Are you morally superior to a crack whore?

[repoman]

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?

Morality is transaction. Morality and moral codes allow us to live in close proximity to one another and not fear we will be murdered in our sleep, or have our possessions taken from us. All cultures and societies have the same foundation of their moral code, which is "Don't kill friends and don't steal a friend's stuff." After that, it's just a very long discussion about who is your friend and what are his property rights.

Some cultures see a prostitute as a perfectly reasonable occupation and others see it as a threat to social stability. The prostitute's actions are the same in both cultures, but one is moral and one is immoral.

In this country, there was a time when someone who helped a slave escape their enslavement, could be tried in a court of law and sentenced to prison. Things such as this make it difficult to argue any equivalence between law and morality.

The illegality of prostitution leads to the dangers of it becoming stronger. More sexually transmitted diseases, more assaults of sex workers, more robberies of clients and so on. So in some ways the blanket prohibition of it is a bit "immoral" in that it makes things worse. But that is one level of abstraction higher.

 

[SLD]

Me: (musing, to Dear Daughter as she passes by the sofa) Are you morally superior to a crack whore?
DD: Yes.
Me: (raising eyebrows): Oh?
DD: I am morally superior to everyone.. I am a SkyBreaker. I am the law.

Perhaps she has a serious point. Shouldn’t you logically think that you are morally superior to everyone else? If not, why haven’t you changed your behavior to be more like the person whom you feel is morally superior to you?

SLD

 

[Rhea]

Me: (musing, to Dear Daughter as she passes by the sofa) Are you morally superior to a crack whore?
DD: Yes.
Me: (raising eyebrows): Oh?
DD: I am morally superior to everyone.. I am a SkyBreaker. I am the law.

Perhaps she has a serious point. Shouldn’t you logically think that you are morally superior to everyone else? If not, why haven’t you changed your behavior to be more like the person whom you feel is morally superior to you?

SLD

You have a valid point!

 

[steve_bank]

Assuming you don’t engage in such behavior that is.

SLD

So you mist think you are superior to crack whore who may have been victimized leading to prostitution?

There is truly a very fine line between feeling in control and taking a long fall to the bottom. A line thinner than most may think.

 

[SLD]

Assuming you don’t engage in such behavior that is.

SLD

So you mist think you are superior to crack whore who may have been victimized leading to prostitution?

There is truly a very fine line between feeling in control and taking a long fall to the bottom. A line thinner than most may think.

I’m never impressed by this so called victimization crap. She made choices. Bad ones. Maybe if someone put a gun to her head, but I don’t see that happening here. At best she put herself in a position to be victimized.

SLD

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Is it not measured by social convention?

No, it is not, as it has already been explained. For example, there are societies where being an atheist, or an agnostic, or not a Muslim, or not a Christian, etc., would be considered immoral by nearly everyone. Similarly, sex between two men, or between two women, or between a Black man and a White woman, etc., would have been considered immoral by a majority (or a vast majority) in many societies. However, many instances of such behaviors or states of affairs were not immoral. Majorities, or even vast majorities, can get it wrong.

Certainly though criminal behavior is immoral, IMHO.

Usually, but not always. For example, there are places in the world that criminalize same-sex sex, but it is not always (or generally) immoral to have same-sex sex in those places. The same goes for interracial sex, or for deconverting from Islam, etc. America, in the past, provides also some of those examples. That is in addition to the slavery examples, etc., already provided.

Granted there are gradations. A murderer is not the equivalent of a speeder.

I'm not sure speeding is a crime, even if it's an infraction, but sure, there are gradations. And also, not all murderers or speeders are the same.

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.

That depends on a number of factors. But she does not sell her body. She provides sexual services. I do not know why that would be immoral. In general, I think it is not.

The use of crack, however, may well be immoral, given that her behavior damages her brain considerably, significantly increasing the chances that she might hurt others either directly, or indirectly (e.g., by getting an STD and passing it to others). Additionally, she is giving money to people who very likely are dangerous and evil. But I would need more context to be sure (e.g., is her brain so damaged that her freedom is compromised to the point she actually can't stop doing crack?).

Is it not logical therefore that someone who does not engage in such activity, or worse, is in fact morally superior?

All other things equal, and assumng her behavior is immoral, yes. But not all other things are equal. Nearly everyone behaves immorally at some point. Even if someone does not engage in something worse, they might engage in many things that are not individually worse, but add to something worse. Moreover, risk to others by use of cocaine isn't particularly heinous as far as immoral behaviors go, at least in most circumstances.

I don’t do illegal drugs and I don’t buy whores.

She does not buy whores, either (slave traders do, but she is not one), so that's not a difference. As to the fact that you do not do illegal drugs, there are a number of issues, so I can't tell for sure, but that is an aspect in which she might be worse than you are, not because they are illegal, but because of risks to others. On the other hand, you do seem to blame people for providing sexual services, so that's a negative on your side.

However, the key question isn't who is morally better, but whether it is morally acceptable to exclude her from the funeral. What were the reasons? You say you don't trust her. Okay, but that's pretty generic. Are you worried she might be violent because of her addiction? Has she been prone to violence before? Are you worried she might make a scene or something?

Where is it written that I have to like everyone? Why can’t I condemn behavior that I believe is both repugnant and immoral, regardless of whether it is illegal or even if everyone else thinks such behavior is OK?

Even if it were written, you would not have to like everyone, and it is not the case that you should. By the way, here you imply (correctly) that morality is not measured by social convention. As to whether you can condemn it, sure, that is freedom of speech. The question is whether it is morally acceptable for you to condemn it. Providing sexual services? I do not think so. What reasons do you have to condemn it? Using crack? That's a more likely one, though I'm uncertain. It would depend on the information available to you, which I do not have.

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.

Usually, yes. Always, no. Providing sexual services is one of the "no" cases. Well, usually. At least, not due to its being illegal. There are other reasons that would make it immoral for some, but not for others.

 

[repoman]

Seriously, no talk of spreading STDs?

Where is the morality with that?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Seriously, no talk of spreading STDs?

Where is the morality with that?

That depends on how the prostitute works. If she is careful, she is not likely to spread the most dangerous STDs. Still, I guess some less dangerous STDs might be spread regardless of the precautions, but then, it is acceptable to create some risks in one's pursuit of happiness (e.g., take a road trip). The question is how big the risks are.

 

[steve_bank]

Assuming you don’t engage in such behavior that is.

SLD

So you mist think you are superior to crack whore who may have been victimized leading to prostitution?

There is truly a very fine line between feeling in control and taking a long fall to the bottom. A line thinner than most may think.

I’m never impressed by this so called victimization crap. She made choices. Bad ones. Maybe if someone put a gun to her head, but I don’t see that happening here. At best she put herself in a position to be victimized.

SLD

I disagree. One can be immoral in many ways depending on the perspective. Back in the 70s I knew an accountant who became alcoholic. I actual met a high school teacher I had from another city. He too fell to alcoholism and died shortly after I ran into him.

STD is spread outside of prostitution. In SF it spear quickly through the gay community and bath houses. You talk a drunk woman into giving you a blow job in a bar bathroom, is she immoral? Are you?

It does not take much for anyone to fall. A few random occurrences or bad choices. We do not have nearly as much control as we think. Girls who experience verbal, physical, and sexual abuse growing up are at higher risk for drugs and prostitution.

I feel no moral superiority at all. Consudering the way I grew up I feel likey to have turned out as well as I did. A few bad choices in then 70s and my life could have gone badly.

I was out of money at one point with enough just for rent in a ramming house. I walked into a store to steal food but was scared off by a security guard following me.

I am walking down the street and a dealer asks me to get on a bus and take a bag across the city, I declined.

If you have not actually faced real moral pressure you have no idea what you are talking about. If you grow up without a positive self image you are wide open to bad choices.

 

[fromderinside]

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?

Morality is transaction. Morality and moral codes allow us to live in close proximity to one another and not fear we will be murdered in our sleep, or have our possessions taken from us. All cultures and societies have the same foundation of their moral code, which is "Don't kill friends and don't steal a friend's stuff." After that, it's just a very long discussion about who is your friend and what are his property rights.

Some cultures see a prostitute as a perfectly reasonable occupation and others see it as a threat to social stability. The prostitute's actions are the same in both cultures, but one is moral and one is immoral.

In this country, there was a time when someone who helped a slave escape their enslavement, could be tried in a court of law and sentenced to prison. Things such as this make it difficult to argue any equivalence between law and morality.

Morality exists without transactions. if morality were transaction then it would be too specific to a situation. What is the good of a moral if one has to add qualifiers every time one applies it to a situation. For me transactions are what humans do in life. Transaction is process. A moral is a gatekeeper setting bounds to behavior. It is not the conduct of behavior, rather it is a guide to what one can do. Guides are applied to transactions but they are not the transactions. Those are behaviors one performs.

Pretty good thoughts though Bronzeage. Pretty good thoughts indeed.

 

[Bronzeage]

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?

Morality is transaction. Morality and moral codes allow us to live in close proximity to one another and not fear we will be murdered in our sleep, or have our possessions taken from us. All cultures and societies have the same foundation of their moral code, which is "Don't kill friends and don't steal a friend's stuff." After that, it's just a very long discussion about who is your friend and what are his property rights.

Some cultures see a prostitute as a perfectly reasonable occupation and others see it as a threat to social stability. The prostitute's actions are the same in both cultures, but one is moral and one is immoral.

In this country, there was a time when someone who helped a slave escape their enslavement, could be tried in a court of law and sentenced to prison. Things such as this make it difficult to argue any equivalence between law and morality.

Morality exists without transactions. if morality were transaction then it would be too specific to a situation. What is the good of a moral if one has to add qualifiers every time one applies it to a situation. For me transactions are what humans do in life. Transaction is process. A moral is a gatekeeper setting bounds to behavior. It is not the conduct of behavior, rather it is a guide to what one can do. Guides are applied to transactions but they are not the transactions. Those are behaviors one performs.

Pretty good thoughts though Bronzeage. Pretty good thoughts indeed.

Why would a castaway, alone on an island, need a moral code. Would it help him coexist with the sand crabs? Morality and moral codes define how we should behave with other people. It is always qualified. The closer we are to a person, the more closer we are expected to stick to the code.

Before we came up with the idea that all men are brothers, that "Do not kill" rule was rather limited. This is why Samson, who knew the 10 commandments as well as any Hebrew, could go out and kill 200 men, just to steal their clothes, in order to pay off a bet. They were not from his tribe, or any tribe that was considered a friend to his. The transaction sucked for those guys.

 

[ideologyhunter]

I admit I've mainly read the dirty parts of scripture, so I may be wrong -- but are you conflating Samson killing 30 Philistines and stripping their corpses (over some riddle he had challenged them to solve; this guy was a hardcore gamer) with David killing 200 men and slicing off their foreskins? (BTW imagine in either case what total moral degenerates they became if they actually carried out these acts -- debauched forever, but apparently beacons of faith.)

 

[steve_bank]

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?

Morality is transaction. Morality and moral codes allow us to live in close proximity to one another and not fear we will be murdered in our sleep, or have our possessions taken from us. All cultures and societies have the same foundation of their moral code, which is "Don't kill friends and don't steal a friend's stuff." After that, it's just a very long discussion about who is your friend and what are his property rights.

Some cultures see a prostitute as a perfectly reasonable occupation and others see it as a threat to social stability. The prostitute's actions are the same in both cultures, but one is moral and one is immoral.

In this country, there was a time when someone who helped a slave escape their enslavement, could be tried in a court of law and sentenced to prison. Things such as this make it difficult to argue any equivalence between law and morality.

Morality exists without transactions. if morality were transaction then it would be too specific to a situation. What is the good of a moral if one has to add qualifiers every time one applies it to a situation. For me transactions are what humans do in life. Transaction is process. A moral is a gatekeeper setting bounds to behavior. It is not the conduct of behavior, rather it is a guide to what one can do. Guides are applied to transactions but they are not the transactions. Those are behaviors one performs.

Pretty good thoughts though Bronzeage. Pretty good thoughts indeed.

Civil law is sopposed ti be black and white.

Morality is not. Something I recall from The Dialogs I think. A man goes out dinging and leaves his spear or sword with a friend He return's drunk and any and violent demanding his weapons. Legally it is his property, it is the right thing to do returning the weapon? The question goes back at least as far as Plato.

Real world moral decagons are oten not black and white in daily life. One has to choose what you think results in the least trouble or pain.

 

[ruby sparks]

Assuming you don’t engage in such behavior that is.

SLD

All other things being equal, and in the general sense, no, I wouldn't see myself as morally superior to a crack whore.

 

[steve_bank]

I believe part of the definition of a sociopath is an utter absence of empathy for the pain of others.

 

[Kharakov]

I believe part of the definition of a sociopath is an utter absence of empathy for the pain of others.

The other part: lucky.

 

[Bronzeage]

I admit I've mainly read the dirty parts of scripture, so I may be wrong -- but are you conflating Samson killing 30 Philistines and stripping their corpses (over some riddle he had challenged them to solve; this guy was a hardcore gamer) with David killing 200 men and slicing off their foreskins? (BTW imagine in either case what total moral degenerates they became if they actually carried out these acts -- debauched forever, but apparently beacons of faith.)

Probably so, but the illustration remains the same. There was nothing immoral about killing and mutilating people who were not members of their group. The commandment, "Thou shall not kill," simply excluded their victims.

One of the eternal problems of moral codes is it is always supports the current authority, and thus authority confirms the morality.
Problems will arise when groups merge, and details of different moral codes conflict, but the real difficulty comes when standards of living rise, and life is easier for everyone. Moral codes were created when human groups were scratching out an existence in harsh environments. In an environment where food availability is cyclical, property violations are a very serious thing. In a society where property is owned not by an individual, but by the family group, anything that threatens family integrity( adultery, pre-marital sex, etc) is also serious violations.

As life gets easier, through the efficiencies of civilized living, old moral codes are slow to change. In most sensible nations, the government no longer wastes resources on people who have forms of sex which are prohibited religious authorities. Governments have enough to do, just dealing with thieves and murderers.

Prostitution is one of the last sexual crimes which governments still try to suppress. No one can make a good argument for this, without resorting to some religious authority, which prohibits sex outside of marriage. All the non-sense about preventing victimization of women, is just that, non-sense. The victimization of women is a result of working in an illegal occupation, where they do not have the protections which the rest of us enjoy.

Then, someone comes along and proposes that a drug addicted prostitute be the new absolute zero on the moral thermometer, and asks us to take our temperature and report back.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Assuming you don’t engage in such behavior that is.

SLD

All other things being equal, and in the general sense, no, I wouldn't see myself as morally superior to a crack whore.

It would be my position that anyone preaching moral superiority is being self righteous. That makes their morality suspect or tarnished. It basically makes them a religious asshole I would think.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

Disagree, I can think of one scenario in which it is legal.

The prostitutes working in the Nevada brothels are independent contractors, nothing is stopping them from making a deal for something other than money.

Cigarettes are a legal product and addictive.

Thus if someone buys the services of one of those prostitutes with a bunch of cigarettes you have a case of trading sexual acts for an addictive drug. Unlikely but perfectly legal.

 

[fromderinside]

Morality exists without transactions. if morality were transaction then it would be too specific to a situation. What is the good of a moral if one has to add qualifiers every time one applies it to a situation. For me transactions are what humans do in life. Transaction is process. A moral is a gatekeeper setting bounds to behavior. It is not the conduct of behavior, rather it is a guide to what one can do. Guides are applied to transactions but they are not the transactions. Those are behaviors one performs.

Pretty good thoughts though Bronzeage. Pretty good thoughts indeed.

Why would a castaway, alone on an island, need a moral code. Would it help him coexist with the sand crabs? Morality and moral codes define how we should behave with other people. It is always qualified. The closer we are to a person, the more closer we are expected to stick to the code.

Before we came up with the idea that all men are brothers, that "Do not kill" rule was rather limited. This is why Samson, who knew the 10 commandments as well as any Hebrew, could go out and kill 200 men, just to steal their clothes, in order to pay off a bet. They were not from his tribe, or any tribe that was considered a friend to his. The transaction sucked for those guys.

So here I am sitting on this island all alone wondering whether I should eat everything in sight or do otherwise. Moderation in all things pops into mind. I guess if person is social then I must agree with you that it must be transacional. Doesn't that get us in to a whole other set of problems when social means self survival or something like that?

Just being an ass.