View Single Post
Old 09-26-2011, 03:14 PM   #59
dreadgeek
Power Femme

How Do You Identify?:
Cinnamon spiced, caramel colored, power-femme
Preferred Pronoun?:
She
Relationship Status:
Married to a wonderful horse girl
 
dreadgeek's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Lat: 45.60 Lon: -122.60
Posts: 1,733
Thanks: 1,132
Thanked 6,848 Times in 1,493 Posts
Rep Power: 21474851
dreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputation
Member Photo Albums
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Tick View Post
Morality is a difficult thing to discuss really. Personal morality is by definition a personal choice. However, the reality is that if you believe yourself to be an ethical person then your response to a situation will be you doing the right or moral thing. Therefore anyone else confronted with the same situation would invariably make the same choice. To claim to not make the rules or to define morality for anyone else is just a way of not accepting this responsibility.

If it is okay for you to cheat, lie, steal or whatever under a certain set of circumstances then it is okay for the other to do the same under the same conditions. To me the measure of morality is that it is impartial.


If it is a logical right thinking choice for you in a situation, then in the same situation it is the logical right thinking choice for other reasonable people as well. Morality should be defined impartially.

The other necessary component for personal morality is equal respect for the humanity of all persons. Not equal respect for everyone in everyway. Just equal respect for the humanity of all.
The above in red is what I was driving at when I asked my question about what role the gender of the participants played in things. To me, if this situation is acceptable such that we should not judge things in this instance then we should not be in the least bit disturbed *regardless* of the configuration of the parties.

If it's okay for Barb to cheat on Mike with Mary, then it must also be okay for Mike to cheat on Barb with Julie or, for that matter, for Barb to cheat on Mary with Stan. Once we have decided that this is entirely unremarkable behavior, then any limits we choose to put on this must be *entirely* arbitrary. We should not endorse any behavior or principle--most especially our own--unless we are willing to have that behavior or principle become universal. If we do endorse some behavior or principle, particularly one that has manifest potential to cause harm to others, for ourselves then by what logic do we deny it to others?

Cheers
Aj
__________________
Proud member of the reality-based community.

"People on the side of The People always ended up disappointed, in any case. They found that The People tended not to be grateful or appreciative or forward-thinking or obedient. The People tended to be small-minded and conservative and not very clever and were even distrustful of cleverness. And so, the children of the revolution were faced with the age-old problem: it wasn’t that you had the wrong kind of government, which was obvious, but that you had the wrong kind of people. As soon as you saw people as things to be measured, they didn’t measure up." (Terry Pratchett)
dreadgeek is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to dreadgeek For This Useful Post: