re societally acceptable behavior in article c r at asv news cso uiuc edu cobb alexia lis uiuc edu mike cobb writes in qvabj g j horus ap mchp sni de frank d s uucp frank o dwyer writes in article c qgm dl news cso uiuc edu cobb alexia lis uiuc edu mike cobb writes am i making a wrong assumption for the basis of morals where do they come from the question came from the idea that i heard that morals come from whatever is societally mandated it s only one aspect of morality societal morality is necessarily very crude and broad brush stuff which attempts to deal with what is necessary to keep that society going and often it s a little over enthusiastic about doing so individual morality is a different thing it often includes societal mores or society is in trouble but is stronger for example some people are vegetarian though eating meat may be perfectly legal merely a question for the basis of morality moral ethical behavior societally acceptable behavior who is society depends on the society doesn t help is the point irrelevant no often the answer is we are but if society is those who make the rules that s a different question if society is who should make the rules that s yet another i don t claim to have the answers either but i don t think we do it very well in ireland and i like some things about the us system at least in principle how do they define what is acceptable depends on again this comes from a certain question see above well ideally they don t but if they must they should do it by consensus imo how do we keep from a whatever is legal is what is moral position by adopting a default position that people s moral decisions are none of society s business so how can we put people in jail how can we condemn other societies because sometimes that s necessary the hard trick is to recognise when it is and equally importantly when it isn t and only interfering when it s truly necessary why would it be necessary what right do we have to interfere imo it isn t often that interference i e jail and force of various kinds and degrees is both necessary and effective where you derive the right to interfere is a difficult question it s a sort of liar s paradox force is necessary for freedom one possible justification is that people who wish to take away freedom shouldn t object if their own freedom is taken away the paradox doesn t arise if we don t actively wish to take way anyone s freedom the introduction of permissible interference causes the problem that it can be either too much or too little but most people seem to agree that some level of interference is necessary they see the need for a justice system how can we even define that term only by consensus i guess thus you get a situation where the law often allows what honour forbids which i ve come to believe is as it should be i admit i don t understand that statement what i mean is that while thus and such may be legal thus and such may also be seen as immoral the law lets you do it but you don t let yourself do it eating meat for example frank o dwyer i m not hatching that odwyer sse ie from hens by evelyn conlon
