In message  <3.0.32.19970829112836.00697eec@pop5.ibm.net> PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
 writes:
> At 12:05 PM 29-08-97 +0000, Mike Smith wrote:
> >No, I wasn't making a case for the morality or otherwise of the law,
> >although a case could be made that the law as it is today is immoral,
> >with the side with the most expensive legal team having a better
> >chance of winning, rather than the case being determined purely on
> >judicial terms.
>
> again the (unanswered) question: if 'moral' and 'legal' by your definition
> are obviously not the same, where do you take your definition for 'moral'
> from? ('legal' is more or less defined -- at least that's what the courts
> try to do :-)
>

'Moral' and 'legal' are different. There are things that it is legal
to do which are immoral (in my opinion).

For example, adultery, legal, but in my opinion immoral.

There are many sources of what is considered to be moral - peer groups
define a group morality, tv and radio affect the perceived morality
of a society, books, newspapers, all have an influence on this.
Parental input helps to define a childs moral outlook as do their
teachers - which is why I am careful to choose a school for my
children which has the same (or at least similar) philosophy of
life to my own.

As for a complete definition of morality - The Bible has to be up there
near the top of the list - the only problem is it sets high standards which
are often at variance with modern society, so what is required seems so
un-attainable, which is why mercy and grace were put in there.

Preach mode off.


Regards,

Mike Watson