is it immoral to take full control of someones life against they’re will?
is slavery immoral? if so why?
is murder immoral? if so why?
i would say that the reason why I consider murder and slavery immoral is that they are the most controlling actions that someone can impose against anothers will.
Taking full control of someone’s life is morality itself.
Morality controlls action.
what comes 1st desire or justification?
Desire always comes first. If we had no desires, we would have no need for morality.
Any time you impose your free will detrimentally upon others it is immoral.
Perfectly said! =D>
How about the prolife movement attempting to tell a woman she must carry child to term?
I don;t agree with prolife, i think it should be the mothers choice.
realistically, condoms should be free(like at high school)
Thanks T., this feminist greatly appreciates your stance, as many other male posters have told me I should not have sex unless willing to carry a pregnancy to term in spite of my 53 years of age. Yikes. 
With appreciation,
aspacia
Its a matter of how much personal freedom one should have and how much power the government should have.
I don’t think the government should have a say in such a personal matter, If the government was really worried about teen pregnancy(leading candidates for abortion) they would give condoms away for free.
MP’s take a stand on such issues to give the illusion of having an agenda they stick to, that hits home with specific focus groups.
The MP’s job is to have the same ideals as th majority(and hence win elections) and public opinion should be the last thing on a politicians mind.
We need a system that not only has the brightest people in power, but the bright people who have backbone, people who are willing to lose an election if it means standing up for what they belive in.
Politicians pre-occupance with winning elections is deluding the party lines, what is the real difference between Liberal and Conservative agendas? I would vouch to say the differences are trivial.
kinda migrated from a morality thread; but not far
There’s another half of the abortion debate too though, that doesn’t just argue “it’s irresponsible to terminate a pregnancy, so we should outlaw it”; if you treat a fetus like a human then it’s the mother imposing her will on it, and thus being immoral. (Just playing devil’s advocate btw; I’m pro-choice)
The usual difficulty (my example of the abortion debate isn’t the usual case, as it questions whether or not the subject is a person) comes with A Spoonful Supreme’s definition of immoral:
When is it detrimental to another to impose your will upon them? Is it detrimental to someone to punch them in the face? If they’re physically hurt, but learn to avoid getting punched, develop stronger character, and learn to face their fears, are they hurt or not?
While this is an extreme example, you can see how it applies to smaller things that you might consider “immoral.” Think of the archetypical father figure, always pushing the subordinate with the ultimate intent of making them stronger. Doesn’t society give police officers, judges, and other authority figures their own discretion over other people? Is a police officer being immoral when he/she orders you out of your own house because of a crime committed there? Is a fireman being immoral when he/she lays out a net beneath someone attempting to leap from a roof? Is a doctor being immoral when he/she restricts a person to a padded cell and a straight jacket?
As individuals, modern society aims to protect a number of our freedoms. Freedom is ultimately power–the potential to act–concerning ourselves. Things that are moral or immoral are so because their net effect is to strengthen or weaken people respectively in the pursuit of their interests. In terms of a single individual, this often translates into things being immoral because their power over themselves is taken away to some degree, but this is not always what immorality is, even just on an individual level. This is furthermore ultimately a relative process, because it hinges on people’s subjective interests, not a consistent definition of better or worse, helpful or detrimental, etc.
There is a balance that has to be upheld between personal freedom and social responsibility; I would say that morality only concerns those actions which effect others and it makes me wonder; Is our sense of social responsibility and our morality more or less the same thing?
I don’t think that any action i can commit in perfect solitude can really effect anyone else(unless its suicide, and hence would instill a sense of wonder, regret, denial, grief, resentment ect. in people who knew me) but the question arises; what actions which have no effect on other people, can i undertake , and afterward consider immoral?(besides the aformentioned suicide if you subscribe to a religious morality)
but to throw another question out there; If we we’re to establish a morality or sense of social responsibility, that did not have a religion as its basis, where would we start?
1st; we would need to establish the age at which we consider people capable of acting of they’re own volition
2nd; we would have to establish how far our personal freedom extends and hence in finding the limit of our individual freedom, we set the precedent by which we can establish acts which are beyond the limit of individual freedom and in doing so establish acts which can be considered immoral.
So, can we say that its immoral to infrindge upon other peoples freedom?
Im sure that spitting in someones face is not an action which suppresses as much of a persons freedom as shooting someone or kidnapping someone, but how do we go about saying one action is more immoral than another? can we even make such a distinction? or is it more cut and dry, for example, can we say an action is either moral or not moral but there are no degrees of morality?
Back to a prior thought; how do we go about defining the limit of personal freedom? The democratic way, it would seem, would be to have a vote(but the logistics of voting on every potential freedom or restriction of human action is absurd)not to mention, i would say that your average person doesn’t have the credentials to warrant a vote on the ethics of medicine or business or politics for that matter.
If we did have a vote on the reform of every law, how much would the laws we now have change?