SLD
Contributor
Assuming you don’t engage in such behavior that is.
SLD
SLD
What sort of moral failings are we ascribing to a crackwhore?
Is there something inherently wrong about trading sexual acts for an addictive drug?
What sort of moral failings are we ascribing to a crackwhore?
Is there something inherently wrong about trading sexual acts for an addictive drug?
Well. Such activity is illegal in all US jurisdictions. I would think the general population consensus would be such activity is immoral. But feel free to answer the question based on your own views. Not others.
SLD
Is this adding to the burden and frequency of sexually transmitted diseases? Is that immoral?
What sort of moral failings are we ascribing to a crackwhore?
Is there something inherently wrong about trading sexual acts for an addictive drug?
Well. Such activity is illegal in all US jurisdictions. I would think the general population consensus would be such activity is immoral. But feel free to answer the question based on your own views. Not others.
SLD
Is immoral and illegal interchangeable in this discussion? If a prostitute trades sex for money, what bearing do her financial needs have on her crime?
I'm not sure why trading sex for illegal drugs is considered immoral, even if it is illegal to exchange money for sex. I may have done far worse things than trade sex for drugs.
How is morality measured?
Is immoral and illegal interchangeable in this discussion? If a prostitute trades sex for money, what bearing do her financial needs have on her crime?
I'm not sure why trading sex for illegal drugs is considered immoral, even if it is illegal to exchange money for sex. I may have done far worse things than trade sex for drugs.
How is morality measured?
Is it not measured by social convention? Certainly though criminal behavior is immoral, IMHO. Granted there are gradations. A murderer is not the equivalent of a speeder. I would suspect though that the vast majority of Americans would consider someone who sells their body and does crack to be an immoral person, even if you do not.
Is it not logical therefore that someone who does not engage in such activity, or worse, is in fact morally superior?
This isn’t just a hypothetical question. It arose recently at my Mothers funeral. I have a crazy older brother whose present girlfriend is basically a crack whore. I think my brother is basically her pimp. I can’t stand her and don’t trust her one iota. I didn’t want her around. My sister agreed. She shouldn’t be invited. But my younger brother was adamant that she be welcomed. He told me I shouldn’t act so morally superior. I thought about it for a second and quipped that I was indeed morally superior to someone like her. I don’t do illegal drugs and I don’t buy whores.
SLD
I don’t do illegal drugs and I don’t buy whores.
Is immoral and illegal interchangeable in this discussion? If a prostitute trades sex for money, what bearing do her financial needs have on her crime?
I'm not sure why trading sex for illegal drugs is considered immoral, even if it is illegal to exchange money for sex. I may have done far worse things than trade sex for drugs.
How is morality measured?
Is it not measured by social convention? Certainly though criminal behavior is immoral, IMHO.
Is immoral and illegal interchangeable in this discussion? If a prostitute trades sex for money, what bearing do her financial needs have on her crime?
I'm not sure why trading sex for illegal drugs is considered immoral, even if it is illegal to exchange money for sex. I may have done far worse things than trade sex for drugs.
How is morality measured?
Is it not measured by social convention? Certainly though criminal behavior is immoral, IMHO.
IOW, your moral principles are purely authoritarian. An act is immoral simply because whoever writes the laws declares that is.
So, you think that every slave who ran away from their master prior to emancipation committed an immoral act. And every person who engaged in gay sex or merely anal sex with anyone had committed an immoral act, if their state had a law against it. Meaning gays were immoral in 2002, if they lived on one side of the street within Maryland borders, but not immoral if they lived across the street in Delaware. Not to mention, there are often cases when laws directly conflict with each other at the local, state, federal, and international level. Maryland law still says sodomy is illegal, but Federal law says it isn't. Are gays immoral at the state level but moral at the Federal level?
Using infractions against the law as either a neccessary or sufficient condition for immorality leads to a pretty fucked up, arbitrary, unprincipled ethical system. In fact, I would say that doing so is itself an immoral act because it causes serious harm to people. Also, following the law is actually often immoral, because laws themselves are often immoral.
It is dangerously authoritarian to view breaking the law is inherently immoral. It makes morality not reliably related to causing actual harm to others, because the law is not reliability related to harming others.
IOW, your moral principles are purely authoritarian. An act is immoral simply because whoever writes the laws declares that is.
So, you think that every slave who ran away from their master prior to emancipation committed an immoral act. And every person who engaged in gay sex or merely anal sex with anyone had committed an immoral act, if their state had a law against it. Meaning gays were immoral in 2002, if they lived on one side of the street within Maryland borders, but not immoral if they lived across the street in Delaware. Not to mention, there are often cases when laws directly conflict with each other at the local, state, federal, and international level. Maryland law still says sodomy is illegal, but Federal law says it isn't. Are gays immoral at the state level but moral at the Federal level?
Using infractions against the law as either a neccessary or sufficient condition for immorality leads to a pretty fucked up, arbitrary, unprincipled ethical system. In fact, I would say that doing so is itself an immoral act because it causes serious harm to people. Also, following the law is actually often immoral, because laws themselves are often immoral.
It is dangerously authoritarian to view breaking the law is inherently immoral. It makes morality not reliably related to causing actual harm to others, because the law is not reliability related to harming others.
The only possible justification I could imagine for the "breaking the law is always prima facie immoral" stance is that no matter what the law says, going against it is going against social stability and making things worse for everyone else. I disagree with this justification and think it can be used to pardon almost anything. Also, it's often the case that social stability is exactly what needs to be disrupted if an immoral situation is to change for the better.
I’m sorry but I do think people who violate criminal statutes are indeed immoral. We have an ethical duty to comply with the law, at least to the greatest extent we can.
I think I'm with Bronzeage on this. I don't see a necessary equivalence with law and morality. Still, I'm uncomfortable with the transactional nature of Bronzeage's questioning. What has transaction got to do with morality?