It is morally correct to resist the actions of an immoral government by whatever means are necessary.
Immoral, referring to conduct, applies to one who acts contrary to or does not obey or conform to standards of morality; it may also mean licentious and perhaps dissipated. ... Immoral, amoral, nonmoral, and unmoral are sometimes confused with one another. Immoral means not moral and connotes evil or licentious behavior.
In the philosophical branch known as ethics, every decision has an ethical component. In the colloquial sense, a decision that is "moral" as opposed to "immoral" is one that would adhere to the normative metric of a given ethical system. Under utilitarianism, a decision that generates the greatest utility for the greatest number would be colloquially "moral. "
Pleasuring one's senses itself is not inherently moral or immoral. It depends on the context in which it is done and whether it harms oneself or others. Balancing pleasure with responsibility and consideration for the well-being of oneself and others is important for making moral decisions about pleasuring one's senses.
Definitely illegal and probably a little immoral.
Possibly a reference to the American "Pledge of Allegiance".
Because YOUR morals may not be the same as mine, and I may not consent to living under YOUR moral laws. And YOU my not want to live under MY moral laws.
The question implies that there are circumstances under which Homosexuality is NOT all right, and that lust is inherently not all right. That would be a question pertaining to personal ideology, religious beliefs or morals. In point of fact, both homosexuality and lust are definable as normal within the range of human behavioral traits. Lust is a biological response that helps drive human beings to reproduce. Homosexuality is behavior that appears in many species of animals in almost the same incidence as it does in human beings. These facts argue that both are perfectly normal. Whether or not you feel that either is morally wrong is a belief system you are imposing on behavoirs that, in themselves, have no moral component. They are simply evolved traits within our species. For example, Human beings can kill each other... we have evolved with the ability to do that. That ability itself is not a moral issue. It would not have evolved if it was not advantageous in some sense. However, we all agree that there are circumstance under which killing is justifiable, and others when it is not. Therefore, it is context and intent that determines whether killing is moral, not the killing itself. Lust CAN be immoral, if it is indulged with immoral intent. Just as homosexuality can be immoral if its is expressed as, say, rape. However, neither, in and off itself, can be correctly characterized as wrong.
the government would be unable to regulate human behavior
He did not accept a "government of butchers" and favored another reformer.
moral issues that occurs as a result of mordern medical technology are covered under what specic discipline
Behavior is a common noun which can be applied to animals and humans or a system ( the action, reaction, or functioning of a system, under normal or specified circumstances). Human behavior is how every individual reacts under different circumstances.
Yes, it is a crime of moral turpitude (regardless of the stolen good's value). Even in travelling under the VWP, a visitor would still be required to get an ESTA beforehand. One of the questions asked on the ESTA is if you were convicted of a crime of moral turpitude. You must answer honestly. In your case, it is highly probable that an ESTA, and therefore entry under the VWP would be denied.