Is There a Definitive Definition of Morality?

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Is There a Definitive Definition of Morality?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Is There a Definitive Definition of Morality?
I have done a survey of 'definition of Morality' within Google [10 pages of search results] and there is none!

The followings are what I found;

Dictionaries
There is only one [??] book and a few articles which is specific on 'Definition of Morality', e.g.

Articles: Book:
  • The definition of morality
    Gerald Wallace, Arthur David McKinnon Walker
    https://www.amazon.com/Definition-Moral ... 0416151108

    However note a review and comment on the book.
    Review: Unfortunately, the literature does not offer a clear and succinct "definition" of morality. These writers work around the problem, but never conclude with anything like, "and thus, the definition of "morality" is...." So to that extent the title is misleading, but the book offers a good collection of readings nonetheless.
I can only find one specific book on 'the definition of morality'. Any other??

The Point is:
It is common to hear discussions of whether an action is moral, as if “moral” was a word with a specific agreed upon meaning. Unfortunately, the word has so many meanings that its interpretation is extremely difficult without extra information. For example, if I say “murder is immoral”, I could actually mean any of the following:
  • 1. Murder violates an abstract principle that I would like all people to live by.
    2. The Bible (or some other religious text) forbids murder.
    3. As a result of evolution and natural selection most people have an innate emotional aversion towards murder.
    4. Murder is against the law.
    5. Murder is labeled as being “immoral” by most people in my society.
    6. Murder usually reduces the total net happiness of society.
    7. The idea of murder provokes in me an emotional state that I associate with “wrongness”.
    8. Nearly all religions urge us not to murder.
    9. Nearly all societies have laws that punish murderers or have customs that ostracize them.
    10. Most people would feel a sense of guilt if they committed murder.
Unfortunately, even dictionaries cannot clarify for us what the word “moral” means.

A great many well respected philosophers begin by assuming that morality is a single, well defined thing (without actually defining it) and then spend their time arguing about what properties it must have. But if we haven’t defined morality, how can we derive it’s properties?

If we cannot define what exactly we are discussing, how can we even be sure that we are really discussing a single entity at all?
[also how sure that your definition is definitive in alignment with the true referent]

As the list above shows, there are many very different things that we might reasonably call “morality”, including our genetic moral intuitions created by natural selection, the societal rules that are deeply ingrained in us, religious laws, and certain abstract concepts about how to treat each other.

I am not arguing here that morality is meaningless, nor am I arguing that morality has no well defined definition to individual people or even to specific groups of people. Utilitarians, for example, can talk about morality with each other with little confusion, since they are working with a common definition.

My argument, simply stated, is that the word “morality” means many different things to different people, and that discussions about what is moral often rely on the false assumption that all parties involved can understand each other’s words.
https://www.clockbackward.com/2009/07/2 ... -morality/
My point and question;
Since there is so much variations in the definition of 'what is morality',
my question to the Moral Facts Deniers [Peter, Sculptor, Flasher, and gang] is,
on what grounds do you justify your idea and definition of what is morality is the definitive one?

and Views?? [any one]
Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is There a Definitive Definition of Morality?

Post by Skepdick »

You really need to separate the question of whether morality exists from the question of what the definition of morality is.

Does morality exist? Yes.
How do you define morality? I don't. Language doesn't work like that.

But if you ever "succeed" in defining morality, be assured that I will reject your definition. And I will encourage others to do the same.

If playing games you cannot win excites you - then carry on.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6266
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Is There a Definitive Definition of Morality?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Morality is a socio-linguistic construct created and constantly refined by consensus, that is largely unexamined in most cases and not remotely consistent. It is a constantly moving, out of focus picture of what we as a society as well as countless little sub-groupings of shared interests consider the right and wrong ways to make decisions, and its present configuration such as can even be ascertained represents our current set of concerns.

You won't get a convincing singular definition in this matter because the type of activity described above because morality is ultimately a matter of what we at present decide collectively to be concerned about, and then a lot of arguing about what are the best termsn in which frame whatever problem we are looking at.

An accurate description would be broken within whatever time it took for people to change their minds about what we are doing with morality today.

If you are too much of a neat freak to cope with this, starting hundreds of threads about the same shit isn't going to help you, it's time to abandon philosophy of ethics and look at something else, because morality is never going to sit still for its school photo.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4257
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Is There a Definitive Definition of Morality?

Post by surreptitious57 »

You claim that morality exists while simultaneously refusing all definitions of it so then how do you know it exists ?
For it might be an abstract concept but there will still be some physical manifestation of it in the observable world

All adult human beings of sound mind are moral beings by default so that is evidence that it exists
Laws passed by legislatures are the codification of morality so that is more evidence that it exists

Since you cannot deny the existence of either of the above then your argument is invalid
Of course you can deny them if you wish but the point is that you have no reason to do so
Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is There a Definitive Definition of Morality?

Post by Skepdick »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Jul 05, 2020 1:17 pm An accurate description would be broken within whatever time it took for people to change their minds about what we are doing with morality today.
And yet we consistently apply the precautionary principle to unbounded threats to human well-being.

You'd struggle to explain why we paused the world for a few months without the Precautionary principle.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is There a Definitive Definition of Morality?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Skepdick wrote: Sun Jul 05, 2020 12:01 pm You really need to separate the question of whether morality exists from the question of what the definition of morality is.

Does morality exist? Yes.
How do you define morality? I don't. Language doesn't work like that.

But if you ever "succeed" in defining morality, be assured that I will reject your definition. And I will encourage others to do the same.

If playing games you cannot win excites you - then carry on.
To define is to limit but reality is never limited.
I understand the limits of definitions but they are nevertheless necessary and critical in communications to avoid people talking pass each other whilst being mindful of its limitation.

As such, for the sake of effective communication, I will strive to find an effective definition for 'what is morality' that is justified to be in alignment with reality.
Anyone can use their discretion to reject if they don't agree.

To ensure each do not talk pass each other, even if there is no consensus on one singular definition [yet or never], then each must still present their best intended definitions and meanings of terms used in their views, especially when discussing such a loose term as 'what is morality'.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Mon Jul 06, 2020 9:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is There a Definitive Definition of Morality?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Jul 05, 2020 1:17 pm Morality is a socio-linguistic construct created and constantly refined by consensus, that is largely unexamined in most cases and not remotely consistent. It is a constantly moving, out of focus picture of what we as a society as well as countless little sub-groupings of shared interests consider the right and wrong ways to make decisions, and its present configuration such as can even be ascertained represents our current set of concerns.
Note I provided this link. one example of the many;
Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom:
It [morality] is something we are all born with.
At birth, babies are endowed with compassion, with empathy, with the beginnings of a sense of fairness. It is from these beginnings, he argues in his new book Just Babies, that adults develop their sense of right and wrong, their desire to do good — and, at times, their capacity to do terrible things.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... of-babies/
If Morality is Nature, then surely it is inherent.
If it is inherent, it is programmed within the DNA.
As such, there must be an inherent substance [the constant principles] that is Morality-proper.
Whatever is inherent within the DNA [NATURE] do not change easily as those of NURTURE.

You are obviously ignorant of the above nuances regarding Morality-proper.

What you described as Morality above, is the Nurture aspects and FORMS of Morality-proper which change in a short time according to the changes in environment and other conditions.
If we attribute the Nature aspects as Morality, then it would be appropriate the attribute the Nurture aspects as Ethics.
This is what the anthropologists would study, but the moral-proper philosophers would strive to establish the generic principles of morality within the inherent Nature features. This is ongoing already, it is just you are hopelessly ignorant on such knowledge while being stuck inside your tall silo.

You won't get a convincing singular definition in this matter because the type of activity described above because morality is ultimately a matter of what we at present decide collectively to be concerned about, and then a lot of arguing about what are the best termsn in which frame whatever problem we are looking at.
I am optimistic there is a singular definition with its specific features for what is morality-proper based on its generic features via its inherent NATURE which can be justified from empirical evidences and philosophical reasoning [nb this essential criteria].
An accurate description would be broken within whatever time it took for people to change their minds about what we are doing with morality today.
I say, the majority of people dealing with the concept of morality are mostly ignorant of what is morality proper in terms of its NATURE essence. What they are focusing is mostly on the NURTURE aspects which has to be variable.
If you are too much of a neat freak to cope with this, starting hundreds of threads about the same shit isn't going to help you, it's time to abandon philosophy of ethics and look at something else, because morality is never going to sit still for its school photo.
Hey, who are you to dictate, especially when this is a FORUM, i.e. a philosophical forum.
How come you are so ignorant of the meaning of 'What is a Forum' as your ignorance of 'What is Fact' in general.
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/forum

When I discussed Islam rationally with evidences, you complained and request me to look at something else, the same with 'God is an impossibility' Existing Crisis, etc. now that I am focusing on Morality and Ethics, you [emotionally] ask me to look at something else.
Nope, I will be exhausting the subject of Morality and Ethics for my own knowledge and database before I moved on.
Since I started on this, I have added >250 files to my folder 'Morality & Ethics' in my PC.

At least I have contributed relevant issues for what is expected from a Forum, what have you done to contribute for discussions in this Forum, other than cursing others' without rational counter arguments.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is There a Definitive Definition of Morality?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

surreptitious57 wrote: Sun Jul 05, 2020 1:28 pm You claim that morality exists while simultaneously refusing all definitions of it so then how do you know it exists ?
For it might be an abstract concept but there will still be some physical manifestation of it in the observable world
I have done extensive research to have an idea that most of the definitions of 'what is morality' is not directed at "what is morality proper".

Morality-proper is an inherent function with the brain, mind and self.

One clue I mentioned above, i.e.
Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom:
It [morality] is something we are all born with.
At birth, babies are endowed with compassion, with empathy, with the beginnings of a sense of fairness. It is from these beginnings, he argues in his new book Just Babies, that adults develop their sense of right and wrong, their desire to do good — and, at times, their capacity to do terrible things.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... of-babies/
The realistic direction on what is morality should be evolutionary science, evolutionary psychology, neurosciences, neuro-psychology, and the likes.

Note I presented this thread;
  • viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29401
    E O Wilson on Morality: Biologists In, Philosophers F/Off
    • “scientists and humanists should consider together the possibility that the time has come for ethics to be removed temporarily from the hands of the philosophers and biologicized” (Wilson, 1975: Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, 27).
In addition, I am optimistic towards that direction for morality because of the potential of this, where advances are progressing;
  • http://www.humanconnectomeproject.org/
    The Human Connectome Project aims to provide an unparalleled compilation of neural data, an interface to graphically navigate this data and the opportunity to achieve never before realized conclusions about the living human brain.
All adult human beings of sound mind are moral beings by default so that is evidence that it exists
Laws passed by legislatures are the codification of morality so that is more evidence that it exists
Yes, my point is ALL humans are "programmed" with an inherent potential for 'morality-proper'.
This is why we must nailed the definition [mindful of limitation] of what is morality-proper from what are pseudo-morality.
Since you cannot deny the existence of either of the above then your argument is invalid
Of course you can deny them if you wish but the point is that you have no reason to do so
Note sure why you think my argument is invalid.
The point of my OP is to seek a definition of 'what is morality-proper,' at least starting with a hypothetical definition and refine it to as close as possible to its reality so that we can contribute to the well-being of the individuals and humanity in the future*.
*It is bit too late for the present generations with their rigid ideologies.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3731
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is There a Definitive Definition of Morality?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Putative fact: humans are programmed to behave in such-and-such ways.

Moral opinion: human should, or ought to behave in line with their programming - it's morally right for them to do so, and morally wrong for them not to do so.

There's no connection of any kind between those two assertions. The second is not a factual assertion, and it doesn't follow from the first.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6266
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Is There a Definitive Definition of Morality?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jul 06, 2020 7:03 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Jul 05, 2020 1:17 pm Morality is a socio-linguistic construct created and constantly refined by consensus, that is largely unexamined in most cases and not remotely consistent. It is a constantly moving, out of focus picture of what we as a society as well as countless little sub-groupings of shared interests consider the right and wrong ways to make decisions, and its present configuration such as can even be ascertained represents our current set of concerns.
Note I provided this link. one example of the many;
Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom:
It [morality] is something we are all born with.
At birth, babies are endowed with compassion, with empathy, with the beginnings of a sense of fairness. It is from these beginnings, he argues in his new book Just Babies, that adults develop their sense of right and wrong, their desire to do good — and, at times, their capacity to do terrible things.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... of-babies/
If Morality is Nature, then surely it is inherent.
If it is inherent, it is programmed within the DNA.
As such, there must be an inherent substance [the constant principles] that is Morality-proper.
Whatever is inherent within the DNA [NATURE] do not change easily as those of NURTURE.
Erm, again I must question whether you have the basic ability to comprehend the things you read. for a start I already mentioned the same stuff as is there in another thread. this wa your hate filled response
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 05, 2020 6:06 am
Being born into a society and inheriting a huge number of shared beliefs is part of being a human. The opinions you form throughout your life overwhelmingly relate to this background - even if you are the most original man who ever lived this remains true. The innate portion of all that is very limited, it seems that people and many animals have a basic quantitiave sense of equitability that would make a desire for fairness seem sort of biological. Likewise you can find biological causation in why people value cooperative behaviour. So there is something arguably factual underlying our ability to percieve a realm of ethics at all.
There you go again, your failure to differentiate between opinions, beliefs and facts [JTB].
You seem to sense there is biological causation to morality but is ignorant in missing out on the obvious to justify moral facts from biological facts, e.g. breathing, hunger, security, basic survival, etc.
The dude in your Scientific American article is basically telling you what I already told you. He's not justifying your absurd morality-proper bullshit.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is There a Definitive Definition of Morality?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Jul 06, 2020 11:01 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jul 06, 2020 7:03 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Jul 05, 2020 1:17 pm Morality is a socio-linguistic construct created and constantly refined by consensus, that is largely unexamined in most cases and not remotely consistent. It is a constantly moving, out of focus picture of what we as a society as well as countless little sub-groupings of shared interests consider the right and wrong ways to make decisions, and its present configuration such as can even be ascertained represents our current set of concerns.
Note I provided this link. one example of the many;
Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom:
It [morality] is something we are all born with.
At birth, babies are endowed with compassion, with empathy, with the beginnings of a sense of fairness. It is from these beginnings, he argues in his new book Just Babies, that adults develop their sense of right and wrong, their desire to do good — and, at times, their capacity to do terrible things.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... of-babies/
If Morality is Nature, then surely it is inherent.
If it is inherent, it is programmed within the DNA.
As such, there must be an inherent substance [the constant principles] that is Morality-proper.
Whatever is inherent within the DNA [NATURE] do not change easily as those of NURTURE.
Erm, again I must question whether you have the basic ability to comprehend the things you read. for a start I already mentioned the same stuff as is there in another thread. this wa your hate filled response
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 05, 2020 6:06 am
Being born into a society and inheriting a huge number of shared beliefs is part of being a human. The opinions you form throughout your life overwhelmingly relate to this background - even if you are the most original man who ever lived this remains true. The innate portion of all that is very limited, it seems that people and many animals have a basic quantitiave sense of equitability that would make a desire for fairness seem sort of biological. Likewise you can find biological causation in why people value cooperative behaviour. So there is something arguably factual underlying our ability to percieve a realm of ethics at all.
There you go again, your failure to differentiate between opinions, beliefs and facts [JTB].
You seem to sense there is biological causation to morality but is ignorant in missing out on the obvious to justify moral facts from biological facts, e.g. breathing, hunger, security, basic survival, etc.
The dude in your Scientific American article is basically telling you what I already told you. He's not justifying your absurd morality-proper bullshit.
Did you tell me Morality has a genetic basis?
It is the genetic basis that we need to do further explorations.
It is from this genetic basis that we derive the moral facts of morality-proper.

The article is not that thorough. My point in linking that article to give you a clue, there is a genetic basis to morality.

The article also mentioned the nurture elements, but that is not my point in referencing the article.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is There a Definitive Definition of Morality?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jul 06, 2020 10:31 am Putative fact: humans are programmed to behave in such-and-such ways.

Moral opinion: human should, or ought to behave in line with their programming - it's morally right for them to do so, and morally wrong for them not to do so.

There's no connection of any kind between those two assertions. The second is not a factual assertion, and it doesn't follow from the first.
Your thinking is too dogmatic.
Thus you have to twist my points and force them to conform with your rigid views.

My point is this;
  • 1. Putative fact: humans are programmed to behave in such-and-such ways.

    2. Input 1 into a Framework and System of Morality and System, perform justification processes.

    3. Output: Justified True Moral Facts and standards,
    human ought to act in alignment with their programming.
Note, I never use the point, it is morally wrong for them not to do so.
The humans should adopt self-development programs to develop their moral competence so that they align progressively towards the moral standards so that their actions are spontaneous in alignment with the standards.

I have mentioned the above many times, but you do not seem to cognize it at all, instead you deliberately twist my points to fit your dogmatic schema.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is There a Definitive Definition of Morality?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

I believe 'Morality' has to be defined within the following narratives;

Morality is the following;
  • 1. It is an obvious fact, DNA/RNA wise, ALL humans are "programmed" to survive till the inevitable.

    2. One of the critical factor ensure 1 is to do good and avoid evil [bad and the likes].

    3. As such all humans are "programmed" to do good and avoid evil and this is an inherent function of morality which is represented by a neural algorithm within the brain/mind that is connected to the whole body.

    4. What is good with reference to morality is non-evil.

    5. What is evil [with reference to morality] are thoughts and acts that will impinge and hinder ultimately on 1, i.e. survival.

    6. The inherent function of morality are expressed in terms of actions of input, processes and consequences.

    7. The actions and processes are most effectively managed via a Framework and Regulatory Approach to Morality and Ethical Systems. [FRAMES]
An effective FRAMES must comprised of justified Principles and Practices as in PURE and APPLIED respectively.

To avoid confusion,
Morality refers to the PURE aspects -the principles, objectives, standards, i.e. the justified true moral facts to be used as GUIDES within FRAMES.
while
Ethics refers to APPLIED aspects - the practical and practices, e.g. Ethics with Medicine, business, Science, politics, etc.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Is There a Definitive Definition of Morality?

Post by RCSaunders »

Skepdick wrote: Sun Jul 05, 2020 12:01 pm You really need to separate the question of whether morality exists from the question of what the definition of morality is.

Does morality exist? Yes.
How do you define morality? I don't. Language doesn't work like that.

But if you ever "succeed" in defining morality, be assured that I will reject your definition. And I will encourage others to do the same.

If playing games you cannot win excites you - then carry on.
Oh, that's helpful.

Is there such a thing as morality? Yes, definitely.
What is morality? It cannot be identified.

Morality is like, woo-woo, right?
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Is There a Definitive Definition of Morality?

Post by RCSaunders »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jul 05, 2020 11:06 am Is There a Definitive Definition of Morality?
I have done a survey of 'definition of Morality' within Google [10 pages of search results] and there is none!

The followings are what I found;

Dictionaries
There is only one [??] book and a few articles which is specific on 'Definition of Morality', e.g.

Articles: Book:
  • The definition of morality
    Gerald Wallace, Arthur David McKinnon Walker
    https://www.amazon.com/Definition-Moral ... 0416151108

    However note a review and comment on the book.
    Review: Unfortunately, the literature does not offer a clear and succinct "definition" of morality. These writers work around the problem, but never conclude with anything like, "and thus, the definition of "morality" is...." So to that extent the title is misleading, but the book offers a good collection of readings nonetheless.
I can only find one specific book on 'the definition of morality'. Any other??

The Point is:
It is common to hear discussions of whether an action is moral, as if “moral” was a word with a specific agreed upon meaning. Unfortunately, the word has so many meanings that its interpretation is extremely difficult without extra information. For example, if I say “murder is immoral”, I could actually mean any of the following:
  • 1. Murder violates an abstract principle that I would like all people to live by.
    2. The Bible (or some other religious text) forbids murder.
    3. As a result of evolution and natural selection most people have an innate emotional aversion towards murder.
    4. Murder is against the law.
    5. Murder is labeled as being “immoral” by most people in my society.
    6. Murder usually reduces the total net happiness of society.
    7. The idea of murder provokes in me an emotional state that I associate with “wrongness”.
    8. Nearly all religions urge us not to murder.
    9. Nearly all societies have laws that punish murderers or have customs that ostracize them.
    10. Most people would feel a sense of guilt if they committed murder.
Unfortunately, even dictionaries cannot clarify for us what the word “moral” means.

A great many well respected philosophers begin by assuming that morality is a single, well defined thing (without actually defining it) and then spend their time arguing about what properties it must have. But if we haven’t defined morality, how can we derive it’s properties?

If we cannot define what exactly we are discussing, how can we even be sure that we are really discussing a single entity at all?
[also how sure that your definition is definitive in alignment with the true referent]

As the list above shows, there are many very different things that we might reasonably call “morality”, including our genetic moral intuitions created by natural selection, the societal rules that are deeply ingrained in us, religious laws, and certain abstract concepts about how to treat each other.

I am not arguing here that morality is meaningless, nor am I arguing that morality has no well defined definition to individual people or even to specific groups of people. Utilitarians, for example, can talk about morality with each other with little confusion, since they are working with a common definition.

My argument, simply stated, is that the word “morality” means many different things to different people, and that discussions about what is moral often rely on the false assumption that all parties involved can understand each other’s words.
https://www.clockbackward.com/2009/07/2 ... -morality/
My point and question;
Since there is so much variations in the definition of 'what is morality',
my question to the Moral Facts Deniers [Peter, Sculptor, Flasher, and gang] is,
on what grounds do you justify your idea and definition of what is morality is the definitive one?

and Views?? [any one]
You never get around to saying what the word, "moral," itself means. You've described some things you believe are right or good but there are many things that are right and good which are never considered moral issues. What's the difference between what is morally right and good and what is just plain old right and good, like, that's the right size tire for that car and my mother's apple pie is really good. Tire sizes and pies aren't moral issues, are they? So what makes something a moral issue?
Post Reply