Hmm, well I suppose you can define morality as a combo of, "All the other kids jumped off a bridge, so I will too, along with a dash of racism, but I define it as doing what’s right, regardless of what you are told by religion or the law.
P.S. Why did I wait so long to answer? Because other people made very good points on this thread, and I wanted to here their opinions.
I haven’t the foggiest idea what you’re talking about. I’m not saying the anti-miscegenation laws were moral in an absolute sense; I’m saying they were based on the morality of the time in which they were written.
That’s right. A victimless crime against god? And people actually believed (and probably still do) that they would fall from grace if they engaged in these heinous acts of love!
To turn your words around:
Scott_plaid: One of two things is happening here – either I’m dumb as a post (which is certainly possible), or your attempt at making your argument sucks like an Electrolux. I do not know what you’re saying, or insinuating, or whatever.
What, in your opinion, would be the basis for the anti-miscegenation laws being written, if it wasn’t the prevailing morality of the time?
Prezactly. You can’t tell another person what is moral. You can tell them what’s against the law, but one person’s morality doesn’t necessarily influence anothers. And as time has shown us, sooner or later, most secular people 9and a few believers) begin to get that.
It rhymes,
They were based on the fact that policy makers were a- , jerks.
But the policymakers didn’t just wake up one day and say, “By golly, today let’s make it illegal for whites and blacks to get married and/or have sex, because we’re jerks like that!” They had a societal basis for the law. We can look back now and see how wrong it was, but that doesn’t mean the law didn’t reflect the moral position for a large portion of the populace at the time.
Morals for a society change and evolve over time. In Victorian England, it would have been considered immoral for a gentleman to appear in public without a hat.
In the 1950s, married couples on television shows in the U.S. didn’t share a bed. A person’s morals may never change in their life, but society’s morals can and do change.
Tangentially, I find myself often baffled by the argument that Christians should be concerned with the legal minutiae; last I checked, most Christians are Gentiles, and thus the appropriate standard would be the Noachides, not the Covenant with Israel.
People pass laws all the time. Sometimes the law makers think things like, “I know my predecessor from hundreds of years ago probably didn’t want gay people to get married when he said “All people have the right to be married,” but that is what he said, so I’ve better make a law to keep gay people from getting married.” That doesn’t mean it is “moral” for him to do so, just that there isn’t enough popular consensus for the people at the time of writing the bill to tackle him. (I don’t mean metaphorically, I mean I have a funny mental image of a senator going up to the speaker stand, proposing a law, and getting dog piled by fellow senators who disagree with him. )
What is acceptable in a society might change over time. I believe your use of the word “moral” is useless.
Sigh.
Moral: good or right in conduct or character; sometimes, specifically, virtuous in sexual conduct.
Source: Webster’s New World College Dictionary.
Look, I have provided a cite showing that anti-miscegenation laws were a product of society’s morality at the time. I have a boatload more of cites like that, if you want. I’ve demonstrated that morals for a society don’t necessarily correspond with a person’s morals. I’ve just provided a definition of the word “moral” as it relates to the subject at hand.
If all you’ve got is your “belief” that the word “morals” isn’t appropriate here, I’m done.
:eek: Your own definition proves my point. What is “good or right in conduct or character” in not necessarily what everyone else is doing.
Society plays a huge part in determining what is good or right in conduct or character. Do you think it matters to present-day Americans if married couples are shown in a single bed on television? Do you think it matters to present-day Great Britain if men wear hats in public?
Society plays a huge part in determining what is good or right in conduct or character? That may be true, but that has nothing to do with morals, what you are posting is what’s acceptable. Perhaps you are confusing morals with a similarly spelled phrase, social morays. If you are not, then I think it is reasonable to state that I take it for granted that it is moral to do what’s right, regardless of what “society” thinks, while you think something backwards, of that.
I’m trying to parse this … I really am. You’re granting my definition of morals, and agreeing that society might help in fashioning them. Then you say that has nothing to do with morals.
Does not compute.
Couple of points: Social morays are eels that like to talk to each other. Social mores are the same thing I’m talking about – “mores” is the Latin plural of “moralis,” from which the word “morals” is derived.
The problem with the philosophy you’ve outlined is that it encourages vigilantism against the will of society. Your moral compass may tell you that abortion is murder, and so you feel justified in bombing an abortion clinic to stop abortion. Fortunately, society’s morals (or mores, if you prefer) say you can’t do that without punishment. I’ll take society’s morals over yours in that instance.
I am granting your definition of socail convention, not what you call morals.
No.
The site I was quoting reflects the actual use of language, not the stricxt definintion. Here is the mission statement:
Ignoring my use of a common phrase instead of the original words, the current use of mores:
- The accepted traditional customs and usages of a particular social group.
- Moral attitudes.
- Manners; ways
has as little to do with morality as turtle means bird or less. The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition
states that the word mores comes not from moralis, but from mos, i.e. customs, which I believe predated moralis.
To reshape your words a bit:
The moral compass of abortion clinic bombers tell them that it is ok to bomb an abortion clinic. They derive that morality from the bible, an important part of social mores today. I’ll take my morals over the bible’s in that instance.
I think what we’re getting at here is that laws are frequently created based on a few people’s morals, rather than basic human rights. That’s why we have a constitution. The constitution doesn’t make and break law based on popularity. This little device protects people who don’t necessarily share the popular morals of the day. It’s still too early to call, but it appears to be working so far.
Are you looking at what you’re typing? Parse it down. “The current use of mores (aka moral attitudes) has nothing to do with morality.” Moral attitudes have nothing to do with morality?
I like how you reshape my words to make them mean something completely different than what I posted. That’s kinda neat. Easier to win debates that way, I guess.
Now you’ve got it! 
Moral attitudes are what a person feels morality should be, not what it actually actually is. For example, a man of some distant tribe might feel that it is moral to gut a woman’s privates, his daughter’s preference is otherwise. Do I saw what he does is moral? No, I do not. What is moral is for him to stop at causing any harm outside of that which he does to his own body. He is free to mutilate himself all he wants. If the girl wants to be married, she should be free to break away from her own society and join another.
P.S. I know I seem to be repeating myself, but it is only due to your doing the same.
Okay. Bye.