Is morality given too much attention?

[AllPurposeAtheist]

You may not be moral enough to burn houses, women and children after bein a litter bug... :-k

[Sal1981]

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.

[the_antithesis]

Is morality given too much attention?

Yes.

[Sal1981]

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.

[josephpalazzo]

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.

[Jason78]

Is morality given too much attention?

Depends....   Is it my morality that's getting attention? :D

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Glad to see you back toots! (Not you jason...Shoezie!)

[Hijiri Byakuren]

[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.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

[jdrubnitz]

What'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"

[Deidre32]

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. ;)

[Drummer Guy]

I feel that it's pointless to expand morality beyond "Don't kill people..."

What if they are trying to kill you?

[The Fly]

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.

[Sal1981]

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.

[The Fly]

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.