Anyway, I think morality is always going to be a shifty thing, like humor.

Take, for instance, the “New World” some two hundred years ago when cowboys would kill indians without thinking twice about it. If they didn’t consider their actions to be ‘wrong,’ does that mean that they weren’t? Conversely, if we believe their actions to be ‘wrong,’ does that mean they were?

If I’m right, that’s a perfect example of what you suggested, so who’s right?

(about the cowboys vs. us, not me and you)

As I understand it, you have now removed all ambiguity and stated that no one will believe that the act is immoral. Question being, can it still be immoral? I suppose I could split hairs even further by suggesting that some unknown future cultural taboos might one day make the act immoral when viewed through the lens of history… but if we agree that’s going overboard, then I would have to say that you have precluded this from being an immoral act. Since no one even believes that this is immoral, it cannot be immoral.

Further proof for this argument lies in the fact that only humans (as far as is known) have the concept of morality. Nothing that a lion does is immoral because the lion is only following its natural instincts. Or, to put a fresh backspin on an old chestnut, “If a deaf mime sings in the shower, and there’s no one around to hear it, is he still a mime?”

If we accept everyone’s opinion at face value, then morality is determined by the weakest link, a.k.a. the most sensitive and opinionated. There is an old Mexican story about an old man, a boy, and a burro that illustrates the problems associated with taking people at their word in the realm of moral outrage.

In deference to your logic, I find myself needing to restate my position as follows: There is such an action that can be committed that, though everyone had full knowledge of it, and it, of itself, should have no significance in terms of harm or the prevention of good, is morally wrong because an illogical perception of emotional harm has taken place on the part of a confused and prejudiced participant in the event. In other words, Morality is in the eye of the beholder, no matter how decieved that eye might be.

As I understand the question you raise, you mean that most or all actions will offend some portion of the population, so my situation is at best improbable (it not offending anyone) and at worst impossible.

It would be possible to go on a person by person basis, but then we would end up with personal relativism (a concept that would make cultural relativism seem downright logical).

So, by default, we have to accept everyone’s reactions as valid. So yes, the one person getting offended would mess it up.

Now imagine an action where not even that person is offended. If it follows all of the other stipulated guidelines, could the action still be morally wrong?

I like your thinking, I do. It’s a rare day when someone can make me rethink what I’ve stated (despite how I came back to my original position). I guess I’ve just grown stubborn in my age…

… partially. I understand that a set of chain reactions could conceivably occur because of the act which would have negative effects, which I think Mr. Tremblay was getting at earlier.

I don’t know, I’d be inclined to say that, in your example, the initial action was moral, but the overblown response was not.

Assuming you can divorce the twain.

And arguing ad infinitum is ridiculous, given that we’re finite beings. The utilitarian answer would be from ‘immediately after’ to ‘predictably after’ the event.

Besides, I’m a dessert-adjusted, pain centric, knowledge-based act utilitarian. The dessert-adjusted portion of that alone takes care of your objection.