right answer. The answer is, instead, to continue to challenge everything, to continue to share, learn, and grow as a society.

Negative engery? Is that code speak for trolling?

I'm sorry, but that's total BS. It is not discrimination to ban smoking from indoors any more than it being illegal to drink alcohol in schools. There are places where slow suicide is acceptable, and places where it is not. If I decide to take my wife and 2 year old daughter - a 2 year old girl who has asthma just as badly as her father - to a nice dinner and a show, I would consider it extremly rude if someone were to light up. If you want to smoke while eating, you have a home where you can't bother anyone. If I am going to bring my family to a resturant and you endanger our health by smoking, it is you who are treating us like crap. You are polluting an environment that you have to share with other people.

Do you know why aminals are made to be left outdoors? It's simple. The animals are unable to behave in a mannor that follows social norms. I'd say the same is true of people who smoke in places like resturants and movie theaters. Am I calling you animals? No. Am I equating the social behavior of indoor smokers to animals? Yeah, but you brought it up.
BJs don't kill people. I hope. Cause if they do...
All it takes for me is about 30 seconds and my asthma kicks in. Do you know how many Americans have asthma? About 1 in 15. These people have a condition completly seperate from cancer, and you haven't even thought of it. That's why smokers have the reputation they do. Smoking in the presence of others is selfish, rude, and dangerous.

School is a publically funded state institution where the majority of the population therein can't drink anyway because they're underage. A restaurant or the like is a privately owned business that may or may not have objections to patrons smoking indoors. They're not equivalent.

As for the OP: There is no questioning that people make judgements about others. It's an inherent design flaw in the beautiful machinery that is the mind. I truly can't bring myself to believe that anybody can really go around with complete impartiality to those around them.

That being said, the imposition of one's morals onto another is the line at which I cannot fully back the OP, politicophile. While I, somewhat begrudgingly, admit that society needs rules, and that many of them are based in moral philosophy and doctrine, there came a line a long time ago at which society passed creating necessary rules to rules that did things like ban smoking in public places.

Using smoking as an example, as that seems to be the issue this revolves around, comes back to my statement that private properties are owned by people who may or may not have objections to their patrons lighting one up indoors. Should the decision not be made by the establishment to decide the matter as they are the ones who will have to deal with the repercussions? If you don't like the smoke and the restaurant allows it, you can then decide whether it is worth it to you to continue eating there.

Or look at it this way. There are many cases in which the federal government has doled out responsibilty to the states to make a decision on moral matters because making a blanket moral doctrine across that large an area simply cannot last due to differing opinions on the matter. And look around, even moving implication to the state level causes many problems.

Stated in short, moral implication is not necessary, at least not to the point it is carried out, because it causes unrest and anger in the individual.

Why can't children drink? State imposed morality. Why can't people smoke indoors? State imposed morality. Bam, there is your equivalence.

I guess my real standing between the two was more the over and underage status of the two, though I see the inherent flaw in both that reasoning and that part of my arguement now.

You won me that far.

That was really a small part of a post designed to proclaim the 'I'm right/you're wrong' view held; by saying the society has morals, therefore laws, so I have morals, therefore, rules, that are correct. Other statements were meant to be inflammatory and argumentative, but then the OP pulls back and says, 'that's not what I meant'. Uh, yea...it was and it was reiterated as things progressed.
The society we live in takes the middle road when it comes to the majority of lawmaking and does so with at least a modicum of research. The laws do not finger point. That task is taken up by individuals.
Wanna live with 4 women? No law says you can't, it's a personal, moral choice. If it goes against my values, who cares?
Yes, secondhand smoke can affect people, specially if they're unhealthy to begin with. But here's a little hint: stay away from things that make you sick. I can't handle perfumes, so I don't wear any and if someone comes near me marinating in it, I leave quckly. I don't stand on the NJ turnpike because it might kill me to do so...same thought. But, dumb as it may be, I won't tell someone else not to do it unless it's my kid or anyone else I truly care about.
The OP is not saying stay away from his asthmatic child, please...he did, in essence, compare smokers to killers and rapists and morally corrupt individuals.
That's his own judgment and knowing many smokers, I can assure you they are no more 'morally corrupt' than anyone else and I dare say, some, if not most, are damn cool people. *winks at Shanifaye*
It's not what we put in our mouths that make us good or bad, it's what we give from our hearts.

Your ability to admit that puts you ahead most people in the world. If even 1% of people in TFPolitics were able to self reflect and admit anything even close to being partially incorrect, fire would rain from the heavens, women would scream and men would gnash their teeth.

eh, I don't actually have anything to add.

I don't really consider myself to be easily offended, but this post is rather uncalled for, don't you think?

Although I doubt we'll never be certain, I imagine if anyone other than a moderator had posted this, it would have been edited and done away with - accompanied by either a warning or at the very least a PM to the poster...

I'm all for people discussing things and having opposing viewpoints, but attacking the OP like this is ridiculous. I mean, obviously, with the viewpoint he has he MUST HAVE either had a disfunctional family life or been molested by his sister. And, of course, we should be very proud that the idiot -especially because of how he was raised - since we're so shocked that he can use big words.... (note the sarcasm, please)



As far as the original post is concerned, personally, I disagree. I believe that morality is a completely gray area - and although most people - myself included - do make moral judgements on others, we should keep in mind that our "morality" is based solely on our environment and our own life experiences. We can argue what is right and wrong till we are blue in the face, but at the end of the day our words don't hold water.

Rape, Murder, Assault? Terrible. How about cannibalism? Is that also wrong? Is it up to anyone other than those cannibalizing others to decide? What if it's their religion, their tradition, their heritage. The only way of life that they know? Who am I to decide what is "moral" for someone I've never met, whose culture I've never experienced, whose life I've never lived?

My point is, I feel that Murder, Rape, and Assaulting others is "Morally wrong" - but I also understand, and accept, that my morals don't apply to anyone else other than me. It's a good thing that I live in a country that shares the majority of my morals, but if I was traveling abroad and stumbled into an area where something I believed was morally wrong was socially acceptable there, I certainly wouldn't feel offended or think that the society as a whole were morally bankrupt or less of a people...

I chimed in, in another thread, about this subject... and thought I should post it here for all to read...

For my part, I can think of few things more insulting than a person asserting ultimate moral superiority over others, and indicating specifically that we are lesser persons than they are.

EDIT: I'd also like to quickly make note that we're all human, and we can all make mistakes. For this, some of you want King's head on a pike.

While we're held to a higher standard as enforcers of the rules, we're still human- and a good couple of members here are hall-of-fame repeat offenders for flaming and trolling. Put this single act in the proper context. Calm down. Breath. Thank you. :)

Judge me all you want, by your morals. I'll repay in kind with mine.

As long as you are not trying to get your selection of morality applied to others, I have no problem with you, in fact, since your selection differs enough form mine, I hardly even take it into account.

People can make judgements like that, only, they should expect to be judged right back, cuz here's the kicker:

a judgement is rarely backed by 100% logic & facts, gut-feeling and emotions play a big part.

How am I supposed to know that you two have asthma?? Wear a sign or something. :rolleyes: Really, if I am in my designated "slow-suicide" area then guess what? I'm not responsible for you having an asthma attack. I am in my kennel and you came too close. If I have asthma and I'm walking down the street while you're cutting your grass should I make you stop so I don't have an attack? No because you are in your area. If I'm in mine, then anything harmful that happens to you is not my fault.

Also, the social norms bit. That changes constantly. People can't make up their minds what is or isn't acceptable.

/end thread mutation

Obviously this thread and the other thread were done in a time period too close together so they are becoming mixed. So I'll try to get back to the OP.

I more closely agree with what Hal said. I find the whole idea of morality a bit off kilter. Morality is unique with each individual. You may think its amoral to have premarital sex. I say good, more for me. There can be no absolute in morality and when you try to impose some sort of absolute in this realm, you're left with nothing but drones.

I'm in California, there are no slow suicide zones in public or buisness buildings anymore. It's the law. How are you supposed to know if someone has asthma? If you're in a room of 30 people, 2 people could have asthma. 20 million Americans have asthma. Those odds go up in metropolitan areas, espically LA. You'll also notice that we have inhalers and very uncomfortable looks on our faces when you light up.
This social norm has been in place since the late 80s. That's most of my life.

Take a look at my "defense" (not that I should need one) over here. I would appreciate your support.

You know, I can buy all this for the purpose of argument, but then here's where I go with it. Here's my personal morality.

I don't respect cultures that tolerate murder, rape, and assault. I fully support the decision of other cultures to disregard such cultural mores. As far as my moral sensibilities go - resources and tactical situations may say otherwise - I'm perfectly okay with the idea of cultures that don't support murder, rape, or assault invading those cultures that do and putting a stop to those practices. If I were, for some reason, vacationing in a culture that condoned/promoted the punishment of rape victims, I would have no twinge of conscience preventing me from attempting to prevent said punishment.

(It'd be the cowardice that would prevent me from acting, most likely.)

It sounds like you'd be morally opposed to intervention of this kind, and that's fine for you, but that morality doesn't apply to me.

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 understand the numbers of people with asthma. However, I'm still not going to know who has it. Am I supposed to walk into a building that still allows smoking, grab the PA and ask "Does anyone here have asthma?". No. All I'm saying is that if you walk into a place that still has "suicide zones" then be prepared to inhale smoke. You are free to go elsewhere. I had asthma as a child. I know how bad it can suck to have an attack. Hence, the reason I am generally polite about my smoking.

Social norms can be in place for many years, that doesn't mean it can't change quickly.

to say that you would use moral criteria to make an evaluation, ustwo, is not the same as saying that a particular issue is a moral one. the first is about judgment. the second is a statement about the kind of argument that is appropriate to a given issue.

on the first, you assume that right/wrong is exclusively a moral matter.
that does not seem to me to be accurate.
it could just as easily be a true/false evaluation. or an aesthetic evaluation. or any number of other kinds of judgment--there are many ways to yeild a right/wrong response.

on the second, arguments from morality have failed to garner much support for anti-smoking bans where they have been implemented. the dominant argument is worker health--the effects of prolonged exposure to lots of smoke on bar and resto workers. that is why i have no problem with smoking bans, actually---and i smoke. it hasnt the first thing to do with morality.

one problem that conservative political discourse has created for itself is that it loves loves loves morality as a framing move. loves it. uses it for everything. you use it for everything it ends up signifying nothing.

this is why i argued above that the primary problem is tactical--even if politicophile's arguments in favor of using this language were compelling (and they are not to me at least) the static generated by the move is such that it is counterproductive to go that route.

I never claimed all decisions were moral ones.

I will claim that wheel chair ramps are most definately a moral decision imposed by law.

maybe.....but if memory serves (it is early and who knows about that...) wheelchair ramps were advocated and implemented as civil rights matters --which has to do with equal protection and what it means---and so were not presented as involving a moral question.

i am not saying that these issues *cannot* be seen as moral--just that they typically are not framed that way, particularly not if groups are trying to get legislation actually passed. same reason as i have been talking about here explains it--tactical considerations preclude the usage of that language.

the issues where this language continues to operate are generally among the most polarizing politically.

a side note: i took the right/wrong question from the logic of your post rather than from its contents---i dont think i misrepresented your position in it, but since i cant reach around the post and see into your mind, maybe i did.

well then you should have totally understood my quote below since it is EXACTLY what you were trying to point out. I pointed out the absurdity of it with my sarcasm "What can I insert into there and not live and let live, imposing my morality and code among others." To me that's just as obvious as pointing out that water is wet.

Apparently you now are stating that this is exactly the point you were trying to make in the other thread AND in this one. Am I wrong in that observation?

Cynthetiq, politicophile is certainly making a moral judgment about smokers, but I'm not seeing where in this thread he argued for imposing that judgment on others. Could be that I missed it.

Otherwise, "live and let live" and your laundry list of possible judgments are not mutually exclusive. One can make the judgment that hunting is immoral, and yet tolerate its existence.

And if it's judgment without the imposition, well, then I don't quite see the absurdity. It may be incorrect to judge all those things immoral - most of them I'm morally okay with - but it's not absurd.

There's something else I'd like to mention. I have no idea if it's relevant to this thread as I don't even know what this thread is about anymore. It's undergone many mutations and not all of them are welcome in my eyes.. anyway.

About the societal norm thing.. Where were morals when this country was immersed in segregation? I live in an area that is still dominated by ignorance and racism yet, it's called part of the bible belt and is supposedly a conservative state. People here talk about morals, yet they are quick to judge based on nothing but color. Am I just supposed to go with the social norm here?? No of course not.

Why should I make judgements about people?? Whether they be moral or otherwise I still do it but it shouldn't be overwhelming to where I consider the person something they aren't just because of what I first perceive. I think the best area to address this is in the legal sense. If selected for a jury, some will automatically make up their mind before any defense or prosicution is presented. Why? Because they have made a moral judgement based on that person and it blinds them to anything else. A judge instructs to look at all evidence to determine the character of a person. How often does this really happen? I don't think it happens as often as it should. So on that note, I don't think people should make pre-noted subjections about a person. People are just people. You do your thing and I'll do mine. You may not like smoking and think I'm a worse person for doing it, I may not like your choice of lifestyle (although that would be hard to come by for me) but I'm not going to think that you are a bad person. If you physically harm me or my wife, then yes I might think you are a bad person. That's inevitable. If I walk through a crowd on non-smokers and I know that 3 seconds of smoke won't hurt them, I won't fault them for saying smoking is wrong. I will only fault them if they allow me to do what I find pleasureable in an area that doesn't really affect them. Only and only when I encroach in areas that I shouldn't be should they be vindicated for their feelings and vise-versa.

Like I said I don't know if this is relevant, but there it is I put it out there. Do with it what you shall.

Interestingly I find myself agreeing with Politicophile and Ustwo.

We ALL make moral judgements of some sort (despite your various protestations to the contrary). They key here, and this is what most people in this thread are missing, is what you do with that judgement.

Politico suggests that while he does feel someone is doing something morally wrong he will not stop them insofar as it does not effect him.

I would suggest that that is entirely in keeping with the largely Libertarian attitudes of many on this board.

I also agree that this thread should have been closed. Instead, I am moving it out of General Discussion and into Philosophy where it belongs.

I am really disappointed in many here.

IN all fairness, I don't think the thread should have been closed. I think that some editing should have been done, but not closed.

I agree with this in principle, but I'm not sure what sort of editing would have salvaged the thread, considering the editors were part of the problem.

Yep, that's pretty much it. As I have said over and over and over again, my legitimate OP attracted all sorts of angry, irrational responses. If nothing else, this thread tells a story about the caliber of people who frequent TFP. The story is not a good one.

I was let down by the community on this one, big time. For a second time, I am beginning to doubt the value of my membership in this community.

Politico,

I had been hoping to stay away from this whole debacle. For what it's worth, I support you. I am still a bit in shock over this thread (and the other one) in how it degraded so rapidly and viciously. This is not what TFP is all about (at least that's what I thought anyways). I definitely find myself posting less and less these days despite an earlier effort to post more. It just doesn't feel right anymore. What happened to you was definitely uncalled for and out of line. Disagreements are natural and healthy but this was just a vicious unwarranted attack on you. Ultimately, I believe it boils down to misunderstandings. Morals are always a tricky issue to discuss but I guess people took your argument too personally and got emotional. I don't know that I agree with your premise, but I did find the layout and construction to be ok. Certainly it was presented for civil discourse. I was ready to grab a coffee and sit down and debate/discuss/wax with you a bit on it before the whole thing went up in flames. for what it's worth.

Oh, and Happy Birthday.

Just out of curiousity, was I part of the problem? I mean I can edit posts and such. However, tbh, I didn't see anything until this morning.

I hope you don't doubt your value of membership. I personally enjoyed your first post (I didn't bother reading the other thread, wasn't interested). I saw the options for a good debate. Maybe wording could have been different, but it's there, it's debatable.

I think the thread quickly devolved into a pissing match. Usually, with pissing match threads I stop reading, and move on to a different post. I actually wanted to see where this one went, and get the opinions from both sides. I'll go to the bathroom in the restroom now, instead of all over this thread.

No, you were not part of the problem. It would have been reassuring to have a mod (any mod at all) start splashing some yellow writing around to those who deserved it, but (as you say) your passivity was not willful neglect, so it would be silly to hold you accountable.

My disappointment is directed at the community as a whole, not just the handfull of asshats who created this mess.

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.

You know, it wasn't long ago that I could have made a post like I did and people would have laughed right along with me. What the fuck happen?

Morals. What a funny little word. It has a different meaning to each and every one of us. Some make sense and some don’t. I guess I’m one of the ones that has a meaning very different from most. Most things that people see as being moral or immoral are things that I see as basic common sense. Don’t kill people. Don’t cheat on your wife. Don’t touch little girls behind a bush in the park. These are things that should just go without saying. Which is why I don’t understand the point of having a huge discussion about it. Getting all angry about people smoking indoors. If you don’t like it. Go away. There are plenty of places that don’t allow smoking. Hospitals. Government buildings. Saying that you can’t take your family to a nice restaurant because it’s all smoky is a giant pile of horse shit. And I know this cause I work in the service industry. There are two different sections. Smoking. Non-Smoking. Pick one.

Okay, back on topic. All I see happening here is that everyone is stating what they think ‘being moral’ is and then trash talking everyone else’s meanings. We don’t like discussions like that here.

Do I have a moral responsibility to society to be kind and gentle? No. I don’t. I can choose to be. And I’m sorry if you don’t agree with my choice but I’m not forcing you to pay attention to me and I sure as fuck will never ask you to. So all in all. Mind your own fuckin’ business and live your life how you feel you should and let me live mine how I think I should. And if our lives should ever cross in a not-so- nice way… we’ll discuss the problem like adults and come to a conclusion that benefits all parties involved.

I’m sure as fuck not gonna try to force my ‘morals’ on anyone and because of that people tend to think they have the right to force theirs on me. It’s almost like they think I don’t have any ‘cause I’m not shouting them from a fuckin’ mountain.

Use common sense. You’re not alone here. Mind your own business. If someone wants to know how you feel about something, they’ll ask.

You aren't a member of TFP until you have been trolled by a mod.

Congraulations and welcome to the club! :thumbsup:

I found those were best handled by a PM to one of the better mods.

Its more fun when you are banned for no reason because a mod logs on and doesn't check his facts :lol:

Been there too.

Trick is to lighten up, with the diversity of opinions, education levels, sanity, and IQ's found on TFP its surprising there isn't more of this. Seperate the wheat from the dross and ignore those who would make you angry.

If for nothing else to see them write 'As much as I hate to agree with Ustwo'....If I had a few bucks for every time that was said....well...I'd have a pretty nice dinner at least at a steak house by now.

I'm going to say simply that if you have any issue with any mod about anything; Halx is the person to direct your complaint to. PM him directly. Halx has the final say in anything regarding this board.

I've received my answer.

Goodbye, everyone.