Atlas Moral Acceptability Poll

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Sobering numbers on out-of-wedlock births.

Also, is it just me, or is there something a bit laughable about the fact that a majority of Americans say that it's OK to have children out of wedlock, yet very few who will claim that having an affair is acceptable? I'm not saying that it's incoherent, I just think that it's telling that more of us are bothered by a betrayal of our romantic ideals about marriage than we are about the failure of marriage as a structure for sustaining stable families.

A stable, committed relationship doesn't require marriage. Indeed, the former without the latter is increasingly common. While this trend might be unfortunate in some respect, calling it "morally unacceptable" strikes me as a bit of a stretch.

I completely disagree. Marriage isn't just a word or an arbitrary contrivance; it is the legal, social, and spiritual structure on which families are built. Our personal feelings about a relationship's stability and commitment level are insufficient.

This is a very bizarre statement. Why should someone surrender their relationship to past foundations of family structure if that relationship is healthy and good? It's obvious/clear that out of wedlock birth is a disturbing trend but we can't generalize here and start arguing that it's immoral; there are plenty of people who deliberately/intentionally avoid marriage and who have fine families.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Gambling being immoral is stupid. If you don't let people too irresponsible to not screw themselves do it, any ethical problems vanish.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why the f**k should anything else matter in a relationship!?!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The nuclear family being any more inherently stable then other systems is BS. Marriage doesn't magically grant stability, and its not the job of some collective to decide the stability of an individual relationship

[Xing]

Gay Relations: Acceptable, of course.
Having a baby outside of marriage: Acceptable, though not ideal.
Sex outside of marriage: Acceptable, of course.
Divorce: Acceptable and necessary.
Embryonic Stem Cell Research: Acceptable, and can save lives.
Polygamy: I personally don't think it's great, but so long as everyone involved is honest with one another, I don't think it's inherently wrong
Cloning humans: Unacceptable, since I think it would cause enormous problems of identity.
Doctor-assisted suicide: Acceptable, particularly for those with a terminal and debilitating illness.
Suicide: Unacceptable. While this isn't really a case of right/wrong, suicides have a devastating impact on families and communities, and I think it must be fought and prevented.
Gambling: Acceptable, though obviously risky.
Abortion: Acceptable, though not desirable.
Cloning animals: Unacceptable, for the same reason as human cloning.
Fur: Unacceptable, except in places where there are no alternatives.
Affairs: Unacceptable, since this implies not everyone is aware of what is going on.
Death Penalty: Unacceptable, except in extreme cases.
Medical Testing on Animals: Acceptable, though alternative methods are better.

[Santander]

Doctor-assisted suicide: Acceptable, particularly for those with a terminal and debilitating illness.

I can't even imagine your moral justification for assisted suicide under any other circumstance...

[DavidB.]

Doctor-assisted suicide: Acceptable, particularly for those with a terminal and debilitating illness.

I can't even imagine your moral justification for assisted suicide under any other circumstance...

The trolling becomes kinda tiresome.

[Xing]

Doctor-assisted suicide: Acceptable, particularly for those with a terminal and debilitating illness.

I can't even imagine your moral justification for assisted suicide under any other circumstance...

Uh, a terminal disease that isn't quite so debilitating, but terminal nonetheless? In that case, it wouldn't be a matter of reducing suffering, so I'd view it more as something the patient should decide, rather than what I mentioned earlier, since I think it's immoral to force a patient to slowly suffer and deteriorate, with no hope of recovery.

[Person Man]

Doctor-assisted suicide: Acceptable, particularly for those with a terminal and debilitating illness.

I can't even imagine your moral justification for assisted suicide under any other circumstance...

Uh, a terminal disease that isn't quite so debilitating, but terminal nonetheless? In that case, it wouldn't be a matter of reducing suffering, so I'd view it more as something the patient should decide, rather than what I mentioned earlier, since I think it's immoral to force a patient to slowly suffer and deteriorate, with no hope of recovery.

Maybe with the potential to be debilitating but is nonetheless definitely terminal?

The point is you have a prognosis of a less than a 10% chance of surviving 5 years or a 50% chance of surviving 6 months or a year. The death will be painful.

[Intell]

Sobering numbers on out-of-wedlock births.

Also, is it just me, or is there something a bit laughable about the fact that a majority of Americans say that it's OK to have children out of wedlock, yet very few who will claim that having an affair is acceptable? I'm not saying that it's incoherent, I just think that it's telling that more of us are bothered by a betrayal of our romantic ideals about marriage than we are about the failure of marriage as a structure for sustaining stable families.

A stable, committed relationship doesn't require marriage. Indeed, the former without the latter is increasingly common. While this trend might be unfortunate in some respect, calling it "morally unacceptable" strikes me as a bit of a stretch.

I completely disagree. Marriage isn't just a word or an arbitrary contrivance; it is the legal, social, and spiritual structure on which families are built. Our personal feelings about a relationship's stability and commitment level are insufficient.

This is a very bizarre statement. Why should someone surrender their relationship to past foundations of family structure if that relationship is healthy and good? It's obvious/clear that out of wedlock birth is a disturbing trend but we can't generalize here and start arguing that it's immoral; there are plenty of people who deliberately/intentionally avoid marriage and who have fine families.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Gambling being immoral is stupid. If you don't let people too irresponsible to not screw themselves do it, any ethical problems vanish.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why the f**k should anything else matter in a relationship!?!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The nuclear family being any more inherently stable then other systems is BS. Marriage doesn't magically grant stability, and its not the job of some collective to decide the stability of an individual relationship

The idea of marriage goes beyond love. Marriage is an institution, that means your relationship is strong, and you remain committed to each other for life. This is inherently more superior than other relationships. However do I think that children being born out of wedlock is inherently unacceptable, no, as any sort of sex may result to such an arrangement, and for that, I would have to say pre-marital sex is also unacceptable. However, having babies, should be done within the realm of marriage, and marriage extends more beyond one's relationships, and the "idea", that marriage is all about one's love for each other, which causes the high divorce rates in western countries, which causes pain to the children, who many a time are a victim of divorce.

[fhtagn]

Gay or lesbian relations = Acceptable
Having a baby outside of marriage = Acceptable
Sex between an unmarried man and woman = Acceptable
Divorce = Acceptable
Medical research using stem cells from human embryos = Acceptable
Polygamy = Acceptable (Though I really am only okay with this as long as all parties consent to it, not forced)
Cloning humans = Acceptable (as long as the human being cloned consents)
Doctor-assisted suicide = Acceptable
Suicide = Acceptable (I went with this because even though I know it's sh*tty, it's that person's life to take. They understood what was going to happen.)
Gambling = Acceptable
Abortion = Acceptable
Cloning animals = Acceptable
Buying and wearing clothing made of animal fur = Acceptable (only in cases of humanely sourced. Not animals skinned alive and factory bred)
Married men and women having an affair = Acceptable (sh*tty, but both are consenting parties)
The death penalty = Acceptable (only in cases where it is clear that the person did the crime and cannot be rehabilitated)
Medical testing on animals = Acceptable (we do not have the technology at this time to do without it)

[Intell]

Cloning humans = Acceptable (as long as the human being cloned consents)
Suicide = Acceptable (I went with this because even though I know it's sh*tty, it's that person's life to take. They understood what was going to happen.)

This sort of logic is annoying, as what is consent? Consent does not mean everything, consent means very little in wide array of things.

[Vosem]

Voted acceptable for all except "married man or woman having an affair", which I left blank; I would say that deception to your spouse is completely unacceptable and affairs usually involve some deception, but I suppose in a paper marriage or open relationship it would be OK, as long as the other partner is aware of it happening. The others don't outrage me, though a few made me think (clones usually have short, sickly lives, but maybe cloning someone specific could have some purpose; I would say suicide is only acceptable to avoid a painful death, which isn't the majority of cases; still voted Acceptable on both, however).

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Sobering numbers on out-of-wedlock births.

Also, is it just me, or is there something a bit laughable about the fact that a majority of Americans say that it's OK to have children out of wedlock, yet very few who will claim that having an affair is acceptable? I'm not saying that it's incoherent, I just think that it's telling that more of us are bothered by a betrayal of our romantic ideals about marriage than we are about the failure of marriage as a structure for sustaining stable families.

A stable, committed relationship doesn't require marriage. Indeed, the former without the latter is increasingly common. While this trend might be unfortunate in some respect, calling it "morally unacceptable" strikes me as a bit of a stretch.

I completely disagree. Marriage isn't just a word or an arbitrary contrivance; it is the legal, social, and spiritual structure on which families are built. Our personal feelings about a relationship's stability and commitment level are insufficient.

This is a very bizarre statement. Why should someone surrender their relationship to past foundations of family structure if that relationship is healthy and good? It's obvious/clear that out of wedlock birth is a disturbing trend but we can't generalize here and start arguing that it's immoral; there are plenty of people who deliberately/intentionally avoid marriage and who have fine families.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Gambling being immoral is stupid. If you don't let people too irresponsible to not screw themselves do it, any ethical problems vanish.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why the f**k should anything else matter in a relationship!?!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The nuclear family being any more inherently stable then other systems is BS. Marriage doesn't magically grant stability, and its not the job of some collective to decide the stability of an individual relationship

The idea of marriage goes beyond love. Marriage is an institution, that means your relationship is strong, and you remain committed to each other for life. This is inherently more superior than other relationships. However do I think that children being born out of wedlock is inherently unacceptable, no, as any sort of sex may result to such an arrangement, and for that, I would have to say pre-marital sex is also unacceptable. However, having babies, should be done within the realm of marriage, and marriage extends more beyond one's relationships, and the "idea", that marriage is all about one's love for each other, which causes the high divorce rates in western countries, which causes pain to the children, who many a time are a victim of divorce.

Divorces happen when the relationship isn't working and staying together would hurt both parties. And a child wouldn't exactly be healthy in an environment where their parents hate each other. The increase in divorce rates mean people are getting out of loveless marriages and toxic relationships more then before. Forcing people to continue a broken relationship is evil.

Cloning humans = Acceptable (as long as the human being cloned consents)
Suicide = Acceptable (I went with this because even though I know it's sh*tty, it's that person's life to take. They understood what was going to happen.)

This sort of logic is annoying, as what is consent? Consent does not mean everything, consent means very little in wide array of things.

What BS do you have that matters at all. Consent means a hell of a lot, and your valuing of dusty traditions and gut-driven "morality" is quite disturbing.

[Intell]

Why does consent matter in terms of morality? Is it acceptable to take drugs, because you consented to it. Is it acceptable to have a sword fight to the death if both parties consented to it? Consent matters jack shyte, in laws or morality.

[Goldwater]

Why does consent matter in terms of morality? Is it acceptable to take drugs, because you consented to it. Is it acceptable to have a sword fight to the death if both parties consented to it? Consent matters jack shyte, in laws or morality.

Well, I would say that the lack of consent matters a very great deal to morality and laws...

[Intell]

Why does consent matter in terms of morality? Is it acceptable to take drugs, because you consented to it. Is it acceptable to have a sword fight to the death if both parties consented to it? Consent matters jack shyte, in laws or morality.

Well, I would say that the lack of consent matters a very great deal to morality and laws...

Lack of Consent, yes, giving consent should not matter on a vast of majority of circumstances.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The idea of the morality of cloning being a matter of consent is a bit humorous. Not sure how a clone would consent to it before they exist.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Why does consent matter in terms of morality? Is it acceptable to take drugs, because you consented to it. Is it acceptable to have a sword fight to the death if both parties consented to it? Consent matters jack shyte, in laws or morality.

Is it acceptable to take drugs, because you consented to it? Yes, of course. (not an authoritarian creep)
Is it acceptable to have a sword fight to the death if both parties consented to it? No.

Consent definitely matters. Consent is what divides rape from sex. When an act cannot be said to affect others or the public interest and no power imbalances exist, consent is the difference between something that's morally disgusting and something that's morally neutral (acceptable).

[Intell]

Why does consent matter in terms of morality? Is it acceptable to take drugs, because you consented to it. Is it acceptable to have a sword fight to the death if both parties consented to it? Consent matters jack shyte, in laws or morality.

Is it acceptable to take drugs, because you consented to it? Yes, of course. (not an authoritarian creep)
Is it acceptable to have a sword fight to the death if both parties consented to it? No.

Consent definitely matters. Consent is what divides rape from sex. When an act cannot be said to affect others or the public interest and no power imbalances exist, consent is the difference between something that's morally disgusting and something that's morally neutral (acceptable).

Lack of Consent is immoral, yes.

Giving Consent should not be the basis of laws however.

I do not think taking drugs, if consented to, is acceptable. Cocaine, crystal meth, heroin in my opinion anyway are not acceptable even if consented to. Drugs and accepting to take part in  a sword fight are the same, as both could very well result in the death of one of the individuals, and therefore should not be accepted, by society.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Why does consent matter in terms of morality? Is it acceptable to take drugs, because you consented to it. Is it acceptable to have a sword fight to the death if both parties consented to it? Consent matters jack shyte, in laws or morality.

Is it acceptable to take drugs, because you consented to it? Yes, of course. (not an authoritarian creep)
Is it acceptable to have a sword fight to the death if both parties consented to it? No.

Consent definitely matters. Consent is what divides rape from sex. When an act cannot be said to affect others or the public interest and no power imbalances exist, consent is the difference between something that's morally disgusting and something that's morally neutral (acceptable).

Lack of Consent is immoral, yes.

Giving Consent should not be the basis of laws however.

I do not think taking drugs, if consented to, is acceptable. Cocaine, crystal meth, heroin in my opinion anyway are not acceptable even if consented to. Drugs and accepting to take part in  a sword fight are the same, as both could very well result in the death of one of the individuals, and therefore should not be accepted, by society.

Who says that morality is always the basis of law? Doing drugs is morally neutral, not deserving of condemnation or praise (subject to context, of course). However, reducing drug use is a worthwhile goal. These two opinions are entirely compatible.

There's wide swathes of life that are neither moral nor immoral and consent + public interest is going  to be what guides the law in these cases. But I think that, without question, consent matters. Libertarians have abused this concept but that doesn't make it any less important.

[Horus]

Gay or Lesbian relations - Acceptable
Having a baby outside of marriage - Acceptable
Sex between an unmarried man and woman - Acceptable
Divorce - Acceptable
Stem cell research - Acceptable
Polygamy - Acceptable
Cloning humans - Unacceptable for the moment, we will see what things look like in the future
Doctor-assisted suicide - Acceptable
Suicide - Unacceptable
Gambling - Acceptable
Abortion - Unacceptable, but should still be legal in the first three months and for the life of the mother
Cloning animals - Acceptable
Buying and wearing clothing made of animal fur - Acceptable
Married men and women having an affair - Unacceptable
The death penalty - Acceptable in extreme cases (High treason, SC massacre) not acceptable if there's only one victim
Medical testing on animals - Acceptable

[DavidB.]

I'll repeat this point: why do so many people consider fur to be acceptable? Do you guys know nothing about the process of obtaining it? Because the idea that you do know about it yet simply don't give a sh**t is really too disturbing.

[Intell]

Why does consent matter in terms of morality? Is it acceptable to take drugs, because you consented to it. Is it acceptable to have a sword fight to the death if both parties consented to it? Consent matters jack shyte, in laws or morality.

Is it acceptable to take drugs, because you consented to it? Yes, of course. (not an authoritarian creep)
Is it acceptable to have a sword fight to the death if both parties consented to it? No.

Consent definitely matters. Consent is what divides rape from sex. When an act cannot be said to affect others or the public interest and no power imbalances exist, consent is the difference between something that's morally disgusting and something that's morally neutral (acceptable).

Lack of Consent is immoral, yes.

Giving Consent should not be the basis of laws however.

I do not think taking drugs, if consented to, is acceptable. Cocaine, crystal meth, heroin in my opinion anyway are not acceptable even if consented to. Drugs and accepting to take part in  a sword fight are the same, as both could very well result in the death of one of the individuals, and therefore should not be accepted, by society.

Who says that morality is always the basis of law? Doing drugs is morally neutral, not deserving of condemnation or praise (subject to context, of course). However, reducing drug use is a worthwhile goal. These two opinions are entirely compatible.

I believe doing drugs is morally wrong, as that hurts you and those around you, but I guess we have a difference of opinion. I am of a firm belief that morals + societal/communal wellbeing should be the basis of laws. This should be the case in reality, and especially in an ideal world.

[Santander]

Why does lack of consent make something immoral? It is morally justifiable to kill in self-defense, even if the attacker is not culpable. Most would consider attempting to help drug or gambling addicts against their will to be not only morally acceptable, but morally necessary. Parents have a certain degree of absolute authority over their minor children, even if they have reached an age where the state has determined that they can be held responsible for their actions.

And most of all - one cannot say that lack of consent automatically makes something immoral and simultaneously support abortion.

[Figueira]

Sobering numbers on out-of-wedlock births. I

Also, is it just me, or is there something a bit laughable about the fact that a majority of Americans say that it's OK to have children out of wedlock, yet very few who will claim that having an affair is acceptable? I'm not saying that it's incoherent, I just think that it's telling that more of us are bothered by a betrayal of our romantic ideals about marriage than we are about the failure of marriage as a structure for sustaining stable families.

You can be in a committed relationship and not be married.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

And most of all - one cannot say that lack of consent automatically makes something immoral and simultaneously support abortion.

Consent is required for concious, thinking beings. An embryo can't do that.

[Antonio the Sixth]

And most of all - one cannot say that lack of consent automatically makes something immoral and simultaneously support abortion.

Consent is required for concious, thinking beings. An embryo can't do that.

So if a person is unconscious you can do whatever you want to them? Pretty sure that's the opposite of what the consent movement is arguing for.