I feel that it's pointless to expand morality beyond "Don't kill people, don't take their food away." Anything above and beyond that seems like nothing more than an anal retentive attempt to control people's behavior/justify one's own violations of the basic morality outlined above. Thoughts?
I believe people DONT have morals these days.
Yeah, that leaves open a metric fuckton of horrid possibilities. Under this two statement ethical code I can rape children, own slaves, torture people, scam, cheat, etc. It's an easy enough code to follow, and I can be an absolute monster under it.
Keep filling the mold.
Morality, despite what many people say, is inherently rational, for the most part. We consider things immoral because they are harmful to society/people, and we shun said activities. We can make mistakes, yes, but like any type of evolution, we need to go through a lot of different phases to get to the best possible one.
Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"Yeah, that leaves open a metric fuckton of horrid possibilities. Under this two statement ethical code I can rape children, own slaves, torture people, scam, cheat, etc. It's an easy enough code to follow, and I can be an absolute monster under it.
It was an oversimplification for the sake of irony, to be sure, but hopefully you aren't full autist and understand my general point.
QuoteKeep filling the mold.
uhhh okay what?
QuoteI believe people DONT have morals these days.
They have pages of pages of legalese and flawed ideology justifying their behavior to themselves and to society at large, it's basically the same as a moral system.
Quote from: "zarus tathra"Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"Yeah, that leaves open a metric fuckton of horrid possibilities. Under this two statement ethical code I can rape children, own slaves, torture people, scam, cheat, etc. It's an easy enough code to follow, and I can be an absolute monster under it.
It was an oversimplification for the sake of irony, to be sure, but hopefully you aren't full autist and understand my general point.
I am an autist, but now that you explained it I understand your point.
A more apt simplification would've been "do what you want as long as it harms none". The problem is that while this is a nice basis to start on, and it certainly works for the majority of human activities, once you get into specific situations that principle needs to be fleshed out more. Abortion, self defense, inaction, etc; those are all things that are debatable and have been debated endlessly. The outcomes of these debates do matter, because they determine the direction a society will take.
The very word "morality" has morphed for me into an excuse to judge other people. I know that's not what it means, but it's what the word has become for me.
QuoteAbortion, self defense, inaction, etc; those are all things that are debatable and have been debated endlessly. The outcomes of these debates do matter, because they determine the direction a society will take.
What's so hard about saying "I don't know?" Not directed at you, it's more directed at society.
QuoteThe very word "morality" has morphed for me into an excuse to judge other people. I know that's not what it means, but it's what the word has become for me.
Dude, that's what it always was. It's the passive-aggressive revenge of the afflicted.
Quote from: "zarus tathra"QuoteAbortion, self defense, inaction, etc; those are all things that are debatable and have been debated endlessly. The outcomes of these debates do matter, because they determine the direction a society will take.
What's so hard about saying "I don't know?" Not directed at you, it's more directed at society.
The difficulty in general is that we want to think of ourselves as a moral society.
There's also the need to belong to some sort of group. We're a social species by nature, and in general a majority of us want to be a part of some group or another. One of the defining characteristics of a group is largely shared morals and ethics.
This works nicely when you have small groups of a couple hundred or thousand people; it's when you scale the group up by millions of people that problems arise. Moral codes start to clash, conflict arises. In the past (and in some places right now) moral conflicts of such nature were resolved by everyone killing the fuck out of each other. After some time people decided that being killed over silly disagreements sucked, and that it's much easier to bicker endlessly about it and call your opponent an asshole.
So society can never admit that it doesn't know the answer to a moral question because that would mean that the other guy
isn't an asshole...When we all know he totally is.
The West needs to learn the concept of mu (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_(negative)). At the very least, you can shame people for being so invested in this or that issue. I guarantee that if you're arguing with a conservative, they're probably a billion times more pissed about the issue than you are.
Morality is a necessary function and product of society...ALL societies. What is accepted or rejected as moral is dependent on said society at the time of the society. It garners a great deal of attention because it is subjective to the ebb and flow of the society forming it. so no is the answer to your question.
Regardless of what moral system you come up with, it's always problematic to overcomplicate things. "The multiplicity of laws is the corruption of the Republic."
QuoteWhat's so hard about saying "I don't know?" Not directed at you, it's more directed at society.
Saying "I don't know" to a moral question requires you to tolerate immoral behaviour. Allowing immoral behaviour is (pretty much by definition) a bad thing.
Quote from: "zarus tathra"Dude, that's what it always was. It's the passive-aggressive revenge of the afflicted.
Not in the technical sense, no. From a biological standpoint, morality evolved in animals (yes, that includes humans) as a selective pressure.
You may not be moral enough to burn houses, women and children after bein a litter bug... :-k
I kinda like the Golden Rule, which is a pretty good way of using a self-reference: don't do shit to other people, which you wouldn't want other people do to yourself.
Which makes stuff like "don't steal, don't kill, don't be an asshole", etc. quite redundant.
Although there are a few exceptions, like masochism or whatever, it's a good rule of thumb, IMO.
QuoteIs morality given too much attention?
Yes.
Well, the re-labeling of polar sides like what was and still is done N. Ireland with the fight between Protestants and Catholic was warped by just renaming them. Same deal with calling children, who have no religious conviction either way, after their parents religion.
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"You may not be moral enough to burn houses, women and children after bein a litter bug... :-k
... because a little bug is powerless. It's true that if you were powerful, chances are you wouldn't be moral. Just look at God: he's all powerful and totally immoral. :twisted:
Quote from: "zarus tathra"Is morality given too much attention?
Depends.... Is it my morality that's getting attention? :D
Glad to see you back toots! (Not you jason...Shoezie!)
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"[snip]
That's hegemony for you. Those who control the means of communication control the means of dispensing information. I was not raised in an outwardly racist state (though Washington does have
quite a racist history), but I still developed some racist tendencies toward blacks and latinos due to the wording the news anchors often chose. A white man committing a crime was just a man committing a crime; but a black man committing a crime was a
blackl man committing a crime. Those are tendencies that, to this day, I have not been able to completely remove, because it keeps getting reinforced every time I happen to overhear something on the news. It frightens and angers me that human thought is so easy to manipulate like that.
Quote from: "zarus tathra"I feel that it's pointless to expand morality beyond "Don't kill people, don't take their food away." Anything above and beyond that seems like nothing more than an anal retentive attempt to control people's behavior/justify one's own violations of the basic morality outlined above. Thoughts?
I disagree that "don't kill, don't starve" is sufficient. How about
don't enslave, or
don't inflict pain, or
don't importune?
Me, I reckon that the Golden Rule is pretty cool. If I don't like it, the I won't do it.
Quote from: "Plu"QuoteWhat's so hard about saying "I don't know?" Not directed at you, it's more directed at society.
Saying "I don't know" to a moral question requires you to tolerate immoral behaviour. Allowing immoral behaviour is (pretty much by definition) a bad thing.
By definition of most of society, particularly people who have a presumption that their own moral standards are somehow universally true.
I think people are afraid to just say the following:
"I cannot literally tell you that doing something is wrong or right. I have no ultimate standard by which to judge. However, that does not change what I simply feel is right or wrong for me to do in your situation. All I can do is tell you what I would do, but I could never make you or convince you something is right unless you are personally convinced of it, just like me.
Even people who believe in a deity or transcendental universal standard that all things are judged right or wrong had to at some point accept what is right or wrong for THEMSELVES. Everyone has had the experience of choosing their own values. Where they ultimately come from does not change the fact that all individuals have to establish values for themselves"
Charles Darwin in his theory of evolution, indicated that altruism, varying degrees of it, can be seen in animals. Altruism is basically wanting the best for another, even sacrificing your own interests, for the good of another or "the whole." Recent scientific studies are even revealing that some BACTERIA have shown to be altruistic! Wow!
But once religion came on the scene, and many religious people don't believe in evolution, it caused a certain mindset to form that only humans are capable of knowing right from wrong and expressing altruism. Religion often teaches that a god set humans apart as "special and unique," and that morality comes in relation to a Deity. (or group of deities)
The irony is that many religions promote bigotry, racism, sexism and hatred. These are not elements of altruism or morality but rather the exact opposite.
Homosexuality to some religious people is "sinful," but why? Because a "holy book" says so? And those religious folk know best and consider themselves the authority over all of mankind?
I think that morality can be subjective but it can also be a natural component of evolution, stemming from altruism. Altruism is often behind why there are laws against murdering your fellow man, for example. Think there are laws of nature that if we violate them, such as murder, we can see how it upsets the balance of altruism. No one needs religion to dictate that.
But religion will have us believe that in order to know right from wrong, one must cling to it. Kind of sadly funny that a person would have an easier time believing that an imaginary "being" constructed morality than it being a natural evolutionary component of all species.
Ignorance is bliss, lol. ;)
Quote from: "zarus tathra"I feel that it's pointless to expand morality beyond "Don't kill people..."
What if they are trying to kill you?
Quote from: "zarus tathra"I feel that it's pointless to expand morality beyond "Don't kill people, don't take their food away." Anything above and beyond that seems like nothing more than an anal retentive attempt to control people's behavior/justify one's own violations of the basic morality outlined above. Thoughts?
I agree with you to an extent. I think we can discuss morality far beyond murder and theft, but I see your point. Its kind of funny though because if you think about it, morality seems to actually stem from the idea that certain behavior is undesirable for the overall group, and so because some behaviors are undesirable for the group, such a group may need to shut down such behaviors in order for the group to survive using various tactics such as coersion, ostracizing, and even brute force.
I do think that it is possible and potentially beneficial in certain contexts to talk about morality without it leading to action oriented implications. In other words... I think we can articulate why, based on reason, it is immoral to spread misinformation intentionally without it then leading to some action to control behavior. I think that the discourse alone allows groups and on a massive scale and over time allows societies and cultures to reach a general consensus on the morality of a given issue without the use of coersion or what have you.
Quote from: "TheGadfly"Quote from: "zarus tathra"I feel that it's pointless to expand morality beyond "Don't kill people, don't take their food away." Anything above and beyond that seems like nothing more than an anal retentive attempt to control people's behavior/justify one's own violations of the basic morality outlined above. Thoughts?
I agree with you to an extent. I think we can discuss morality far beyond murder and theft, but I see your point. Its kind of funny though because if you think about it, morality seems to actually stem from the idea that certain behavior is undesirable for the overall group, and so because some behaviors are undesirable for the group, such a group may need to shut down such behaviors in order for the group to survive using various tactics such as coersion, ostracizing, and even brute force.
I do think that it is possible and potentially beneficial in certain contexts to talk about morality without it leading to action oriented implications. In other words... I think we can articulate why, based on reason, it is immoral to spread misinformation intentionally without it then leading to some action to control behavior. I think that the discourse alone allows groups and on a massive scale and over time allows societies and cultures to reach a general consensus on the morality of a given issue without the use of coersion or what have you.
Wouldn't a "moral lecture" without the need to feel compelled to follow it just be empty talk?
I mean, if someone just says, morally, "don't do that or that" without some follow-up, the receiving party would do it anyways, because there would be no skin off their back - it would just be talk. I think morality has to be more than just a stern look, is all I'm saying.
Quote from: "Sal1981"Quote from: "TheGadfly"Quote from: "zarus tathra"I feel that it's pointless to expand morality beyond "Don't kill people, don't take their food away." Anything above and beyond that seems like nothing more than an anal retentive attempt to control people's behavior/justify one's own violations of the basic morality outlined above. Thoughts?
I agree with you to an extent. I think we can discuss morality far beyond murder and theft, but I see your point. Its kind of funny though because if you think about it, morality seems to actually stem from the idea that certain behavior is undesirable for the overall group, and so because some behaviors are undesirable for the group, such a group may need to shut down such behaviors in order for the group to survive using various tactics such as coersion, ostracizing, and even brute force.
I do think that it is possible and potentially beneficial in certain contexts to talk about morality without it leading to action oriented implications. In other words... I think we can articulate why, based on reason, it is immoral to spread misinformation intentionally without it then leading to some action to control behavior. I think that the discourse alone allows groups and on a massive scale and over time allows societies and cultures to reach a general consensus on the morality of a given issue without the use of coersion or what have you.
Wouldn't a "moral lecture" without the need to feel compelled to follow it just be empty talk?
I mean, if someone just says, morally, "don't do that or that" without some follow-up, the receiving party would do it anyways, because there would be no skin off their back - it would just be talk. I think morality has to be more than just a stern look, is all I'm saying.
I am not talking about a moral lecture. I am talking about morality as topic of discourse. The exchange of thoughts and the general shift towards a possible near consensus is an implicit action itself and at times can be more powerful and explicit action every could.
I am not talking about making moral demands. Demands are a one-way communication. I am talking about an exchange. That's what I was getting at.
It depends, morality is a constant in all social mammalians. That said, moral commands are often made to reinforce the existing moral system.
In the USA, one cannot say "women should only be in the kitchen making food, not as CEOs or politicians!" it wouldn't go down well, for the reason stated above.
That said, morality doesn't really exist.
It's for fools and children, and those who question the moral actions of others in any regard are dopes.
Morality is a human construct, just like the rules of chess, the alphabet and the tong... :P
Moriarty is NEVER given too much attention........oh wait, never mind.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Morality is a human construct, just like the rules of chess, the alphabet and the tong... :P
Really? Can you prove it exists?
Quote from: "darsenfeld"Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Morality is a human construct, just like the rules of chess, the alphabet and the tong... :P
Really? Can you prove it exists?
Which part of "human construct" don't you understand?
People generally do as they please in life...
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Quote from: "darsenfeld"Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Morality is a human construct, just like the rules of chess, the alphabet and the tong... :P
Really? Can you prove it exists?
Which part of "human construct" don't you understand?
Quote from: "darsenfeld"People generally do as they please in life...
That doesn't answer my question.
Secondly, usually people know there are consequences to their act, and so before acting they usually take that into consideration. OTOH, you are free to act as foolishly as you want. Don't come whining when those consequences are not to your liking.