Should the word "moral" be used?

Post Reply New Topic

Hi!

Firstly, my context..

I'm part of a feminist action group who recently helped a lapdancing club to be refused planning permission at a council planning meeting. I have nothing against sexy dancing, or anyone paying to see it. My concern is for the way women are often treated in these places, which I believe is unecessary and degrading. Women walking past clubs often get verbally abused. This club is also near residential housing.

Now, my question..

There was a newspaper article written about it in our local paper. The club owner and the Councillors commented on whether or not their decisions were on moral grounds (which they weren't.. the club was refused planning permission).

I was talking with some members of our group this weekend about it and I told them that I think the word "moral" shouldn't enter our vocabulary, especially when communicating with media or business owners. I think the word is loaded with meanings from religion and culture. I think that a feminist group already has enough of a stereotype to get past without stirring up possible arguments about "right" and "wrong". Feminism is about rights for women, not morality.

Does anyone agree and/or see my point? Any other comments? Maybe it's just me who has beef with the word "moral"?

Soundofrain

I prefer the term moral because of this definition:

Ethics are what you do when others are looking. morals are what you do when no one is looking.

I am a moral man.

Yes, I understand, and I would agree. I am a moral person. However, I have a sense of right and wrong when it comes to life, but I don't tell people what's right and wrong.. I think that if I were to say that I am a feminist on moral grounds, then somebody could mistake me for a nun! Do you see where I'm coming from?

Maybe you could say your moral compass leads you in this direction.

I absolutely agree with your thoughts on the subject. the only exception i would add it that the ends DOES justify the means, if the equation is balanced correctly. my apologies for this tangent taking, but here we go. I'm not talking about communism, and i would here also like to touch on a logical fallacy in which a certain principle is totally condemned because if it was every used in to some horrific misappropriation. so someone twisted this idea (or maybe it was twisted from the beginning, but the simple mantra need not signify more than its words) in one application to cause suffering and death to many people for the sake of building a great society and new world order sort of thing. but IT DIDNT WORK. therefore the means were not justified because they did not consider their possible failure as part of the equation, even they had succeeded in their intentions, the end is made different BY the means. sorry again for the silly rambling

the only relevant addition i have is that if using the word were in a particular case helpful to your cause, i would say use it, if the price is right.

ok nothing i said made sense. word vomit. pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

i am sorry but i dont understand what you are trying to communicate with that. not saying i dont understand the semantic definitions you are assigning, but it is just such a vague idea, i do not see any purpose behind it.

I won't take the dollar bill that's not mine on the table while others are looking, and I won't take the dollar bill if everyone looks away.

If I wouldn't say it to your face, I wouldn't say it behind you back.

It's about being absolute in your beliefs and actions, that they don't vary based on factors like what you might gain, or whether an action will be discovered or not.

ok that actually does have more meaning to me given examples. i apologize my initial response unnecessarily rude. i guess i have just developed an uneasiness toward anyone trying to express a deserving of trust, because i am personally such a poor judge of character. Which is not to say I am necessarily untrustworthy, I just try to keep in mind that what people speak is not necessarily a representation of reality, and take a policy of allowing ones actions to cumulatively testify of their trustworthiness.

anywho i feel like i uncalled for attacked you somewhat so i hope there are not hard feelings

I understand what you are saying about using the word moral. You don't think that the club itself is immoral, but you don't like how the women who work there are treated. You wouldn't have objections to the club if some aspects of it were changed. Did I understand you correctly?

Also, the people who will be siding with your group about the club, and shouting from it's immorality from the rooftops would also do the same thing about some issues that your group may support.

Maybe "psychologically unhealthy" would be better to use than "immoral" or "moral".


On a side note, I disagree with stopping the club from being there. I have several reasons, 1, I'm close friends with a girl whose brother owns several large strip joints in this area and I've known that whole family since I was 19 years old, they go to church with us, believe it or not. They are good people and he doesn't treat the girls bad. They are simply his employees. 2. In many strip clubs there are more than a few biker chicks who dance while their ole men don't work. Some are abused, some are on drugs, some have no other choice. They can work at the strip club and bring home a couple of hundred a day or at Wal Mart and bring home a couple of hundred a week. Which situation would benefit them more? 3. It's not the clubs fault if people yell at anyone walking past, unless it's employees doing the yelling. If it's from people hanging around out front, then the club needs to have the bouncer handle it. If it's from cars passing by and they are yelling because of the nature of the club, there's nothing you can do about that, and no reason to take food out of somebody's mouth because somebody else is an a**hole and yells at strangers. 4. It's up to each particular woman to do what she wants to do. If she chooses to be a dancer, then she should be able to be a dancer without problems finding a place to work. It's good money. I know girls who have supported their kids on the money they make there.

But, I do agree with you on the word moral. Morality shouldn't be legislated.

Frances

When you track down the word moral in a dictionary or on line, does it really mean anything else other than "I do not like it" Maybe you could add "and neither should you."

And you cold also add "If you do like it than you are a bad person"
where bad is simply a synonym for "Someone that I do not like"

I could, and have, written much more on the subject
go to my site xfoolnature.org and look around. Be aware that the articles are in excess of 5000 words.

I agree with the idea that the words "moral" and "morality" may have too much of an association with repressive and patriarchal Christians to be useful to an organization that is committed to promoting and protecting women and their rights. It would send a mixed message for the OP's organization to invoke morality in their efforts.

(Disclaimer: I've had a few lapdances, and they were always fun (for me, at least), and I always gave an extra $20 to the girl, above and beyond the stated fee. In my opinion, if a woman wants to sell a lapdance, then that's her choice. Since I came to realize that those "dancers" were likely being exploited by their employers, I stopped. Of course, this was about the same time that I met my future wife...)

My friend was an exotic dancer, aka stripper. She said that she was exploiting the men as much as they were exploiting her. I don't have a problem with that. I am a feminist and she has a right to do with her body whatever she pleases.

Zoning is another issue. It would be inappropriate to place such a club in a primarily residential area. Yes, bouncers should do something about unruly patrons. Women walking past shouldn't have to deal with verbal abuse.

As far as the question of morality in regards to clubs like this, adults have the right to do as they please in privacy. The inside of a club is private. Health issues are ok to legislate. Advertisements and such on the outside are ok to legislate. Banning a club altogether on moral grounds is not. Anyone who has a moral issue with strip clubs shouldn't go inside one.

As a feminist I feel ANGERED that anyone would be able to close a strip club based on the morality of it.

Sexy dancing. - Ooh we must protest our people from these wayward women who are tempting our men with their wares. They'll steal our husbands and corrupt our children. hussies!

What a load of utter tosh.

Anyone would think this was vicitorian england. Not 2011. What happened to morality based on reason rather than some out dated religious ( so called feminist!) scaremongering.

Do they not let women in the club? maybe if it was a men only club there might be a moral issue with sex discimination. Does it say adult only? I Don't see the problem. I think for most of these women they disagree with lapdancing clubs becuase they don't understand it. Just becauase you don't understand / aren't attracted to something does that make it wrong? Anyone watched Dita von teese? tell me you don't find that erotic. It's the same damn thing but with a different name on it.

The large majority of these women are empowered and not forced in to this kind of work. As someone who has recently worked for a human/ civil rights charity for sex workers in the uk, I really think these so called feminists need to collect evidence ( before spouting their own morality garbage ) from the real feminists; The dancers.

Trust me, they don't want our husbands lol!

Hmmm... I notiy ce that I am getting no response to my comment that when anybody says "that is immoral", all that they are really saying is "I do not like it, and neither should you". The is not just some academic innallektal shewing off.

The fact is, is that morality really is nothing more than a taste. It is not even an opinion. There is no metric, and no standard except what other people like or not. And on that note, I am sure that you will like this little tidbit from Wikipedia on obscenity: In 2000, Larry Peterman of Provo, Utah was charged with selling obscene material at his chain of video stores. A jury found him not guilty as the defense showed that residents of the town were disproportionately large consumers of the very materials Peterman was selling. [3]

The point of all this is, that if you press someone on this topic, or are trying to convince others, then you just have to keep focusing on the fact that morality is nothing more than what people like or not. When we are speaking of a community, it is community standards.

If someone tries to say something about "corrupting children" then you need only ask for any actual supporting evidence. And you might ask them how it is that bonobo chimps, or the many tribes of humans living, shall we say closer to nature, seem to have no problem with child abuse, or any kind of childhood crimes.