Two standards enter. One standard leaves. Who has the edge?

_________________

I'm going to try to make to references here:

Dr. Melfi's ex-husband and on-again-off-again boyfriend decried psychotherapy's "cheesy" use of moral relativism as he (and we) saw Melfi trying to rationalize Tony's obvious antisocial behavior. So it seems like absolutism can be useful.

But really, whichever one allows for more windmill dunks on whomever is deemed "immoral".

Moral relativism is an intellectualized oxymoron.

Absolutism for the win.

_________________

RIP to your starving family even though theres a broken down bread truck outside your house.

_________________

That’s ethics, friend.

_________________

Zuh?

_________________

Morals - what’s right & wrong.
Ethics - how do you use your understanding of right & wrong to inform your decisions.

I can understand it’s wrong to steal your broke down bread, but I can do it anyway with an understanding I’m serving a greater good of feeding hungry people. Morally wrong; ethically kosher.

_________________

Stealing is morally wrong in all circumstances. Unless you are a namby-pamby moral relativist.

_________________

Yes. But it can be ethical depending on the situation.

_________________

Well that doesn't sound very absolute at all.

_________________

I’m not a proponent of ethical absolutism if you’d like to create a second poll.

_________________

If your moral belief is that stealing is wrong under all under all circumstances and you steal, how are you not acting in opposition to your moral beliefs?

_________________

I’m not saying that you are. Most people have done things they understand to be wrong.

Ethics, to paraphrase Oscar Martinez, are best tested with competing concepts of the good.

_________________

If your moral belief is that all stealing is wrong and you still steal, then it's possible that your morals are not as absolute as you think they are.

I am willing to accept that might be misunderstanding these concepts.

_________________

The moral viewpoint is what’s right & wrong. The ethical consideration is ranking two competing rights.

In your bread example, I steal the food for my family. I know that morally, stealing is unacceptable. But ethically, allowing my family to starve given an alternative is more unacceptable than stealing. I’ll understand my theft to be wrong, but I’ll wear that wrong in service of a greater good.

As some nerd from Game of Thrones once said, there is no creature on earth half so terrifying as a truly just man. That truly just man is a guy who can’t bring himself to do something he knows is wrong.

_________________

Is it stealing to take food if you are starving?

_________________

Yes

_________________

A couple fuckin' homos in this thread.

An now you're here

_________________

Someone has to add some testosterone to this badminton match.

I sure hope that person shows up

_________________

If words mean something, yes.

_________________

I thought he was referring to himself and another.

Good odds it’s either you or me, but now that we know his proclivities it may be a complement.

_________________

Do you believe that people have the right to food?

_________________

Under the proper circumstances

_________________