Taboo! Now with more stuffing!

[Maria]

The person he promised is of course none the wiser, having died happy in her assumptions.

Now there's quite an assumption. She could be following him around as an ineffectual ghost, tearing out her insubstantial hair and wishing she could make it to poltergeist level, just to let him know how unhappy she really is!

[MithLuin]

Lots of people harm themselves and think nothing of it. That doesn't mean that we can't gainsay them. [I am not saying we have the right to throw him in jail or in a straight-jacket! Merely to say, "you're wrong."]

I think it is wrong to make a promise with no intention of keeping it. Forget deathbeds.

• Mom: Are you going to clean your room today?
  Kid: Sure, Mom. <goes back to what she was doing>

Lying to get someone off your back is not a good thing!

"Getting caught" should not be the standard for morality. It wasn't right as long as nobody found out....

For instance - for work, I have to sign an "acceptable use" internet policy that forbids use of the internet for....chatting. It doesn't specify messageboards, but I'm pretty sure that is implied. I'm not supposed to be on here at work. So, once I sign that paper, I can't come here during work any more. I will (probably) never be caught. I am in a room by myself, and if anyone sees me at my computer, they will just assume I am working. But if I signed off, that means I agreed to the terms - so if I cheat, I'll know that I am cheating. I may try to rationalize it and say that it isn't harmful to stop by here during my free time....but that isnt' what I agreed to, and I would be wrong.

The form is due today. So, from now on, I'll only be able to do this at home...


I guess the "let's not hurt each other" rule is pretty much a bare minimum of what should be required of us. And it takes enough effort to pull that much off! So I shouldn't necessarily find fault with a system that says that is the end all, be all question of morality....I just find it lacking in....humanity. There's gotta be more....


Here's what I mean. I am a teacher, so I have students. Now, if I were a student, I would want my work back promptly so I would know what I did right (or wrong) and so I would know what my grade is.

But...I'm not the world's greatest teacher, so I don't. I keep their papers forever, grade everything in a frenzy at the end of the quarter, and they find out on their report cards what their grade is.

I think this is wrong. I think I am not a good teacher in doing this. I am working to improve. But....am I hurting them? I mean, I am grading their work and giving them a grade. It's all fair and above board. It just isn't...timely. Do they have a "right" to know their grade by the very next class? Well, no. I mean, they can complain, but it's not exactly against my contract to do this. But do I have a responsibility to get the papers back to them ASAP? Yes - it is only right for me to do that.

[Primula Baggins]

There's gotta be more. Someone who makes choices that make her a lesser person (that hurt or destroy her integrity) is harming herself even if she is the only person who ever knows it. Humans being human, some people in that position may find themselves on the path to making increasingly bad choices, possibly leading to harm to others, or harm to themselves that becomes a burden on society. But even if that never happens, a person who's damaged herself in this way is never what she could have been and is probably less happy than she could have been.

I'm talking about ordinary people here, not remorseless serial killers or people so corrupt that their own pleasure is the only good they know.

And I am not saying society must interfere with these harmful private choices, if it's true that no one else is hurt; people have the right to their own lives.

We're really talking about two levels of morality here—what society ought to enforce, and what is (separate from society's judgment or enforcement) right or wrong.

[Frelga]

Some of us even believe it is immoral to allow the dead to have a moral claim on the living

Hee. Working on a novel built around that issue as we speak. We are ruled by the dead in ways we scarcely imagine.

Can't wait till it's published.

There is a mystique associated with deathbed promises.

In the symplistic scenario of the online test I replied that the son is not being immoral, although he is a lazy SOB.

IRL, many other solutions would be preferable. MithLuin suggested that he could have comforted the mother without committing himself, and I think that would be the best idea. He could address the real reason behind her request. If she is concerned with fading from the memory of the living, she could be reassured by a heartfelt statement of how she would always be in the hearts of her family. If she has some fear of her grave being neglected, then that could be the promise - that the son will make sure her grave is never overgrown, even if he pays someone else to take care of it.

I like Maria's solution best.

I guess the "let's not hurt each other" rule is pretty much a bare minimum of what should be required of us. And it takes enough effort to pull that much off! So I shouldn't necessarily find fault with a system that says that is the end all, be all question of morality....I just find it lacking in....humanity. There's gotta be more....

I agree, Mith. I think "do not harm others" is the minimum requirement. Anything below that is immoral. To refrain from causing harm intentionally and knowingly is the least a moral person can do, and you are right, even that is not easy.

By that standard, the son's behaviour is not immoral, although he is hardly a beacon of virtue.

[yovargas]

I agree, Mith. I think "do not harm others" is the minimum requirement. Anything below that is immoral. To refrain from causing harm intentionally and knowingly is the least a moral person can do, and you are right, even that is not easy.

By that standard, the son's behaviour is not immoral, although he is hardly a beacon of virtue.

Saved me the typing.

[axordil]

On the other hand: if you don't HARM others, it effectively limits your options to not really interacting with them or helping them. Which means any real interaction you have with someone will be helpful. That's a pretty moral situation in my book.

[Frelga]

Ax, could you not have a neutral interaction. Like you and I are having now?

[Primula Baggins]

I think it depends on the definition of helpful. One could argue that a friendly, intelligent conversation benefits everyone participating. A "neutral" conversation such as this one might help someone stave off loneliness, distract someone from fear or sadness, amuse someone who is bored, teach someone. . . .

[axordil]

Prim--

Exactly. I don't have to be pulling you out of a ditch to be helpful to you. If you were IN a ditch, that's different of course. But just interacting with people in a civil and interesting fashion is a notch above truly neutral interaction. Being friendly and letting them know you're listening is another step up. What we have here is, I would like to think, a few steps up from that, in general.

I know from experience that the effect of 500 near-surly customers can sometimes be counteracted by a single pleasant and understanding one.

[MithLuin]

I think it depends on the definition of helpful. One could argue that a friendly, intelligent conversation benefits everyone participating. A "neutral" conversation such as this one might help someone stave off loneliness, distract someone from fear or sadness, amuse someone who is bored, teach someone. . . .

...or distract someone from grading her papers...





I think most actions have intrinsic morality to them, and are therefore not "neutral" - but of course some of these may be very minor!

And then, if you do everything - including the little, insignificant things - with great love....you become a wonderful person who everyone is better for knowing. I think we all know people like that, and would like to be more like them. None of them do "the bare minimum" in any area of their lives.

I guess that is my complaint - that saying "see, I didn't hurt anyone!" should be grounds for congratualations. It should be grounds for...well, the ground. You're supposed to move on up, though . Being a surly customer may be "negative" - but being the customer who puts things back where they belong, thanks the workers in the store, and leaves a glowing commendation with the management is quite a few steps above "not hurting." You could have been "not hurting" by just being there, but as soon as you smile, you are doing more than that.

[Frelga]

Maybe what we need is a new legal definition for moral, which is different from not-immoral in that it implies higher standards.

[axordil]

Ah, but that implies that there's right, wrong, and...Smarch.

[MithLuin]

Gah! More definitions!

Doesn't everybody know what moral means?

Moral is "how I ought to act"

Each moral system has its own reasoning behind how it defines that...but that's the gist of it for all of them. (For religious morality, most of the laws derive from God's will. For humanism, most of the rules derive from the dignity and rights of humanity. For other stuff...the starting point is different.)

But, at the end of the day, each system determines how we ought to act.

[axordil]

Actually, "how one ought to act" sounds more like etiquette to me...

[Túrin Turambar]

It doesn't hurt my Mom if I don't vacuum the living room for her. But that doesn't mean that I shouldn't do so.

Won’t she face the (albeit minor) harm of having a dusty living room?

[Primula Baggins]

Well, being prim and all, I could argue that deliberate rudeness is immoral because it's intended to hurt or at least annoy other people. So by that measurement, observing etiquette is indeed moral behavior, on at least a trivial level. . . .

[Frelga]

Well, being prim and all, I could argue that deliberate rudeness is immoral because it's intended to hurt or at least annoy other people. So by that measurement, observing etiquette is indeed moral behavior, on at least a trivial level. . . .

Or perhaps deliberately breaking etiquette in the areas that affect social interaction is immoral under that definition. Using fish fork on salad is not immoral.

[Primula Baggins]

Iconoclast!

[MithLuin]

It doesn't hurt my Mom if I don't vacuum the living room for her. But that doesn't mean that I shouldn't do so.

Won’t she face the (albeit minor) harm of having a dusty living room?

Well, she could dust it herself - it's her living room! I picked a chore that she does anyway and that does not cause her harm. Vacuuming the steps is different, cause it is actually difficult to carry the vaccuum up the steps and with her being older (than I am, not old) and having stiff knees, there's more of an obligation to help. I really should do that. But the living room? If I were to do that for her, it would be nice.... but the real reason is not the dusty living room, it's the fact that I'm her daughter.

[Túrin Turambar]

It doesn't hurt my Mom if I don't vacuum the living room for her. But that doesn't mean that I shouldn't do so.

Won’t she face the (albeit minor) harm of having a dusty living room?

Well, she could dust it herself - it's her living room!

In which case she faces a loss of time and energy vacuuming the room.

I would argue, though, that you have no moral obligation to vacuum the room for her. Ifyou promised to, or it was your job to, then yes, you would have a moral obligation to do so.

Also, just because it is not immoral not to do something, doesn't mean that you shouldn't do it, harm or no harm (I think I got that sentance right).