If morality has harm then is it morality? (morals, punishment)

[Rex]

Think of it like this, we have morality.

It's not moral to steal from someone else. Otherise known as "Thou Shalt Not Steal"

Now if morality had no harm in it then I could just steal something and no harm would be done unto me.

but

Since morality has harm in it, when I steal something I will face consequences of the law.

Thus morality does has harm in it. So is that morality?

Another topic that comes to mind but not in this thread is that can morality and punishment work on an individual basis away from each other?

[Michelle]

umm is it moral or immoral to execute a criminal? Most people have their own opinion of that. Most of us would agree that killing is wrong. Some people supported the Invasion of Iraq stating it would Stop Sadam from killing innocent people, while others opposed the war and the killing of innocent people. Morality seems to be about perspective.

[Runt]

I'm not entirely positive what you're asking... are you asking if the basis for our moral beliefs are whether or not the thing being deemed moral or immoral helps or harms society?

I think sometimes that is true... for example, murder is considered immoral, and murder harms society, especially when crime gets out of hand and nobody feels safe. However, there are some morals that seem to come about for different reasons... some religions consider it immoral to feel lust or act on lust... yet this doesn't really harm anyone...

[standing_on_one_foot]

Ah, if it's OK for you to steal from people, then it's OK for people to steal from you. Or if it's OK for you to torture and kill people, it's OK for people to torture and kill you in return. So there is harm, when you get down to it. It's just not going to be very fair or good for everyone if most people aren't moral in some way. I mean, morality is just rules for getting on in the world in the way that is (should be, at least) best for everyone. Certainly it's not even close to perfect, but that's the idea.

And yes, even morality with consequences for bad behavior is morality. Why wouldn't it be? If you do something bad for society, society will do something bad to you. That's the idea, anyway. Obviously it doesn't work as well as that...

[painted wolf]

Every decision you make has the potential to harm someone. Take the stealing example, If you have a family that is starving and you steal a loaf of bread your family eats. But the person who was going to sell that bread suffers from the loss of income and may risk starving themselves. Now if you go with the law and don't steal the bread then your family suffers from not having any food.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Few things in this world are black and white.

wa:do

[oisin3]

Here everyone steals from everyone else. But if you happen to be a politican,a member of a religion, a policeman. You can even rape and murder and get away with it.

Originally Posted by Rex_Admin

Think of it like this, we have morality.

It's not moral to steal from someone else. Otherise known as "Thou Shalt Not Steal"

Now if morality had no harm in it then I could just steal something and no harm would be done unto me.

but

Since morality has harm in it, when I steal something I will face consequences of the law.

Thus morality does has harm in it. So is that morality?

Another topic that comes to mind but not in this thread is that can morality and punishment work on an individual basis away from each other?

[ARH114]

Morality does not necessarily have harm in it as much as it has consequences. Consequences, obviously, are not always negative. If one does something "immoral", they may suffer from negative consequences, but what of the ones that do something "moral" rather than "immoral"? If one is to be punished for "immoral" action, then they must be rewarded for "moral" action.
Who does the rewarding and punishing? It could be a divine entity, society, or even one's own conscience. There is a result for every action, "good" or "bad".
Being punished or rewarded doesn't change choices. Consequences may have an influence, but all have done things "immoral" knowing the negative consequences and something "moral" knowing the positive consequences.
Whatever morality is--something set into place by a divine entity or societal rules--consequences never inluence the morality itself, it only sometimes persuades individuals to act in a certain way. Reactions to actions never interfere with what is actually apart from the action or the subject involved in the action.