On moral imposition and being a good person - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

politicophile · 09-20-2006, 11:11 AM

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.

Glory's Sun · 09-20-2006, 11:18 AM

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.

Willravel · 09-20-2006, 11:37 AM

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.

Lady Sage · 09-20-2006, 11:40 AM

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.

ngdawg · 09-20-2006, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

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:

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

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.).

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

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.)

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

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.

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.

Willravel · 09-20-2006, 11:54 AM

Teehee, ng is pissed.

ngdawg · 09-20-2006, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

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.

ShaniFaye · 09-20-2006, 12:27 PM

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

ratbastid · 09-20-2006, 12:43 PM

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?

politicophile · 09-20-2006, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ngdawg

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ngdawg

No, [imposing moral judgment on others] 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.

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ngdawg

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.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by ngdawg

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.

I take it you're not a socialist?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ngdawg

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.

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

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?

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.

Cynthetiq · 09-20-2006, 01:04 PM

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by cynthetiq

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

Let's start with the tu quoque fallacy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fallacy Files

Tu Quoque is a very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser. This is a classic Red Herring since whether the accuser is guilty of the same, or a similar, wrong is irrelevant to the truth of the original charge. However, as a diversionary tactic, Tu Quoque can be very effective, since the accuser is put on the defensive, and frequently feels compelled to defend against the accusation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

A moderator should know better than to misrepresent a member's standpoint by putting out a piece of flamebait like this. This is very unimpressive.

after reading gucci's post, I just...woah... how ironic.

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.

lurkette · 09-20-2006, 01:05 PM

*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.

kurty[B] · 09-20-2006, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

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.

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.

Ch'i · 09-20-2006, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

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.

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.

Sultana · 09-20-2006, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

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.

Yes I am.
And you are wrong.

What is this called, a Mexican standoff?

ngdawg · 09-20-2006, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

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?

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

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

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

I take it you're not a socialist?

Libertarian. Problem?

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

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.

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.

Cynthetiq · 09-20-2006, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ngdawg

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.

Tu Quoque-che!!!!

Toaster126 · 09-20-2006, 02:09 PM

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.

ngdawg · 09-20-2006, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

Tu Quoque-che!!!!

Is that good or bad?

Charlatan · 09-20-2006, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toaster126

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.

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.

analog · 09-20-2006, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

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?

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.

politicophile · 09-20-2006, 02:42 PM

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.

ratbastid · 09-20-2006, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by analog

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

BA-ZING!

That is all.

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...)

Charlatan · 09-20-2006, 02:53 PM

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?

ngdawg · 09-20-2006, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

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.

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.....

analog · 09-20-2006, 03:13 PM

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.

politicophile · 09-20-2006, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

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?

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.

uncle phil · 09-20-2006, 03:41 PM

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

cyrnel · 09-20-2006, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lurkette

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.

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?

roachboy · 09-20-2006, 04:05 PM

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.

Halx · 09-20-2006, 04:22 PM

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.

World's King · 09-20-2006, 04:50 PM

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.

politicophile · 09-20-2006, 05:14 PM

Worst. Moderation. Ever.

This thread should now be closed.

World's King · 09-20-2006, 05:20 PM

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.

Ustwo · 09-20-2006, 05:22 PM

Pearls before swine.

MooseMan3000 · 09-20-2006, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by World's King

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?

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

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.

Ustwo · 09-20-2006, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by World's King

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.

Negative engery? Is that code speak for trolling?

Willravel · 09-20-2006, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by World's King

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by World's King

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.

BJs don't kill people. I hope. Cause if they do...

Quote:

Originally Posted by World's King

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.

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.

TexanAvenger · 09-20-2006, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

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.

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.

Willravel · 09-20-2006, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TexanAvenger

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.

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

09-20-2006, 11:11 AM	#1 (permalink)
politicophile Addict	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. __________________ The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

09-20-2006, 12:27 PM	#8 (permalink)
ShaniFaye Submit to me, you know you want to Location: Lilburn, Ga	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 __________________ *I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!*

09-20-2006, 01:05 PM	#12 (permalink)
lurkette My future is coming on Moderator Emeritus Location: east of the sun and west of the moon	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. __________________ "If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." - Anatole France

09-20-2006, 02:09 PM	#18 (permalink)
Toaster126 Extreme moderation Location: Kansas City, yo.	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. __________________ "The question isn't who is going to let me, it's who is going to stop me." (Ayn Rand) "The truth is that our finest moments are most likely to occur when we are feeling deeply uncomfortable, unhappy, or unfulfilled. For it is only in such moments, propelled by our discomfort, that we are likely to step out of our ruts and start searching for different ways or truer answers." (M. Scott Peck)

09-20-2006, 02:42 PM	#22 (permalink)
politicophile Addict	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. __________________ The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

09-20-2006, 11:18 AM	#2 (permalink)
Glory's Sun Registered User	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.

09-20-2006, 11:37 AM	#3 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	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.

09-20-2006, 11:40 AM	#4 (permalink)
Lady Sage Mistress of Mayhem Location: Canton, Ohio	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.

09-20-2006, 11:54 AM	#6 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Teehee, ng is pissed.

09-20-2006, 12:43 PM	#9 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	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?

09-20-2006, 02:53 PM	#24 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	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? __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

09-20-2006, 03:13 PM	#26 (permalink)
analog Banned	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. Last edited by analog; 09-20-2006 at 03:16 PM..

09-20-2006, 03:41 PM	#28 (permalink)
uncle phil comfortably numb... Super Moderator Location: upstate	what in the fuck is going on here? is this thread really necessary? pardon my french, but WTF!!! __________________ "We were wrong, terribly wrong. (We) should not have tried to fight a guerrilla war with conventional military tactics against a foe willing to absorb enormous casualties...in a country lacking the fundamental political stability necessary to conduct effective military and pacification operations. It could not be done and it was not done." - Robert S. McNamara ----------------------------------------- "We will take our napalm and flame throwers out of the land that scarcely knows the use of matches... We will leave you your small joys and smaller troubles." - Eugene McCarthy in "Vietnam Message" ----------------------------------------- never wrestle with a pig. you both get dirty; the pig likes it.

09-20-2006, 04:05 PM	#30 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	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. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-20-2006, 04:22 PM	#31 (permalink)
Halx Please touch this. Owner/Admin Location: Manhattan	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. __________________ You have found this post informative. -The Administrator [Don't Feed The Animals]

09-20-2006, 04:50 PM	#32 (permalink)
World's King Here Location: Denver City Denver	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. __________________ heavy is the head that wears the crown

09-20-2006, 05:14 PM	#33 (permalink)
politicophile Addict	Worst. Moderation. Ever. This thread should now be closed. __________________ The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

09-20-2006, 05:20 PM	#34 (permalink)
World's King Here Location: Denver City Denver	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. __________________ heavy is the head that wears the crown

09-20-2006, 05:22 PM	#35 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Pearls before swine. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.