Moral.. What is moral?

[We Never Know]

2. What if it's things like not drinking while driving. Should we force people to not drink if they are going to drive? Is it moral or not?

Drinking and driving... They have a choice about that.

 

[We Never Know]

Not for me. The way I interact with a person or how I think about them may vary from person to person, but they are all being evaluated according to the same set of moral values.



This is mildly immoral - mostly unfriendly.

But I have to say that most of what is called making fun of beliefs on these threads is not that to me. Most skeptics are telling the believers why they don't believe themselves, and also what's wrong with the science and reasoning in the believer's apologetics. This is often framed by the believer as an attack. I don't consider that kind of behavior an attack, immoral or even unfriendly. It's a principle purpose of this forum.



That isn't happening, except possibly with children who would refuse a vaccine if their parents didn't hold them down while they were being inoculated through tears. That's forcing a vaccine. If it were happening to adults, I'd have misgivings about it.

What is happening is that people are being told they can't hold a certain job without a vaccine, or get on an airplane, or attend an entertainment venue of some sort, or enter a restaurant. These are not done to force others to take vaccines, although it does give them incentive to do so if their health and the health of others around them isn't sufficient. They are done for health and safety reasons, like forbidding entrance to the unshirted and unshod. Everybody still has the choice to refuse the vaccine just like they have the right to go barefoot, but they may sacrifice some privileges with it..

So, not a moral issue at all, since nobody is being forced to do anything or is having any right violated.



This is by far the most immoral thing on this list. This is psychological terrorism, and it usually begins in childhood. Some have called it child abuse.



This is not immoral, although party isn't a factor. It's character. I just can't respect people with certain values and opinions, and prefer to not spend time with them.

"That isn't happening, except possibly with children who would refuse a vaccine if their parents didn't hold them down while they were being inoculated through tears. That's forcing a vaccine. If it were happening to adults, I'd have misgivings about it."

I agree. But some think others should be forced to get it.

 

[We Never Know]

If we strip morality from the content of the actual beliefs being professed, and the content of the actions being performed, then all morality will take on an air of absurdity and restriction.

People have already argued extensively on the morality of quarantines, vaccination, and mask mandates, both here on RF and elsewhere. If these arguments have not been able to convince you, in the third year of a global pandemic, why it is necessary or useful to do any of these things, then what, pray tell, would be the point of laying them all out again for the n-th time in this thread?

You are free not to comment if it bothers you. No one is forcing you to participate in this thread.

 

[Kooky]

You are free not to comment if it bothers you. No one is forcing you to participate in this thread.

What I am taking away from this response is that you cannot answer, or at the very least have a strong aversion to answering the question I posed. Is that an accurate assessment?

 

[sayak83]

Drinking and driving... They have a choice about that.

No we are constraining their choice by forcing them to be sober while driving.

 

[We Never Know]

No we are constraining their choice by forcing them to be sober while driving.

No one is forced to drive sober. If they were there would be no DWI's, DUI's, etc.

Well a chronic DWI offender that has a breathlock in their vehicle they are pretty much forced to drive that one sober.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You just said you didn't judge people by different moral standards? Now you are saying children aren't people?

No, I am not saying that children are not people. Perhaps I need to elaborate.

When I say that I have a moral code that I apply across the board, it doesn't mean that I don't treat different kinds of people differently. I do. I treat law abiders differently than lawbreakers. I treat bigots differently than others. I treat people who are kind, caring and cooperative differently than the selfish and antisocial. But the rules are the same for everybody, and all derive from the basic belief that moral behavior for a society is that which affords the most people the most freedom to pursue happiness as they understand it. If you want to break the law, be a bigot, or act out in public, I will view you and perhaps deal with you in a way consistent with that overarching moral imperative.

Think Popper's paradox, which as first might seem to be a double standard: "An open society needs to be intolerant of intolerance." I agree. I view and treat the intolerant differently than the tolerant, but I consider it all to be in accordance with a single, consistent moral standard.

Regarding treating children and adults differently, that too is consistent with my moral imperative of maximizing overall satisfaction. Let adults drive, but not children. It makes life better for everybody involved.

Does that answer your question?

 

[Heyo]

No, I am not saying that children are not people. Perhaps I need to elaborate.

When I say that I have a moral code that I apply across the board, it doesn't mean that I don't treat different kinds of people differently. I do. I treat law abiders differently than lawbreakers. I treat bigots differently than others. I treat people who are kind, caring and cooperative differently than the selfish and antisocial. But the rules are the same for everybody, and all derive from the basic belief that moral behavior for a society is that which affords the most people the most freedom to pursue happiness as they understand it. If you want to break the law, be a bigot, or act out in public, I will view you and perhaps deal with you in a way consistent with that overarching moral imperative.

Think Popper's paradox, which as first might seem to be a double standard: "An open society needs to be intolerant of intolerance." I agree. I view and treat the intolerant differently than the tolerant, but I consider it all to be in accordance with a single, consistent moral standard.

Regarding treating children and adults differently, that too is consistent with my moral imperative of maximizing overall satisfaction. Let adults drive, but not children. It makes life better for everybody involved.

Does that answer your question?

It clears some things up but one question remains:
You indicated that it would be OK for you to force vaccinations on children but not on adults. What is the morality behind that distinction?

(We don't let children drive because they lack some abilities to drive safely. I get that.)

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It clears some things up but one question remains: You indicated that it would be OK for you to force vaccinations on children but not on adults. What is the morality behind that distinction?

Small children aren't competent enough to make the decision for themselves. I'm glad that I was forced to take smallpox and polio vaccines, but probably would have refused them if given a choice (probably would have taken the oral polio sugar cube, but not a needle).

You might be talking about coronavirus vaccines. Same thing. If I were 6 years old, I might refuse the vaccine, but shouldn't be allowed to.

I understand that this is a complex issue. Some children are more competent than their parents. I saw a vaccinated 15-year old on TV watching her unvaccinated mother dying in the ICU. I would call this adult insufficiently competent to make choices, but wouldn't force a vaccine on her.

It's a matter of balancing competing interests, which isn't always easy to do. We're balancing autonomy and individualism in the pursuit of happiness against individual and communal wellbeing.

 

[sayak83]

No one is forced to drive sober. If they were there would be no DWI's, DUI's, etc.

Well a chronic DWI offender that has a breathlock in their vehicle they are pretty much forced to drive that one sober.

No one is forced to do anything. They are simply illegal activities that attract punishment when performed.

 

[We Never Know]

No one is forced to do anything. They are simply illegal activities that attract punishment when performed.

And its a choice.

 

[Heyo]

I understand that this is a complex issue. Some children are more competent than their parents. I saw a vaccinated 15-year old on TV watching her unvaccinated mother dying in the ICU. I would call this adult insufficiently competent to make choices, but wouldn't force a vaccine on her.

It's a matter of balancing competing interests, which isn't always easy to do. We're balancing autonomy and individualism in the pursuit of happiness against individual and communal wellbeing.

That's exactly what I wanted to read. Allowing adults, who are obviously not competent to make decisions, to make those decisions anyway is a judgement call, a weighing of one right against another. I can, with the exactly same set of values you have, decide the other way just by applying a slightly other weight.

 

[sayak83]

And its a choice.

Same for vaccine mandates. It's a choice.
Though if one lands in jail, one is being forced to not drink and drive correct? So it's no longer a choice.

 

[We Never Know]

Same for vaccine mandates. It's a choice.

Did you forget its not about mandates, its about being forced. I've seen some here say people should be forced to take the shot.

 

[sayak83]

Did you forget its not about mandates, its about being forced. I've seen some here say people should be forced to take the shot.

The threat of fines or prison can be interpreted as a form of force. You were not clear enough of what sort of "forced to" you were talking about.

 

[We Never Know]

The threat of fines or prison can be interpreted as a form of force. You were not clear enough of what sort of "forced to" you were talking about.

I thought "Force people to do something they don't want such as take a shot" was pretty clear but I could be wrong.

 

[SomeRandom]

Is it moral to...
-Make fun of people for believing

I’d consider that rude behaviour, at the very least

-Force people to do something they don't want such as take a shot

I’d argue those who choose to refuse the vaccine (as is their right) are immoral for failing to take care of their community (especially those who are particularly vulnerable, like the elderly or those with disabilities) by allowing a known preventable (to a degree) virus to spread, mutate and destroy families. And before you cry mandate, all laws are technically mandates. Indeed, I can’t think of anywhere that has actually made it a law to get vaccinated. Even for things like smallpox, polio etc. Merely used incentives to encourage such participation (and obviously allowing for medical exemptions.)
It is mandated that you pay your landlord rent, it is mandated that you don’t drink and drive, it is mandated that you educate your children (though in countries outside the US this mandate is usually even stricter.)
If you don’t participate with those mandates, that is your choice. But you can’t cry foul when you face consequences for those choices. I can’t show up to my job in ripped clothing, without a name badge, 5 hours after my rostered shift started and whine that I faced disciplinary action. I chose to do that so must live with the consequences. Like an adult.

Honestly I’m supposed to be the spoilt brat millennial in this equation. Apparently my elders are okay with setting a horrible example. But whatever lol

-Threaten people with hell for not believing

Yeah that’s pretty rude. Although I suppose to be fair, those doing the threatening might consider it highly immoral not to impart such threats. Like they are responsible for allowing someone’s soul to go to Hell and thus not acting in a responsible manner.
I don’t agree with that, but I can understand why someone might be compelled to do that all the same.

-Dislike people because they like a different party

Eh humans are tribalistic. I’d argue that’s extremely superficial. Although again in fairness sometimes holding certain beliefs about social issues may prevent others from being your friend. I mean I can’t in good conscious tell my gay friend I think he is an abomination and not expect at least some pushback. Some folks can live side by side, others may rely on politics to have even a modicum of a happy life. So they may have more investment than mere party loyalty. Just a thought.

I put those four as examples because they cover four issues today...
1. Religion
2. The vaccine
3. Non-religious
4. Politics

Or are morals like everything else, they differ depending upon the person?

I’d say it depends on the person. There are a myriad of way to look at such issues, if you like.

 

[Kooky]

Did you forget its not about mandates, its about being forced. I've seen some here say people should be forced to take the shot.

You've just established that "forcing" people by law to do something isn't literally forcing them to do anything, because they always have the choice to suffer the legal consequences instead.

So any legal vaccination mandate would just be giving you a choice between getting vaccinated and paying a fine.