That was not a definition of 'immoral behavior'.

I said that clearly immoral actions included the deliberate infliction of harm or other distress on others, against their consent, with no extenuating circumstances, such as being part of a medical procedure to address an injury or other problem, like lancing an abscess or removing an infected tooth or setting a broken bone, etc.

And also the refusal to assist someone clearly suffering, or injured, where you were in a position to do so, with little or only modest inconvenience to yourself.

Or in defence of yourself or a third person, where there was no simple alternative way to stop the person attempting to harm you or the victim. An extension to this would include 'criminal punishment', if it was known to be effective as a deterrent.

I quoted the definition of 'harm' to clarify that I was referring to something clearly causing such injury or distress, as distinct from just making someone feel 'uncomfortable', or that they objected to for more subjective reasons.

Personally I object to any form of 'capital punishment', and not just for the 'harm' involved.

If causing someone distress, such as by imprisoning them as punishment for a crime, reduces the incidence of such crime, I have no serious problem with it.

I would object to any 'punishment' involving physical injury, especially permanent injury. Islamic Sharia Law is an abomination to me, whatever the crime or 'sin'.

Morality is really just a sense of 'fairness', a sense that vulnerable members(i.e. children) need to be protected and the sense that societies need to live under a set of rules in order to function. This is necessary for humans to live as social animals. Otherwise no human cooperation would be possible. Immoral behavior is that which is judged to violate these rules.

A society or an individual can judge a behavior over a wide range depending on broad number of factors like religious indoctrination, socialization, etc.... So all morality truly is relative.

In this case I would even say 'totally gross'.

I just found this site which says in part:

'The original descriptive definition of “morality” refers to the most important code of conduct put forward by a society and accepted by the members of that society. When the examination of large diverse societies raised problems for this original descriptive definition, different descriptive definitions were offered in which “morality” refers to the most important code of conduct put forward and accepted by any group, or even by an individual. Apart from containing some prohibitions on harming some others, different moralities can differ from each other quite extensively.'

Please tell me how you interpret the underlined portion above.

I would substitute "ethics" through out that paragraph but I'm just nit picking again.

If you are talking about individual ideas of right and wrong, of course morals vary extensively.  If you are talking about a collection of individuals in a society who have a collective ethic of course they can differ from another collection of people and their collective ethic quite extensively.  See Shari'a.  Many, many, many people believe that 6th century societal solutions to perceived unethical immoral actions are relevant in today's global society.  Way different from yours and mine and many other people's?  No duh.

Is it right?  Not in my book.  Is it okay?  Not in my book.  Can I fix it?  Probably not alone.  Maybe with a lot of external societal pressure, maybe not.  So I have to live with it?  That, or drive myself insane worrying and fussing over something I can't change.  I like to pick my battles so I can win a few.

Sandy,

those other pieces you referred to, and the quotes, reinforce my view that once you get away from the harm issues, what people think of in 'moral' terms clearly becomes much more subjective and culturally dependent.

I see ideas of 'purity', especially, and some aspects of 'sanctity', to be at the core of where I see religion distorting a more 'natural' and justifiable moral code.  When they allow those ideas to actually override 'my' code, based on 'first, do no harm', is where I will unequivocally condemn them.

As to how and to what extent I would like to see us address them, I am broadly with cj.

EDIT: I see many of those other issues objectionable more on aesthetic grounds than moral ones.

Yes, I would consider that possibly worth treating as immoral, but the 'harm' would still have to be clear, and not just something that encouraged or allowed behaviour which was not itself 'wrong' by my standards. I am not considering actions which cause 'harm' of the personal kind to many members of society, that would be covered by the criteria I already described.

What sort of things did you have in mind?

I do not consider 'ritual sacrifice' a 'moral' act, within my view. It is another of what I consider the evils of religion.

Obviously they will consider these things not only moral, but required, or necessary. I simply and seriously disagree.

The killing of an abortion doctor is a bit more murky, since they are doing it to prevent what they consider a clear case of 'harm' to others. That gets into issues of at what point, and to what degree, do we regard a developing foetus as a person deserving to be not 'harmed'. If it is a case of the mother's life or the child's, I have no issue, but other cases are not so clear.

However, I personally see that as covered under the personal category, not a 'social' harm.

If they can show some actual harm to society as a whole, and I would like to see what they consider justifies that label, or to the individuals involved, I may agree that they warrant being considered immoral.

Lying is NOT immoral intrinsically, it depends on the situation.

I don't see any of those behaviours as clearly immoral or harmful to society as a whole. Some are likely to be things will affect the life and future of the individual themselves, like gambling and heavy drinking, and may affect others, such as their family, or if they drive while drunk. But again they are covered by my basic formulation, without resorting to concerns about society in general.

Intercourse between consenting adults, whether or not they are married is not immoral in my book, unless there are partners who are likely to be severely emotionally distressed if they find out about the act - risking causing such distress is what would make any act immoral in my book, whether or not sex is involved.

If you are asking why some, or many people, consider such things immoral, typically they will appeal to religious teachings, but those things are only in their creed because the people who contributed to putting their scriptures together considered them so, for the same basic reasons people think things they personally find 'bad' are immoral. Which I consider are open to examination for actual 'harm'.

I still would want to see what would be considered as "causing harm to society as a whole" which didn't involve harm to the members of society.

There are what I would consider marginal cases where the 'harm' is very temporary and purely emotional, such as being shocked at offensive language, and this has been covered in the 'swearing' thread. Gratuitously causing offense I can accept as wrong but not a deep 'sin'.

I'll have a look at that article later and see if it clarifies things at all.

I don't see how society can be "harmed".

A society is an abstract, not a living thing.  How can you harm the color blue?  Mind you, blue is my favorite color and I have seen what I thought were really nasty shades.  But harmed?  No.  Changed?  You bet.  And how is that good or bad?  It just is.  Was giving women the vote such an awful thing?  Shall we go back to women can not own property or business?

They can call those practices what ever they want to call them.  In this country, and many others, it is illegal.  Personally, I wouldn't call it moral.  But remember I view morals as strictly personal and individualistic.

I would say no - because I feel an adult always has more worth than a fetus.  The person who killed the doctor can say it was a moral act all he wants - it was illegal.  And it caused harm to a lot of women who have to struggle to find a doctor who will assist them with a medically necessary late term abortion.

They call these behaviors immoral as a way to separate them from the crowd.  Religion is all about "I'm more in tune with god/s/dess than you are because..."  I don't eat meat.  I don't eat pork.  I don't eat beef.  I don't gamble.  I don't smoke.  I don't get drunk.  I don't lie.  etc., etc.

But it isn't true.  They do lie - "Oh, honey, you just look so sweet in that ol' dress.  I could eat you up!"

If a consenting adult wishes to harm him/herself, it is none of my business.  They know the risks, they have chosen to deal with it - or not.  Choosing to be willfully ignorant about consequences is a choice.

I gamble.  I bought a lottery ticket a couple of days ago.  Have I harmed anyone?  For $2?  Sure, if I gambled away the mortgage/rent and food money, that would be harmful.  Does gambling harm the society?  In what way?  If granny chooses to spend her children's inheritance at the local casino, maybe the kids should start working on their own retirement funds and stop relying on an inheritance from granny.

Exposure to pornography.  Consenting adults and who gives a rat's ass?  Children are not adults, animals are not capable of consenting. 

Profanity in public.  Seriously?  My sister gets all huffy if you say "damn" or "shit" or "hell".  And she will walk out of the room if you say "fuck".  Prude.

Gossiping.  Obviously, they haven't hung around the church groups - men or women.

Screwing someone you aren't married to.  Personal choice.  How does this harm society and how could we tell since we have never had a society where this didn't happen?  Surely, almost everyone has read The Scarlet Letter.

Retaliating against someone.  Again, they haven't hung around the church groups for long.  I can't hold a grudge worth shit, so by the time I get around to retaliating, I have forgotten why.  You can get yourself in a lot of trouble with this, but society?  Wars, gangs, the Hatfields and McCoys, Romeo and Juliet are all about retaliation.  I think we are stuck with this one as well.

Getting drunk.  Well, I don't anymore as it plays hell with the blood sugar.  As Bob said, unless you are doing something stupid like drinking and driving or operating heavy equipment - who cares?  Don't beat the spouse and children, have a good time, and who cares?  For that matter, texting and driving or phoning and driving are just as bad as drinking and driving. 

I don't know - all this sounds like too much worrying about what other people do with their private lives.

Assigning some value or identity to society, over and above the individuals who make it up, smacks to me of the thinking of authoritarian leaders, dictators, who argue for "the collective", the "nation", as what is to be defended at all costs.

There is a need to consider social health, which requires a significant amount of cooperation and some trade-off of total individual freedom, to keep things together and minimize harmful conflict, but that idea can itself get out of hand, when 'social order' becomes the dominant consideration. It seems to me that this is what we see behind the troubles in the Middle East now. Both the leaders over there, and successive US governments, valued the maintenance of order over the freedom and rights of the populations.

So I see many negatives in excessive concern about collective issues.