Morals

by trailingbehind Thu 08 Jan 2009, 6:55 pm

So we all know morals are kind of hard to define, kind of hard to judge, a little bit vague.
In general, we all take our values from our parents and the culture that surrounds us, and I would suggest that we all think we're right, right?

But what if we're wrong. How OK with that would we be? What I'm suggesting is to take a moment to seriously consider if monogamy wasn't actually the technical optimum for society to be operating at, so polygamy became the way to go.

Or murder wasn't illegal, because justice would be served eventually with the continual fighting - if there even is fighting, because surely the strongest would out and civilization would advance with the best of us.

What I'm asking - challenging, even - is how tolerant do you think you are, how flexible are your morals? And, is having flexible morals a good thing? TBQH I think yes, because I feel we've constructed a culture in which we are steadfastly always thinking this is the way we do things, we are correct. But that wasn't always how it was done and maybe it won't be forever. But again, how can you honestly condone murder?

And I don't want this thread to be a "well i believe this so yeah" thread. Think! Push yourselves, what is the worst thing that could possibly exist for the world and then try and remember a time when that happened, because chances are it has.

by lyrical_mess Thu 08 Jan 2009, 11:03 pm

Um....I think it'd be good to start the discussion with the murder thing:

Ok, supposedly, the first law against murder was the "eye for an eye thing". According to my history teacher, that was considered civilized. Why? Because if someone gouges your eye, its only fair that you gouge out their eye instead of getting pissed off to the point of ripping off all their limbs and making a blood milkshake.

Suppose they never come up with that? Well, imagine a regular fight with your sibling. You make fun of him, he throws something at you, you throw something bigger, he punches you, you kick him, etc etc etc.

Put that in a more significant situation: you steal something from someone's house, so the owner gets pissed off an shoots you. Or you hit someone and get shot in return.

However, if it continued in this pattern, there would be so much population loss and just emotional decay that people might eventually be forced to think on the value of a life. Can we extinguish life without a cause, without reason? Is there any reason good enough for killing someone? I think these questions came with evolution, man being a social animal and whatnot. And the question arises: When is it acceptable or unacceptable to act in any given way? What are the parameters. Morals, I think, are the parameters for behavior. Like manners, but applied to more significant matters.

You can't say its bad manners to steal or morally incorrect to burp in public.

Though, it might be morally incorrect to sneeze or cough without covering your mouth. What right do you have to infect the general public?

by proust. Fri 09 Jan 2009, 4:43 am

In general, I'm a humanist and I believe in an ethic of reciprocity. Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. Leviticus, 19:18. In particular, I am in favor of non-violence. But I would describe myself as tolerant, rather than flexible.

Now that you've mentioned it, I have no problem with polygamy and I don't see how it's "immoral", not any more immoral than same-sex marriage is, in any case.

Also, I believe in universal morality, in having a set of moral values that we all have regardless of the environment in which you are born [with some exceptions when say, propaganda, brainwashing and such come into question]-for example the natural rights or universal need for reason. From that perspective, I don't think that the death penalty is any less immoral than the eye for an eye rule and in both cases it was a issue of doing the just thing -which is the problem at the core of ethics.

by trailingbehind Fri 09 Jan 2009, 7:43 am

lyrical_mess wrote:Put that in a more significant situation: you steal something from someone's house, so the owner gets pissed off an shoots you. Or you hit someone and get shot in return.

However, if it continued in this pattern, there would be so much population loss and just emotional decay that people might eventually be forced to think on the value of a life.

I can completely understand where you're coming from, population loss seems almost inevitable. But I don't think it would be. I mean isn't it possible that everyone would understand that their actions have a much greater set of repercussions and so act accordingly? Politely, respectfully. Because now their are actual consequences for their actions?

Is it possible that if murder was legal society might become a more humane place?

by trailingbehind Fri 09 Jan 2009, 7:49 am

kafka. wrote:Also, I believe in universal morality, in having a set of moral values that we all have regardless of the environment in which you are born [with some exceptions when say, propaganda, brainwashing and such come into question]-for example the natural rights or universal need for reason.

I just want to clarify, do you believe in universal morality as something that needs to happen, or do you think it's already happening?

And I have no serious objections personally to the concept, but I would like to ask that if this was the way things were, might society stagnate? Because we all believe the same thing and place the same values at the forefront of our lives there might not be any experimenting or creativity, especially in science.

Actually what I mean to say is not stagnate, but head off in one direction regardless of the other options available to us? Say if nobody was pro-choice anymore, we might not look into birth control, or the next pain free versions of abortions. And so maybe while our technology advances at awesome rates towards infertility treatments, another sector of our life may be totally ignored.

Also, I hope you can understand what I'm saying. Re-reading that it seems very rough, but I can't think of how else I would explain it.

by proust. Fri 09 Jan 2009, 2:58 pm

trailingbehind wrote:
kafka. wrote:Also, I believe in universal morality, in having a set of moral values that we all have regardless of the environment in which you are born [with some exceptions when say, propaganda, brainwashing and such come into question]-for example the natural rights or universal need for reason.

I just want to clarify, do you believe in universal morality as something that needs to happen, or do you think it's already happening?

Something that is already happening

trailingbehind wrote:And I have no serious objections personally to the concept, but I would like to ask that if this was the way things were, might society stagnate? Because we all believe the same thing and place the same values at the forefront of our lives there might not be any experimenting or creativity, especially in science.

Actually what I mean to say is not stagnate, but head off in one direction regardless of the other options available to us? Say if nobody was pro-choice anymore, we might not look into birth control, or the next pain free versions of abortions. And so maybe while our technology advances at awesome rates towards infertility treatments, another sector of our life may be totally ignored.

Also, I hope you can understand what I'm saying. Re-reading that it seems very rough, but I can't think of how else I would explain it.

Well Socrates believed that people aren't born to be slaves, and Martin Luther believed the same thing, and John Locke did also, we might even say that the leaders of the countries who signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights did too, I do, how does it make our society stagnate?

While I understand your example, I find it highly improbable, self-ownership is a natural right, it's natural to want to control your body, absolutist rulers might enforce a law that would make abortions illegal, but that wouldn't never be able to make all people view abortion as immoral, just illegal.We can argue if slavery is moral or immoral, or if it would/did help our society move forward, but is it a bad things that human rights are guarantied everywhere in the world? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an example of universal morality.

by david c Fri 09 Jan 2009, 10:08 pm

trailingbehind wrote:

Actually what I mean to say is not stagnate, but head off in one direction regardless of the other options available to us? Say if nobody was pro-choice anymore, we might not look into birth control, or the next pain free versions of abortions. And so maybe while our technology advances at awesome rates towards infertility treatments, another sector of our life may be totally ignored.

hi

I would argue quite the contrary... the idea that there are universal laws or values we must accept, would be a much better instigator toward change, than anything else... when everyone has a common goal it's much easier to actually get the thing done, than when you have division among your own. I don't foresee the goal of peace, love, and charity being reached on a global scale anytime soon, which would take stagnation out of the equation.

take, on the other hand, relativity (which is more prevalent now than it has ever been) would conceptually be a much easier path to stagnation. When you say, "it changes all the time and every time, there's nothing wrong with anything really. just live with the times" that's when people start getting comfortable. After all it's much easier to live with what you got, if nobody's there to say it's wrong.
People strive toward ideals, they don't aimlessly do things for nothing.
When you think about the possibility of universal moral laws (like andy writes), it's not that hard to swallow down. You can't do anything useful until after you've accepted the rules, whatever the situation is. Make a game which has no rules and you'll get stagnation pretty fast...
Once we realise there are boundaries, we can work actively toward a purposeful goal.
Somebody gave me one particularly good analogy - take the laws of nature. They are not that hard to argue against because once you try to 'disbelieve' them, you will experience the consequences. Refuse to accept the law of gravity, and you will hurt yourself after you've jumped off the cliff. On the other hand, when we acknowledge gravity, we work within our boundaries to actually accomplish something noteworthy... rockets, planes, whatever.

Something like universal morality - the existence of moral laws - is pretty much necessary, I'd say... even more obvious I would think is that the consequences of rejecting that idea are causing a lot more problems than 'progress' if any.

by belle of the boulevard. Sat 07 Feb 2009, 3:40 am

i have no morals you have pleased him

by violet crayon of delirium Mon 11 May 2009, 2:33 am

Oooh... I wanna revive this dead topic too...

Personally, I don't have morals, I just have the ideals I choose to believe in.
I mean, the fact is, that while you can decide that a certain bunch of rules someone else made up is what you want to live by, there is nothing to prove it's validity. It's not like there is a problem with that when applying it to yourself, but you're only going to conflict with other people's morals when you try to force yours onto others.

I guess the point is that morals are personal. Yes, it is important to clarify the rules, but it's your rules to be clarifying. The laws of nature can be disbelieved in too, but it's also personal. I mean just because you transcended into a different reality, doesn't mean you're going to drag everyone with you, they'll just have your old body killed by holding onto the belief that the laws of nature can't be broken. It is good to accept some rules and play along with them because it's an opportunity to learn and experience. And in the case of morality, it help you make decisions.

At the same time, isn't it more about ideals? I mean, morality only exists if you believe some force has authority to define good and evil. Everyone usually claims to be "good". People screw up the world in the name of "good". It's only others that label them evil. The definition of good seems to be your ideals and definition of evil is those who oppose your ideals. Morality is just an excuse for self-righteousness.

by proust. Tue 12 May 2009, 9:23 pm

You can't not have morals. You might have more or less liberal morals, but all people have some sort of concept of right and wrong.

I don't think morality needs to be enforced by a higher authority, but rather that it exists in itself. For example, atheists may think offering money to charity is a good think although they are aware that they won't be punished in any way if they don't do so.

by violet crayon of delirium Wed 13 May 2009, 9:31 am

But I don't honestly believe anyone is wrong or right.
I can decide my ideals and prejudices. But I don't think things are wrong, I just don't like some things. And I don't judge them as evil, just as an opposing or alternative force.

by proust. Wed 13 May 2009, 10:58 pm

So you think that genocide -for example- isn't wrong, we just don't "like" it?

by violet crayon of delirium Thu 14 May 2009, 11:22 am

I think genocide is horrible thing, but they're in a realm of mind and identity where a certain type of person is morally wrong to them. Morality can be immoral.
I can tell you what I don't like, what hurts me, etc., but I don't think people are wrong, they're just opponents to my ideals and values. An answer requires a context, and so whether they're right or wrong depends on what I define to be right or wrong. And I'll only based that off my emotions, values, and ideals. And I value freedom, free will, and chaos, so ultimately, I'm indifferent and anything I call wrong is simply shallow feelings based on how something affects me.

by proust. Thu 14 May 2009, 8:45 pm

violet crayon of delirium wrote:I think genocide is horrible thing, but they're in a realm of mind and identity where a certain type of person is morally wrong to them.

What do you mean?

by **LADIES AND GENTLEMEN** Thu 14 May 2009, 9:49 pm

I believe she means that according to their idea of morality, what they're doing is the right thing.

by proust. Thu 14 May 2009, 10:08 pm

And that just goes to prove that everybody has morals, just different moral values?

Anyway this brings up an interesting point, some people claim to be overly liberal and overly tolerant - no-one is ever wrong, they just don't agree with me -, but that doesn't make much sense -to me-. Because events like the Holocaust are not immoral in some moral values systems does that mean that they are perfectly pardonable? No. And if we punish acts like genocides, crimes against humanity, etc. then we -do- think they are immoral. We just like to think we're completely tolerant of different cultures.

by violet crayon of delirium Sun 17 May 2009, 5:56 am

But I'm still without morals because I don't choose to apply any universal right to my opinions... It's just what I like and dislike... Selfishly following my own ideals, being apathetic to things that aren't affecting me, and objecting and fighting when something is opposing or hurting me. I don't think they're wrong, I'm just hurt and want to eject them from my environment.

by Sponsored content

Morals

Morals

Re: Morals

Re: Morals

Re: Morals

Re: Morals

Re: Morals

Re: Morals

Re: Morals

Re: Morals

Re: Morals

Re: Morals

Re: Morals

Re: Morals

Re: Morals

Re: Morals

Re: Morals

Re: Morals

Re: Morals