Arab guilty of rape after consensual sex with Jew

[Lord Mord]

ljkeane,

Normative means relating to an ideal standard or model. There is no particular reason that standard or model has to be the moral one.

It may not be "the moral" one, but it is certainly "a moralizing" one.

[Galactus]

It is ridiculous to think that moral codes are the impetus for law, when it's proven time and again that personal gain is the true purpose behind such.

Deciding to do something is a moral judgement.

[Lord Mord]

Stego,

Laws are as fluid as those who can afford them to be changed wish them to be. No law is based on morality. No law has ever been based on morality.

That's retarded. You don't vote for something without thinking that you should. If you think that you shouldn't vote for it, you don't vote for it -- you abstain, or else you vote nay, or else you stay home on the day of the vote. If you aren't really sure on the merits of the law itself, then you still moralize based on monetary or political expediency ... I should get (x) money, therefore, I'll go ahead and vote "yea". You're still moralizing, just not on the immediate question.

[Galactus]

Morals are a personal thing. Preserving human life may not be in the personal moral code of all. As such, this is a law and not a moral statement.

Precisely. It is the imposition of one moral code upon that of others.

If someone swerves into the other lane are they making a moral statement? By your assertion they are.

Yes, the moral decision that they value certain things (time, convenience, whatever) over other things (following the law, safety)

[ljkeane]

It may not be "the moral" one, but it is certainly "a moralizing" one.

Only if you subscribe to Galactus and Datepalm's view that a cost benefit analysis is a moral judgement. Utility is hardly the only way that morality is judged nor is it universally agreed upon.

[Lord Mord]

ljkeane,

Only if you subscribe to Galactus and Datepalm's view that a cost benefit analysis is a moral judgement. Utility is hardly the only way that morality is judged nor is it universally agreed upon.

I don't understand why you think that has been proposed.

ETA: Or rather, every moral choice is necessarily cost/benefit analysis, it's just that the costs and benefits may not always be monetary in nature.

"If I kill my uncle, I will inherit a fortune. But I love my uncle. I value my love of my uncle more than I value his money. Therefore, I will not kill him."

This is a moral choice.

"If I kill my uncle, I will inherit a fortune. I love my uncle, but I love the idea of spending his money even more. Therefore, I will kill him."

This, also, is a moral choice. It is an expression of values, especially in relation to each other.

[Galactus]

Only if you subscribe to Galactus and Datepalm's view that a cost benefit analysis is a moral judgement. Utility is hardly the only way that morality is judged nor is it universally agreed upon.

Of course it isn't.

But utilitarianism is ONE moral position.

[ljkeane]

I don't understand why you think that has been proposed.

Because if you don't agree with Utilitarianism then there is no reason that ideal needs to be 'moral' or that in trying to achieve that ideal you are moralizing.

[Galactus]

Basically, your moral system is what lies behind and pro-con list *because it is what decides what is in the pro and what is in the con box* (and what is in the "irrelevant" pile)

Some people value certain things (intents, say) some people value conformance with some kind of divine revelation, some people value liberty, some people value results, some people judge everything based on how it benefits them. (and then again, further divisions based on how each one determines "benefit")

All of these are moral positions. IE: Positions on morality.

The problem here is that some people take "moral" to mean "correct". That's not the sense of which we (DP, Iceman, etc.) are using the word. We're using it in the sense of "as pertains to moral issues".

[Galactus]

Because if you don't agree with Utilitarianism then there is no reason that ideal needs to be 'moral' or that in trying to achieve that ideal you are moralizing.

Utilitarianism is ONE moral position. There are others. In arguing from a utilitarian POV you are making a utilitarian argument: IE a moral one.

Someone arguing from say, a deontological POV would make entirely different decisions *but both are arguing from moral POV's, just different ones*.

Likewise, someone who doesen't care about anyhting but himself is making the (crude) argument that morality begins and ends with himself, and that what benefits him is moral and what does not... Isn't. (Not a particularly persuasive argument, IMHO)

[Datepalm]

Only if you subscribe to Galactus and Datepalm's view that a cost benefit analysis is a moral judgement. Utility is hardly the only way that morality is judged nor is it universally agreed upon.

We seem to have somehow reversed positions. I've been claiming all along that things like laws are based on the moral compass of their creators (law makers, voters, crazy dictators, whoever it is fundamentalists think wrote the bible, etc.) in deciding that this thing is a condition worthier of existing than that thing becuase it ultimately leads to something one thinksmorally correct - better standards of living, more choices, less needless deaths, more money for me, more girls getting mutilated, gods approval, etc - and in choosing what goal someone is persuing, naturally they'll look for the most efficient way to do so with the most minimal necessary tradeoffs, but what it is you are cost-benefit analyzing in the first place is subject to a moral choice.

eta: deontological - hey, new word. The maxim that I only ever learn new words from left wingers holds.

[Lord Mord]

ljkeane,

Because if you don't agree with Utilitarianism then there is no reason that ideal needs to be 'moral' or that in trying to achieve that ideal you are moralizing.

Sure there is.

Why would it be ideal if it weren't moral?

[ljkeane]

Utilitarianism is ONE moral position. There are others. In arguing from a utilitarian POV you are making a utilitarian argument: IE a moral one.

Sure and if someone who doesn't subscribe to the utilitarian position makes a decision based on the sum of utility or whatever they are only making a moral statement/choice according to utilitarians.

Sure there is.

Why would it be ideal if it weren't moral?

That rather depends if you think morality is based on net benefit or utility.

[Lord Mord]

ljkeane,

That rather depends if you think morality is based on net benefit or utility.

On what else can it be based?

[Galactus]

Sure and if someone who doesn't subscribe to the utilitarian position makes a decision based on the sum of utility or whatever they are only making a moral statement/choice according to utilitarians.

If they didn't subscribe to the utilitarian position (at least in some sense) they wouldn't be making decisions based on utility now would they? :P

[ljkeane]

On what else can it be based?

There's several different types, Galactus already mentioned deontology which I believe is rule based ethics. I never particularly liked philosophy so I'm sure that there's lots more but I don't really remember specifics.

I for one am fairly sure I don't think net utility is the sole basis for morality. For example although I value my life more than anyone else's if I had committed a crime that would result in me being executed I'd still consider murdering an innocent witness to be morally wrong.

[Galactus]

There's several different types, Galactus already mentioned deontology which I believe is rule based ethics. I never particularly liked philosophy so I'm sure that there's lots more but I don't really remember specifics.

I for one am fairly sure I don't think net utility is the sole basis for morality. For example although I value my life more than anyone else's if I had committed a crime that would result in me being executed I'd still consider murdering an innocent witness to be morally wrong.

The point is that deontologists are still thinking in terms of utility in the wider sense: They just ascribed utility to different things.

[Starkess]

Threadjack much?

FWIW, I'm with ljkeane. Not every decision is a "moral" decision.

On topic:

The guy may be a sleazeball, but I don't see how leaving the girl naked in the elevator is at ALL relevant to the issue of consent.

[Galactus]

FWIW, I'm with ljkeane. Not every decision is a "moral" decision.

Correct. But any decision where you are making a value-judgement (IE: judging one thing as better/worse than another) you're making a moral decision.

Hence the "drive on the left/drive on the right" decision isn't (in most cases) a moral decision, but the decision to have a traffic law is.

[ljkeane]

The point is that deontologists are still thinking in terms of utility in the wider sense: They just ascribed utility to different things.

Arguably but they certainly weren't thinking in terms of net utility.