[Sloper]

The question of morals and morality is an interesting one and I think given recent events one worth debating.

Let's take the fine upstanding members of the investment banking community and the response to their perceived immoral activities: what is interesting with the response is that the direct connection between their individual acts and the consequences for individuals is at best very week, and yet the social obloquy was immense.

Loosely then we can say that the degree of moral outrage is not contingent on the direct responsibility for the effects but rather the ethics which gave rise to the actions.

So if morals are, in one way considered not with the effect but with the ethics behind the acts (mens rea being the legal shorthand for 'guilty mind') we need to ask when does an ethical animus become amoral and how does this change?

If we take child labour, 500 years ago in England the idea of children not working would have been considered perverse and the idea of not discriminating against women bizzare: however in many parts of the world these are still pervasive and accepted attitudes.  So, the moral compass is not universal or indeed fixed.

Which brings us to the crux of the matter: who sets the boundary between what is 'moral' and what is not.

Of course there's no simple answer to this, but I would suggest that a good starting point is to be found in considering the conflict of competing rights: for example my right to drive pissed as a newt (note I don't actually do this) is in conflict with the rights of other road users & etc not to be put at risk from my impaired driving.

Where some matters are 'moral' in some instances but amoral in others, i.e. violence the distinction is that there is an acquiescence between the parties in the circumstances which make it moral or a wider public purpose which makes what otherwise would be amoral, moral, for example self defence etc. These might be described as 'private' and 'public' morality.

In the case of private morality for this to be truly moral the contract between the parties needs to be properly informed and the parties able to contract and this is why we draw such stark contrasts between behaviour that can in normative terms be described in similar terms.

Now what about moral relativity, over to you.

[petejh]

<wordoftheday>
Obloguy: strong public condemnation.
"he endured years of contempt and obloquy"
synonyms:   vilification, opprobrium, vituperation, condemnation, castigation, denunciation, abuse, criticism, censure, flak, defamation, denigration, disparagement, derogation, slander, revilement, reviling, calumny, calumniation, execration, excoriation, lambasting, upbraiding, bad press, character assassination, attack, invective, libel, insults, aspersions;
</wordoftheday>

[petejh]

..
Now what about moral relativity, over to you.
..

It's everywhere? What more can be said?
In line with the context of recent threads - the age of sexual consent throughout Europe ranges from 13 to 17. Implication: the definition of what constitutes child sex abuse isn't absolute - it depends on longitude and latitude, accidents of history and cultural mores, among other things.

[lagerstarfish]

this isn't a thread about where to buy pof?

[tomtom]

this isn't a thread about where to buy pof?

Nearly - it's the Sam & Sloper flirting thread

[lagerstarfish]

are they bummers?

[rich d]

are they bummers?

spoken like a true philosopher.

[fatdoc]

Oh god... Here comes the gay police 

Didn't we have this last year?

[lagerstarfish]

like many philosophers, I am justified in using words however I see fit regardless of what they rest of the world thinks

it is unfortunate that some people choose to take unreasonable offence at my occasional use of certain words

should anyone wish to make a formal complaint, they can write to the head of my department at The Jim Davidson School of Ethics and Social Policy - complaints can usually be resolved by semantic meandering until we reach the point where we are discussing the validity of statements which express logical necessities - failing that, my head of department will explain that you do not have to choose read offensive material - he may put his hands over his ears and sing something loud

I am right and you are wrong - the tenner in my pocket proves it - that and the fact that a party loosely representing my views is in government

many of friends are.... etc etc

the content of this post in no way represents the views of anyone on this forum

any resemblance to postings living or dead is entirely coincidental

invoice in the post, payment within 30 days

[a dense loner]

I won't cum in your mouth

[psychomansam]

The question of morals and morality is an interesting one and I think given recent events one worth debating.

Let's take the fine upstanding members of the investment banking community and the response to their perceived immoral activities: what is interesting with the response is that the direct connection between their individual acts and the consequences for individuals is at best very week, and yet the social obloquy was immense.

Loosely then we can say that the degree of moral outrage is not contingent on the direct responsibility for the effects but rather the ethics which gave rise to the actions.

So if morals are, in one way considered not with the effect but with the ethics behind the acts (mens rea being the legal shorthand for 'guilty mind') we need to ask when does an ethical animus become amoral and how does this change?

If we take child labour, 500 years ago in England the idea of children not working would have been considered perverse and the idea of not discriminating against women bizzare: however in many parts of the world these are still pervasive and accepted attitudes.  So, the moral compass is not universal or indeed fixed.

Which brings us to the crux of the matter: who sets the boundary between what is 'moral' and what is not.

Of course there's no simple answer to this, but I would suggest that a good starting point is to be found in considering the conflict of competing rights: for example my right to drive pissed as a newt (note I don't actually do this) is in conflict with the rights of other road users & etc not to be put at risk from my impaired driving.

Where some matters are 'moral' in some instances but amoral in others, i.e. violence the distinction is that there is an acquiescence between the parties in the circumstances which make it moral or a wider public purpose which makes what otherwise would be amoral, moral, for example self defence etc. These might be described as 'private' and 'public' morality.

In the case of private morality for this to be truly moral the contract between the parties needs to be properly informed and the parties able to contract and this is why we draw such stark contrasts between behaviour that can in normative terms be described in similar terms.

Now what about moral relativity, over to you.

When you say 'amoral' repeatedly in the above (and 'what is 'moral' and what is not'), can I take it that you actually mean 'immoral'?