It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Moral Deficit

page: 10
12
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 


Oh alright. I agree with you.




posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by theBigToe
reply to post by batgirl
 


Okay. But its his right to decide for himself if he wants to go out and sledgehammer whatever or whoever he wants for whatever reason he wants. I can give you an example of violence happening for every reason that you can possibly think of. There is a rational law in place that everybody has to abide by. He is going to have to face the legal consequences of imposing harm to a person or a persons property. You can disapprove of whatever you want, that is your right to have your opinion, just as its their right to have their opinion, but denying him his right to that opinion is morally reprehensible, far more atrocious then whatever kind of offense he wants to perpetuate.


You have misunderstood me. He didn't break any laws that I know of. He bought the machine, he didn't steal it or hurt anyone. I AGREE with what he did. That's why I put it in there, I completely understand why he did it and I'm on his side. Why he wore a mask, who knows, maybe there is some law against smashing electronics in a Walmart parking lot. I say, all the power to him.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   
To the philosophically illiterate, moral relativists, you are supposed to act with the aim to be free human beings; to this end, you are capable, and are supposed to apply the ethical functions of your brain, but you don't. That is why, you are the reason why human society is in a state of moral decline - you fail to see, separation of church and state doesn't necessitate separation of ethics and governmental practice; your treatment of governmental practice as amoral causes government to treat you as an amoral object, and not the morally relevant subjects which you are. You fail to see, social practices must have ethical justification, or else they yield unethical results. They treat you as you treat them. It all comes back to you. So choose wisely. Treat government and social instituions with the recognition that whatever is political has ethical implications for everyone. You allow government to treat social institutions as amoral things. Consequently, families tend to be dysfuncitonal, media acts to deceive, schools are maleducational, and "justice" systems become injustice systems run by criminals - the laws are excessive, and most laws are invalid, without just bases, without rational, logical or ethical bases; the injustice system disregards true criminals and neglects to respond to their crimes as such. The legal system is oppressive and, in particular, classist, designed to serve only the very rich, supporting dictatorship by the financial elite. 'Legal' tyranny prevails, and it is the fault of the relativists and nihilists - it is your fault!

The moral relativists tend to be amoral, blind to recognition of what is transhistorically ethical; even worse, they assume that there is nothing to see about the transhistorical good, only because they are not capable of seeing it themselves. They need to acknowledge that solely because they are blind to the ideal form of the good doesn't mean that everyone else is. Ethical blindness is prevalent among the moral relativists - unless one is born psychopath with an amoral brain incapable of much moral cognitive processing, ethical blindness is normally a socially learned blindness that occurs when one is culturally conditioned to be unable to distinguish between morality and the good, the just, the ethical...through a maleducational and deceptive indoctrination designed to make them unconscious of their inherent ethical nature. Moral relativists are misguided by their false view that morality is only a matter of opinion, into a dead end blind spot, in their faculty of judgement, for the transhistorical nature of the truth of the existence of good, and the required life-serving conditions for justice.

There is such thing as ethics, and, even more impotant, natural ethics. Natural ethics is based on a life-grounded and rationally-grounded value system - it is an innate programming language of the ethically and socially intelligent, human mind, what distinguished it from life forms of lesser intelligence. People that disconnect from this part of their nature become immoral, and moral relativists or nihilists. The worth of a particular value system is not only the matter of opinion which the moral relavists ignorantly mislead and foolishly claim. Morality is not only subjective, as they say. It is objective, and measurable by the consequences of one's actions for the capacity of one's Life force to progress, and articulate itself in mutual cooperation with others such respective, freedom purposive, developmental efforts. The worth of a moral value is measurable by its consequences for Life and its capacity to sustain and grow itself; the more a moral value has favourable effects for the development of life, the more life-serving and naturally-grounded. Recognize this: Life holds itself of the highest value. Life inherently values itself - it is an innate value of all life forms to sustains themselves, and thrive as far possible under their environmental circumsances. Freedom is the capacity to mutually sustain growth. It is by these two main truths about life and its connection to freedom that natural ethics regards the determination of justice.

Government needs to reconnect to the natural ethics of the species mind for government to be enabled to serve a force of social good. Otherwise, when government is treated as an amoral thing, it acts as a force of tyranny and evil, and must be replaced; legal anarchy is the inevitable result of tyranny, when laws are invalid, they need to be recognized as such, and not allowed to act as that which logic shows they are not. A particular crime is not a crime just because an 'elite' group puts up social structures to claim it is. There is such thing as a rational basis for such legal identifications, and not merely socially contingent, arbitrary designations. Moral relativists, you need to recognize that not only is morality objective, so is the law. That is a good starting point for an ethical revolution.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by batgirl
 


He paid for it he can do whatever he wants to do with it. Unethical? yeah, Obnoxious? yeah, Immoral? no. While being immensely inconsiderate and rude, no one needs a new PS3, Wii or Xbox 360 to live. He waited in line and paid for his merchandise just like they did. What he chose to do with it is none of your business.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by KeliOnyx
 


Did you guys even read my initial post??? How many times do I need to say it?? I AGREED WITH WHAT HE DID!!! I'm GLAD he smashed the hell out of it. I thought that was clear.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by newsoul
 


The following is directed to the "generic you" and not the OP in particular.


Your morals are YOURS. You can't hold other people to your morals.

Morals can not be legislated. Each person has his or her own and should be free to live within their moral structure as long as they obey the laws of the land.

To many, abortion is not immoral. It's not for me to say whether it's immoral for YOU to have an abortion. It's a personal choice and if it's a problem with your God, then you two can deal with it at some point.

My morals are none of your business and you have NO right to try to legislate that others behave according to YOUR morals.

If you think abortion is "killing unborn children", then DON'T DO IT. But stay OUT of MY business and MY womb and don't call on big government to legislate how I behave just so you feel superior and in control.


A very cogent response.

I would stay out of your business as long as you practiced your concept of morality in your own home or property.

Otherwise, we'd have a conversation....without speaking.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   
I really like the op and do agree that there is some amount of loss of morality in the US over the recent years. I would phrase it more along the lines of loss of value of human life vs morality since everyone does have different morals.

not to say years ago we didn't have gladiator arenas, public decapitations, assassinatiions, ect



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   
I don't see a moral deficit in society, I see a lack of principles.

Principles hold common between religions, cultures, etc. When principles fade, then respect for others fades also.
Give you an example.
I have no moral objection for someone to steal from a giant corporation..it is a complex reasoning behind it, but ultimately thats not some moral issue..its an issue of principles though. on principle I object to stealing overall unless it is for survival.

I have no moral objection to someone trying to gain as much as they can, but I feel their principles are at stake when they are taking food from the poor and stupid in order to pad themselves a bit more.

morally I don't care about people cursing, but I think on principle people should try to use such words sparingly and for purpose verses a filler for lacking the ability to think.

So ya..principles, not morality, is where I see the issue. Morally speaking, let people do what they want and harm none. principles should fill in the rest...and that is where parenting and schools need to step up. drop the morals and simply discuss principles and honor we all hold and must actively try to retain.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by thatscotland
 


Are you the OP?



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucidia
To the philosophically illiterate, moral relativists, you are supposed to act with the aim to be free human beings; to this end, you are capable, and are supposed to apply the ethical functions of your brain, but you don't. That is why, you are the reason why human society is in a state of moral decline - you fail to see, separation of church and state doesn't necessitate separation of ethics and governmental practice;


Well that is a lot of hooey.
I am a moral relativist, and I am quite ethical
Ethics has little to do with morality and more to do with principles.

Morally, I can murder anyone not of my faith because they are evil.
See, now you are a moral relativist if you take exception to this statement

My principles, which may have a foot in morality, means I will not harm other people no matter what unless in physical self defense, because that is how society should be run, else everyone will be murdering one another over their morals...I may get away with it, and my religion may allow for it, but my principles will not allow for me to do it.
See the difference?

Morals..bah, toss em..principles are what is far more important in society..principes leads way to ethics. morals leads way to rightousness. I would rather live in a society with no morals but humanistic principles than high morals and no principles...because morals -are- relative



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucidia
 


What a load of psychobabble.

You seem to be indicating that if people in a country are good, moral people, so will their government. Am i incorrect in this assumption? When people become corrupt, so too does their government?

I suppose North Koreans, Saudi Arabians, Iranians, Chineses and more must be horrible people, as their governments are very restrictive.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by DCPatriot
 



Originally posted by DCPatriot
I would stay out of your business as long as you practiced your concept of morality in your own home or property.

Otherwise, we'd have a conversation....without speaking.


My morality goes with me everywhere I go. I will practice it wherever I choose to.

And... "a conversation without speaking"? Is that some sort of threat?



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by DCPatriot

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by newsoul
 


The following is directed to the "generic you" and not the OP in particular.


Your morals are YOURS. You can't hold other people to your morals.

Morals can not be legislated. Each person has his or her own and should be free to live within their moral structure as long as they obey the laws of the land.

To many, abortion is not immoral. It's not for me to say whether it's immoral for YOU to have an abortion. It's a personal choice and if it's a problem with your God, then you two can deal with it at some point.

My morals are none of your business and you have NO right to try to legislate that others behave according to YOUR morals.

If you think abortion is "killing unborn children", then DON'T DO IT. But stay OUT of MY business and MY womb and don't call on big government to legislate how I behave just so you feel superior and in control.


A very cogent response.

I would stay out of your business as long as you practiced your concept of morality in your own home or property.

Otherwise, we'd have a conversation....without speaking.


Don't you think that is a little childish, or is that just you? What concept of morality if not kept behind closed doors would you carry out such a ridiculous juvenile threat on? One that is legislated within the laws of your country but you find exception to? If that is the case then sorry, you need to grow up. One that is illegal and socially very unacceptable? Then you aren't Judge Dredd even if you would like to think you are.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by newsoul
 





I asked a question in regards to where do YOU see moral deficits in our society.


The implication that morals carry a lesson would imply that even those with lack of morals have their own lessons to learn. I would say the biggest moral deficit is some group or person imposing their will on others who do not conform to their way of thinking.

Provided it does no harm to others, in the privacy of each persons life, they should be free to live it as they see fit and learn their own lessons. I think being dictated to is a Moral Deficit.

Cheers



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by newsoul
 


Define your morals, or better yet hold up a mirror to yourself or your soul.

But know this everybody sees different things in that mirror, do not be surprised if you do not see eye to eye.


I would state your moral more clearly and better yet number them so we know what your talking about, and what your possibly selling. So far the only thing I seen is something about abortions and promiscuity, the mystery that is sex and why it sells, and a question of why power has a habit of walking on crooked feet.

I agree with some with some I do not, for instance i think females should be able to have abortions for whatever reasons they have, but I also agree that something should be done about the promiscuity that leads to such things you know consequences and all. So as you can see it is all just individual reverences and perspectives.

As for whole things about sexuality being exploited for monetary gain aka sex sell. Some are there willingly and some even seek that no matter what you think, and some are not. The only thing I agree on that is to give those who are not there willingly other options.

And as to why people in power have a habit of being more corrupt or the most corrupt, or as you put it.


The people in our country who are supposed to be held to a higher moral standard are quite possibly the biggest liars, cheaters and scammers around.


I think a facepalm would be sufficient in explaining that. But I could not find one that expresses the fail. And so I will quote a dead man.


'What Is it my fault that power likes to walk on crooked legs?"

....Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche


Morals morals morals, everybody has morals and there morals always seem to change depending on the circumstances.

Is there a moral deficiency?.

No more or less then there has ever been in history, in fact it is somewhat a bit more moral today then it was in history. Even in the supposed past that most people think was the epitome and shining example of moral etiquette...It was not.... They just happen to not know history all that well, everybody has different versions of history. Mostly the versions they want to see. There moral version of things.
edit on 25-1-2012 by galadofwarthethird because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 11:37 AM
link   
In ancient times, politics and ethics were recognized as being inevitably tied by their nature; political practice was understood as having consequences that are un/ethically relevant for people's lives. Knowing that this causal connection between the political and ethical fields is unavoidable, one must agree that political practices should be based on morality that is consistent with ethics. The moral decline being experienced by socity today is based primarily on a lack of this recognition, and a demand for the impossible, that government should be secular, act coldly, and amorally with only focus on the technical, and not ethical, in achieving given objectives, with disregard for the ethical issues of who or what group of people are allowed to dictate and unfairly set objectives for political practices.

Regardless of secular demands, government exhibits a morality, and it is technically impossible for it to avoid having a morality. A morality is not necessarily based on a particular religion; morality can be entirely philosophically-grounded, and thus consistent with ethics. Government does dictate a morality, already, and for long, that of those that influence it the most, of the very rich. Thus the political system allows a dictatorship by the financial elite, not only on financial, but also on moral matters. Knowing that it is impossible for government to be fully detached from morality, that it inevitably expresses a morality through the effectual nature of its practices, we should demand that government's morality is consistent with ethics, as I suggested, with a naturalized life-serving ethics that facilitates the growth of the human life force of everyone.

Moral reletavists object to this line of reasoning, because they are of the mindset that the political and ethical should be treated as entirely separate, even though in actuality these by their own very nature are not entirely separate things. For a moral demand that something should or should not be done to have logical merit requires that the thing being demanded is technically possible, realizeable, or doable. In this case, it is not. Government cannot avoid having and expressing a morality. Right now, it expresses the morality of the most criminal, and corrupt, very rich, of those that can afford the most influence over it.

My main point is that people need to demand that the morality government supports should be changed to a morality that is consistent with ethics. So long as people demand that in regards to whatever the issues that most concern them, at least they tried, and fulfilled their civil and democratic responsiblity to provide that feedback. If government chooses to behave tyrannically regardless of the feedback people give it, then it is not the ordinary people's fault, but that of the group of people dictating the government's policy- and decision making.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucidia
 


I'm embarrassed to say that I only recently (yesterday, in fact) understood what moral relativism is. I had always read the question, "Is there really such a thing as good and evil?" and I would wonder... wtf does that mean? But I never put any thought into it... But yesterday, while I was in a very philosophical mood, I actually stumbled upon the meaning myself...

You see, I was watching a show about some Amish kids who went out into the 'real world' to experience it. One Amish girl was very uncomfortable because the non-Amish girls were acting like they were 'equal to the boys'. She was concerned because they weren't modestly dressed (bikinis) and she felt they were not 'in their place'... beneath boys. "They were trying to step up and be equal to the boys", she said.

I realized that we all have our ideas about how life should be, how we should operate toward each other, and what is "right and wrong" in this world... We are TAUGHT these things as we grow up in our society. We learn and believe what we are taught. These Amish girls learned and believed that boys are 'above' girls and girls should stay in their place, behave within certain stricter standards and wear modest clothing (among MANY other beliefs I would consider VERY different). These are their morals. It's how they were taught.

It occurred to me that ALL of us are raised and taught to behave according to a certain set of morals. Of course, we become adults and some of us may realize that we don't really agree with what we were taught and our morals can change...

The morals of people who are born in other parts of the world are VERY different then mine. For ANYONE to think that they got lucky enough to be born into the society that has the "right" set morals, is a bit naive, IMO.

So, while I have a strong set of morals, I don't believe there are certain things that are "wrong" or "right". One's morals are going to be determined by the environment in which they are raised. Morals are DEPENDENT on one's environment. Morals are relative to the situation.

Is stealing wrong? Yes.
Is stealing a loaf of bread to feed a hungry child wrong? No.

So, you can slam moral relativity all you want and call us any name you might like.
Because now that I know what it means and I know that I am one, and I know what I'm talking about, I realize that you don't.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 





Is stealing wrong? Yes. Is stealing a loaf of bread to feed a hungry child wrong? No.


I would like to point out that this is not what moral relativism means. Absolute morality may also depend on situation or circumstances. But under the same circumstances, there is some objectively right decision, as opposed to moral relativism.
edit on 29/1/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   
Is moral relativism moral or immoral?



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by batgirl
 
Is sponge pudding better with custard or cream?will my my choice be morally relevant?



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join