I was reading this excellent discussion on morality, beginning with the discussion on “Normative Definitions of Morality.” To summarize as briefly as possible it said: An immoral act is when you act on others in such a way that you cause; death, pain, deception, or break a promise, without justification and hopefully, other rational people would agree with your justification. Acts of Charity are always moral, but need no justification to abstain from them.
Ok, the article went into much more detail than that, but as I was reading it, I was mentally ticking off the various justifications I have of playing poker for a living since undoubtably I’m causing some people pain, when suddenly I ran into this paragraph:
link
[ QUOTE ]
In trying to provide a definition of the traditional normative sense of “morality,” I find it useful to regard morality as a public system. I use the phrase, “public system” to refer to a guide to conduct such that (1) all persons to whom it applies, all those whose behavior is to be guided and judged by that system, know what behavior the system prohibits, requires, discourages, encourages, and allows; and (2) it is not irrational for any of these persons to accept being guided and judged by that system. The paradigm examples of public systems are card games such as bridge or poker, or athletic games such as baseball, football, and basketball. Although a game is a public system, it applies only to those playing the game. Although, occasionally, someone may participate in a game without knowing its point or all of the rules that apply to those playing the game, the standard case is that all do know the point of the game as well as all of the relevant rules. If a person does not care enough about the game to abide by the rules, she can usually quit. Morality is the one public system that no rational person can quit. This is the point that Kant, without completely realizing it, captured by saying that morality is categorical. Morality applies to people simply by virtue of their being rational persons.
[/ QUOTE ]
I need help in reading comprehension here. Is he saying that poker is a model of a moral system since it has a goal and rules that everyone knows. But unlike a moral system, people who are too lazy to abide by the rules or strive towards the goal ( that is make money ) can always quit. Whereas in a moral system, you can’t just quit.
So, Is he saying that playing poker is neither moral nor immoral, so I can quit worrying about trying to count down my many justifications?