Discussion on morality

I remember we had a thread like this on the previous board, and I'd like to bring it back. My own worldviews have been going through constant change over the past few years, so I enjoy engaging in these discussions and seeing where they lead me next. I also remember having a discussion with Pntball about the moral value of humans vs. animals before it got cut short, which I'd be happy to continue ;). Although my views have been refined somewhat even since then.

So basically the point is to share views on morality. This is not supposed to be a theistic debate, although I acknowladge that some of those aspects will probably be impossible to avoid. Discuss differences, similarities, dilemmas, contradictions, values etc. in a respectable manner. You know, get a good conversation rolling. No one should be left feeling like their views are being attacked. Any differences in opinion can be presented as polite questions or points without calling anyone an ignoramus, so that everyone gets the most out of the whole debate experience.
(Don't be a d*ck, is what I'm saying..)

-----------------------------------------------------------------

To start things off, I'll present my own view on morality as of now. As I said, it's been under constant change. Right now my views are pretty close those that Sam Harris outlines in "The Moral Landscape". And that is that morality has to do explicitly with the well-being of conscious creatures.
Although he calls it moral objectivism, which I don't think it is. The way I see it the most general possible source you could find for any morality would be our nature and the way we as humans experience consciousness. Any possible moral truth out there is still subject to the fact that our consciousness is such that we value happiness and disvalue suffering, which is not an absolute fact. This is just a result of how our consciousness has evolved within the organism we call "life" on Earth. So I don't think such a thing as objective morality outside our conscious minds could ever exist.

However, although I support moral subjectivism on that front, I don't support moral relativism. That is to say I do think there are right and wrong answers to all moral dilemmas, given the basic assumption that morality has to do with the well-being of conscious creatures. Well-being is something that can be measured with scientific facts. This is true even though we don't have an all-encompassing definition of "well-being". For analogy, just because because there is no ultimate definition of "health", that doesn't mean we can't make clear decisions of what is healthy and what is not. Similar to how there still isn't a really good definition of "life", yet we still have the thriving science of biology based around it. A science which is based purely on facts.

So to not write a huge big wall of text explaining my whole current view in detail, I'll summarize here. And maybe leaving my explanation a bit open ended might catalyse the discussion forward a bit.. I'll bring up other points as they become necessary. But in short:
There are such things as right and wrong opinions on moral values, but I don't concede that there is anything outside our minds asserting these moral values.

Discuss away! :lalala:

It sounds like we share similar opinions on the subject, although I don't think I've thought mine through quite as thoroughly. I have some very strong moral opinions on a number of subjects. Like you, I acknowledge the subjectivity of morality, and my morals aren't taken from a specific religion or any other organized system. To some degree I assume they are a product of my culture and upbringing, but I also feel there are some moral notions that can be more objectively recognized, as you said.

The fundamental basis of my moral beliefs takes the form of a question: "How does this action affect others?" That is the question I ask myself when determining whether or not I think something is right or wrong.

Obviously there can be grey area, and some of it is probably a spectrum. It is easier to determine the positive or negative affects of an action in some situations. More clear moral answers are attached to more drastic effects, for example: killing someone is the absolute most significant way you could negatively affect someone else's life (by removing that life from them, and therefore all benefits of life and choice) so according to my moral views, murder would be one of the most immoral actions one could commit. That's one of the easier, more extreme examples. I feel there are situations where it's hard to judge what's morally right or wrong where the consequences and their pros and cons are less clear. But that's the general gist of my moral code.

I differ from you both in that ascribe to an objective moral reality -- there exists an objective right and an objective wrong for at least some situations. We can try to identify what the right and wrong is, and we can be correct or incorrect in our conclusion, but our conclusion does not change rightness or wrongness. Revo, I am well aware that you disagree.

All objective moral realities necessitate a moral authority -- I'm closest to a Modified Divine Command Theory, as per Adams.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pntbll248

I differ from you both in that ascribe to an objective moral reality -- there exists an objective right and an objective wrong for at least some situations. We can try to identify what the right and wrong is, and we can be correct or incorrect in our conclusion, but our conclusion does not change rightness or wrongness. Revo, I am well aware that you disagree.

---

Actually I don't disagree at all with the part I bolded out. Since our last discussion (and partly as a result of it) I have organized and rearranged my position considerably. I feel somewhat trivial about whether my views would be called objective or subjective... It's the content that counts rather than the label, and my view has a lot more in common with the traditional sense of objective morality. As I mentioned, Harris himself calls his model a model for objective morality. The only reason I'd rather call it subjective is on a technicality. The content is the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Revo

Actually I don't disagree at all with the part I bolded out. Since our last discussion (and partly as a result of it) I have organized and rearranged my position considerably. I feel somewhat trivial about whether my views would be called objective or subjective... It's the content that counts rather than the label, and my view has a lot more in common with the traditional sense of objective morality.

---

Then we can move forward with our discussion :nukasmilie:

This is actually one of those subjects I have a great deal of trouble actually debating, since I am an agnostic. According to my personal beliefs, one cannot know nor prove with certainty whether or not there is a deity (or divine moral authority). The best I can do is say, "I do not believe the same thing," but I cannot prove that my viewpoint is correct nor disprove yours. ;)

My stance on it is basically, "This is what makes the most sense to me, but I cannot come to a definitive conclusion without more evidence," so as far as morality goes, I guess I follow the same principle. I do not know if there is a true "right" or "wrong" so the best I can do is use the available evidence to come to the best conclusions I can about it. In my case: trying to discern right or wrong based on how others are affected by specific actions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saitenyo

My stance on it is basically, "This is what makes the most sense to me, but I cannot come to a definitive conclusion without more evidence," so as far as morality goes, I guess I follow the same principle. I do not know if there is a true "right" or "wrong" so the best I can do is use the available evidence to come to the best conclusions I can about it. In my case: trying to discern right or wrong based on how others are affected by specific actions.

---

But by admitting that moral questions can infact be evaluated with evidence and reason, are you not also submitting that there are right and wrong answers to moral questions?

To any particular moral problem there is a finite amount of answers, and thus a finite number of results. All of these results fall into one of three categories in the long term:
1) The net well-being has increased (Or in your words: The overall effect has been positive)
2) The net well-being has decreased (The overall effect has been negative)
3) The net well-being has not changed (The overall effect has been insignificant)

Even if we aren't capable of foreseeing the full consequences of our choices, the truth is that some choices will be better than others. Would you agree?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Revo

But by admitting that moral questions can infact be evaluated with evidence and reason, are you not also submitting that there are right and wrong answers to moral questions?

---

There are right and wrong answers from my own perspective. As for whether or not there are right and wrong answers from a purely objective or divine perspective, that I cannot answer. I don't think we have enough information about life/the universe to answer that question.

Quote:

---

To any particular moral problem there is a finite amount of answers, and thus a finite number of results. All of these results fall into one of three categories in the long term:
1) The net well-being has increased (Or in your words: The overall effect has been positive)
2) The net well-being has decreased (The overall effect has been negative)
3) The net well-being has not changed (The overall effect has been insignificant)

Even if we aren't capable of foreseeing the full consequences of our choices, the truth is that some choices will be better than others. Would you agree?

---

I do agree, yes. Like I said, I maintain, from my personal perspective, that there are definitive right or wrong answers if morality is based on how the well-being of others has been affected. I think that is something we can judge based on available evidence. I just meant that we have no way of knowing whether or not there truly is a divine moral code of right and wrong, beyond simply judging cause and effect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saitenyo

There are right and wrong answers from my own perspective. As for whether or not there are right and wrong answers from a purely objective or divine perspective, that I cannot answer. I don't think we have enough information about life/the universe to answer that question.


I do agree, yes. Like I said, I maintain, from my personal perspective, that there are definitive right or wrong answers if morality is based on how the well-being of others has been affected. I think that is something we can judge based on available evidence. I just meant that we have no way of knowing whether or not there truly is a divine moral code of right and wrong, beyond simply judging cause and effect.

---

Even if there was a God out there with his self-proclaimed perfect moral code, what would that change? Would we be obligated to follow that code? Why? We as conscious beings are perfectly justified in evaluating the morality of other conscious beings without any guidance from some mystical objective authority "out there".
Any divine moral code would also fall under the umbrella of moral claims we are free to evaluate and critique based on evidence.

And why would a moral code created by a God (=assumably an immaterial conscious entity outside time and temporal experiences) apply to humans (=material, capable of experiencing physical interaction) in the first place? It's not clear that a God would have the same goals of well-being as we do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Revo

Even if there was a God out there with his self-proclaimed perfect moral code, what would that change? Would we be obligated to follow that code? Why? We as conscious beings are perfectly justified in evaluating the morality of other conscious beings without any guidance from some mystical objective authority "out there".
Any divine moral code would also fall under the umbrella of moral claims we are free to evaluate and critique based on evidence.

And why would a moral code created by a God (=assumably an immaterial conscious entity outside time and temporal experiences) apply to humans (=material, capable of experiencing physical interaction) in the first place? It's not clear that a God would have the same goals of well-being as we do.

---

Well, this is all getting into the hypotheticals and technically forcing me to play devil's advocate since it's not actually what I believe. I'm not going to argue in defense of something that I don't personally believe is true. ;) I was just stating that I acknowledge that I cannot empirically prove that it's not true.

I remember a speach on TED but I don't remember speaker. However he pointed something very interesting. The relativity of good and bad. Our behaviors and moral values are more or less defined by culture. Depends on our very personal intel what we will inherit from our surrounding and what own values we'll set for ourselves. Of course, this might affect our social interaction and put us into isolation or worse we could violate social rules and then take responsibility for it. For example I can't walk naked thru the city no matter I believe that human body is nothing to be ashamed of. Again, there are tribes where everybody walks naked and nobody is affected so there is only reason for dressing .. hygiene. There are oposite opinions from people who believe that even dogs should be dressed because naked animals are disgusting etc. I just used to resign to all this debates because people are usually damn blind. When I ask them to support their opinions by fact and describe reasons their even usually can't or referencing to non objective reasons. You can't change mind of this people because they have to learn thinking logically and consequentially first. Let say I'm tolerant to their opinions as long as it doesn't hurt somebody. But there are topics which are important. For example abortion. I can't see reason why prohibit abortion. There are many good reasons for abortion and all women who want abortion have to consult this with psychologists so if they lasts for abortion even after consultation then there is reason for it. There can be even health issues when medics recommend abortion etc. So if somebody say that God won't this because it is sin ... hello, try again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saitenyo

Well, this is all getting into the hypotheticals and technically forcing me to play devil's advocate since it's not actually what I believe. I'm not going to argue in defense of something that I don't personally believe is true. ;) I was just stating that I acknowledge that I cannot empirically prove that it's not true.

---

Soo.. Why even bring up the topic of a divine moral authority if we agree it's a non-factor..? :lol: Anyway, nevermind then.

From what I'm trying to gather (and I might be wrong), the sole detail separating our views is this part which I glossed over a bit too hastily but I'd like to come back to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saitenyo

As for whether or not there are right and wrong answers from a purely objective (or divine) perspective, that I cannot answer. I don't think we have enough information about life/the universe to answer that question.

I do agree, yes. Like I said, I maintain, from my personal perspective, that there are definitive right or wrong answers if morality is based on how the well-being of others has been affected. I think that is something we can judge based on available evidence.
(Some emphasis added to focus the topic a little)

---

It seems that your view is then almost identical to mine, except you seem to be hesitant about setting any truth-value to your beliefs outside your own perspective. Understandable carefulness.. but I've got nothing better to do, so I'll challenge it anyway :vitsm::evilgrin::

Is there really any question whether or not morality relates to human and animal well-being? Why do you think we don't have enough knowledge about life and the way conscious entities work to make this conclusion?
Just like with medical sciences, we don't have to competely understand what "perfect health" is in order to make objective decisions regarding to healthcare. We know that health relates to functions of the human body. If someone disagrees, we don't say that they "just have another perspective" of what health is. We simply say that they are wrong and no respectable professional doctor has to take that person seriously.
We don't have to completely understand what "morality" is in it's entirety in order to make objective decisions whether or not a certain action is moral or not. Aside from our own conscious experience, we have thousands of years of history as a social species to look back to in determining that morality does infact relate to human and animal well-being.
Now, when people say things like "Morality actually doesn't relate to human well-being at all, it's actually about this book I have that we should all obey", for some reason it doesn't recieve the same response as when people disagree about the concept of health. I'm saying this is a mental hurdle people need to get over. We are totally justified in saying "No, you don't have 'just another perfectly equal perspective' on this issue. You are wrong about morality".

Just as an example question to prod around a bit outside your own perspective.. Do you think westerners are justified in critiquing Middle-Eastern countries for forcing their women to clothe themselves in burkas? Do you or do you not think it is not our business to meddle into the cultural quirks of other societies?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lweek

I remember a speach on TED but I don't remember speaker. However he pointed something very interesting. The relativity of good and bad. Our behaviors and moral values are more or less defined by culture. Depends on our very personal intel what we will inherit from our surrounding and what own values we'll set for ourselves. Of course, this might affect our social interaction and put us into isolation or worse we could violate social rules and then take responsibility for it. For example I can't walk naked thru the city no matter I believe that human body is nothing to be ashamed of. Again, there are tribes where everybody walks naked and nobody is affected so there is only reason for dressing .. hygiene. There are oposite opinions from people who believe that even dogs should be dressed because naked animals are disgusting etc. I just used to resign to all this debates because people are usually damn blind. When I ask them to support their opinions by fact and describe reasons their even usually can't or referencing to non objective reasons. You can't change mind of this people because they have to learn thinking logically and consequentially first. Let say I'm tolerant to their opinions as long as it doesn't hurt somebody. But there are topics which are important. For example abortion. I can't see reason why prohibit abortion. There are many good reasons for abortion and all women who want abortion have to consult this with psychologists so if they lasts for abortion even after consultation then there is reason for it. There can be even health issues when medics recommend abortion etc. So if somebody say that God won't this because it is sin ... hello, try again.

---

Moral relativism is widely disregarded in modern philosophy because it is illogical (truly illogical, not just absurd) -- for more reasons than I can list. But I'll try to sum up one of the main problems, realizing that I'll probably butcher it a bit:

Relativism demands tolerance of opposing moral choices because there exists no right or wrong, just opinions on right and wrong. Tolerance is itself morally relevant (it is a moral choice), and therefore relativism cannot demand tolerance -- intolerance of opposing moral choices is just as relevant as tolerance of opposing moral choices. Relativism leads to either: admission that absolutely no ethics can exist, which is intellectually and morally apathetic, or it can state that tolerance actually is an objective moral right. If it takes the latter approach, it must demonstrate why tolerance should be an objective right above all other things that are only subjective -- proponents have yet to demonstrate this.

Cultural sensitivity does play a part in ethics. If one society buries their dead and one society burns their dead, that may not be a moral problem. Both societies intend to honor their dead in their own way, and no real harm is being done. If one society wears clothes and the other is naked, that is likely so morally benign that cultural sensitivity applies. Abortion, slavery, capital punishment, etc... do not fall under the umbrella of cultural sensitivity -- a person is potentially being harmed (that is the debate) and the moral dilemma is far too serious to write off as a cultural quirk. Where you draw the line can be fuzzy, but it does not allow for absurdity. Were this not the case, and society truly did set its own moral right and wrong, then all you would need to do is send out a Gallup poll on any moral dilemma. Is abortion wrong? If that society believes that abortion is wrong, then it is wrong. Is slavery acceptable? Well if the majority of society believes that slavery is right, then it is right.

Edit: Relativism is actually completely different from subjectivism, I know I confused Revo last time because I used these interchangeably. Fun fact: Divine Command Theory is the only major subjective moral authority that is also not some form of moral relativism. Modified Divine Command Theory helps a bit with the subjective part because of how it defines right and wrong (there are two definitions -- a God right and an absolute right). In practice, since God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, these two definitions always reach the same moral conclusion. In theory, and only in theory, if a g-d were to command someone to sin, and then it would still be wrong.

I have my little set of morals, but they're kinda complex, a bit too complex to describe clearly :p but this encapsulates a considerable segment of my outlook on morality.

http://memedepot.com/uploads/0/127_for_teh_lulz.jpeg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Revo

Soo.. Why even bring up the topic of a divine moral authority if we agree it's a non-factor..? :lol: Anyway, nevermind then.

---

I was just mentioning that I acknowledge that I cannot prove such a viewpoint is outright false, for the benefit of those that do believe in divine moral authority. ;)

Quote:

---

It seems that your view is then almost identical to mine, except you seem to be hesitant about setting any truth-value to your beliefs outside your own perspective. Understandable carefulness.. but I've got nothing better to do, so I'll challenge it anyway :vitsm::evilgrin::

Is there really any question whether or not morality relates to human and animal well-being? Why do you think we don't have enough knowledge about life and the way conscious entities work to make this conclusion?
Just like with medical sciences, we don't have to competely understand what "perfect health" is in order to make objective decisions regarding to healthcare. We know that health relates to functions of the human body. If someone disagrees, we don't say that they "just have another perspective" of what health is. We simply say that they are wrong and no respectable professional doctor has to take that person seriously.

---

I think it comes down to a question of whether or not everything we can see and measure and experience is all there is to life. We can never know whether or not there exists something beyond our ability to understand and observe by the very nature of what that would be, so my acknowledgement of that possibility is more a hypothetical one than anything else. I personally don't believe in a divine moral authority in the sense of a God setting rules we must follow because it simply does not make sense to me, in my mind, that this is how things would work. The notion of morality being about how actions affect others makes far more sense to me. But I guess having been in these discussions enough times, I decided to preemptively acknowledge that I could not empirically prove this belief as a fact and was therefore not prepared to defend it as such, but only to defend my personal moral beliefs within the context of the moral system which I ascribe to.

I think it's pretty clear-cut on things like actions that cause obvious harm to others, but the grey areas of morality, where things get more fuzzy, is where I maintain that it's more difficult to say there is a clear objective answer to this. For example: issues like the death penalty, killing of other living things for food, etc. Things people would consider "necessary evils," where harm must come to one living thing to prevent harm from coming to another. How do we judge that objectively? I don't know if we really can, and that's where I have take a step back and say, I may feel one way about it, but clearly others may feel quite differently and I cannot state my moral views on that issue as an undisputed fact.

In situations like those, people tend to rely on more varied methods of determining what the correct moral answer is, ranging from "How does this affect me or those I am close to?" to "What does this mean in the grand scheme of life?" or for some "What might a divine moral authority have to say about this in regards to how it fits into the rest of life's intended function?"

Quote:

---

Just as an example question to prod around a bit outside your own perspective.. Do you think westerners are justified in critiquing Middle-Eastern countries for forcing their women to clothe themselves in burkas? Do you or do you not think it is not our business to meddle into the cultural quirks of other societies?

---

I don't think this has one easy answer. I support meddling in certain circumstances, but not in others. In this instance it would come down to how the primary affected party feels about the policy, and for this specific example, I don't support the notion of forcing women to dress a specific way to adhere to cultural standards. I believe women should be free to dress as they please. At the same time, and for the same reason, if a Middle-Eastern woman preferred to adhere to her traditional clothing requirements as a personal choice, I do not feel it would be any westerner's place to tell her she should not do that. I support the freedom of personal choice either way in that scenario.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saitenyo

I think it's pretty clear-cut on things like actions that cause obvious harm to others, but the grey areas of morality, where things get more fuzzy, is where I maintain that it's more difficult to say there is a clear objective answer to this. For example: issues like the death penalty, killing of other living things for food, etc. Things people would consider "necessary evils," where harm must come to one living thing to prevent harm from coming to another. How do we judge that objectively? I don't know if we really can, and that's where I have take a step back and say, I may feel one way about it, but clearly others may feel quite differently and I cannot state my moral views on that issue as an undisputed fact.

In situations like those, people tend to rely on more varied methods of determining what the correct moral answer is, ranging from "How does this affect me or those I am close to?" to "What does this mean in the grand scheme of life?" or for some "What might a divine moral authority have to say about this in regards to how it fits into the rest of life's intended function?"

---

The way I see it, these "gray areas" are simply just more complicated versions of simpler quandaries, rather than another beast entirely. Just like the unsolved mathematical mysteries of today (like the Travelling Salesman Problem for example). These are things that we certainly don't yet have the intellectual capacity to comprehend, and it might be that we never will.
From our current perspective it might seem like any approach is as good as another, but in reality there is one way or several that are simply better than others. This we can determine from the model for objectively evaluating moral solutions I provided in post #7. And the only way we're ever going to have a chance at finding that solution is if we thrive to search for it.
The fact that we are as of now unable to see a clear answer to the issues in the "gray areas" simply shows that there is a horizon beyond which our current sight of understanding morality falls short. Throughout human history we have been broadening our horizons in mathematics, biology, medicine and even morality. People of today are generally speaking more moral than we were 2000+ years ago (for example, slavery was not seen as a problem back then).
Saying that all approaches are ultimately equal (which I acknowladge you didn't explicitly state, I'm just reading between the lines) is just counter-productive to the progress of our moral understanding of the world.

Quote:

---

I don't think this has one easy answer. I support meddling in certain circumstances, but not in others. In this instance it would come down to how the primary affected party feels about the policy, and for this specific example, I don't support the notion of forcing women to dress a specific way to adhere to cultural standards. I believe women should be free to dress as they please. At the same time, and for the same reason, if a Middle-Eastern woman preferred to adhere to her traditional clothing requirements as a personal choice, I do not feel it would be any westerner's place to tell her she should not do that. I support the freedom of personal choice either way in that scenario.

---

Good answer. This is exactly how I see it, except I do think this is the one easy answer. It depends on the particular issue. I think Pnt put it well:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pntball248

Cultural sensitivity does play a part in ethics. If one society buries their dead and one society burns their dead, that may not be a moral problem. Both societies intend to honor their dead in their own way, and no real harm is being done. If one society wears clothes and the other is naked, that is likely so morally benign that cultural sensitivity applies. Abortion, slavery, capital punishment, etc... do not fall under the umbrella of cultural sensitivity -- a person is potentially being harmed (that is the debate) and the moral dilemma is far too serious to write off as a cultural quirk. Where you draw the line can be fuzzy, but it does not allow for absurdity.

---

And yes I would too put mandatory burkas as something that does not fall under cultural sensitivity. Of course they can wear them if they want to, that's a given. But under the cohersion from men they are receiving nowadays it's not guaranteed that their decision to wear burkas is entirely genuine.

Very nice thread Revo i think i want in on this.:psst:

My Moral, compared to the "common" one is one that is strictly down the toilet, i mean so far down that a person with a normal moral probably wouldn't like me very much, okay its not THAT bad but let me lay down how i think on things.

well having no....erh....great litrature guide, or divine figure to influence me or my "Moral Rule book" all my Moral basis come from being raised and basically my own idea and influences.

but lets see if i can take a...ehh..good example where my family and i have had some heated arguments.

in the world of gaming, shooting people is about as well accepted as buying a fruit at the grocery store, and why shouldn't it be? i mean its not real, i completely agree with that and i myself play Violent video games every day, and i myself havent been in a fight my entire life "good 22 years"

but thats not the point, now we get to the real "icky" stuff i guess ya could say, im sure you all remember a good while ago there came out this "sick" game from the Japanese market called "Rapelay" or something like that.

in short the game basically went on about how you were supose to seduce young girls and then eventually rape them.

now before anything i want to say that this game is tasteless, wrong, immoral, and should not have been made in the first place.

do i want it banned?

no.

Why you may wonder then?, well the thing is i live by my own "Moral" code that as long as its not real its okay, no matter what it encourages
And why you say do i not fight for the case of this game not being around?.
Well its the same with violent video games, Is it so vastly different to blow someones brains out, and then to rape someone ? (im talking morality diffrence here) I mean you cant measure that in anyway.

Every time i hear some house wife wanting to ban the next GTA game becouse its immoral for the children, or uses one or a fiew events off people going " bonkers" and starting to run over people GTA Style, then i always find myself saying.

"Just becouse a fiew people who obviesly do not have proper mental health cant handle the game, dose that mean we other "normal" people should be banned from our simple and plain fun?.

No i dont think so, and though it pains me to say it the same should apply for this "rape game".

just because its not of my taste or Alley, what right do i have to call a BAN on it?, im sure there are alot of people who played that game who are in no way or sense a rapist , i mean there are couples who do "Rape fantasy's" in the bed shouldn't that be banned as well?

I guess this is a good example on a "trapped by your own Moral" kind of sense, i belive in the freedom of speech but even more so do i believe in the freedom of fantasy, moraly i think there is 200000 miles between having a fantasy and actually doing it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On a general topic on my Moral, i kind of go with a fiew requirments.

- The people involved have to have enough life experience and intelligence to make their own choose
on the subject matter (general rule is 18)

- They know the consequent s in doing it

- As long as it don't hurt anyone else directly or in-directly its ok.

im trying to think up more "rules" but ...i really cant, im a very Open person, and i think that if people enjoy what little immoral thing they are doing, they should keep at it as long as everyone's on the clear, and no one gets hurt " Mentally, Economicly, Physicality, AKA in all subjects"


then of course there are the Moral Stalemates ( i think its called?)

For example, if A Fathers child gets kidnapped and they have to do horribul stuff, or even kill an other human to get thier child back, otherwise the child will die, i mean whats the right thing to do here?.

Morally there is no right thing to do, all i can say is that i would do anything to save a loved one, and i mean Anything. Morally right or not, i would not care.



hope you guys don't hate me for this, and manage to get throw this cluster F#"¤" wall of text of mine :woe: