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.
Is "right" always right, and "wrong" always wrong?
Is what is "right" dependent on what the person above you (and controls your livelihood) wants from you?
We have laws against ageism, sexism, and racism, in the workplace. But, I have heard people say, I have to follow rules at work, I don't have to practice them in my personal life. Is what is right in the corporation, not what is right in a person's home?
Morality can, in our modern society, be a criminal offense.
Let's say that I give you my word, and in fact, swear an oath before God, that I will keep in confidence some fact that you have disclosed to me. I am then called to testify in a court of law, and the judge orders me to disclose what you have told me, under penalty of contempt and a long jail sentence. What is the moral thing for me to do?
If you had disclosed that fact to a doctor or a clergyman, they are under no obligation to violate your trust in them. But my private honor and virtue have no such protection, and the state presumes me a criminal for exercising that honor. What make's my honor so much less valid than some arbitrary professional ethic that gives certain other people the moral right to honor their commitment to you?
Morality can, in our modern society, be a criminal offense.
...What make's my honor so much less valid than some arbitrary professional ethic that gives certain other people the moral right to honor their commitment to you?
Excellent point. So, our values are discretionary, changeable. How do we function as a society without a set of common values. We seem to be disintegrating - more "I" than "us".
You also raise another point - self-worth. In the example the judicial system created a hierarchy with Drs and Attny's in a higher position than the "average" person. But there, the self-worth is also situational - as long as they have those jobs. When they are not longer in those positions (retire, disbarred...), they lose their status and become average "joe".
So, values, morals, virtue, are situational and therefore arbitrary?
But there, the self-worth is also situational - as long as they have those jobs. When they are not longer in those positions (retire, disbarred...), they lose their status and become average "joe".
So, values, morals, virtue, are situational and therefore arbitrary?
Not to nit-pick, but in the case of doctors and clergymen, I believe they retain an emeritus privilege even after they are retired from every-day practice. Unless they are formally stripped of their status by the body that qualifies them (such as for malfeasance of duty), they are still entitled to treat patients or counsel the faithful, with full confidentiality. Lawyers have an attorney-client privilege only if the lawyer has been formally retained by the party in question.
For me, as an individual, morality and virtue are not situational. What goes in my home always went and will go to a workplace. Yeah, it can be difficult at work but being true to myself is number 1.
Is "right" always right, and "wrong" always wrong?
Morality defines behaviors that are sustainably beneficial or harmful to individuals and society. I see morality as arising out of society and its need to be sustainable for the overall benefit of its members.
Societies and the individuals within them evolve and change. For example our understanding of slavery, indentured servitude, universal suffrage, and sexuality are very different than they were, say, 200 years ago. As they should be. And so our mores have changed.
Our moral sense or compass or whatever you want to call it is not externally defined and given, it is an emergent property of our cooperation with one another and is imprinted on us by the society we come of age in.
As soon as two people work or live together, rules emerge / are worked out to make that succeed. As more and more people gathered in cities and city-states, more complex rulesets had to be devised.
So no, in an absolute sense, what was "right" or "acceptable" in one time / place / society can indeed be "wrong" or "unacceptable" in another.
Because humans are humans everywhere, there are some general principles that have emerged as fairly universal and enduring, such as the Golden Rule, prohibitions against murder and theft, etc. This is because of the commonality of the human experience. More specific / limited things such as whether it's acceptable or not to belch in public, whether men embrace and kiss when greeting each other, and bowing protocols or lack thereof when greeting others, are just a product of local conventions and customs. In between these extremes is a lot of diversity and it's all a function of what makes each society work well for its participants.
Some situations, conditions, structures/frameworks
can make doing the "right" thing (whatever it is) easier,
others make it harder to do "the right thing".
So often we hear about "a few bad apples"-which may be the case,
but so often it later turns out that it was "the barrel" that held the metaphorical apples
which was the source cause of the rot.
What is right for one person or group may or may not
be what is right for another individual or group.
Level playing field,sure-but one size doesn't fit all comers, either.
People share certain needs and values, yet we also have great diversity-
and hence, divergences in what we want & need.
Morality can, in our modern society, be a criminal offense.
Let's say that I give you my word, and in fact, swear an oath before God, that I will keep in confidence some fact that you have disclosed to me. I am then called to testify in a court of law, and the judge orders me to disclose what you have told me, under penalty of contempt and a long jail sentence. What is the moral thing for me to do?
If you had disclosed that fact to a doctor or a clergyman, they are under no obligation to violate your trust in them. But my private honor and virtue have no such protection, and the state presumes me a criminal for exercising that honor. What make's my honor so much less valid than some arbitrary professional ethic that gives certain other people the moral right to honor their commitment to you?
Morality (in my mind) can never be a criminal offense...maybe if you LET it..If someone took me into their confidences, and a judge asked me to disclose them, I'd just make something up..that would be MY moral choice...maybe not societies...The "moral" thing for you to do is what you KNOW is morally right...not what the legal system says is right.....I think that allowing clergymen, and doctors to keep confidences private, and then not you as well, is immoral, (it's a mockery of morality). I don't believe morality can be situational, I believe you either are a moralist or you aren't...at all times.
Morality (in my mind) can never be a criminal offense...maybe if you LET it..If someone took me into their confidences, and a judge asked me to disclose them, I'd just make something up..that would be MY moral choice...maybe not societies...The "moral" thing for you to do is what you KNOW is morally right...not what the legal system says is right.....I think that allowing clergymen, and doctors to keep confidences private, and then not you as well, is immoral, (it's a mockery of morality). I don't believe morality can be situational, I believe you either are a moralist or you aren't...at all times.
You have just said that to commit a criminal offense is the moral thing to do. How, then, can the moral thing to do NOT be a criminal offense, if doing it is defined as a criminal offense? Remember, unlike morality or virtue, criminal offenses are man-made, and it's not up to me to LET myself be bound by criminal laws. Men with guns extricate me from that quandary. There are even countries to render me to, legally, if necessary, now that we have formally turned that corner with the blessings of the Congress that you have elected. "Situational" has a whole new meaning now.
Maybe what everyone ought to do is to go to one of those on-line churches, and get a certificate ordaining themselves as a minister. Then there is at least one immoral criminal law that you won't have to worry about being sent to prison for.
Not really jtur88, "criminal offense" is subject to interpretation...(I don't interpret keeping confidences as a criminal offense, maybe the LAW says it is) and maybe you do because the law says it is? I don't see that having to do with morality. I don't see [how]? it could?..when morals and law are two different things..
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.
