|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2005 7:29 pm
Morality, as defined by the Oxford New English Dictionary, is, "A particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specific person or society." Every group/religion/society/etc. has a moral code, but should they be there? Are morals a natural part of society? Should they even be there in the first place?
I don't believe in a set moral code. Humans are animals. We are subject to the same basic instincts that all other animals are subject to (You can debate on what those basic instincts are). The only difference is that we have decided to suppress those instincts and declared them wrong. We tricked ourselves into believing that by acting against what is natural, we will attain some higher status. Coming from a semi-Protestant background, I believe that we cannot bargain our way into Heaven: People are selected by God to enter heaven, and when you are selected (which is random), you cannot alter it in any way. So, in conclusion, morality is nothing more than an idea that goes against anything natural that humans can or will do. Any other ideas out there on morality?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2005 7:59 pm
I think that what happened is humans developed reasoning skills through curiousity. They saw that when they killed someone, they never got back up. When they hit someone, it must be the same as being hit. Thus, they formed morals that these things were bad. At first, they were very basic, but now we're arguing over whether or not it's right to eat meat.
I think that moral values are needed to keep order and that they aren't a bad thing. If we didn't have these moral values, what would there be to stop us from doing bad? You may say animals live without it, however I believe that animals live more simple lives than us and don't hold grudges or attack without reason.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2005 8:11 pm
SPMito I think that moral values are needed to keep order and that they aren't a bad thing. If we didn't have these moral values, what would there be to stop us from doing bad? You may say animals live without it, however I believe that animals live more simple lives than us and don't hold grudges or attack without reason.
Animals certainly can hold grudges. Many dogs remember other dogs or people who they have had encounters with and may view them negatively because of it. While you may argue this isn't 'holding a grudge', I am not sure what else a grudge is if not a residual negative feeling from a previous experience.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:58 am
I like think that everyone has the same basic moral codes but is slightly diffrent (cultural relativistim and such). Its just really sucks when you're the only one acting moraly. I don't belive in a human blueprint in Plato's form, but there is a foundation for human morals and people make what ever they want on top of the foundation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2005 9:29 am
SPMito I think that what happened is humans developed reasoning skills through curiousity. They saw that when they killed someone, they never got back up. When they hit someone, it must be the same as being hit. Thus, they formed morals that these things were bad. At first, they were very basic, but now we're arguing over whether or not it's right to eat meat. I think that moral values are needed to keep order and that they aren't a bad thing. If we didn't have these moral values, what would there be to stop us from doing bad? You may say animals live without it, however I believe that animals live more simple lives than us and don't hold grudges or attack without reason. Why do we need to keep people under control? A human who kills other humans will do it whether there's a law against it or not. Animals do lead semi-simpler lives, inasmuch as they don't use computers. And the argument that they don't attack without reason is logical, but dumb. Anything an animal does a human would do if they weren't restrained by morals and codes. And as the idea that morals are a foundation for society: That is true, but with the moral code comes standards. In those standards come restraints. Things become taboo that really shouldn't be (the only thing that comes to mind right now is the homophobia behind the gay-marriage ban) and natural instincts are controlled. When the standards are broken, there is hell to pay. Anarchy and freedom or control and slavery? You decide.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2005 9:48 am
Well, Kant defined morality in his categorical imperitive. wikipedia In his Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, Kant formulates the Categorical Imperative in three different ways: The first (Universal Law formulation): "Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." The second (Humanity or End in Itself formulation): "Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end." The third (Kingdom of Ends formulation) combines the two: "All maxims as proceeding from our own [hypothetical] making of law ought to harmonise with a possible kingdom of ends." Only when put to these maxims, can an action be moral. But, Kant only tells us what we can't do, but not what we can. So, there is a flaw in his theory. Whether morals are good or bad is judgemented on what religion you belong to, what thought processes you have, etc. It really depends on the morals you have. If your morals consist of going around and killing people, then I would suppose that would be bad...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2005 10:21 am
MechaSeraph Why do we need to keep people under control? A human who kills other humans will do it whether there's a law against it or not. Animals do lead semi-simpler lives, inasmuch as they don't use computers. And the argument that they don't attack without reason is logical, but dumb. Anything an animal does a human would do if they weren't restrained by morals and codes. And as the idea that morals are a foundation for society: That is true, but with the moral code comes standards. In those standards come restraints. Things become taboo that really shouldn't be (the only thing that comes to mind right now is the homophobia behind the gay-marriage ban) and natural instincts are controlled. When the standards are broken, there is hell to pay. Anarchy and freedom or control and slavery? You decide.
We definately need morals. And personaly, it's not as if my morals were forced on to me by someone. Morals are a part of being human. Without them there would be chaos. There would be a much larger amount of murders, rapes, beating, muggings, burglary, and other crimes both serious and minor. I would hate and fear living in a world where people had no morals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2005 12:12 pm
TigerCatNails MechaSeraph Why do we need to keep people under control? A human who kills other humans will do it whether there's a law against it or not. Animals do lead semi-simpler lives, inasmuch as they don't use computers. And the argument that they don't attack without reason is logical, but dumb. Anything an animal does a human would do if they weren't restrained by morals and codes. And as the idea that morals are a foundation for society: That is true, but with the moral code comes standards. In those standards come restraints. Things become taboo that really shouldn't be (the only thing that comes to mind right now is the homophobia behind the gay-marriage ban) and natural instincts are controlled. When the standards are broken, there is hell to pay. Anarchy and freedom or control and slavery? You decide.
We definately need morals. And personaly, it's not as if my morals were forced on to me by someone. Morals are a part of being human. Without them there would be chaos. There would be a much larger amount of murders, rapes, beating, muggings, burglary, and other crimes both serious and minor. I would hate and fear living in a world where people had no morals.Seems to me like having no moral values would be a great thing. Seems like without moral values immediately declaring things as "bad", everyone would be open to everything and we'd all get along. Moral values are a double edged sword in several ways. They serve as banners for groups of people to unite under, but also just join them together so they can fight other factions of people who share different beliefs. I think, however, that moral values ARE necessary for the world to be in the barely peaceful condition it now is in. With moral values we have many large groups warring against each other about what they believe, and self perpetuating baises taught down from generation to generation rule the day... we humans are all very stupid, though. Instinct DOES rule in the end, and this instinct is to make yourself as safe and wealthy as possible, screw everyone else. If humans were just a little smarter, a lack of moral values would be perfect. Everyone would accept everything, realizing that nothing can ever be accomplished by taking up opinions. We're all kind of stupid though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2005 12:35 pm
TigerCatNails You're example about the gay-marriage ban doesn't hold out. If we were as animals with out instinct and only followed our 'natural instincts' there wouldn't be any gay/lesbian relationships for animals only mate in order to procreate. And with two guys or two girls procreation is impossible.
Here is a link to a news site regarding a few of the species which enjoy homosexual relationships and/or sex.
Homosexual Animals
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2005 12:45 pm
Bowlin Plato TigerCatNails MechaSeraph Why do we need to keep people under control? A human who kills other humans will do it whether there's a law against it or not. Animals do lead semi-simpler lives, inasmuch as they don't use computers. And the argument that they don't attack without reason is logical, but dumb. Anything an animal does a human would do if they weren't restrained by morals and codes. And as the idea that morals are a foundation for society: That is true, but with the moral code comes standards. In those standards come restraints. Things become taboo that really shouldn't be (the only thing that comes to mind right now is the homophobia behind the gay-marriage ban) and natural instincts are controlled. When the standards are broken, there is hell to pay. Anarchy and freedom or control and slavery? You decide.
We definately need morals. And personaly, it's not as if my morals were forced on to me by someone. Morals are a part of being human. Without them there would be chaos. There would be a much larger amount of murders, rapes, beating, muggings, burglary, and other crimes both serious and minor. I would hate and fear living in a world where people had no morals.Seems to me like having no moral values would be a great thing. Seems like without moral values immediately declaring things as "bad", everyone would be open to everything and we'd all get along. Moral values are a double edged sword in several ways. They serve as banners for groups of people to unite under, but also just join them together so they can fight other factions of people who share different beliefs. I think, however, that moral values ARE necessary for the world to be in the barely peaceful condition it now is in. With moral values we have many large groups warring against each other about what they believe, and self perpetuating baises taught down from generation to generation rule the day... we humans are all very stupid, though. Instinct DOES rule in the end, and this instinct is to make yourself as safe and wealthy as possible, screw everyone else. If humans were just a little smarter, a lack of moral values would be perfect. Everyone would accept everything, realizing that nothing can ever be accomplished by taking up opinions. We're all kind of stupid though. Mmm... You've got a point there. It IS true that people are kinda dumb, but so are animals. And is humanity smart enough to rise above these problems? I don't think so, but I agree with you: If you want to to have a society operating at the same intelligence level that it is currently operating on, except free of moral values, then humanity would need to become smarter. But if society became free of moral values, there would be chaos, but eventually things might set up. Perhaps we'd all become like gorillas and form primitive family groups. Or not. Any other suggestions on what a moraless society would be like?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2005 5:22 pm
Firstly.... domokun . I just had to do that.... to get it out of my system from looking at it and being tempted to use it.
Secondly.... the argument MechaSeraph is making,... is reguarding human nature. Why change things if human beings have natural instincts already instilled in them by nature. Good point to bring up.
In my class experiences with philosophy this exact topic came up. The conclusion we came to was "Just because things are a certain way, doesn't mean they should be that way". Just because we, as human beings, have to fight off our natural insticts to do certain things, doesn't mean we should obey them.
Either Plato or Socrates said (probably Socrates in Plato's work), that emotions of human beings were like a horse. The chariotreer would have to whip these emotions into line when they strayed from the path of the horse representing reason.
Basicly said, just because human nature may tell people to attack other out of jelousy, reason is what keeps us alive and living fairly together. Human instincts have no sense of justice, only emotion. Instincts were in place to keep the human race alive when we had no choice but to live off them in a world that was "nasty, brutish, and short" (to quote Thomas Hobbes out of context). By reasoning, we can create a world where life is not "nasty, brutish, and short" and thus create a fair and just (instead of power driven) enviornment for all people to live in.
I will probably expand on this analysis in the future as well as I put more thought into it. In all due probability I will debate it more than I have, although I'd say my analysis currently is fairly decent, even though I'm always looking to better conclusions and views.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2005 9:39 am
MechaSeraph Morality, as defined by the Oxford New English Dictionary, is, "A particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specific person or society." Every group/religion/society/etc. has a moral code, but should they be there? Are morals a natural part of society? Should they even be there in the first place? I don't believe in a set moral code. Humans are animals. We are subject to the same basic instincts that all other animals are subject to (You can debate on what those basic instincts are). The only difference is that we have decided to suppress those instincts and declared them wrong. We tricked ourselves into believing that by acting against what is natural, we will attain some higher status. Coming from a semi-Protestant background, I believe that we cannot bargain our way into Heaven: People are selected by God to enter heaven, and when you are selected (which is random), you cannot alter it in any way. So, in conclusion, morality is nothing more than an idea that goes against anything natural that humans can or will do. Any other ideas out there on morality? Yes, but, according to Aristotles.. moral can approach us more the the ultimate truth, the virtue. And that was like being closer to the gods..andsomething like that, but in the end, the virtue is thinking. So, yes, I believe that a moral code is neccesary, whether is to support it or reject it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2005 1:36 pm
Bowlin Plato Moral values are a double edged sword in several ways. They serve as banners for groups of people to unite under, but also just join them together so they can fight other factions of people who share different beliefs. I aggree with the idea of morals being a double-edged sword, and that they are often used to 'attack' or 'disregard' a group of individuals, because their morals or ideas may be different. I think there are some 'universal' morals that everyone should stick to, and that with these in place then perhaps society would be better off. One of these morals would include respect for everyone's walk of life, no matter, age, race, sex, creed, sexual-orientation. You don't have to like the person, but you should respect them as an individual with different ideas, emotions and beliefs. To forget this (as in the case with morals) would be an incredibly confusing place. As well, our law system would be horrid, and not just in our rather 'sane' countries (such as America, The UK, and Canada) where are moral codes are usually* governed on respect and individuality. Without this law-governed 'respect' policy, what would stop someone (or a group) from committing genocide? As long as 'universal' morals are followed, I don't mind if someone thinks something different... *Usually, because sometimes the law does fall apart, I know that the United States is still having a bit of an issue with Gay marraige and lifestyles being legal, even in Canada some laws need to be relaxed and re-settled...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2005 11:24 pm
Are morals one of the things that define us as different from the rest of the animal kingdom? I'm not so sure. Can we say, without a doubt, whether animals can recognize if they are doing something bad or good. I've seen dogs and other pets misbehave and KNOW they were misbehaving... which I interpret from their tail between their legs, ears down or cowering.
I think morals ARE necessary for a stable society. We all need to agree what's wrong and what's right and where to draw the line. The problem within the US is that we get too specific with this, I think. To me, the one great law should be "Don't ******** with other people or their s**t." And worded exactly like that, too. ha ha...
But if children are raised to say their P's & Q's (Please and thankQ's) and trained to identify when they have disrespected someone else, then the world would be a much friendlier place. I think a comparison of Japan to the US is an excellent example. In Japan, respect is very high within their morals. In the past this has caused them many wars over honor, but in their current society it keeps everyone very open and supportive of each other. While, within the US, many children go by the motto "******** you" which may very well be shared by their parents - and this only deteriorates society. If I'm broken down on the side of the road, I want someone to have the morals of doing good in the world and stopping to help, or at least to ask if I need help. Also, within the US, crimes against each other are much higher as far as stealing, killing, etc. We have no respect as our morals are deteriorating faster than any other country, I think.
I'm not saying that we all have to be religiously moral... as religion is just a medium to teach people to be good to each other and the world around them. We just need to realize that WE affect EVERYTHING and without morals we would destroy even more carelessly than we already do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 5:59 am
It is inevitable.
As a creature blessed with an unnaturally large brain and no real objective code for behaviour, we can choose to form our own morals, choose a prepackaged set of morals, or dispense with the whole concept altogether.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
