Morality and corruption

[geko]

I'm going to read that science of morality book, but i just want to say something.

 

 

Originally posted by: Freethinker

Originally posted by: geko

 

My confusion comes when i see religions having their own morality, which is the reason they are being viewed as 'bad' in the first place. So, [morality] cant be 'good' because it is shown as being 'bad' when viewed in a religious context.

 

I can't speak for the intent of the original poster (I could, but it wouldn't count) but what I think we need to differentiate is "morality" being "being 'bad' when viewed in a religious context" and "religion based morality being bad".

 

 

My sentence isnt clear.

 

It was said that religion has a negative effect and is therefore bad. But it was also said that morality has a positive effect and is therefore good.

 

I basically meant the same as you i think. I was arguing towards the idea that religion was being viewed as bad because the effects it has on society etc., are negative, but due only to the moral codes it preaches. In which case 'morality' cant be viewed as 'good' because it's already been viewed as 'bad' when talking about religious morality.

 

This is what i meant when i said they are both right. Religious morality is good when viewed by someone following the system (and agrees with it), but it is bad when viewed by someone, for example, that doesnt follow the system, i.e. that 'doesnt agree'. Therefore they are both right when viewed within their own domain?

 

But like you said, someone in a system can always review their own system.

 

Maybe what was meant is that "morality is inherently good and has an overall positive effect, but religious based morality is bad becasue it has an overall negative effect". I dont know.

 

Like i said, im going to read that book, but what im getting at is that (to me) there doesnt seem to be any standard to judge another moral system as right or wrong, good or bad. It can be judged from inside only, by a follower.

 

To end with an example to try and explain: The philosophy of Nazism, basically, was genocide(?). This is fine. This is what it preached and people believed. Sure, i dont agree, but that's [because] i dont follow the system of Nazism.

 

And yes, it could be argued that the reason i dont follow the system is because of 'my morals'.

[geko]

The following

 

Originally posted by: geko

 

To end with an example to try and explain: The philosophy of Nazism, basically, was genocide(?). This is fine. This is what it preached and people believed. Sure, i dont agree, but that's [because] i dont follow the system of Nazism.

 

 

Should have read To end with an example to try and explain: The philosophy of Nazism, basically, was genocide(?). This is fine. This is what it preached and people believed. Sure, i dont agree, but that's [because] i dont "believe in the idea" of Nazism.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: geko

Maybe what was meant is that "morality is inherently good and has an overall positive effect, but religious based morality is bad becasue it has an overall negative effect". I dont know.

I think the confuse is based on the application of the word "morality".

 

Are "morals", "a moral code", "morality", ... just whatever combination of tenets an individual follows, or are there some set of tenets to which we can establish a comparison?

 

And what of contradictions with-in a specific set of tenets? Say the Christian contradiction of "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live".

 

As they contradict each other, a Christian HAS to violate one of the two. A Christian can not completely follow all of the tenets of the bible as it contradicts itself. So of the contradictory "religious morals", which is "inherently good and has an overall positive effect"? How do we decide?

[Uncle Martin]

Originally posted by: Freethinker

 

 

Are "morals", "a moral code", "morality", ... just whatever combination of tenets an individual follows, or are there some set of tenets to which we can establish a comparison?

 

I think we can compare the moral tenets of an individual or group to the tenets held by the majority of the whole society, so long as they are based on reality. The objective scientific definition of reality. Don't we judge the morality of individuals everyday in our courts? Are laws not based on moral tenets?(albeit not always correctly)

 

 

And what of contradictions with-in a specific set of tenets? Say the Christian contradiction of "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live".

 

If moral tenets were always subjected to the scrutiny of scientific process this would no longer be a problem.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Uncle Martin

I think we can compare the moral tenets of an individual or group to the tenets held by the majority of the whole society, so long as they are based on reality. The objective scientific definition of reality.

At what point did societal moral tenets become based on reality? We could only dream.

Don't we judge the morality of individuals everyday in our courts? Are laws not based on moral tenets?(albeit not always correctly)

Yes laws are based on "moral tenets" as subjectively invented by those in charge at the time. Such as a female being old enough to make sexual decisions for themselves at 18 in one state, but by crossing a state line, it becomes 14. Was their something in the geographical location that made the 14 yr old smarter, ten feet farther south?

If moral tenets were always subjected to the scrutiny of scientific process this would no longer be a problem.

Exactly.

 

Instead the current admin in the US wants to move it more towards some antiquated book of attrocites and fairytales.

[Uncle Martin]

Originally posted by: Freethinker

Yes laws are based on "moral tenets" as subjectively invented by those in charge at the time. Such as a female being old enough to make sexual decisions for themselves at 18 in one state, but by crossing a state line, it becomes 14. Was their something in the geographical location that made the 14 yr old smarter, ten feet farther south?

 

I agree completely. Similar to my example of capital punishment being morally acceptable in Texas et al; yet morally unacceptable in North Dakota et al. Logic tells me something is either right or wrong. These examples are evidence of the contradictory nature of "religious morality".

[lindagarrette]

The "seeking" drive is imbedded in the genetic makeup of all animals, along with lust, sense of loss, panic, (and possibly some form of anger which may be a combination of the other four). This knowledge comes from recently revived and appreciated theories developed by Freud. Seems to me that seeking status is a motivator we use to establish the framework of morality in our societies. It changes from time to time and place to place. Compare the Aztec human sacrifice ritual with today's objections to capital punishment. I don't think evolution has anything to do with this other than to have instilled in us the seeking drive in the first place.

[Freethinker]

linda, could you expand on "seeking"?

[lindagarrette]

Seeking is an exploratory urge that is opposite to satiety. Here is a reference that covers one aspect: http://www.csun.edu/~vcpsy00h/students/explore.htm

[Uncle Martin]

I've read the material provided by the above link and fail to see any relationship between the "seeking drive" and morality. Actually it seems to me that if seeking is opposite satiety that seeking would lend itself to immoral behavior as satiety would be easily related with morality. Maybe I'm missing something here.

[lindagarrette]

You seem to be missing a lot. For one thing, there is no right or wrong. There just is. Humans make judgements based on their environment. Survival is the only morality. I know that sounds like Ann Rand who I don't necessarily agree with, nevertheless, its evident.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: lindagarrette

Survival is the only morality. I know that sounds like Ann Rand who I don't necessarily agree with, nevertheless, its evident.

Survival at which level? The individual? The Species? The Selfish gene?

[Uncle Martin]

Originally posted by: lindagarrette

 

You seem to be missing a lot.

That's not very nice.

For one thing, there is no right or wrong. There just is.

This is just too simplistic. I know for sure that on an individual level there is right and wrong, I make these choices everyday.

Humans make judgements based on their environment.

That is a valid statement. How does it relate to morality?

Survival is the only morality.

When it comes to survival, there is no morality. An individual or group will lie, cheat, steal, kill, etc... to survive. To claim they are one and the same is nonsense. If what you claim was true there would be no morality. The evidence is contrary. Survival is instinctual. I believe most morality is a learned response to society.

I know that sounds like Ann Rand who I don't necessarily agree with, nevertheless, its evident.

You don't necessarily agree, yet it is evident? I'm sorry but it is not evident. Where is the evidence?

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Uncle Martin

Humans make judgements based on their environment.

That is a valid statement. How does it relate to morality?

Survival is the only morality.

When it comes to survival, there is no morality. An individual or group will lie, cheat, steal, kill, etc... to survive. To claim they are one and the same is nonsense. If what you claim was true there would be no morality. The evidence is contrary.

I think perhaps you and I have a different idea of what "morality" means.

 

I am guessing that for you morality is based on some absolutes? Such as when you say:

When it comes to survival, there is no morality. An individual or group will lie, cheat, steal, kill, etc... to survive.

This would indicate that some things, such as the examples you give,"lie, cheat, steal, kill, ", are ALWAYS immoral.

 

As you see it, is there ever a time when lying (...) IS moral?

 

If you have a friend that has cancer with typical treatment effects such as hair loss, ... You want to get them out for some enjoyment. They feel too selfconscious to go out. You know they look in bad shape, but it would really benefit them to get out.

 

If they should ask, "Are you sure I look OK to go out?" Would you tell them the "truth", knowing they will probably then not go out, or lie a little and tell them they "look just fine" to make them feel comfortable enough for them to go out?

 

IS it IMmoral for a parent to "steal" food to keep their kids alive?

 

Is morality situational of absolute?

[Uncle Martin]

Originally posted by: Freethinker

 

If you have a friend that has cancer with typical treatment effects such as hair loss, ... You want to get them out for some enjoyment. They feel too selfconscious to go out. You know they look in bad shape, but it would really benefit them to get out.

 

If they should ask, "Are you sure I look OK to go out?" Would you tell them the "truth", knowing they will probably then not go out, or lie a little and tell them they "look just fine" to make them feel comfortable enough for them to go out?

In the above context the immorality of lying is superceded by the overall good intent. Lying may be situational, I don't think morality is.

 

IS it IMmoral for a parent to "steal" food to keep their kids alive?

This is the point I was trying to make. Survival is instinctual, not moral. Stealing IS immoral in any context. When it comes to survival we abandon morality. Immoral acts are sometimes socially acceptable, if the overall intent is morally right, especially in the context of survival. The two in my opinion cannot be equated.

 

Is morality situational of absolute?

Absolute.

[Tim_Lou]

"This is the point I was trying to make. Survival is not morality. Stealing IS immoral in any context. When it comes to survival we abandon morality. The two in my opinion cannot be equated."

 

hey, then whats morality for?

 

isnt morality for a BETTER SURVIVAL as a group?

while "immorality" is for survival of a single?

[Uncle Martin]

Tim,

 

A moral code is necessary for social order. The closer an individual's morality follows the moral tenets of the society, the better equiped he will be to survive(exist) in that society. Societies and individuals can and do abandon morality when fighting for their very existence, sometimes for much lesser reasons. Survival is instinctual, not moral. I believe most aspects of morality are learned. Some basic traits may be genetic in nature. Killing someone for their money is immoral. Killing someone whom is threatening your life is still immoral, but socially acceptable because survival is everything.

 

The 9/11 attack was immoral even though the terrorists were following their moral beliefs. Our invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq were immorral acts even though we were told it was just. We were expected to abandon our moral tenets(and freedoms) if we believed we were fighting for our lives. The people who believe this think the war morally right. When we perceive our survival to be threatened, individual morality and societal moral codes are meaningless. We will abandon them as needed to assure our survival.

 

Something is either right or wrong, it can't be both. People do immoral acts, sometimes for the greater good. When my wife asks me if her butt looks big I lie and say no. The lie was immoral, but the intent is good, therefore the overall act is morally right. If I could go back in time and kill Hitler, it would be immoral to do so. However, the overall good it would achieve would make it socially acceptable, because knowingly allowing millions of people to die is immoral. Morality is absolute, human nature is not.

 

Now we've entered the realm of "does the end justify the means?" Oh man...... my head hurts!!!