SLD said:
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.
SLD said:
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.
SLD said:
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.
SLD said:
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?).
SLD said:
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.
SLD said:
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?
SLD said:
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.
SLD said:
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.