I give up, Ludwig.

The difference seems so obvious to me, but is invisible to you. Simply saying the same things over and over is not productive.

Have a great day.

Dear Ludwig,

Let's be accurate:

The fact of an homicidal maniac owning a car is not in itself immoral.
The act of an homicidal maniac, who knows that fact about himself, yet goes ahead and purchases (or manufactures) a car, can in some circumstances be immoral.

Allowing an homicidal maniac to own a car is likely immoral, however any act of allowing something is normally a consequence of formerly disallowing the same.

Disallowing someone to do something is a very serious moral problem: it is a form of violence.
The act of disallowing someone to do something, who is not your child or has otherwise consented to be directed by you, is never in itself moral, yet when sufficient and overwhelming grounds are present, such as self-defence, which likely suits the case of an homicidal maniac owning a car, then it is not immoral either.

So if the state or society tells an homicidal maniac: "we allow you to own a car", then the person(s) who act in the name of the state are likely doing something immoral (the state itself, or 'society' as such, cannot be moral or immoral because it is not a person and has no will and no life of its own).

But if the state simply stops disallowing people to own cars (other than people who explicitly requested or consented to be directed by the state), then no immoral act was committed by the state-official(s) involved.

Hope this clarifies things a bit.

That’s a pity Pericles. It was shaping up to be an interesting discussion.

I don’t think we’ve been saying things over and over. The discussion has progressed well. At any rate, you’ve got the capabilities of breaking out of a circular discussion and taking a different tack.

I can only assume that you can see the fundamental sense in what I am saying and that it really is nonsensical to argue against it ( :>)

<< Having a moral compass is one thing, being moral is another. Many moral compasses do not point to the north. >>

Ah but Yuyutsu, what is north for you may far from north for someone else. But both your and the other person’s moral compasses may be just as legitimate.

Moral dilemmas are everywhere. One person’s moral position clashes with another’s all the time.

I find myself in an almost constant moral dilemma when driving.

I desire to totally respect the speed limit and other road rules, but I also desire to keep things as harmonious and safe as possible. These desires clash.

In just about all instances, most drivers travel a few kms over the speed limit, and if you travel at the speed limit, or a bit under which you should in order to make sure you don’t inadvertently slip over it, you incur impatience from other drivers, resulting in tailgating and a generally increased risk of conflict and mishap.

So perhaps the higher moral position is to exceed the speed limit and roll with the flow, in order to keep things as harmonious and safe as possible.

It is that assumption of yours that confirms my decision to leave this particular sandpit, Ludwig.

>>I can only assume that you can see the fundamental sense in what I am saying and that it really is nonsensical to argue against it ( :>)<<

The discussion has been moving backwards along a single track of your choosing, instead of opening up avenues for examination and debate.

Consider for a moment how far from the topic - the "relationship between the moral and economic deficit in Australia" - we have strayed, and you might just see what I mean.

Have a great day.

But Pericles, you have entertained this ‘wayward’ discussion, without attempting to broaden or redirect it, yes?

And besides, it’s not really off-track at all. Many OLO discussions move into broader realms than what the particular article has focussed on.

So if you’d like to take a different tack, well removed from the narrow and wayward focus that we have apparently been on, then I’m all ears….or…..eyes and fingers on the keyboard! I’m happy to discuss with you whatever aspect of this subject that may be of your choosing.