Societal Morals and Ethics

Disclaimer: I understand that I am going to get a lock of flack for the subjects I mention in this topic however please do not misconstrue my meaning. I am in no way advocating or saying the acts mentioned inside this topic. With that said, if you do NOT have an open mind to human psychology and enough willpower to question yourself and the thoughts of society as a whole, then please, move along and save the insults and barraging of the topic. Thank you.



OK. In life we are raised to believe a system of laws based on morals and ethics. Most of these are derived from religious structures of days of old. Some of them seem to be embedded into the human psyche. For instance, it is considered "normal" for a person to know that killing is wrong unless it is for the purpose of survival. It is claimed to be "normal" to know and understand that it is wrong to fornicate with an 'underage' person. My question about these, and many other ethics, is why?

I will touch onto the two I mentioned and allow room for other topics to manifest. Let us start with murder.

Since the history of mankind, man killing fellow man has been a part of that. Even in religious texts the earliest men have been known to kill their fellow men. It is because of some of these religious texts, particularly "Thou shall not kill" in which the morally dilemma is aroused. Murder as we define it today has been something that has gone on for millennia, and in the past it was not consider as harshly as it is considered today. Today, murder is considered a most heinous act while centuries ago, probably half of the population of man had resorted to murder at some point in their lives, be it defense or in war.

Perhaps it is due to our grown intelligence, perhaps it is our grown appreciation for life. Today we can appreciate the precious nature of life simply because we understand it more. With religions being questioned my even those who are most devout, all of a sudden the question comes to mind as to if their actually is an afterlife, and if their isn't, perhaps life is more precious than once thought?

I have never killed a man and hope that I do not have to, however, I have heard from men who have and I am told that after you do so you are changed. You know of the act which you have committed and it is because of this embedded feeling, the feeling of having destroyed the life force of a fellow human being, that we are intrinsically against murder.




Now let me move on to the next situation. The case of pedophilia and child molestation has only become prominent in society it seems in much more recent times. Much to the surprise of many, "pedophilia" as we call it has been around much longer than believed yet only recently has it been brought to the spotlight and begun to be questioned.

This can be attributed to advancements in science and biological studies showing the age a child matures both physically and mentally, and it is because of this new information that the acts have become so questionable. I'm sure in the past it was very much frowned upon and perhaps led to mass violence or death, however, today the calling for death for such abusers of the relatively "new" moral of society is becoming quite common.

Here is where the difference comes into play. Having spoken to both murderers and 'sexual predators' I notice a severe difference. While murderers realize that the murder was wrong and generally accept their fate (unless mental instability is an issue) sexual predators are far less likely to feel that "embedded feeling" of wrong that has come to be associated with murder. Yet the society backlash for this is equal to or sometimes FAR WORSE than that of a murderer.



My question is why?


Take a moment to think about what YOU believe in. Take a moment to think about YOUR morals and ethics. Answer a few questions about them:

1. Do you believe _______ is wrong?
2. Do the beliefs of society in general create your belief or is it your own?
3. Why do you believe _______ is wrong?
4. Does _______ cause any actual harm?

The main question is #2? Do you actually believe something to be intrinsically 'wrong' or is your belief based on the collective follower beliefs of society?

Do YOU believe murder is wrong based on your own decisions and thoughts or based on the outlook of society upon the act?

Do YOU believe pedophilia is wrong based on your own decisions and thoughts or based on the outlook of society upon the act?

Do YOU believe bestiality is wrong based on your own decisions and thoughts or based on the outlook of society upon the act?

Do YOU believe polygamy is wrong based on your own decisions and thoughts or based on the outlook of society upon the act?

Do YOU believe sodomy is wrong based on your own decisions and thoughts or based on the outlook of society upon the act?

Do YOU believe polyamory is wrong based on your own decisions and thoughts or based on the outlook of society upon the act?





The list can go on an on but how many of these things are intrinsically 'wrong' based on our DNA and history, and how many of these are simply belief systems set up by societies, and only deemed to be wrong based on the prosecution of those involved?

This should provide for some interesting conversation but let us all be mature about it. Thought and opinions?

I admire your thread topic and feel it may be hard for some to reply. I believe we need to get back to basics. To heck with society, dogma, philosophy, science. We need to listen to what we felt was right when we were four or five. We need to get in touch with our innate sense of right and wrong, our conscience, and be real again.
Love to all.

We are social animals. We have evolved little since our days as hunter gatherers (not at all really). And since that time our ideas on morality have changed as the nature of our society has changed. Mistakes and unhappiness bring about change in our society and in turn our morality and ethical behavior.

Women for example, have not been subjected to being married off at very young ages because they have gained a greater voice, which in itself was brought about by another social situation.

Ancient Greece found it perfectly normal to sexually use young boys for their carnal desires. These days such people are forced to hide in the church, really the only place such a person can hide.

Ultimately, our society will evolve to the point where we will shed all of the old ways and morals that will lack hypocrisy and will serve us all and not a select few. Conservatism in all it's forms always fails. You cannot stop evolution.

reply to post by CestLaVie


I agree and thus is basically the point I am trying to make.

Much like people will choose to believe the mass media and the government wholly and at face value, it becomes questionable as to if our ethics and morals are even rational and genuine. Did we as a specie create them through out conscience or subconscious minds or are we simply following the path of others wants more and blindly following with no actual reason as to why?

If a person is able to question and answer WHY he or she believes something, and the answer if based on their own decisions, then they have the ability to think for themselves and thus "wake up" as we on ATS would call it. Otherwise they are simply drones who believe that 'fitting in' is the best course of action, no matter WHY you are doing it.





reply to post by Bahb3


It is true that our ideas of morality have evolved from society, but the majority of these ideas were never "wrong" in the first place. There had to be one person who decided, for instance, that having multiple wives was a "wrong" practice even though history did nothing to prove this. Thus, what was once considered acceptable (and still is for lots of the world) is somehow deemed illegal and savage in the United States. It, above all, is not a genuine moral at all and is based on the sheep/shepard principle rather than a critical thinking base.


My true question is WHY? Why do we choose to follow the morals of an individual over our own beliefs and conclusions? Why is it the minority that actually has the ability to think and draw conclusions about such things on their own power, not because someone says it was wrong?

I'm quickly becoming a fan of your outlook and lack of fear to approach typically emotional topics...good on ya

now that the ego stroke is done :-p

Let's get to the meat of this issue as I see.

Culture is a hell of a thing when you think of societal differences. There are tribes in Africa who practice male-to-male incestual pedophilia as a right of passge to becoming a man. There are socities where when a member of the elderly becomes (for lack of a better term...and I am sorry to say it this way) 'useless' they are basically left to die. Even if you look at more 'advanced' socities you can that in some countries issues such as homosexuality are non-issues.

I have a real hard time believing that if it weren't for religion we'd have no laws as some may have us think. So here we are in this thread based on a really fantastic question that so many would prefer to avoid. Is something intrinsically wrong or is it based on societal ideas?

So here is my short answer...do no harm

The question is, who determines harm? It's the victim that determines harm in my opinion. So let's look at some of your options here

We'll start with the whammy...pedophilia. Intrinsic or extrinsic? Does it do harm? Well ask yourself this...have you (using you as a general term) damaged that little girl by sleeping with her? Have you changed that young boy's life by doing the same? Time after time and study after study shows (even the easy-to-insult- Freud) will tell you that performing such negative actions on a child can cause severe repression and a massive host of negative manifestations and disorders. So yes in this case it has to be intrinsic. I don't need a bible or a law to tell me that sleeping with a 12 year old is bad for her. Even if I did and never served a lick of jail time that girl is NOT the same.

What about what I think is the whopper of ethical discussion on 'do no harm.' (OP feel free to not answer if you think this question derails your topic...if you do I will edit it out.

Suicide...who does it harm? does it harm the person who commited the act? Well that's hard to tell...what if that person truly wanted to die...are we allowed to say no? AHH but now the rub...what about the family left behind? Are we allowed to call them victims?

Aweseome thread GB...S/F

-Kyo

reply to post by gwydionblack


Interesting thread. Good on you OP for having the balls to talk about these issues and receive potential backlash from those who don't quite understand what you are trying to convey.

As for the topic, I think our soul has a lot more to do with murder than one thinks. You say you've spoken to those who were either forced to take a life, or chose to take a life and that they have been changed.

My belief is that when you end a life, of a human being, you shatter your soul. That sounds a little harsh, but I believe it to be true. A small part of yourself dies with the person who is no longer among the living.

Do I think Pedophilia is worse than murder? Yes.

A child who is molested must live with the consequences of ANOTHER'S choices for the rest of their lives. They have a shattered soul from that experience and it takes years to rebuild the self confidence, and self worth lost after such a traumatic experience.

As far as bestiality, I think that inherintly we are not meant to lay with animals and animals cannot consent to such things therefore it's wrong IMO.

As for poligamy, I don't think it's wrong. If two or more people want to live their lives with each other, be it 1 man and 3 women or the opposite, who are we to tell them that it is wrong?

That sort of thing has been around for a millenia as well, now mostly due to slavery and arranged marriages, but if it's a matter of choice, and all parties involved are willing, all the power to you.

I won't touch on the aspect of homosexuality that you have listed, I am gay and don't wanna open that can of worms and potentially derail your thread. In short I obviously do not have a problem with it.

So those are my thoughts. S&F for yours.

~Keeper

reply to post by KyoZero


Thanks for the ego stroke. Much appreciated.

I have a real hard time believing that if it weren't for religion we'd have no laws as some may have us think.

Struggling with religion my entire life I see this as the case as well. I have always perceived most religions to be for the "greater good" and see them from a philosophical view moreso than a spiritual view that others would tend to lean towards.

Is something intrinsically wrong or is it based on societal ideas?

The horrible thing about it is that even if something isn't intrinsically wrong, but yet is embedded into a society as wrong - it is quite literally impossible to be a part of minority that would choose to acknowledge or stand against society. In the end it leaves you with a feeling of entrapment because these standards are forced upon you no matter what your thoughts of the situation actually are.

So here is my short answer...do no harm

The question is, who determines harm?

This is indeed a whopper of a question and is not derailing, merely digging deeper. Ultimately you could argue that everything you do might cause harm to another. "Harm" would mean that damage would be incurred be it physically or mentally, however, the secondary definition or "harm" basically labels harm as "wrong".

Wrong in all its essential glory means to be against something morally "right" or "good", which is all just a matter of opinion. A bolder and more genuine definition of wrong would be "out of order" or "not in accordance with a standard".

With that the system collapses back upon itself with the same question - where does "right" come from? From ourselves or from the rest of society who in turn adopted it from other societies? Is the essence of "right" or "wrong" something we as humans have developed throughout our growth and evolution or is the concept something that began with the first existence of matter in the universe?

Harm is simply damage, but who determines damaged? Though one may act out of the ordinary, it is only though our perceptions that we consider them "damaged". What if, instead they were fixed? What leads us to believe that the results of the acts we commit are necessarily damaging simply because they cause an individual to be different?


reply to post by tothetenthpower

My belief is that when you end a life, of a human being, you shatter your soul.

I agree with you on this. Though I can't quite comprehend the scope of a 'soul' for better or for worse, the underlying humanity of a person is definitely disjointed from such an act.

A child who is molested must live with the consequences of ANOTHER'S choices for the rest of their lives.

Ah, but which is worse? LIVING based on another persons actions or DYING based on another person's actions? This would pose the question is DEATH the better alternative as opposed to living an altered, damaged life?

Personally, I look at the scenario that I do not understand death and being unable to prove an afterlife I must look at death as the end of existence, at least for the physical body. Based upon what I KNOW, I would have to conclude that living, even while in a damaged state, is a much better options that dying and perhaps facing the consequence of non-existence.

Having been suicidal years ago this was the rationale I used in order to talk myself out of it. However, that is not to say that my rational is correct or unchanging - it is simply based upon what I know and what I perceive.

They have a shattered soul from that experience and it takes years to rebuild the self confidence, and self worth lost after such a traumatic experience.

I would have to question this as a self-fulfilling prophesy of sorts. We don't exactly have psychological records of victims of pedophilia in the far past, yet we know that it existed based on our definition today. We cannot say that those who were "victims" when it was less frowned upon did not face psychological problems and traumatic times - but there is no proof that they did.

Therefore I beg the question - could the loss of self-confidence, traumatization, and psychological degradation be not based on the act itself - but upon the fact that society treats them as the victim and thus instills the "symptoms" onto them? Hypothetically, if I was 'touched' as a child and grew up with society never mentioning it, I could say that most likely I would grow up a normal person.

The same symptoms can be assessed by looking at corporal punishment. Less than half a century ago, the act of corporal punishment was considered normal and a part of raising a child. The child grew up to be relatively normal throughout history based upon this. To disagree would be to say that the majority of people in the past were mentally damaged by the punishment.

HOWEVER, once corporal punishment came into the spotlight and was deemed wrong, it was only then that the masses started recognizing these "psychological effects" and that the people involved in such things started being classified as victims. Thus being classified as the victim by society, they have no choice but to feel like they are abnormal and start fulfilling the expectations of one in their shoes.

I look back on history when corporal punishment was common and I look at people today - I see no real difference in their attitudes or their actions - in fact I believe that the removal of corporal punishment degraded society even more, but that is a story for another time. The only difference is the fact that a new set of "VICTIMS" were created and thus a new ethical and moral code was written, not based upon right or wrong, but upon the choice of society.

As far as bestiality, I think that inherently we are not meant to lay with animals and animals cannot consent to such things therefore it's wrong IMO.

Ah, but do animals consent to you butchering them en masse? Do they consent when we decide to destroy their homes to make ours? Do they consent with fellow animals to mate?

The dice rolls all ways which is why the subject is so touchy.

As for poligamy, I don't think it's wrong.

But does what YOU think really matter? I do not thing it is wrong either, however, society seems to be against us. Even if it was consenting and mutual, most of society looks upon the act of polygamy as wrong for no other reason that that they are told it is wrong.

I won't touch on the aspect of homosexuality that you have listed,

It is a keen point and as long as people stay civil it shouldn't derail. I do not believe it is wrong either but once again, it is self-interpretation versus societal thought. Slowly the independent mind is white washed and replaced with a carbon copy of the rest of society and the more I look into it, the more sickened I become.





The problem with society is the fact that has been brought up already - that we are not allowed to question the morals and ethics we are given. To even question them, to most people, automatically labels us as opposition to the masses and thus "wrong" based on their written laws, which are based upon morals and ethics.


I suppose when you think about it, it is impossible to impose a system of laws without setting a standard for morals and ethics - however, it must be realized that with changes to morals and ethics, the laws must be changed to compensate.

Perhaps we have too many morals and that is why systems of laws or so overbearing and controlling. Perhaps simple, individual life is impossible in today's world.