Morals.

[questor]

Pyro, thanks for the invitation. i'll pass on the ''shades of gray'' philosophy.

i have experienced much and have my own handle on what makes a good person or a good society.

[Pyrotex]

I guess from these posts that morals are just whatever you feel like doing, or maybe morals are just for the stupid. ...prostitution--since hookers usually serve a varied clientele and spread syphilis, aids, etc., it makes sense to me to prevent the problem...murder--do i have to explain this one, or actually any of them to one who thinks and empathizes?

...can you spell con-tra-dic-tory? ...

 

Can you spell in-co-her-ent?

Questor, what gives you the right to declare me or others to be totally immoral libertines just because we don't agree with all your opinions? Nobody in this thread, certainly not me, ever said that we should be allowed to do whatever we felt like doing.

 

I am a staunch advocate of law and morality. And if you calmed down enough to actually compare your morality with mine, you would probably find a pretty close fit.

[Pyrotex]

Pyro, thanks for the invitation. i'll pass on the ''shades of gray'' philosophy....

You're welcome. B)

[questor]

Pyro, i can only comment on my perception of the things you have written, and my comments were not all directed to you. i do like the appelation ''immoral libertine'', but i don't recall saying this of you. most of your posts are quite well written, but i do reserve the right to disagree. it would be nice if our concepts were close, since i have had plenty of time to consider mine. and i can assure you and i am calm and co-her-ent.

[Pyrotex]

Pyro, i can only comment on my perception of the things you have written, and my comments were not all directed to you. i do like the appelation ''immoral libertine''....

Yes, it is a nice appelation, isn't it. Just kinda rolls off the tongue.

It's a good thing it doesn't apply to you or me.

Thanks for the good word, I hope I continue to deserve that.

Peace be unto you.

[TheFaithfulStone]

during the time it took to type this statement, probably more than a thousand human fetuses were slaughtered. if this is not '' disposing

of the defectives'', what is it?

 

And the train goes flying off the track. Let's backtrack a bit. Are you against abortion even if the woman was raped by her brother and the fetus has no head, causing an ectopic pregnancy? Which of those criteria would need to be met for you to be comfortable terminating a pregnancy?

 

See, there's always shades of grey. You're sort of implying there that aborted feti are "defective" somehow, which betrays some of your own stereotypes about who GETS abortions.

 

SWITCHING TRACKS <KA-CHUNK>

 

Moral arguments never get anywhere, because they are invariably shell games for larger issues (and a lot of the time, they are not the same issue for both sides.)

 

Take for instance, gay marriage (we'll steer clear of the BIG A) Conservatives give a lot of talk about the "strength of marriage" and "families" but what it boils down to is - "Gay people doing it is gross." Liberals talk a lot about civil rights and such, but what it really boils down to "A vengeful God who cares what we do with our ding-a-lings is a dumb idea."

 

Now frankly, I think most straight people are at least marginally (or very!) uncomfortable around explicit depictions of gay sex, and when people start talking about two fellers getting hitched, that is the first place our little monkey brains go. Also frankly, I think most (not all) conservatives don't really think that God cares ALL THAT much about EVERY word in the bible. (that thing about peeing and being unclean ferinstance) They don't take the WHOLE bible literally, just the parts they like.

 

So, both of the starting statements are true - yes, ninety percent of the population finds gay people doing it a little... wierd. And ninety percent of the population thinks that they shouldn't have to obey the whole bible.

 

And yet, we always end up having shell arguments about gay marriage, or abortion.

 

This whole thing... basically the same problem.

 

Conservative: I believe in God. You should too.

Liberal: I don't! You shouldn't either.

 

You are screaming at each other across a void of different assumptions. There are two ways to solve this problem. The first one is fairly unpleasant and involves killing each other. (Ref. IRAQ, anywhere Middle Easty) The second one is coming up with a set of rules we can all live with and then playing by those rules, or alternatively, a set of rules we ALL HATE EQUALLY.

 

Turns out we have just such a set of rules that's pretty much in place, it's called the Constitution of the United States of America. It's not perfect, but it's damn fine.

 

TFS

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Questor:

I guess from these posts that morals are just whatever you feel like doing, or maybe morals are just for the stupid.

I don't know how you drew that conclusion Questor. You seem like a thoughtful, intelligent person. Perhaps when I attack the church I get your dander up. Well, for the good that the church and religion has done, please forgive me. Most of the people that I dearly love in this world go to church and are really good people. I am a good person. I don't do evil things nor do I contemplate doing them. I have an extremely active conscience and it constantly watches what I do and judges me in the same ways that yours probably works. I believe that my value system is a little more clearly defined than yours but we both have them. And you imply that I would not fight and die for what I love. Ok, perhaps my attack on the church was harsh. I forgive you.

If I could talk directly to God after first shaking his hand, I would strongly suspect that if I asked Him if good could be achieved without believing in Him, He'd say, "Of course. I'm secure in my identity, I don't need idolizers to prop me up. I wish you folks would find your identity and what it means to be human and live true to that. Forget about trying to second guess what I want." That's how I view God. As an equal. I think if He created me, that's how he'd want me to behave. I certainly wouldn't be ashamed to face Him but were I less than human, I would be.

[Boerseun]

The problem with the whole debate is that there's no such thing as a universal set of morals.

 

Everybody has his or her own set.

 

And your specific set is the culmination of how you were brought up, what you were taught, and what you've figured out for yourself.

 

It's a matter of what you know to be 'right' or 'wrong'. And you don't have to justify it to anybody.

 

Any organised institution (a church, for example) telling you that they have the moral higher ground, is suspect from the word 'go'. Morality is subjective, and will differ from person to person.

 

Do not follow the herd. Unless you want to end up on someone's dinner table.

[Pyrotex]

The problem with the whole debate is that there's no such thing as a universal set of morals...

Gosh! I think we chased them all off.

I guess that means that only WE have any morals, right? :lol:

[Boerseun]

Gosh! I think we chased them all off.

I guess that means that only WE have any morals, right? :lol:

Yup... sure seems like it!

[TheBigDog]

The problem with the whole debate is that there's no such thing as a universal set of morals.

Precisely the reason to keep laws as local as possible, to let there be diversity of morality by geography because local people can make their system of laws reflect their sensibilities. If you don't like the laws you have the option trying to change them or of moving to a place friendly to your way of thinking. That is one of the things that made America great, but is being whittled away with each new federal regulation and law that through one means or another trumps local authority. If a state wants to teach IE, it should be a state debate, not a national debate. There is an ebb and flow of these things and that is what breeds REAL diversity. Not forced acquiescence on a national level to values driven by a minority of the population.

 

That said, there are times that the federal government needs to step in and break amoral local policy. Aboliltion of slavery being an example of correct intervention by the federal government.

 

Bill

[Tarantism]

im with boerseun!

im with Pyrotex!

 

morality, to me, is as local as possible

i do what i do and everyone else is welcome to do the same

it is when peoples bad morals start effecting other people,

namely me,

that i have a problem.

[Southtown]

Any organised institution (a church, for example) telling you that they have the moral higher ground, is suspect from the word 'go'. Morality is subjective, and will differ from person to person.

I think different moralities have a common purpose though... to keep people from tearing each other apart, or maybe even to motivate us to help each other. I don't think it needs to be subjective, necessarily. Morality just needs to be explored and probed, reshaped into a method of harmony, and maybe even purged of superstition.

[Boerseun]

I think different moralities have a common purpose though... to keep people from tearing each other apart, or maybe even to motivate us to help each other.

Fundamentalist Muslims have a much different moral set than we have. For them, taping a few dynamite sticks to yourself and then proceed to go 'boom' in a packed shopping mall is a perfectly morally justifiable act.

Christians, having missionary work as part of God's instruction to mankind, tend to look down on every moral set not identical to theirs. And this is extremely offensive to members of other sets of moral standards, like hindus, muslims, you name it.

We are all guilty of 'moral arrogance', to coin a phrase. And I'm of the opinion that not one single set is higher or lower than any other set in the Great Scheme of Things. I do have my doubts about them being able to share the same space, and living together harmoniously, though.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Beorseun:

The problem with the whole debate is that there's no such thing as a universal set of morals.

lol. Beorseun, you have the habit of hitting the nail with the claw of the hammer. You've identified the crux of the issue however, only I believe the opposite is true.

By saying that there is no universal set of morals, you are essentially proclaiming that a standard of good is not based upon being human. You use some other way of categorizing people and then you imply that two standards could actually conflict but both be valid moral codes.

What are your categories of human? Shepherd, flock? Guru, follower? Each set with it's own moral code? Victim, victimizer? Parasite, producer?

Please enlighten me.

[Boerseun]

Beorseun: lol. Beorseun, you have the habit of hitting the nail with the claw of the hammer. You've identified the crux of the issue however, only I believe the opposite is true.

By saying that there is no universal set of morals, you are essentially proclaiming that a standard of good is not based upon being human. You use some other way of categorizing people and then you imply that two standards could actually conflict but both be valid moral codes.

What are your categories of human? Shepherd, flock? Guru, follower? Each set with it's own moral code? Victim, victimizer? Parasite, producer?

Please enlighten me.

I will not reply to the implication that my nail-hitting and hammer-operation skills are lacking. Thousands of bent and destroyed nail-heads will do that for me, thank you very much.

 

However:

 

In Hawaii, when initially 'discovered' by Europeans, it was a popular custom for young girls to sleep around. This was encouraged by their parents, who wished to impress their future son-in-law with their daughter's sexual prowess. Who knows - the future son-in-law might be a chief or something. Nobody frowned at this encouraging of sexual abandon - this was their custom.

 

In Japan, it was expected of men to ceremoniously disembowel themselves when humiliated. For instance, a military commander would commit hara kiri after losing a battle, to 'save face', and not have to live with the embarrasment of defeat. Somehow, suicide will restore honour. Such was their custom.

 

In certain parts of Borneo, European missionaries and other captured individuals were seen as 'wizards', due to their advanced technology. They were overrun, caught, killed, cooked, and promptly eaten. This wasn't due to a particular liking of human flesh; rather, it was seen as a way of 'ingesting', thereby 'obtaining', some of these 'wizards'' magical powers. Such was their custom.

 

In modern-day Swaziland, every year a particularly sexist and discriminatory (in Western eyes) practice takes place: Hundreds of young girls will dance around the king, butt-naked except for a few reeds they hold in their hands to beat the rythm out as they dance for their king. One of these girls (all of them between 13-16 years old) will be selected by the king as his next wife. That night, he will shag the poor child whilst the rest of his wifes worry about other things. Not only is this statutory rape, it's also polygamy at its worst. The king takes a new 'bride' every single year at these 'reed dances'. Such is their custom, till this very day.

 

In South Africa, even current government ministers will slaughter a cow, bull, lamb, sheep, chicken, any animal you can think of, at home in order to celebrate some arbitrary happening. This is disregarding all set health practices as appliccable to metropolitan areas. This is also disregarding the neighbour's horrified complaints at the poor animal being pulled down to the ground, bleating and screaming, and then have its throat slit. They might also collect some of the animal's remains and present it to their 'sangoma', or witch-doctor, for analysis and seeing what the future holds for them. Such is their custom, to this very day.

 

In the Middle East, we might find people willing to blow themselves up in order to make a point that the West seem to obtuse to acknowledge in any other way.

 

In the West, we might find people who can't understand that there are actually people in the world who don't understand a word of English. We might find a situation where a particular country decides to project power onto another country, in order to achieve certain results that are only in the first country's favour. This is all morally acceptable and justifiable in Country A. Country B, however, will not find it so palatable, and will resort to ways and means of getting its sovereignty back.

 

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.

 

Open your eyes and see the variability in the human condition.

[questor]

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?