Morals.

[TheBigDog]

there seems to be a lot of confusion about what morality is. how can blowing up other people be considered moral? who, besides the perpetrators would

consider this a moral act? just because you call something moral does not make it moral. what is your definition of morality?

Amen. The dark side of "tolerance" is the game of moral relativism. There is such thing as good and evil, right and wrong. And moral codes define the sides.

 

Yet the relativists don't want to recognize that. For a relativist if someone is evil, they must have some just cause! Unless they are powerful (like the President), then they are inherently evil because they possess power, and the world is their victim in any circumstance.

 

Where has the morally honest opposition party gone?

 

Bill

[Boerseun]

there seems to be a lot of confusion about what morality is. how can blowing up other people be considered moral? who, besides the perpetrators would

consider this a moral act? just because you call something moral does not make it moral. what is your definition of morality?

This just goes to illustrate my point.

 

The fact that you don't belong to that set of morals, exclude you from ever understanding it.

 

Another case in point: Some societies on Earth will frown upon you being happy with your sister's rapist getting life in prison. Any action other than killing him with your bare hands will be seen as completely immoral behaviour on your part.

 

My definition of morality will never mesh with yours, therefore my point that there is no single universal set, and we shouldn't assume that there is.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Beorseun:

I can carry on with this for ages, but I won't. I'll just simply put it to you that yes, there are millions of different sets of morality out there, and not one single set can claim to have the 'moral higher ground'. If you claim Western Morality as any better than, for instance, Swazi Morality, you are a Western Chauvinist, and arrogant at that. Different cultures, different moral codes, all human.

I appreciate the effort to make your point and I enjoyed the images. Aside from the fact that 'it's good to be the king', perhaps the problem here is that too much is included in the concept of morality. So much so that it tends to make the term meaningless.

In the sense I mean when I say morality, I picture a child rapt in observing a bee on a flower. One can look at that image in many ways, not all of them kindly. But in the sense that I mean, the child is using its powers of observation to observe existence and the things that are in it. In other words, our relationship to existence. How we comprehend and attempt to master our environment in order to survive. That, in my mind, is the essense of good and of what it means to be moral. Human behaviors as they relate to geographic or racial customs are amoral unless they conflict with anothers ability to relate to existence correctly, in which case they become immoral.

By the way, I liked your response to the hammer comment. Good one.

[questor]

this proves my point:

''The fact that you don't belong to that set of morals, exclude you from ever understanding it.''

this statement shows that some think that morality is in the eyes of the beholder, that morals are whatever you deem them to be, and you should not judge other peoples morals. whole sale murder of innocents is not condoned by any civilization as a matter of morality. the Middle Easterners responsible

for terrorism and killing women for adultery can hardly qualify as civilized.

in following loose definitions of moralty coupled with a lack of judgementalism, society soon falls into chaos.

[Boerseun]

...Middle Easterners responsible

for terrorism and killing women for adultery can hardly qualify as civilized...

There we go again. You are assuming that only accepted 'Western' norms and standards can be seen as civilized and moral. When in history did Europe take patent rights on morality?

 

Not being biased in the least (I'm 100% European myself, although I've been living in Africa for the last 300 years), but some of your 'uncivilized' middle Easterners might frown upon your country taking care of criminals. The fact that abortion is allowed, and adultery not a criminal act, and prostitution tolerated, and women actually being allowed to have any political rights at all, would seem to them the epitome of barbarity.

 

So where do you draw the line in the sand as far as being 'civilized' is concerned? I bet the middle Easterners look down upon the West as barbaric, uncivilized heathens. And you can't deny them their opinion, because they're playing in a totally different moral field. Not better, or worse, mind you, just different. And that difference should be respected, whether you like it or not.

in following loose definitions of moralty coupled with a lack of judgementalism, society soon falls into chaos.

These definitions are only loose as far as your opinion of moral worth and fibre is concerned. Maybe its immoral to deny other nations and cultures their own moral perspective. Are we living in a world where everybody who don't agree with the set of norms and ethics you grew up with, are wrong?

Keep in mind - there are about 6.5 billion people on Earth. And not one single one of them has an identical outlook on life and morality as yours.

Sure - we can generalize and say there are a couple of big moral issues that are universal, but could you care to name one?

[Southtown]

I think B is just confusing ritual customs with the concern our actions have on others.

[questor]

Boersun, i live in the US and i don't agree with all our laws (abortion), but i do obey the laws. i don't see how you can condone murder and acts that harm society as a whole, or the individual as moral acts. perhaps our definition differs.

my definition would be that morals are rules of behavior to be followed to prevent behavior harmful to individuals or society. this is pretty simple , but covers the basic concept. local laws and judges are there to refine the exceptions.

[CraigD]

how can blowing up other people be considered moral? who, besides the perpetrators would consider this a moral act? just because you call something moral does not make it moral.

I must take issue with this implication. Although I am not personally, directly involved in the blowing up (or otherwise killing) of other people, I have a number of friends who are, as members of the U.S. Army and Marines (I don’t have any close friends in the Navy or the Air Force).

 

I’m ambivalent as to whether their actions are morally right – according to my personal beliefs, they are not - but many to most of my fellow Americans disagree, and consider their actions to be not only permissible, but heroic. I find it difficult to tell these friends that I believe their actions to be morally wrong.

 

I suspect the situation appears similar from the other side, and that many Iraqis consider the people involved in attempting to blow up (or otherwise kill) my friends to be heroes, not immoral “terrorists insurgents”.

 

As the term is commonly used, it’s difficult to conclude that morality is not relative.

[Pyrotex]

...As the term is commonly used, it’s difficult to conclude that morality is not relative.

You guys are having a great conversation, so don't let me distract you. I only wish to bring up an obvious example of "relative moralism" that is easy to overlook.

 

Our very own and highly esteemed Old Testament says that we "shall not kill". But what happened when David was made King? He hunted down Saul and his family and had them slain "by the sword", every man, woman and child, except for ONE child who was lame. David raised THAT child in his own household. David was never censored for this mass murder.

 

This pattern was repeated more or less for most of the Kings of Israel in the OT. So it is hard to say that even "murder" is universally immoral, or that it is universally "destructive to society". Obviously, the Hebrews considered some kinds of murder as just the "ordinary cost of doing politics". Carry on!

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Someone please define morality for me. I want a definition that I can use to judge human action as being moral, amoral, or immoral. Does it apply only to actions? Or does it apply also to thoughts?

Or is that the purpose of this thread, to establish the definition of moral?

If we don't have a common definition, then how can we even discuss it or supply characteristics of it?

[TheBigDog]

Someone please define morality for me. I want a definition that I can use to judge human action as being moral, amoral, or immoral. Does it apply only to actions? Or does it apply also to thoughts?

Or is that the purpose of this thread, to establish the definition of moral?

If we don't have a common definition, then how can we even discuss it or supply characteristics of it?

I was trying to get just such a conversation going when I started another thread.

 

http://hypography.com/forums/philosophy-humanities/5115-moral-compass-how-do-you-stay.html

 

Religion (generally) supplies us with written guidlines about right and wrong. This thread questions the need for religion to do that. The other thread asks, if you don't use a religious moral code, what do you use instead? I would love to get your input on that.

 

Bill

[Southtown]

You guys are having a great conversation, so don't let me distract you. I only wish to bring up an obvious example of "relative moralism" that is easy to overlook.

 

Our very own and highly esteemed Old Testament says that we "shall not kill". But what happened when David was made King? He hunted down Saul and his family and had them slain "by the sword", every man, woman and child, except for ONE child who was lame. David raised THAT child in his own household. David was never censored for this mass murder.

 

This pattern was repeated more or less for most of the Kings of Israel in the OT. So it is hard to say that even "murder" is universally immoral, or that it is universally "destructive to society". Obviously, the Hebrews considered some kinds of murder as just the "ordinary cost of doing politics". Carry on!

Very good illustration. That instance of morality seems to be relative to circumstance, though, rather than being relative to perspective.

[HydrogenBond]

Morality is a system of value judgements that attempts to define natural human behavior and distinguish this data set from unnatural human behavior. Humans are capable of both kinds of behavior. Without morality, the unnatural and natural become relative, with unnatural having the advantage, requiring less reason and will, and the ease of unconscious compulsion.

 

For example, it is easier to steal than work for a living. It is easier to lie, at times, than to always tell the truth. It is easier to cheat than play be the rules. It is easier to divorce than work through difficult times. It is easier to overeat than eat heathful. It is easier to to drink too much than moderate to a couple of beers a day. It is easier to base self worth on money than on character. It is easier to run with the herd than to stand alone., etc..

 

If we put morality in historical perspective, modern civilization is very recent, maybe 6000-7000years. Before that humans or prehumans (before civilization), were small groups where everyone knew everyone like one big family. With civilization the family mentality is lost and one becomes more anonomous or one's cultural family now is only a part of the whole. The unnatural of today, was at one time, progressive in the sense of how one goes about living in this strange and unnatural cultural environment. But to make culture one big happy family, morality came to be. It was an attempt to define the new rules of modern human behavior that could best allow one big extended cultural family. Unnatural behavior is a throwback to being anonomous, where one's actions can not be seen as having any impact on others. Christ changed morality, because it was limited to one large group. All that was required was love God and love your neighbor. It gave back freedom to experiment with the constraint of weighing ones actions in the context of the big picture. Moderation is the key.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

HydrogenBond:

Morality is a system of value judgements that attempts to define natural human behavior and distinguish this data set from unnatural human behavior. Humans are capable of both kinds of behavior. Without morality, the unnatural and natural become relative, with unnatural having the advantage, requiring less reason and will, and the ease of unconscious compulsion.

define unnatural. If you mean irrational or 'contrary to a moral code' then you think it's relative. After all, I could set up any list of values I want. I could say pain is good. death is good. I could. If you argue that is not an option, then why isn't it?

What is your standard of value? How do you know something is a value? Again, if it's arbitrary and we can choose anything, well we could all gloriously leap off a cliff.

In my mind, values are only attached to life. Life is the standard of good and there isn't anything arbitrary about that at all. Moral then would be that which sustains life.

I disagree with

the unnatural and natural become relative, with unnatural having the advantage, requiring less reason and will, and the ease of unconscious compulsion

on the basis that immorality results in death if we extend the immoral act to the species (if we all did that, we'd all be dead, etc.). That removes numerous human activities from the realm of immoral.

And it is not easier by any stretch of the imagination unless you believe that stealing is a career.

If by human you mean, 'an animal that takes whatever it wants from whomever it wants any time it wants in order to survive'. That only works when there are others around to take from. The difference between a producer and a thief is that the producer doesn't need the thief. That is profoundly important to understand.

Thiefs require victims. Producers just require being left alone. Who needs who? In both cases survival depends on the producer.

[Pyrotex]

Someone please define morality for me. I want a definition that I can use to judge human action as being moral, amoral, or immoral....?

 

I wish this was original, but it's not. It comes from the science fiction epic, "DUNE", by Frank Herbert, deceased. The storyline tells of a herculean effort to merge all of Humanity's religions, and to produce just one, self-consistent scripture that adequately reflects the intentions of the ancient scriptures. This results in the "Orange Catholic Bible". And morality in it is defined by one commandment:

 

"Thou shalt not damage the soul."

 

Interpretation of that sentence could provide a benchmark against which to judge the morality of a person's (or ones own) actions, words and attitudes. Or it could run to several volumes.

 

My take on it was that anything that you did that hurt others, or decreased your (or their) ability to do good, damaged your soul.

[InfiniteNow]

I gots to go to Barracus and get me some spice!!

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Pyrotex:

"Thou shalt not damage the soul."

I always enjoy your posts Pyrotex. Your plume is quite pure.

:surprise: tell me please, what is the soul of a human being?