Is being "morally good" always the rationally right way?

[Fromdusktilldawn]

Now lets observe this in the political situation of Germany right now. Since WW2 Germany has now always the desire to be the "moral best" of Europe, be nice to everyone and save as much people as they can around the word. Now 2015 with the migration crisis, everyone went to Germany of course.

Now we begin to see their mistake and they pay their prize... Among the tousands of "refugees" were countless drug lords, gangs, Isis members and Hamas supporters. As seen in 00:26 Hamas supporters started a street war in Berlin, even online announcements were made that they'll destroy and riot every German city. Since Germany now stands for Israel, because of the WW2 Jew hunt, they now have purge-movie like scenarios in their capital. These were the people they saved. To me, nowadays (or since always) its ok to me morally good, but it has its limit, being too nice without staying rational leads the devil in the house and you'll get exploited. What do you think?

[VictorMachiavelli]

Different people will have different ideas of what’s morally good, based on their judgement of whatever it is that we’re talking about.

The people who support mass immigration will see taking in refugees as moral good because they’re trying to help people they see as being in danger. They’ll see you pointing out that some refugees are violent or that they’re rapists as morally wrong, because they believe that most of the refugees are poor women and children fleeing war and persecution in their home countries. They don’t see them as a genuine threat, they see you as more of a threat. They assume that you’re motivated purely by hate, racism and xenophobia.

Those who don’t support mass immigration will see refusing refugees as moral good because they see them as a threat, mainly to the women and children of their home country. They see those who want to invite refugees in as morally wrong because they believe that they’re inviting mostly fighting-age men rather than women and children - violent rapists and terrorists who hate us -into the country. They see not protecting your people is morally wrong. They don’t believe that their motivation is based on hate at all, but instead love for their own people and wanting to protect them.

I think that for many people, one of the main things they believe in when it comes to morality is the idea that we should “treat everyone the way we’d like to be treated”. With the refugee example, they might empathise with women and children fleeing war, and imagine that if they were in that situation they’d hope to find refuge elsewhere and be welcomed.

I think then that a more accurate way to describe the problem you’re speaking about, rather than being a problem with always being morally good, is the problem with a worldview entirely driven by empathy and altruism. It is a problem mainly because treating people as you’d have them treat you only works out well if those people think the same way. If they don’t, and instead they see that mindset and your niceneess as a weakness, they’re just going to take advantage of it while thinking that you’re a sucker.

[strateguy632]

morality would have been to welcome SOME refugees. a limited number and after screening. morality does not obligate "save many". but once they inside e. u. germany does not block borders austria etc. maybe they need borders now.

[In_Trance]

Morals don't exist