Moral OR Immoral???

[_Roger Morrison]

Roger asked: What do You think? Is there inconsistancy (inconsistency) in THE Christian Country, that "Trusts In God," to be so amorous with Mammon? Might the fact of LDS wealth be more of an indictment than Joseph Smith's visions and sex-life?

God notions are irrelevant.

RM: Must be. The notion doesn't seem to help the USA...

Second, the country trusts in weapons' systems. RM: Obviously. What happened to their "Trust in "God""? LOL!!!
CEOs negotiate their high wealth or command it (if they originated the company). RM: Obviously. In both cases...It’s a matter of economics. RM: As are most things... Unfortunately, in too many cases that suffer due to that fact... i.e. education, social safety-net, etc...bombs vs butter...bombs win...

“LDS wealth” is effective management and transfer of wealth. It’s not unlike the wealth management of any denomination regardless of size. Nor is it unlike a large corporation. The Roman Catholic Church is a larger corporation than the LDS. RM: Correct on all of the above... Strictly business!!

JAK

On to the next...

[_Roger Morrison]

Roger’s Topic: Moral OR Immoral???


On the question: Moral or Immoral?

Such judgment is subjective and as such is a matter of opinion. RM: Like so many things... The facts! The facts! Whence the facts??? Seems the-way-it-is. Opinion vs opinion...Theory vs theory...Philosophy vs philosophy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ever thus...
Was it moral or immoral to attack a country (Iraq) on the false claim that it had weapons of mass destruction?
RM: in my seriously considered opinion (IMSCO) "immoral"!!!

Is it moral or immoral to spend 10 billion dollars a month continuing a war with 160,000 American soldiers fighting -- and for what?
RM: IMSCO, "immoral"!!! For the glory of the fiddling Emporer and the profits to the HUGE Military Complex, in and out of uniforms...
Is it moral or immoral to possess the nuclear capacity to annihilate virtually all the world’s people (that would be the USA in possession)?
RM: IMSCO, "immoral" for any power. When one hears all of the USA's diatribe on peace & democracy it is totally asinine & hypocritical!!!
Is it moral or immoral to tell people that they can go to “heaven” if they give you (any religious organization) their money?
RM: IMSCO, it is dishonest and deceitful="immoral" to intimidate and indoctrinate people to their disadvantge by appealing to emotion in their state of ignorance and trust... OTOH, would it be "kosher" to deny them the opportunity to follow 'their' decision making process?

The questions are intended to demonstrate that a call of “moral or immoral” is a judgment and generally not universal.

RM: But they did serve the purpose of allowing my "prejudice" to be be expressed :-) Opinionated guy that I AM...

In addition, even if we were to consider the question as it stands, and even if we regard something as “immoral,” it’s a relative judgment. Some behavior will be regarded as less immoral than some other behavior which will be regarded as more immoral. The same could be said for a judgment of “moral.”

JAK

Soooo, how does one (or ALL) address, and decide, things rationally that best fits the challenge of being humane and just in our evolving world??? Warm regards, Roger

[_JAK]

Roger asked:
Soooo, how does one (or ALL) address, and decide, things rationally that best fits the challenge of being humane and just in our evolving world???

Well, I don’t know what you mean by “best fits the challenge of being humane...”

On the first part, we can attempt to be as informed as possible regarding issues we think of importance. And we cannot all be equally informed, nor is it necessary.

My examples should have included more of what you might have considered “moral.” There are many who considered the attack of Iraq the right and moral thing to do. Over time and with the accumulation of information rising above faith-based-conclusion on WMDs, many Americans have had a shift (a painful shift) of view.

Some like Hans Blitz, in charge of the inspection for WMDs, told us in 2002 that the UN should continue it’s inspection for the claimed weapons. Others, who were actually in the know, told us they were most skeptical of any such weapons.

Propaganda won the day, and a strong, confident G.W. Bush lead the charge.

But I digress. I answered your question in paragraph 2. Our views (decisions) should be based on the greatest quantity of quality information we can obtain. That necessarily means recognizing propaganda to as high a degree as possible.

Advertisers (and politicians) intend to influence by omission of vital information as well as hype of the trivia for their own purposes (agenda).

They are superior at what they do. Most people are so busy with their own life’s issues, they hardly have time to become genuinely informed against the clever, devious, even malicious tactics of corporations and influential individuals.

JAK

[_barrelomonkeys]

Roger asked:
Soooo, how does one (or ALL) address, and decide, things rationally that best fits the challenge of being humane and just in our evolving world???

Well, I don’t know what you mean by “best fits the challenge of being humane...”

On the first part, we can attempt to be as informed as possible regarding issues we think of importance. And we cannot all be equally informed, nor is it necessary.

My examples should have included more of what you might have considered “moral.” There are many who considered the attack of Iraq the right and moral thing to do. Over time and with the accumulation of information rising above faith-based-conclusion on WMDs, many Americans have had a shift (a painful shift) of view.

Some like Hans Blitz, in charge of the inspection for WMDs, told us in 2002 that the UN should continue it’s inspection for the claimed weapons. Others, who were actually in the know, told us they were most skeptical of any such weapons.

Propaganda won the day, and a strong, confident G.W. Bush lead the charge.

But I digress. I answered your question in paragraph 2. Our views (decisions) should be based on the greatest quantity of quality information we can obtain. That necessarily means recognizing propaganda to as high a degree as possible.

Advertisers (and politicians) intend to influence by omission of vital information as well as hype of the trivia for their own purposes (agenda).

They are superior at what they do. Most people are so busy with their own life’s issues, they hardly have time to become genuinely informed against the clever, devious, even malicious tactics of corporations and influential individuals.

JAK

Did you answer the question?

After one becomes as fully informed as possible how do they then make a moral decision on any matter if it's all relative?

Was that not the question? I didn't see an answer.

Oh wait, is this the answer:

Such judgment is subjective and as such is a matter of opinion.

So I can say it is immoral and you can say it is moral (or degrees of each) and we are both accurate. Or you could simply say you're a moral relativist?

Could it also be possible that in the context of the question Christians should be moral absolutists and have a defined code of right and wrong and therefore should be able to say that a capitalist system that preys upon the poor is immoral?

[_bcspace]

I would even go so far as to say that a Capitalist/Christian society is the only type of moral society one can have at the moment because it is only in such a society that agency can be exercised.

RM: I guess we could discuss, "what IS moral?"??? However, are you assuming a 'democracy', 'one-party', 'dictatorship', or 'other' where "Capitalist/Christian" folks reside??

Not only where they reside, but where such principles are enshrined in government. Of cousre we could argue what is a Christian principle and I'm sure we'd disagree.

Unfortunately "agency" can also be abusive when exercised 'unrighteously'. Don't you agree??

Of course. But where it is exercised unrighteously as in the case of voting for socialism or any other form of dictatorship, such agency is taken away

as it tends to exploit the disadvantaged to the benefit of the advantaged. The rich get richer. The poor get poorer...

Does not follow.

RM: Not without exception, of course.

Always without exception.

OTOH, there seems sufficient empirical evidence to substantiate a general acceptance of the old, often quoted premise. Wouldn't you say?

Acceptance does not the truth make.

See also...Mark 14:7 RM: Don't even have to look that one up :-) Of course, "there will always be poor." Does that one statement nullify ALL the others coaching empathy and generousity towards the "poor"?

No. But it (in combination with other Christian principles) nullifies any attempt to establishing a system that takes away responsiblity for one's own actions for forces people to help the poor.

I.e. Laz and the rich man. The rich young ruler. Providing for widows & orphans--that are poor. "There were NO poor among them!"?? What do you think? Do those supposed teachings of Jesus have any merit?

Not in this context. It was all by free agency that such was exercised. People entered into a contract to provide that way. People did not by majority force the minority to comply.

BCS, I'm not sure what your point is???

That a capititalist/christian system is the only moral system.

Might it be better IF, as a society, we were more influenced by Christian principles than by Capitalist principles?

They are not mutually exclusive. Capitialism by itself has neutral morality. It does not teach greed or moderation. Tied with Christianity, one is encouraged/admonished to help but can decide how much or to what extent and does not even have to (agency).

Capitalism tends to serve the aggressive amongst us.

I would say it allows us to keep the commandment.....Luke 16:9

While Christianity doesn't seem to serve the timid as well as might be expected. Wouldn't you agree? Could there be a better balance??

I believe I have communicated the only possible moral balance (from the LDS perspective).

[_Roger Morrison]

JAK, you state:

Well, I don’t know what you mean by “best fits the challenge of being humane...”

IMSCO, it would be the opposite to inhumane. It would be 'left' ;-) of extreme narcissism. Rescuing folks from figurative gas-chambers, rather than leading them into captivity, ignorance, starvation, etc... I didn't expect "humane" to be too hard to understand... My naïve subjectiveness i guess... You further state:

Our views (decisions) should be based on the greatest quantity of quality information we can obtain. That necessarily means recognizing propaganda to as high a degree as possible.

Absolutely! Again, the question, "How best to do that?" As you said, something to the affect, "equality is not something we across-the-board share." Particularly, I suggest in IQ, EQ, access to information/truth, natures/nurtures that all combine to make us as we are...YIKES!! :-) This becomes VERY obvious on boards such as this. OTOH, they're wondeful ops to ingest, digest what our constitution find satisfying to our indoctrinations. Would you agree? Do you think there are enough 'fit-specimens' evolving to compensate for the preponderance of 'unfits' to direct human affairs in our Global Village?

Barrelomonkeys, (always makes me smile :-) good questions! You say:

Could it also be possible that in the context of the question Christians should be moral absolutists and have a defined code of right and wrong and therefore should be able to say that a capitalist system that preys upon the poor is immoral?

IMSCO, yes. BUT, considering all things above that combine to us being resistant to, or acceptant of, empathetic principles... not there yet. Moving closer???

BCSpace, (any particular meaning in that?) You present some interesting ideas (dogma:-) that makes me curious as to your source of 'knowledge'?? You state:

Of course. But where it is exercised unrighteously as in the case of voting for socialism or any other form of dictatorship, such agency is taken away (UL added)

"Socialism"... I'm unsure how to understand that. Do you mean Scandinavian countries--Sweden, etc--have lost "...such agency..."? Are "...unrighteous..."? Or, do you mean voting for a Party/Candidate that espouses "socialist" principles is "unrighteous" behaviour? You further state:

Quote:
as it tends to exploit the disadvantaged to the benefit of the advantaged. The rich get richer. The poor get poorer...


Quote:
Does not follow.


Quote:
RM: Not without exception, of course.


Always without exception. (UL added)

Seems very dogmatic. History presents much evidence of Monarchies, Aristocracies, Dynasties and individuals that/who get richer while many within the masses get poorer. Currently, Bill Gates, to his credit--no pun intended--can hardly help getting richer?? Compound interest alone assures that to be the case... At the same time many (not all) poor sink deeper and deeper into poverty... Are you really in denial of that reality?? You further state:

Acceptance does not the truth make.

You get no argument from me! VERY profound ;-)

No. But it (in combination with other Christian principles) nullifies any attempt to establishing a system that takes away responsiblity for one's own actions for forces people to help the poor.

I'm having difficulty with your reasoning--maybe a communication problem? What makes you think that? Is there specific biblical 'scripture', or even LDS, that states that? Or is that an apologist's reasoning? The "force" thing objection seems so John Birchish to me... We are forced to comply with speed-limits, tax payment for societal infrastructure, in all of its various necessities--and some that are not. Dare i say it, such as war... Where is the 'evil' in this collectivism??

That a capititalist/christian system is the only moral system.

Without equivocation? Without reform or modification? To be improved upon? Perfect system, imperfect constituents???

I would say it allows us to keep the commandment.....Luke 16:9

I respectfully suggest Luke 16:13-15, is more relevant in this discussion...

I believe I have communicated the only possible moral balance (from the LDS perspective).

Thank you, for your LDS perspective. Is that your primary source of information/knowledge? Warm regards to all, Roger

[_JAK]

barrelomonkeys stated:
Did you answer the question?

Yes

barrelomonkeys stated:
After one becomes as fully informed as possible how do they then make a moral decision on any matter if it's all relative?

“Moral” vs. “immoral” is subjective. Your question assumes an absolute not a relative response to the question: What is a moral decision on any matter...

It’s incorrect to conclude that “moral” is an absolute. Just consider the example of killing another human being.

Even if people don’t acknowledge it, most would regard that as relative. Most would find a given, specific circumstance an imperative as to whether killing another human being is “moral.”

Since it is relative, “moral” judgment remains subjective. The happy notion that “moral” is an absolute is incorrect.

barrelomonkeys stated:
Was that not the question? I didn't see an answer.

Oh wait, is this the answer:

Quote JAK:
Such judgment is subjective and as such is a matter of opinion.


So I can say it is immoral and you can say it is moral (or degrees of each) and we are both accurate. Or you could simply say you're a moral relativist?

No to your addition, “we are both accurate.” I did not say that, you said that in bold. “Accurate” is quite a different question or issue than judgment which is relative.

Notions of “moral” are without question relative. People do not agree on “moral” as applied. Most, but not all, would regard following orders in the military in defense of country is moral. Some would not. That is, some would regard that a national policy requiring killing is an immoral national policy. They are generally in the minority. Hence, we have an example of relative moral judgment. Your term “accurate” is not applicable here.

Those who argue for “moral absolutism” (accuracy) generally do not address the complexity of issues and questions which involve multiple issues at the same time.

In particular/specific, views on what is a moral response vary. To suggest or state that any one view in a complex situation is “moral” is to play sole judge. It is to disregard the judgment(s) of others who may disagree.

barrelomonkeys stated:
Could it also be possible that in the context of the question Christians should be moral absolutists and have a defined code of right and wrong and therefore should be able to say that a capitalist system that preys upon the poor is immoral?

The fact is that Christians don’t agree. That some may regard themselves as “moral absolutists” is an opinion.

It would be absurd to argue that “moral” is a scale of +1 or -1. Generally, “moral absolutists” do that. They entertain no gray. Yet, we know that’s a flawed reading.

A mother with only two options is required to make an immoral one in this illustration: She must steal food for her hungry or starving child, or she must see her starving child die as she rejects stealing bread, etc.

While this is (in the space we have here) an illustration, far more complex issues and choices confront people in which a variety of choices are made (must be made) in sequence toward a moving target.

One more:

Consider the police officer chasing a person he believes to be armed and dangerous. After numerous commands to stop as the chase continues, the person being chased turns, appears to aim a gun at the police officer. The policeman shoots and kills the person. The policeman is trained to do exactly what he does. He is playing it “by the book” in every respect. THEN we learn the person he killed was in fact unarmed, and was a 17 year-old who did not speak or understand English (the language of the policeman).

The illustration demonstrates the complexity of “moral” judgment in a time-frame of seconds.

barrelomonkeys stated:
Could it also be possible that in the context of the question Christians should be moral absolutists and have a defined code of right and wrong and therefore should be able to say that a capitalist system that preys upon the poor is immoral?

A “capitalist system” is nothing if it is not complex. Christians “...prey(s) upon the poor...”

Hence, we could argue that the Christians who prey upon the poor are “immoral.” It’s a judgmental argument. Judgment is relative to time, place, culture, civilization. Therefore, notions of “moral” are inherently “relative.”

JAK

[_JAK]

Roger says:

JAK, you state:

Quote JAK:
Well, I don’t know what you mean by “best fits the challenge of being humane...”

Roger:
IMSCO, it would be the opposite to inhumane. It would be 'left' ;-) of extreme narcissism. Rescuing folks from figurative gas-chambers, rather than leading them into captivity, ignorance, starvation, etc... I didn't expect "humane" to be too hard to understand... My naïve subjectiveness I guess... You further state:

Quote JAK:
Our views (decisions) should be based on the greatest quantity of quality information we can obtain. That necessarily means recognizing propaganda to as high a degree as possible.

Roger:
Absolutely! Again, the question, "How best to do that?" As you said, something to the affect, "equality is not something we across-the-board share." Particularly, I suggest in IQ, EQ, access to information/truth, natures/nurtures that all combine to make us as we are...YIKES!! :-) This becomes VERY obvious on boards such as this. OTOH, they're wondeful (wonderful) ops to ingest, digest what our constitution find satisfying to our indoctrinations. Would you agree? Do you think there are enough 'fit-specimens' evolving to compensate for the preponderance of 'unfits' to direct human affairs in our Global Village?

JAK:
Sorry, Roger, the first part of this does not compute. Acronyms such as “OTOH” and other ambiguities leave much clarification required for me to know what you’re saying. I do not know with what I am (asked) to be agreeing.

The number of threats to “our Global Village” far exceed “fit-specimens” of humans. On that single issue: What constitutes “fit-specimens”? How is that determined?

JAK

[_barrelomonkeys]

Can I just mention that I don't understand most of your posts because of the color issues?

Seriously! I must have issues, the colors throw me for a loop!

[_barrelomonkeys]

barrelomonkeys stated:
After one becomes as fully informed as possible how do they then make a moral decision on any matter if it's all relative?

“Moral” vs. “immoral” is subjective. Your question assumes an absolute not a relative response to the question: What is a moral decision on any matter...


It’s incorrect to conclude that “moral” is an absolute. Just consider the example of killing another human being.

Even if people don’t acknowledge it, most would regard that as relative. Most would find a given, specific circumstance an imperative as to whether killing another human being is “moral.”

I do NOT assume morality as absolute and understand that most people have degrees within their views of moral and immoral behavior. You said that one is to make a moral judgment AFTER they are fully informed.

You first said that moral judgments were all relative. Then you said it was necessary for people to be fully informed before making judgments.

It seems to me that even after being fully informed people could come to differing opinions on the morality of whatever action would follow their full contemplation of the facts (for instance your favorite topic Iraq) and I see that it is indeed subjective and not absolute. I shouldn't have used the singular and used plural when I was asking my question.

The original topic asked us to consider whether it is unchristlike to condone a system that leeches off the poor. You said that people needed to be fully informed before making a judgment as to whether anything is moral or immoral. My question would be how does one then (collectively) make any decisions regarding morality if it is all subjective? Surely there must be some consensus as to certain moral and immoral (and degrees therein) behaviors that society will allow?

I am not a Christian and have never been one but can see the original point the originator of the thread asked. You've sort of gotten off the point don't you think?

I would think that anyone that is a disciple of Christ would have some beliefs of morality that contained his teachings. I could see that there could be degrees, and yet would still see that Christ's disciples would have to wiggle quite a bit to condone any system that takes advantage of the poor for the benefit of the wealthy few.

Since it is relative, “moral” judgment remains subjective. The happy notion that “moral” is an absolute is incorrect.

I have happy notions of a few things and yet do not see morality as absolute! I don't believe I stated one way or another as to whether I was a moral absolutist or a moral relativist. Did I?

Notions of “moral” are without question relative. People do not agree on “moral” as applied. Most, but not all, would regard following orders in the military in defense of country is moral. Some would not. That is, some would regard that a national policy requiring killing is an immoral national policy. They are generally in the minority. Hence, we have an example of relative moral judgment. Your term “accurate” is not applicable here.

umhum.

Those who argue for “moral absolutism” (accuracy) generally do not address the complexity of issues and questions which involve multiple issues at the same time.

Well I am not arguing for moral absolutism and do grasp that situations can be complex.

In particular/specific, views on what is a moral response vary. To suggest or state that any one view in a complex situation is “moral” is to play sole judge. It is to disregard the judgment(s) of others who may disagree. [/color]

Yep. I get that... always have. :)

[color=brown]The fact is that Christians don’t agree. That some may regard themselves as “moral absolutists” is an opinion.

Actually the statement that some regard themselves as moral absolutists is NOT an opinion. It is a fact.

It would be absurd to argue that “moral” is a scale of +1 or -1. Generally, “moral absolutists” do that. They entertain no gray. Yet, we know that’s a flawed reading.

Again, umhum. See, I know what a moral absolutist is. I got it.


JAK, thanks for the refresher. I already grasp that there are complex issues. I already know that some people are moral absolutists and moral relativists......... what was my question?


;P



*I prefer to be quoted in violet*