Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

Almost as if "doing the right thing" requires an underlying moral framework.


sort by: page size:

Yes, there is a moral obligation to do the right thing.

Such is the nature of "doing the right thing" - it must be a free will choice. This is not a matter of law, but a matter of maturity of society.

It's a moral imperative.

It seems perfectly valid to "moralize" (that word sure has some baggage, doesn't it?) about those who have power exercising it at the expense of those who don't. In fact, I'd expressly encourage it.

Not saying I'm particularly worried in this case, but overall I don't think that "argument" is a very convincing one if we're actually concerned with "doing the right thing".


There is IMO a coherent moral framework that says "this is harming no one"

What is the moral thing to do?

There's an implicit moral obligation, surely.

It's a moral imperative. :-)

You say that "to them it maybe very well be the moral thing to do", is that actually the case?

Morally correct?

It's wise to do what's morally right, regardless of the consequences.

I hear you, but whether or not something is difficult is orthogonal to whether or not it's morally right. You don't get off the hook because doing the right thing is hard.

Isn't that morality though? Doing what's best for the greater good even if it's against their immediate interests?

Legally correct maybe, but morally?

100% agree. It's the moral thing.

Sure. Morally what do you think is the right thing to do?

It may be lawful, but it's not necessarily moral.

If the "right" thing was also the prudent thing, we wouldn't have to make the distinction. Religion and law try to balance out the cost of morality, but in the end, a lot of the world wins by bad behavior, so we will often pay for being good. But we still should.

Huh. That's kind of the definition of a moral act.
next

Legal | privacy