Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Would you give up your morals for the sake of your family? Would you side against your family if your family was in the wrong?
I would say in general, as important as Family is, Morality is more important.
It depends.
Would you give up your morals if your family's life was at stake? Yes.
Would you permit your kid to be embarrassed by taking him back to the grocery story from where he stole a candy bar? Yes.
I've chosen not to side with my family many times in the past, because I think either a family member or several are wrong. That's always been accepted in my family, when I do it or someone else do it.
That doesn't mean we're not family, and there for each other though, but living as best you can according to the moral code you've chosen is a virtue that shouldn't be disregarded simply by applying bloodlines.
Example: I wouldn't give a family member an alibi for a serious crime they've committed, and if I knew they did it, and what they did clashed with my perception of what's right and wrong, I'd also report them to the correct officials. But I would most likely visit them in jail etc.
As for Charles saying he'd give up morals for the life of his family, for me that depends (it's a very "all encompassing" question), but would I kill an immediate threat to my family if there was no other way to remove or get away from that threat? Yes, but that doesn't in any way conflict with my morals and ethical principals.
Would you give up your morals for the sake of your family? Would you side against your family if your family was in the wrong?
I would say in general, as important as Family is, Morality is more important.
If you side with family first, then valuing family would become part of your morality or at least one of your moral values.
I guess what you are trying to get at is whether family (or more broadly speaking, loved ones, regardless of blood, since it would cover adopted "family" or even close friends in some cases) trumps fairness or equal treatment of everyone as a moral value.
So, I'll take it the way I see it, treating everyone fairly is the moral ideal you are probably describing. This is an interesting issue. In practice, no one can really treat everyone equally morally and we all help loved ones at the expense of strangers -- that's part of being human. Hardly anyone would risk their life as strongly for a stranger's children than for their children (and if so, we might question their sanity). When it comes to helping loved ones versus helping others, we already operate by different standards. Most would agree, that for people who are close, we are obliged to help them and that it'd be rather heartless if you were well off and say declined family member who was needy for money for food or rent, whereas few would say it's heartless to do so for a stranger (rather they'd say it's morally neutral).
Now, how far you'd be willing to go to favour someone you love versus fairness for all, is where your mileage will vary.
Taking it to the extreme, down to legal situations, I know there are folks who'd claim or say they'd help their family even if they broke the law, to escape as criminals etc. but I don't know how many people would do that in practice. I'm sure there are people who put their family above everything, law and all, but that not very plausible or realistic.
The other extreme, where you completely ignore relations and treat all as one is just as impractical. It has appeared in religious thoughts and philosophy and will remain an ideal that is rather looked up too but futile to be put into practice (Think of the early Christian ministry whose ideal was leaving family behind and focusing on the ideal of universal love -- this early message couldn't survive the practical, mundane comings and goings of societies, governments, families etc.).
As for me, personally, I'm glad I've never been in a situation where I have to decide, but I would generally skew towards your opinion -- that I favour family in many situations because they are close to me emotionally, but if I were between a rock and a hard place, I'd not give up my sense of fairness. Really, there are too situations to give a hard or fast answer.
A family cannot exist outside of morality because morality is a social compact. If there is no morality, there is no compact, if there is no compact, there is no bond, no bond, no family.
Would you side against your family if your family was in the wrong?
I have, more than once. Doesn't mean I don't love them and vice versa. But I must also say that I think the question is phrased as a false dichotomy (EITHER- OR). In my experience it has never been that simple.
Besides, as Obi Wan Kenobi said, "Only a Sith deals in absolutes!"
-- Nighteyes
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
