There’s no need to resort to such extremes. In judging others, I am agitated with irresponsable individuals who neglect their parental duties in pursuit of a recreational high. I have sympathy for addiction, depression, and pain, but morally speaking these aren’t sufficient excuses.
~Max
If all decisions have moral value to you, then the label is meaningless and redundant.
I disagree though. I see no moral value in choosing between chocolate or vanilla if I’m getting a milkshake.
Morality should actually mean something and not just be arbitrarily applied to everything.
Morally speaking, you should avoid both. As far as I know, artificial flavoring can be enjoyed with a clear conscience.
There is no ethical consumption under capitalism.
But the cocoa beans were grown and harvested by child workers! Enjoy your bloodshake, I’ll be sticking with vanilla - the only moral option!
This message was brought to you by the Association of Vanilla Growers
I see that I was ninja’d by the Artificial Flavoring lobby!
This is truth.
The thing about Max is I can imagine him delivering his above screed word-for-word to a clearly uncomfortable waitress as she’s just trying to finish getting his order so she can serve other customers.
“Sir, this is a Shoney’s.”
Why is that never an option?
A moral system (normative ethics) purports to answer the question, “How should I act?” It applies to all decisions by definition.
If you are thinking of a moral system that doesn’t apply to all decisions, we are talking about two different topics.
~Max
That doesn’t follow at all. There very often isn’t a single answer to that question. And then you now have to make a decision between two things that are morally equivalent. You thus can’t use morality to decide.
And this isn’t merely an intellectual exercise. This sort of thinking is exactly what leads to scrupulosity. People get paralyzed not knowing what the morally correct option is. Or they beat themselves up because they inevitably don’t choose the most moral option.
Not every decision is a moral one. There’s a reason why the term amoral exists, and doesn’t mean immoral.
With all due respect, neutral is a moral value. When making a decision between two alternatives of equal moral value, the decision is morally neutral. Choosing one flavor of ice cream over another based on my greater desire for the one flavor is positive, not neutral, because I personally recognize a duty to satisfy desires. All other things equal, it is better for me to choose the flavor I like more.
Neutral does not mean amoral. Amoral means disregard for morality. My opinion of whether something is legally valid or not is amoral. That doesn’t mean I think all laws have equal moral value, it means I think legal validity of law is independent of moral value. We should strive to make laws reflect morality but sometimes that doesn’t work out. (See Nazi thread, linked earlier.) Contrary to Johanna’s implication, I don’t identify law with morality itself.
~Max
We have literally hundreds of posts by you on this forum defending the vilest of human behavior and institutions on the basis that they were legal.
People are being way too kind to your deplorable ass. Go fuck yourself.
Max should take a Turing test.
Two equally moral choices? Easy to solve. Carry a coin.
You are probably literally shaking, but noone is forcing you to read or engage. Demonstrate agency.
Max, I think you are a fine poster, but when you are defended by this guy, you may want to sit down and think some things over.
Pipe down, Octo. The comment was meant for Max.
Anyway, Max, I was raised with the idea that who you associate with kind of defines who you are.
That’s a logical fallacy! Tut tut!
I’ll leave it to you while between making a dank beto poster and a business plan for Elon Musk to figure out which one.
I can’t stay mad at you.
Where’s the 8 armed hug emoji?