Thread: Moral Dillemas
View Single Post
  #10  
Old July 8th 03, 11:50 AM
Kenneth S.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Moral Dillemas

Meldon Fens wrote:

E. Barry Bruyea wrote in message
...
On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 23:54:47 GMT, (David Barr) wrote:

Meldon Fens wrote:

Is it appropriate in our society to raise our children in a way that
conditions them to be moral?

If so, what then is the likely result of that child when faced in
competition with another who is not moral (or less moral)?


Define "moral." Likewise "less moral."


Clearly current law provides a vehicle to protect mothers and children

from
dangerous men or environments. Unfortunately there seems to be little
concern for abuse of the vehicle or the result of men loosing out on

their
own children's lives simply based on the whim of a woman. The bar is

indeed
low for removing fathers from their children.


Perhaps where you are. Some states are much more egalitarian.


If a woman takes advantage of these protections to unduly deprive

children
of their fathers, and we agree it is immoral, then how can the man ever

hope
for equity to be restored if he remains moral? Surely this is within

the
realm of wishful thinking.

Therefore, is it not more appropriate in a society where individuals

will
face immoral competitors, to raise our children without the traditional
sense of morality and to allow, even encourage them to be without any

moral
restriction whatsoever?

Are we really doing the best thing for our kids? Preparing them for a

moral
world which does not exist surely must be to their detriment.


Sounds like you're generalizing from a specific incident, which is
almost always dangerous...

dafydd



Morality is a shifting target that society has not yet learned how to
accept. As a result, our society is no longer a democracy when it
comes to how we live our lives; a new concept in the evolution of the
democratic process. In matters moral, or ethical, we are now in the
hands of an appointed Star Chamber. Not only is it appointed, but
their is no system of sanction on the appointment of this 'Chamber'
imbedded in our democracy, a gross oversight, not only on the part of
our 'Fathers Of Confederation, but on the part of our 'Father' of our
re-born Constitution. The net result is that we are now ruled
strictly and singly from the office of the Prime Minister, who has not
only controlled the legislative agenda but indirectly the moral and
ethical agenda by simply doing nothing.


It may go deeper than the politicians. The power of the corporation has
reigned supreme in this society since and before its very discovery. Modern
politics is completely dependant on large amounts of financial resources.
"Corporation" and "financial resources" are primarily synonymous.



For various reasons, I don't endorse the demonization of business that
goes on in some circles in the U.S. However, it IS interesting to see
the differences between business law and family law.

For example, it has been the practice for years in the U.S. for state
legislatures to change divorce law, and retroactively apply the changes
to existing marriages. There were people (like me) who got married at a
time when no one would have dreamed of the no-fault divorce concept.
Nevertheless, these people were retroactively subjected to no-fault when
it was enacted. Such things don't happen in business law, where the
notion of "grandfathering" existing practices is well-established. When
anyone gets married, they are subjecting themselves a completely
unpredictable set of conditions, and they can't even write a personal
contract to protect themselves, because judges will over-rule prenuptial
contracts if they cover the really important things like custody of
children and payment of post-marital support.

To take another example, when a business partnership is set up in
Delaware, it continues to be subject to Delaware law, regardless of
where the business is being conducted. The same is not true of
marriages. A marriage that took place in Pennsylvania becomes subject
to the divorce laws of Nevada if the couple moves to Nevada.

The major reasons for the differences in treatment are that:
(a) business is taken seriously in the U.S., whereas marriage is not;
and
(b) businesses have effective lobby groups, ready to spring into action
if their interests are threatened.