Morality is what you should already feel it is. I.e if you have to ask, you will never know.
Or, perhaps, asking is the way that you show you already know it is wrong.
Or, perhaps, asking is the way that you show you already know it is wrong.
Is it immoral to cut in line?
is it immoral to cut in line if my need is greater than those ahead of me?
How about if the line isn't a physical one, but one enforced by society (e.g. seniority clauses, or rationing)?
Ethics---at least for me---must be an independently justifiable thing. To rely on feelings is problematic because feelings of guilt are dependent on your social upbringing.
During the slave days of America, there were slaves who thought it was immoral to run away from their masters because after all the master provided faithfully for them, didn't beat them unreasonably, and gave them the entirety of life they knew. Additionally, even if you didn't care about your master---you should care about your family who you'd have to leave to escape into freedom.
We consider that example extreme only because our society has diverged so far from that point. In those times, it would be a perfectly reasonable argument and the guilt felt would be real.
Which only proves that ethics are based on societal norms ("social upbringing").
If you think the norms are bad, try and change them, instead of seeking some mumbo-jumbo "independently justifiable morality", which doesn't even make sense (there is no method of independently justifying a moral position, nor would it convince everyone even if it did it exist. Even human life is not "independently justifiable" sacred. It's only as far as we believe in some (societal) norms).
The benefit of this (as opposed to the imaginary "independently justifiable" morals), is that our morals can be changed. This is after all what we call progress, in the societal and moral sense of the word.
2) In some cases (and I feel in this particular too), that line of reasoning applies, you know.
Except it's not "cheap paper", it's very precious and expensive to the poor folks parting with it.
That doesn't mean overcharging necessarily doesn't do real harm; it just means it requires mental effort to understand it as moral or immoral. Maybe not much, but more than deciding whether outright killing someone is immoral or not. Ergo, it is not necessarily true that no moral dilemma might benefit from discussion.