A debater wrote in some thread "It is a noble goal, balancing morality and freedom, ... "
It would be an interesting subject to discuss this "balancing" morality and freedom.
Is freedom and acting morally contradictory or what ?
Do morals and ethics limit our freedom ?
Are these two entities mutually excluding eachother or is acting morally an expression of the highest form of freedom ?
What are your thoughts ?
.
Originally posted by ivanhoeI depends on how you define "morality".
A debater wrote in some thread "It is a noble goal, balancing morality and freedom, ... "
It would be an interesting subject to discuss this "balancing" morality and freedom.
Is freedom and acting morally contradictory or what ?
Do morals and ethics limit our freedom ?
Are these two entities mutually excluding eachother or is acting morally an expression of the highest form of freedom ?
What are your thoughts ?
.
Originally posted by PhlabibitThis is exactly the point, isn't it? The world is filled with as many ideas of what is or is not immoral as it is with people.
You 2 don't have the same morals.
P-
Ivanhoe queries if behaving morally is the greatest expression of freedom. Well, maybe, but what is the point if nobody can agree on what behaving morally is?
People kill abortion doctors in the name of moral duty. This is certainly an act of freedom, but moral? Not in my book...not that my book matters much, it is just my opinion.
I guess this is why we need government...we can lobby government to make laws based on our own morals. Then government will make some sort of deal with us and we will ALL be ticked off...perfect!?
TheSkipper
Originally posted by rwingett
You go first.
lol ... I don't want to steal your idea, rwingett. Go ahead ...
You can look upon this thread as an opportunity to explore things ... well, that's the way I see it ... exploring things is always the first step.
The real reason is that I do not want to start an endless discussion about definitions. These debates are highly technical and usually about irrelevant details and perfect playing grounds for those who want to roll their debating muscles. It's so boring, however sometimes necessary ... but again if you feel the need ... go right ahead, but don't get lost ! ... who knows if you conduct the debate with a firm eye aimed at the purpose of this thread ... who knows what will come out of such a debate, don't let me stop you ...
Originally posted by ivanhoeMy idea? You're the one that started the thread.
lol ... I don't want to steal your idea, rwingett. Go ahead ...
You can look upon this thread as an opportunity to explore things ... well, that's the way I see it ... exploring things is always the first step.
The real reason is that I do not want to start an endless discussion about definitions. These debates are highly technical and usually a ...[text shortened]... of this thread ... who knows what will come out of such a debate, don't let me stop you ...
As Phlabibit mentioned, we do not share the same conception of what morality is. Are we talking about morality as defined by the Roman Catholic church? I would have to know what you mean by "morality" before I could begin to contribute anything.
Originally posted by rwingett
My idea? You're the one that started the thread.
As Phlabibit mentioned, we do not share the same conception of what morality is. Are we talking about morality as defined by the Roman Catholic church? I would have to know what you mean by "morality" before I could begin to contribute anything.
Choose what ever you like and tell us the definition you want to use.
.
Originally posted by ivanhoeTrying to establish what kind of definition would be appropiate, relevant and workable.
Choose what ever you like and tell us the definition you want to use.
.
Let me give it a go ... lets say I'm interested in ethics and freedom in general, as an amateur of course.
Question: Can ethics be looked upon as a set of rules that we can change in a way we find suitable. For instance: Can we compare ethics with the set of rules we call Traffic Rules (TR). We only need a set of (consistent ?) rules to let everything go in an orderly way without any unneccasary (?) casualties. So if we feel like it or if we find it necessary, we can change the rules. If Britain wants to change the rule of driving on the left side of the road there is no moral problem at all. We simply all follow the new rule of driving on the right (ha ha, don't let this confuse you) side of the road and nothing goes wrong. Do things work in a simular way when we want to change moral rules ?
.
If I may assume we all live in societies with governments, then it will be this government that has the largest impact on your freedom. With no government and thus no rules you could do as you plaese and thus we have anarchy, people being robbed, raped, killed and all the rest of it. So clearly we need some rules, these rules are often based on some sense of morality (it's immoral to kill, lets make it illegal)
The above paragraph was to explicitly connect how morals impact on freedoms. Now in most western societies people want to be a free as possible, live their life and exercise there own own moral code. But that includes being free from being hurt or bothered by people with different morals (i.e. the rapist clearly does not have a problem with rape, he has a different moral code).
I believe that laws should be made so as to allow people to follow there own morals to the greatest extent possible with out harming others (something most western governements try to do too I believe). For example:
1) It used to be that homosexual intercourse was illegal, this was because the church (on which many laws were and indeed still are based) said it was imoral. These days we say any 2 people may involve in consential intercourse. Even if this is againt your personal moral code their actions do not degrade your quality of life and thus they should be allowed their freedom on this issue.
2) At the other end of the scale slavery used to be legal too. But these days it is banned because it is recognised that even if some one has a moral code that it's ok to enslave other people for whatever reason, this has a very negative effect on the ability of the slave to live their own life according to their own code. This is a rather extreme example I know but the point is that actions based on a moral code that harms other must rightly be outlawed. In this section of course go murder, rape, theft and all the rest. I picked slavery because it used to be legal, where as none of the other I can think of did.
So we have a means by which we develop our rules. We try to let people live their lives as they please but must draw the line when these actions harm others. Most of these rules produce little or no disagreement as they seem "obvious".
The part where it gets hard for our governments is on the 1% fo rules which are less clear issues. Such as abortion (where this thread was started from), here it is not as clear cut as "I think it's moraly ok to abort, but you do not, but me having an abortion does not effect you so I should be allowed". Many people feel while it does not effect them they need to assert the rights of the baby. Another could be the issue of using smacking as a means to punish your child, or the right to commit suicide or undergo volentry euthinasia, or amny issues around animal rights.
And this is of course where governments must walk a tightrope, between upsetting those who are having their morals dictated to the from afar (something no one likes) and those who feel (as is a fairly common theme in all these hotly debated issues) that the parties unable to speak for themslefs are having their quality of life harmed by peoples moral codes (which is what we decided was out bottom line).
I've kinda got more idea's on this but I've written alot so I'll wait to see some reaction first.....
There are as many different ideas about what is moral as there are people. As for me, I find most thinks that people believe to be moral to be USDA pure bull**** (That is to say: pure as in filled with drugs and disease [figuratively speaking]).
My whole idea of morality to to make freedom not self-contradictory and not in opposition to happiness--to make sure that people's freedom doesn't interfere with anyone else's freedom or happiness. In my vision of morality, morality does not interfere with freedom. As for what most people call morality, it certainly does. The homosexuality example someone else gave is a perfect example.