The English Channel

[FoxEye]

Acceptance changes, "standards" may change, but actual morals do not. The harm principle underpins natural law and is essentially what morality is.

Do you believe morals are universal? Do you believe our morals are the same as people in the ME who don't share our history, language, religion, culture?

Because there seems to be a weight of evidence to suggest morality is neither universal nor constant.

 

[LabR@t]

It's been widely excepted for a fair few decades in the west but it's understandable that the number of "archaic's" that roam GD would assume that.



What about all the cruise ships you wanted for offshore processing?
Would cost many, many billions although, it would be propping up our entertainment industry what with all of the free shows, food and drink you would be offering to them "illegal immigrants"

It was still illegal in the 50s/60's it's still morally wrong for a lot of religious people.

I would think 100% of these new people find it morally wrong, well until they need to be gay to stay here.

 

[StriderX]

Do you believe morals are universal? Do you believe our morals are the same as people in the ME who don't share our history, language, religion, culture?

Because there seems to be a weight of evidence to suggest morality is neither universal nor constant.

Just because some people choose to act immorally does not mean that there is not an objective morality based on least harm done.

 

[visibleman]

It was still illegal in the 50s/60's it's still morally wrong for a lot of religious people

But i'm not sure the 50/60's qualifies as "just a few years ago"

 

[potatolord]

30k asylum seekers per annum is probably not draining our budget too much tbh.

There would be money for it if it were a policy our government wasn't ideologically opposed to. It's as simple as that.

I think the asylum budget is £1bn per year, which is a relatively piddling amount. More than ten times as much got wasted on the London Olympics, as a comparison.

The government are useless on this, and no-one is happy with them. It feels like it is going to reach crisis point, soon.

 

[LabR@t]

I think the asylum budget is £1bn per year, which is a relatively piddling amount. More than ten times as much got wasted on the London Olympics, as a comparison.

The government are useless on this, and no-one is happy with them. It feels like it is going to reach crisis point, soon.

London Olympics was good for the country.
With generational benefits.

The logical outcome is far right government that will 'fix' it, might be 5 years might be 59 years but it's coming.

 

[potatolord]

Without investment in rehabilitation, prison simply serves to incubate criminality: you become more of a criminal thanks to imprisonment.

If the aim is deterrent : it doesn't deter. If the aim is crime reduction : it doesn't reduce.

I partly agree.

Long-term, prolific offenders (I knew a few) only stop thieving when they are inside. It is important to protect people from the misery they cause by stopping them being able to do it.

People who are robbing stop doing it when they are inside. Incarceration therefore reduces crime by them.

Having said that, a huge amount of crime is committed by smackheads, and unless their addiction is addressed, they'll just keep on keeping on. Stopping them using is, however, hard. I've seen how that goes and it's just a tragic situation.

Rehabilitation is desirable, but often not achievable. By the time someone gets time, they've already had fines, community service, and various other help. It's diminishing returns for most of them.

I think increasing police numbers, and more police activity, would do more to reduce crime than longer sentencing.

I think calls for longer sentences miss the point that it's getting caught that reduces crime. If burglars were caught more often, crime would reduce, regardless of sentence length.

I'd rather see police funding increased, than longer sentencing, is what I'm getting at...

 

[potatolord]

London Olympics was good for the country.
With generational benefits.

The logical outcome is far right government that will 'fix' it, might be 5 years might be 59 years but it's coming.

It was a huge waste of public money.

Unless you're West Ham.

 

[StriderX]

London Olympics was good for the country.
With generational benefits.

The logical outcome is far right government that will 'fix' it, might be 5 years might be 59 years but it's coming.

We already have a far-right government, the bills going through parliament and the rhetoric is enough of a clue.

 

[LabR@t]

We already have a far-right government, the bills going through parliament and the rhetoric is enough of a clue.

Lol far right government?
Your kidding right? They have been a socialists wet dream

 

[FoxEye]

Just because some people choose to act immorally does not mean that there is not an objective morality based on least harm done.

I'm afraid that morality varies from culture to culture. Surely you can see that? There are countless examples!

 

[GGizmo]

This might be an idea were there is an obvious no. But I just wondered, why can't it be made so that asylum claims can only be accepted at consulates/embassies?

 

[LabR@t]

This might be an idea were there is an obvious no. But I just wondered, why can't it be made so that asylum claims can only be accepted at consulates/embassies?

They don't care once they are ashore unless they get caught

 

[potatolord]

This might be an idea were there is an obvious no. But I just wondered, why can't it be made so that asylum claims can only be accepted at consulates/embassies?

First, it would be hugely expensive to provide that service.

Second, they'd probably get nabbed by the local shades and leather jacket brigade immediately they left the embassy.

 

[StriderX]

I'm afraid that morality varies from culture to culture. Surely you can see that? There are countless examples!

Not so long ago this country treated people born differently with contempt, often violently, are you implying that was the result of our culture? If we now no longer treat these people so badly, is that our culture as well? If so then cultures can improve.

The way those people were treated in the past was always wrong, it didn't become wrong after the fact and it's wrong anywhere in the world that it happens. Hurting people should never be an acceptable facet of anyone's culture.

 

[wesimmo]

Let us not ignore the fact that this thread alone shows that 'our' morals are far from uniform.

I certainly don't want to be associated with the views a good proportion of 'us' share in this and similar threads.

 

[FoxEye]

Not so long ago this country treated people born differently with contempt, often violently, are you implying that was the result of our culture? If we now no longer treat these people so badly, is that our culture as well? If so then cultures can improve.

The way those people were treated in the past was always wrong, it didn't become wrong after the fact and it's wrong anywhere in the world that it happens. Hurting people should never be an acceptable facet of anyone's culture.

Firstly, I was originally replying to cheesy's comment that morality is somehow absolute, and perhaps universal.

Second, your comment above is somewhat irrelevant. We're dealing with the reality of the moment, not what may change in 10, 20, 50 years from now.

Currently, parts of the ME have very different morality than we do. This is just a fact. Esp countries that tend to be dominated by conservative religious cultures, shall we say?

And lastly, if there is a trajectory, it's not clear that they are becoming more like us. Various countries have become more conservative and dogmatic, and we actually have a very close neighbour (in Turkey) that is currently doing precisely this. But you only have to look at places that had a "religious revolution" to see that they become less like us, more fanatical, and their morality is in no danger of mirroring our any time soon.

Reality, today, not the ideal world of tomorrow.

 

[cheesyboy]

Do you believe morals are universal? Do you believe our morals are the same as people in the ME who don't share our history, language, religion, culture?

Because there seems to be a weight of evidence to suggest morality is neither universal nor constant.

Remember, my post was in response to a conversation about taking morality based on law.

@robfosters gave a Javert-style view that you are either the right side of the law, and therefore morally good, or you break the law and must be morally bad.

(and, he said, asylum seekers must be morally bad because they break a law (albeit, they aren't necessarily))

 

[LabR@t]

Not so long ago this country treated people born differently with contempt, often violently, are you implying that was the result of our culture? If we now no longer treat these people so badly, is that our culture as well? If so then cultures can improve.

The way those people were treated in the past was always wrong, it didn't become wrong after the fact and it's wrong anywhere in the world that it happens. Hurting people should never be an acceptable facet of anyone's culture.

It's wrong when judge by today's standards. Back then it was how life was.

 

[Hagar]

It's wrong when judge by today's standards. Back then it was how life was.

At one time participation in slavery was morally acceptable in the UK together with slavers in the middle and far east. Today the UK would rightly say that slavery is morally wrong. The middle and far east? Well it depends.