Moral Question

I'm not sure. We should probably try to strictly define 'moral.' No. Yes.

one time I saw a cat get hit by a car and it limped away through the fence of a firestone tyre factory, and I totally defied the No tresspassers signs and jumped the fence to go take it to the vet. Actually I looked for ages and couldn't find the damn thing.

The moral of the story is Firestone's security is shit, and I make a lame vigilanti.

Moral's are just another form of social conformity. If you are an athiest and a Christian told you that you would be damned to hell for your sins, would that affect you?

I'm sure the Vikings didn't think they were 'morally wrong' to rape and pilage villages. Morality is in the eye of the beholder.

You should rent the Denzel Washington flick The Great Debaters. A similar question is the final debate subject, and it's argued through the prism of civil rights in the south in the 1930s. Beautifully made flick and criminally overlooked.

Enron isn't the only example in these days of secret Executive orders that have supplanted the law to enable torture, spying on Americans, destroying evidence, leaking the identities of CIA agents, etc. This administration certainly provides no shortage of debatable moral judgments.

Atheists have morals, you are confusing morals with religious beliefs.

Cheating's legal, right?

Yeah, he's also confusing plural with possessive, but that doesn't seem to be stopping him (why, God, isn't that stopping him?).

This screams nonsensical, poorly-conceived question from an overpriced textbook. I don't think the word "moral" is the one that needs defining so much as the word "standards." I would assume that the pillars of intellect who wrote this are going for some sort of subjective vs. objective answer, but that doesn't even hold water, really, if you don't believe in objectivity in a strict sense. Are you supposed to be comparing a standard of measurement to the Ten Commandments? The Celsius scale to the Eightfold Path? Come on...

As for the final two questions - Dr. King covered the first in his Letter from Birmingham Jail -

"One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law."

And the second could only blow the mind of a naive freshman in a Poli Sci 101 class. In short, of course, good lord, of course a legal action can be morally wrong.

I thought laws were put in place so people could get away with all sorts of morally questionable things! Okay, snark off.