“Anything that is moral for a group to do is moral for one person to do.”

There must be a flaw in that, since I’ve always been taught that it is wrong to take the law in your own hands. But I can’t find the flaw and it sounds axiomatic, self-evident. Switch it around. If something is wrong for one person to do, can it possibly be made right by having a lot of people (a government) agree to do it together? Even unanimously?
If anything is wrong, it is wrong—and vox populi can’t change it.
Source: Podkayne of Mars (1963), Chapter 13 (p. 169)

Adopted from Wikiquote. Last update Nov. 3, 2021. History

Help us to complete the source, original and additional information

Do you have more details about the quote "Anything that is moral for a group to do is moral for one person to do." by Robert A. Heinlein?
Robert A. Heinlein photo
Robert A. Heinlein 557
American science fiction author 1907–1988

Related quotes

Robert A. Heinlein photo
Peter Singer photo
Jordan Peterson photo

“You should be able to do things that you wouldn't do. That's the definition of a genuinely moral person. They could do it, but they don't.”

Jordan Peterson (1962) Canadian clinical psychologist, cultural critic, and professor of psychology

The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast #36 [@2:32:37]
Podcast

John Galsworthy photo
John Ralston Saul photo
Thomas Hardy photo

“Do not do an immoral thing for moral reasons!”

Pt. VI, ch. III
Jude the Obscure (1895)

Zisi photo

“Therefore the moral man, even when he is not doing anything, is serious; and, even when he does not speak, is truthful.”

Zisi (-481–-402 BC) Chinese philosopher

Source: The Doctrine of the Mean, p. 126

John Varley photo

“They understood the basic principles of morals: that nothing is moral always, and anything is moral under the right circumstances.”

John Varley (1947) American science fiction author

"The Persistence of Vision", The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction (March 1978), reprinted as the title story in The Persistence of Vision (1978)

Friedrich Hayek photo

“Our basic problem is that we have three levels, I would say, of moral beliefs. We have the first instance, our intuitive moral feelings which are adapted to the small, person-to-person society where we act for people whom we know and are served by people whom we know. Then, we have a society governed by moral traditions which, unlike what modern rationalists believe, are not intellectual discoveries of men who designed them, but as a result of a persons, which I now prefer to describe as term of 'group selection.' Those groups who had accidentally developed such as the tradition of private property and the family who did succeed, but never understood this. So we owe our present extended order of human cooperation very largely to a moral tradition which the intellectual does not approve of, because it has never been intellectually designed and it has to compete with a third level of moral beliefs, those which the morals which the intellectuals designed in the hope that they can better satisfy man's instincts than the traditional morals to do. And we live in a world where three moral traditions are in constant conflict, the innate ones, the traditional ones, and the intellectually designed ones, and ultimately, all our political conflicts of this time can be reduced as affected by a conflict between free moral tradition of a different nature, not only of different content.”

Friedrich Hayek (1899–1992) Austrian and British economist and Nobel Prize for Economics laureate

in 1985 interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11AXDT5824Y with John O'Sullivan
1980s and later

John Stuart Mill photo

“To do as one would be done by, and to love one's neighbour as oneself, constitute the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality.”

Source: Utilitarianism (1861), Ch. 2
Context: In the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth, we read the complete spirit of the ethics of utility. To do as one would be done by, and to love one's neighbour as oneself, constitute the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality.

Related topics