3 ms·

I would be cautious about generalisations like that. Sometimes the good jobs are where you aren't. Sometimes the good jobs won't return your calls. Sometimes y

I would be cautious about generalisations like that. Sometimes the good jobs are where you aren't. Sometimes the good jobs won't return your calls. Sometimes you have to choose between your morals and your wife, deportation, debt, or all together.

ed312 8y ago
Can you really say you have morals if you sacrifice nothing for them? Are they not merely preferences at that point?
- IggleSniggle 8y ago
  Participation in community at some level is necessary, and, depending on your morals, may be a moral imperative even when your morals disagree with the products of the community with which you interact. Is it easier to promote change in a community from within or from the outside?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- probably_wrong 8y ago
  It's a tricky question. I agree that often morals involve making though choices. At the same time, those choices have to balance the magnitude of the evil, the consequences of sticking to your morals, and the consequences of just going with it. To give a concrete example: let's say I have to choose between unemployment and working in a casino (assuming I believe casinos to be evil). I can work there and do nothing. I can work there and donate an X amount of my salary to addiction-recovery ONGs. I can refuse to work there and compromise my (hypothetical) children's well-being. Which one of this is the "moral" choice? I can't say. And I'm willing to bet that you can make a moral argument for each one of those. I'm with you in that sticking to your morals often involve sacrifice. But I wouldn't assume that the weights I add to each aspect of my morals are the same as everybody else's.
- Skrillex 8y ago
  It would be easy to read your question as "wife, deportation, debt, or all together" == nothing, and in doing so dismiss it. It is easy to see it as "you aren't even willing to sacrifice [all or most of these things] for this?" I would imagine that for most people, their loved ones trump their morals by a wide margin. If you are asking that question without the parent as context, I would say that it seems like the only distinction between morals and preferences is one of definition.

ed312 8y ago

Can you really say you have morals if you sacrifice nothing for them? Are they not merely preferences at that point?

IggleSniggle 8y ago
Participation in community at some level is necessary, and, depending on your morals, may be a moral imperative even when your morals disagree with the products of the community with which you interact. Is it easier to promote change in a community from within or from the outside?
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
probably_wrong 8y ago
It's a tricky question. I agree that often morals involve making though choices. At the same time, those choices have to balance the magnitude of the evil, the consequences of sticking to your morals, and the consequences of just going with it. To give a concrete example: let's say I have to choose between unemployment and working in a casino (assuming I believe casinos to be evil). I can work there and do nothing. I can work there and donate an X amount of my salary to addiction-recovery ONGs. I can refuse to work there and compromise my (hypothetical) children's well-being. Which one of this is the "moral" choice? I can't say. And I'm willing to bet that you can make a moral argument for each one of those. I'm with you in that sticking to your morals often involve sacrifice. But I wouldn't assume that the weights I add to each aspect of my morals are the same as everybody else's.
Skrillex 8y ago
It would be easy to read your question as "wife, deportation, debt, or all together" == nothing, and in doing so dismiss it. It is easy to see it as "you aren't even willing to sacrifice [all or most of these things] for this?" I would imagine that for most people, their loved ones trump their morals by a wide margin. If you are asking that question without the parent as context, I would say that it seems like the only distinction between morals and preferences is one of definition.