Advising Morally
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-12-2013, 02:11 PM
RE: Advising Morally
(13-12-2013 10:16 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  So you would say that it would be morally acceptable for the deception in the case of the preacher, but not for the child?

I guess what I took away from the OP was a sense that you felt that keeping the deception going, even in the face of loss, would be immoral. This would hold true for both situations, although I would agree the amount of initial loss is greater for one than the other.

But keep in mind that for the child, it's not only his/her own lives they are worried about, but also that of their parent. Any child who loves his parents and knows the loss and pain that may come of it (regardless of any supposed future financial support) would be hesitant to be the cause of such a situation. Especially if it can easily be avoided by keeping silent.

The preacher on the other hand, has his entire flock to worry about, let alone the potential repercussions for him and his family. They believe in his integrity and honesty as a man of faith to lead them spiritually.

Who would you say has the greater moral responsibility to come clean?

Both have the moral responsibility to come clean.

In the scenario I outlined the child gets a tangible benefit to deception that is focused only on them. I wouldn't make an argument that feelings won't be hurt because they will. If you change the perspective to that of the emotional well-being of the child would you not agree that the child's interests outweigh those of the parents? I mean if by actively participating in deception the child now has to deal with the guilt of lying to his parents how is that in their best interest? As adults we are supposed to help children grow into who they are, not what we would have them be. What right-thinking parent would want their child to lie to them to spare their feelings?

In the clergy example the scope is far broader in its implications - the clergy person has a family who are directly impacted by a sudden loss in income. The congregation is not his concern as they are ostensibly adults and have their own means of support. Hurt feelings, perhaps, but again the clergy person is responsible for ensuring the survival of his family, not the congregation at large.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-12-2013, 03:14 PM
RE: Advising Morally
(31-12-2013 02:11 PM)joshChase Wrote:  Both have the moral responsibility to come clean.
If morality is subjective then it is up to each individual to determine if they have any moral responsibility. If they don't believe they have the moral responsibility, then there is none. You can't, as an outsider, determine what moral responsibility another person has, otherwise you are claiming knowledge of objective morality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-12-2013, 03:16 PM
RE: Advising Morally
(31-12-2013 03:14 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(31-12-2013 02:11 PM)joshChase Wrote:  Both have the moral responsibility to come clean.
If morality is subjective then it is up to each individual to determine if they have any moral responsibility. If they don't believe they have the moral responsibility, then there is none. You can't, as an outsider, determine what moral responsibility another person has, otherwise you are claiming knowledge of objective morality.

False dichotomy. There can be agreed-upon morality, socially negotiated and accepted.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
31-12-2013, 04:58 PM (This post was last modified: 31-12-2013 05:18 PM by Stevil.)
RE: Advising Morally
(31-12-2013 03:16 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(31-12-2013 03:14 PM)Stevil Wrote:  If morality is subjective then it is up to each individual to determine if they have any moral responsibility. If they don't believe they have the moral responsibility, then there is none. You can't, as an outsider, determine what moral responsibility another person has, otherwise you are claiming knowledge of objective morality.

False dichotomy. There can be agreed-upon morality, socially negotiated and accepted.
That's just a generalisation.
Given any society, there are generally many people whom disagree with the unwritten norms.
To say that everyone is moraly obligated to behave according to the norms of society is either assuming "morality" is objective or majority rules.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-12-2013, 07:42 PM
RE: Advising Morally
(31-12-2013 04:58 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(31-12-2013 03:16 PM)Chas Wrote:  False dichotomy. There can be agreed-upon morality, socially negotiated and accepted.
That's just a generalisation.
Given any society, there are generally many people whom disagree with the unwritten norms.
To say that everyone is moraly obligated to behave according to the norms of society is either assuming "morality" is objective or majority rules.

It is what is commonly acceptable to most people. In this, the majority opinion is what matters. And it changes over time.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-12-2013, 11:21 PM
RE: Advising Morally
(31-12-2013 07:42 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(31-12-2013 04:58 PM)Stevil Wrote:  That's just a generalisation.
Given any society, there are generally many people whom disagree with the unwritten norms.
To say that everyone is moraly obligated to behave according to the norms of society is either assuming "morality" is objective or majority rules.

It is what is commonly acceptable to most people. In this, the majority opinion is what matters. And it changes over time.
If there was a gay person, living in a religiously dominated society (where homosexuality is deemed by majority consensus to be sinful). In your opinion do you think this gay person has a moral obligation not to love a same gender person, not to have sex with the person they love?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: