Most and least moral posters

[dazzleman]

But it is that rejection that is tantamount to the concept of amorality.

I would tend to disagree. One can have morals, without believing them to be objective or universal.

Emsworth, I often agree with you, but here I think you are taking your position to too much of an extreme.

It is true that morals evolve over time, and that there is a certain elasticity to morals.  But there also need to be certain bedrock morals for the good of society.

My example of a 45-year-old man sexually abusing a child is a good illustration of bedrock moral standards.  Opebo claims that my disapproval of this is strictly subjective.  But he fails to look at the reasons I may disapprove of it.  I disapprove of it because a child is most likely unable to defend himself/herself against unwanted advances, and such sexual contact at a very young age is emotionally devastating for the child, and can harm him/her for life.

What is really comes down to is that morality is about the protection of the least powerful, and the most defenseless.  That is really my conception of morality.  I oppose irresponsible child-bearing, and certain types of behavior while a person is raising children, and consider these things immoral because they harm the lives of young children who don't have a choice in the matter, and are unable to speak for or defend themselves.  A society that approves of behavior that is harmful to the defenseless, simply because some people may enjoy it, is not going to be a very pleasant place to live after too long.

I have room in my thinking for a somewhat unconventional code of morality, so long as the important items are met.  angus has made a lot of good comments here, so I'll use him as an example.  Certainly, his life has not lived up to the strictures of the Christian Coalition.  But he appears to be a good father to his son, and for that reason, I would consider him to be a moral guy, based on what I know about him.  He does not appear to be the type of guy who would be engaging in behavior that will put in danger a person for whom he is responsible, and who is unable to defend himself.  So I think that there has to be some elasticity in moral standards, but they cannot be totally subjective.  There has to be a bedrock bottom line.

[angus]

opebo, I don't think we're arguing at this point.  it's just syntactical difference here and I think we're basically on the same page on this particular thread.

Emsworth, this is intriguing as well, and it may also be just a syntax disagreement.  I like to speak in anecdotes, examples, and metaphors, like in that episode of ST:TNG.  And one example that comes to mind is when a former girlfriend used to take tests for her friends.  She was good in math, physics, and chemistry.  And a Repbulican.  And in most ways saw the world differently than did I.  This was during a period when I saw Reagan as a horrible plutocrat-fascist.  (yes, I've aged nicely and no longer hold that particular view, but nevertheless it's important to the example)  Among the issues wherein we disagreed was academic dishonesty.  I felt then, and I feel now, that it is a high crime against humanity.  I'm generally a bleeding-heart liberal when it comes to those who commit grave wrongs, and to this day abhor capital punishment, 3-strikes laws, and sex-offender registries, but the one thing I cannot abide is academic dishonesty.  I tend to be very harsh abou that.  Now, obviously that's moralistic, in a sense.  Anyway, this chick, who was born in china and later became a US citizen, would take tests for her friends.  Not for money, mind you, just as a favor.  You know, in those big lecture halls where there are 150 students, 75 of them east asians, and you know those asians all look alike to the semitic or caucasoid TA.  So little Abdullah or Johnny would glance at the ID, and at the student, then accept the test without thinking much about it.  So, it was easy for east asians to get some other east asian to take his/her test for him/her.  Right?  Anyway, she was doing this all the time.  It was something we'd argue about.  In my system of morality, it was a great wrong, for reasons which I hope I do not have to delineate here.  But for her, education was not so much as an end in itself but rather a means to an end.  (yes, she was a pre-med, and her shallowness and goal-orientation typified the pre-med mentality.  but I digress.)  Anyway.  The relevance here is that I am certain it would be immoral for me to ever take anyone else's exam for them, or to cheat in any way in school.  (yes, I've broken many laws, lied, stolen, used drugs, impregnated women and pressured them to terminate the pregnancy, etc., etc., but I have never cheated in school.   Let's be perfectly clear on that.  And I will never accept cheating from my son.  Nor would I ever marry any one who cheats in school.  though I might sleep with them if they're good in bed.)  Anyway, the point here is that while I'm convinced that it's wrong for me to take part in that sort of activity, I do not know whether it is immoral or amoral for her to.  Perhaps you can clarify. 

Another example:  Senator Lieberman is always wearing his religion out on his sleeve.  Fanatical he is.  Won't even drive a car on Saturdays.  But he will have others drive to pick up things for him.  Now, his morality is religion-based, whereas mine is not, but the similarity stands:  is he a hypocrite?  I'm not sure.  If so, then so am I, for I never reported to the authorities what this chick was doing. 

Truth is, we're getting into eschatology and aesthetics and ethics.  And it's way over my head, as you can probably tell.  But I do know this:  Al is the most moral poster on this forum.  And opebo is the least.

Beyond that I agree with dazzleman's comments that you are taking an extreme.  In particular, I think the credo of Socrates and Saint Francis and modern-day recovering alcoholics in Alcoholics Anonymous meetings:  This above all else, to thyne own self be true.  that is, if you really believe what you're typing, and you're typing it as a heartfelt important point of clarification, then you're acting in a universally objective moral manner as well.  And I admire your enthusiasm for accuracy.  If you're just playing word games with me, then you can kiss my hairy, white, skinny, wrinkly, shriveled ass.  Punk.

[Gabu]

But it is that rejection that is tantamount to the concept of amorality.

I would tend to disagree. One can have morals, without believing them to be objective or universal.

Emsworth, I often agree with you, but here I think you are taking your position to too much of an extreme.

It is true that morals evolve over time, and that there is a certain elasticity to morals.  But there also need to be certain bedrock morals for the good of society.

My example of a 45-year-old man sexually abusing a child is a good illustration of bedrock moral standards.  Opebo claims that my disapproval of this is strictly subjective.  But he fails to look at the reasons I may disapprove of it.  I disapprove of it because a child is most likely unable to defend himself/herself against unwanted advances, and such sexual contact at a very young age is emotionally devastating for the child, and can harm him/her for life.

What is really comes down to is that morality is about the protection of the least powerful, and the most defenseless.  That is really my conception of morality.  I oppose irresponsible child-bearing, and certain types of behavior while a person is raising children, and consider these things immoral because they harm the lives of young children who don't have a choice in the matter, and are unable to speak for or defend themselves.  A society that approves of behavior that is harmful to the defenseless, simply because some people may enjoy it, is not going to be a very pleasant place to live after too long.

I have room in my thinking for a somewhat unconventional code of morality, so long as the important items are met.  angus has made a lot of good comments here, so I'll use him as an example.  Certainly, his life has not lived up to the strictures of the Christian Coalition.  But he appears to be a good father to his son, and for that reason, I would consider him to be a moral guy, based on what I know about him.  He does not appear to be the type of guy who would be engaging in behavior that will put in danger a person for whom he is responsible, and who is unable to defend himself.  So I think that there has to be some elasticity in moral standards, but they cannot be totally subjective.  There has to be a bedrock bottom line.

I think this is a good post.  While there certainly are fuzzy areas, there are certain things that really should not be left up to debate, like "is murder okay".  If you don't like a religious slant on morals, the concept of good morals can essentially be thought of as guidelines for the continuation of the human race.  I personally feel that all logical human beings have some semblance of morals, because they all intuitively know that there are certain things that, if they were not done, would essentially cause a serious degredation or even the complete the downfall of the human race, things like "don't steal", "don't murder", et cetera.

Of course, there are always those who are very short-sighted who fail to co-operate in this grand example of the Prisoners' Dilemma, and who feel that they can get ahead in life if they do do those things.  I call these people short-sighted because the only reason that they think that this is a good idea is because that they aren't looking at the grander scale of things - namely, that if everyone acted like that, the world would not be a good place, and that it's up to everyone to ensure that we all co-operate with these very simple moral ideas in order to make the world a liveable place.

I think that the main issue is that people have very widely diverging ideas of the definition of "morals".  I think too many people get caught up into the religious aspect of morals and are unable to see the big picture.  Morals don't necessarily have to be religious in nature, given that a whole lot of things regarded as moral behavior are, in general, a good idea, whether or not you're religious.

[12th Doctor]

Most moral? PBrunsel. He's probably the nicest forum member, and kindness is essential to morality.

No offense against PB, but since when has being "nice" been in anyway synonimous with being moral?  Being nice just has to do with how you treat people outwardly, in the world, regardless of whether you give a rats ass about them in your mind.

[jokerman]

Most: Jake and me

Least: Opebo

[angus]

I also have some fierce, explosive gas right now.  Probably from that Japanese Tou Fu we got from Wal-Mart instead of the usual chinese stuff we get.  Azumaya extra firm.  Definitely not recommended.  Stick with the Wu Chong brand.  Anyway, this all deserves a better response than I'm capable of giving in my current bloated, humorless state.  Hasta luego.

[dazzleman]

I also have some fierce, explosive gas right now.  Probably from that Japanese Tou Fu we got from Wal-Mart instead of the usual chinese stuff we get.  Azumaya extra firm.  Definitely not recommended.  Stick with the Wu Chong brand.  Anyway, this all deserves a better response than I'm capable of giving in my current bloated, humorless state.  Hasta luego.

  After you've blown all that gas out, it will be interesting to see your response to all this.  Good luck, man.

[Colin]

Oh this is easy:

Most: PBrunsel, without a doubt. Comeone the guys a prohibitionist Quaker for God's sake.

Least: opebo. Come on who can doubt that.

[Akno21]

Most: Jake and me

Least: Opebo

I don't think how religous you are plays into this equation. Being a faithful person doesn't make you a good one, and being a non-religous one doesn't make you less moral in any way, though I agree with your selection of Opebo.

[jokerman]

Most: Jake and me

Least: Opebo

I don't think how religous you are plays into this equation. Being a faithful person doesn't make you a good one, and being a non-religous one doesn't make you less moral in any way, though I agree with your selection of Opebo.

I am a virgin, that already puts me ahead of most people here, withtout a doubt.

[dazzleman]

As far as the most moral posters go, there are a few candidates who are the most moral in a conventional sense:

Frodo
Ebowed
Keystone Phil
Gabu
Nym90

I know there are others, too, that I will think of later.

For least moral, I think the choice is clear:  opebo.
Flyers2006 also exhibits a certain aggressive rejection of certain types of morality, as does BRTD, but I wouldn't go so far as to call them immoral.  I think that their morals will evolve over time as they mature.

[Akno21]

Most: Jake and me

Least: Opebo

I don't think how religous you are plays into this equation. Being a faithful person doesn't make you a good one, and being a non-religous one doesn't make you less moral in any way, though I agree with your selection of Opebo.

I am a virgin, that already puts me ahead of most people here, withtout a doubt.

Since when does not having sex make you a more moral person? I don't see why a 30 year old is any less moral because they have had sex. It's not like sex is a bad thing.

[jokerman]

Most: Jake and me

Least: Opebo

I don't think how religous you are plays into this equation. Being a faithful person doesn't make you a good one, and being a non-religous one doesn't make you less moral in any way, though I agree with your selection of Opebo.

I am a virgin, that already puts me ahead of most people here, withtout a doubt.

Since when does not having sex make you a more moral person? I don't see why a 30 year old is any less moral because they have had sex.

If they were married, yes, it would be ok.  But most posters here aren't married.

[Colin]

Most: Jake and me

Least: Opebo

I don't think how religous you are plays into this equation. Being a faithful person doesn't make you a good one, and being a non-religous one doesn't make you less moral in any way, though I agree with your selection of Opebo.

I am a virgin, that already puts me ahead of most people here, withtout a doubt.

Since when does not having sex make you a more moral person? I don't see why a 30 year old is any less moral because they have had sex.

If they were married, yes, it would be ok.  But most posters here aren't married.

And most of the posters here have never had sex either, unless you count "beating the meat" as sex.

[jokerman]

Frodo

I think I remember reading one of Frodo's posts where he said he was bisexual.  I don't know if that's still true or not, but that would automatically put him out of the running.

[Akno21]

Most: Jake and me

Least: Opebo

I don't think how religous you are plays into this equation. Being a faithful person doesn't make you a good one, and being a non-religous one doesn't make you less moral in any way, though I agree with your selection of Opebo.

I am a virgin, that already puts me ahead of most people here, withtout a doubt.

Since when does not having sex make you a more moral person? I don't see why a 30 year old is any less moral because they have had sex.

If they were married, yes, it would be ok.  But most posters here aren't married.

I guess that's where most moral compasses change course from yours.

[Joe Republic]

If they were married, yes, it would be ok.  But most posters here aren't married.

We're talking about moral in a non-religious sense.  You can still be a very moral person, unmarried and not a virgin.

[Colin]

Frodo

I think I remember reading one of Frodo's posts where he said he was bisexual.  I don't know if that's still true or not, but that would automatically put him out of the running.

How does that say anything? Who says that an atheist can't be a moral person? Who says that a very religious person isn't a son of a bitch?

[Joe Republic]

Frodo

I think I remember reading one of Frodo's posts where he said he was bisexual.  I don't know if that's still true or not, but that would automatically put him out of the running.

Why?

[dazzleman]

Frodo

I think I remember reading one of Frodo's posts where he said he was bisexual.  I don't know if that's still true or not, but that would automatically put him out of the running.

I don't remember that, but it doesn't really matter to me.  He has come across as a moral person to me.  Of course, I don't know him personally, so it's only an impression, as in all these cases.

[angus]

I also have some fierce, explosive gas right now.  Probably from that Japanese Tou Fu we got from Wal-Mart instead of the usual chinese stuff we get.  Azumaya extra firm.  Definitely not recommended.  Stick with the Wu Chong brand.  Anyway, this all deserves a better response than I'm capable of giving in my current bloated, humorless state.  Hasta luego.

  After you've blown all that gas out, it will be interesting to see your response to all this.  Good luck, man.

whoa, I let the old lady talk me into taking a couple of antacid tablets.  Feeling better already.  Well, I also had a major gut-wrenching fart.  That's was probably the clincher.  Seems like opebo's the clear winner on the least moral, but for most moral, PBrunsel is giving Al a run for his money.  But I'm tired of lobbying.  And tired in general. 

As an aside, that I agree with your idea of bedrock universal goes without saying.  And presumably many other posters do as well.  Note that murder hasn't come up in this thread.  Nor has rape.  Well, only artificially in this post, and only to point out that they haven't.  I think these concepts cross cultural and temporal boundaries.  So, sure, you can find examples outside religious and/or philosophical constructs to make the case for moral imperatives.  anyone who tells you otherwise is yanking your chain, as I suggested earlier.

And I'd point out to Akno21 that these posters may be wiser than you're giving them credit for.  Except for the usual handful of contrarians, no one here is confusing religiosity with moralism.

"You do not eat the pig.  I do not eat the cow.  We may respectively observe these taboos."
     --account of Admiral Zheng He's interpreter, Ma Huan, of the Calcutta Hindu maharaja to the people of Malabar.  AD 1421

"Religion is a private matter.  A private choice."
      --Zheng He (chinese Muslim and famed voyager, considered by his chinese comtemporaries to have had an extremely large penis), AD 1422

[jokerman]

Frodo

I think I remember reading one of Frodo's posts where he said he was bisexual.  I don't know if that's still true or not, but that would automatically put him out of the running.

When I made that post back in either March or February, I was referring to when I was in middle school, and I had a short-lived attraction to other boys.  I was asking about whether that made me a bisexual or not.  

As far as I am concerned, such attractions at such a tender age does not make me a bisexual per se -not that there's anything wrong with that.  

Now, you could make a (debatable) case that I am not as 'moral' as you because I advocate equal rights for gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered.    

Oh, ok.  That makes me feel a lot better about a fellow populist Democrat.

[Joe Republic]

If they were married, yes, it would be ok.  But most posters here aren't married.

We're talking about moral in a non-religious sense.  You can still be a very moral person, unmarried and not a virgin.

Maybe if you had sex once or twice, and had reverted from your ways.  But if not, then no, absolutely not.  I'm sorry, but you can't be truly moral unless you abide by God's laws, or at least try to and accept Jesus as the son of god, and be saved.  Non-Religious Morality is an oxymoron.

I don't even want to get into this argument, I'm sick and tired of dealing with this "it's ok if he's done this or that, he can still be moral" bs.  So, whatever, stick with your beliefs.  If you live by them, see where you'll end up.  I've had enough.

Ok that's fine, then stop calling decent people 'immoral' because they don't fit your own ridiculously restrictive criteria.

[angus]

no one here is confusing religiosity with moralism.

but I do think many are confusing Moralism with Traditionalism.  But we've hashed that out before.  Many times.  If they don't get it by now I guess they just don't want to.

"The truth is not kind.  And you say neither am I."
    --Toad the wet sprocket, AD 1991



meow.  hiss.  gettin' hot in here, folks.  make nice boys. 

"Judge not lest ye be judged."
          --God, the Son.  Circa AD 29

[Max Power]

If they were married, yes, it would be ok.  But most posters here aren't married.

We're talking about moral in a non-religious sense.  You can still be a very moral person, unmarried and not a virgin.

Maybe if you had sex once or twice, and had reverted from your ways.  But if not, then no, absolutely not.  I'm sorry, but you can't be truly moral unless you abide by God's laws, or at least try to and accept Jesus as the son of god, and be saved.  Non-Religious Morality is an oxymoron.

I don't even want to get into this argument, I'm sick and tired of dealing with this "it's ok if he's done this or that, he can still be moral" bs.  So, whatever, stick with your beliefs.  If you live by them, see where you'll end up.  I've had enough.

Ok that's fine, then stop calling decent people 'immoral' because they don't fit your own ridiculously restrictive criteria.

Why don't you go walk up to God right now and tell him his laws are ridiculas?  Just shoot and kill yourself and have a little chat with him at the gates of heaven about why his laws are so un-educated and outdated.

WTF???

Anyways, Preston, go to a seminary if you think you are so much more moral then everybody. Saying that bisexuals and gays can't be moral is just idiotic.

"Lest ye be judged...."