Law and how it fits in Abolute Moralities

quote:

---

I'm not sure how I am equating moral with good or even what good is for that matter.

---

Bear with me on this. I'm not used to using the terms moral or immoral. I tend to use ethical or unethical in regards to choices. I was trying to make sure I understand how you are using moral when you use it concerning actions and stances. So you were saying that right actions and stances should be inborn.Unfortunately we are all products of our environment. Our temperament may be inborn, but what we consider to be right and wrong or our moral values, are acquired through example, teaching, and imprinting from parents and society. So people are coerced into their values.As far as the legislated action you gave as an example, I am familiar with the practices of Affirmative Action. I'm not a minority, but I am a woman.Affirmative action came about as a way to correct social injustices, IOW discrimination/prejudice. These injustices limited access to educational opportunities and job experiences for minorities which would in turn affect their quality of life.So they are using affirmative action to help minorities "catch up" so to speak. Unfortunately they just reversed the discrimination. I think many on both sides feel that the affirmative action program should expire and people should be judged on their own merits.So was it wrong for the Civil Rights Movement to want ammends or was it just not the best way to go about it?Was it a good idea then, but past it's prime now?If discrimination is a wrong behavior, is it wrong to protect people from those who discrimate?Telling people they can't murder, steal, discriminate, lie, etc. would be legislating morality. IOW, dictating what the society accepts as right and wrong. Parents do the same thing to their children.People fight to change laws that they consider wrong or not applicable any more. The civil rights movement fought to get laws changed and enacted to proctect. Sometimes its just as harder to undo what is in place. I'm sure there will be a time.The on going debates concerning Affirmative Action:

quote:

---

So I am in the position of recieving a higher status in college apps then other groups when my skills as a student may not necessairly be as good as one who may be ranked lower then me.) This particular legislation has forced me into my own moral quandry.

---

Out of curiosity, do you have to accept the higher status?When I was a single parent, I was eligible for food stamps. I didn't feel I should take the food stamps since I was able to make ends meet.The help is there if you feel you need it, but if it isn't mandatory you can choose to make it on your own merits. This is the type of choice where our own personal moral values come into play. I don't think society would care which choice you make.Alcohol, Prostitution, CensorshipThose are some things that seem to be geared by religious moral values. They want everyone on the same page or they don't like dealing with temptation. I don't feel it is right to micromanage moral values. They should stick to dealing with those things that can harm the innocent.

This is a great Debate between Discrete and purpledawn

Edited by purpledawn, : Added Debate Notice

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

I'm not certain I meant inborn. To my understanding intrinsic means for the sake of doing it. For example there is an intrinsic value in learning about chemistry for the sake of chemistry. Like some people cook for the sake of cooking, the intrinsic value is inherent in the process of doing them.So as applied to moral decisions. Moral decisions should be made for the sake of making them not because there is an external factor involved saying that this is the decision you must make. It was a good idea, but approached in the wrong manner in my honest opinion. Realistically it should of tackled the problem from bottom up vs top down. You continually introduce and phase everything in over a span of time. Poltically speaking that kind of phase in would of taken time and been politcal suicide because they would of sad you were doing it to slowly. But the phase in process of combining schools from the first grade present at the school and then moving upward would have potentially made the switch a great deal easier for people to get used to. In example a three year school would take three years to become completely integrated. Or something like that.One of the other problems is that tossing everyone together without any warning caused huge reprecussions in the educational system because of the differences in educational backgrounds in terms of what was actually learned. As black schools were definietly not on par with white schools due to funding issues. Basically what would of been best for the school system would have been to slowly integrate and continually do so to best understand what level everyone was coming from and be able to get everyone and maintain the level of educaiton. Not to sure. California atm has relaxed it and started only using ethnicity for statistical reasons and removed the prefrence portion (UC and CSU). But i'm not sure about other states, so when i do go to another state and i mark my ethnicity, or even if they look at my last name they will either note that i'm asian or from my name hispanic. So either way i'm a minority. One case an educated minority in the other case i'm a traditionally under represented minority (based on name).Same here for micromanaging. Its impossible to do, its akin to attmepting to control what everyone thinks all the time. Its pretty much a waste of resources, because it becomes akin to a police state the more and more everything is controlled...Sorry for rushed post i've an ethics seminar to attend.

quote:

---

So as applied to moral decisions. Moral decisions should be made for the sake of making them not because there is an external factor involved saying that this is the decision you must make.

---

Intrinisic is natural. So you may not mean inborn, from birth, but the intrinsic value in learning aobut chemistry is for the sake of learning. Some people just like to learn whether they need the info for anything specific. Just as for cooking. Some people just enjoy cooking, whether they have to or not. It's just how they are naturally.IMO, morals are a little bit of inborn (temperament) and a lot of what you have been taught over the years. If someone asks me to steal, my natural reaction is no. When it comes to things outside of what I've been taught or my temperament, then I have to think a bit more before acting.An ethics seminar sounds interesting.

This is a great Debate between Discrete and purpledawn

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

It is if you discount the bad 80's video clips and movies, as well as the even worse acting and yet worse stereotyping. All the people making bad ethical decision were played by black characters.