The Moral Deficit

reply to post by newsoul

Originally posted by newsoul
You believe that you should be allowed whatever freedoms that make you happy.

You're telling me what I believe, now... You don't know what I believe.

I believe we ALL should be free to exercise the freedoms that are OURS, whether we exercise them to make ourselves happy or not. They are ours. We are not "allowed" them by our government. I believe that I am autonomous and I govern myself. As long as I obey the laws, I'm good. My morals are no one's business.

I didn't say you mentioned God or religion. I mentioned it because many think religion has something to do with morals. And I see now that you're against separation of church and state. That explains a lot.

If I seem aggressive, it's because
I think it's morally wrong to judge someone based on their sexuality or consensual sexual behavior.
I think it's morally wrong to try to legislate morals for a whole society.
I'm not meaning to be aggressive. I'm stating my strong position on this subject.

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

I don't see a lot of moral deficit on our society, except for those people who can't seem to mind their own business and leave other people alone.

Where I do see a moral deficit is in government and corporations. The people are fine. It's those in power whose greed, hunger and lack of moral fortitude is most apparent.

And there is no law that allows abortion. It's not the government's business. Roe V Wade is a Supreme Court case and it was decided that you have no business in my womb. If you don't want an abortion, don't get one.

.

"There were no morals until religion came around and decided to make you think differently, or more accurately guilty about everything that wasn't or was written in those books of theirs." -quoted from above

This is simply not true. Moral instincts are inborn. This has been proven by neurological research. We are born with the capacity and need for empathy (or in the case of psychopaths, not).

That is not to say that the inborn instincts cannot be overcome. Trauma can induce subsequent behavior that we generally refer to as sociopathic.

I've seen several people state Religion IS Morality (or Ethics) .. it's not. to say so would be to say an atheist has no morals.. or an agnostic, or like myself a Deist. Morals mostly come from our up bringing .. for many that is religion .. for most it has a lot (a LOT) to do with how your parents raise you. But nothing, not your religion, upbringing, social class, race, whatever .. nothing defines who you are unless you allow it to define who you are. Religion for many acts as a road map for morality .. great. Awesome. Glad you found something. For many others it's a variety of other things, an infinite combination of experiences, thoughts, background and beliefs. Someone claiming to have higher moral standards doesn't necessarily mean they are religious.. just pompous asses.

Originally posted by newsoul
reply to post by tothetenthpower

 

Unfortunately I do not know how to link articles, but I am sure you can find plenty if you search the internet. There have been countless incidence where a homeowner was robbed only to be sued by the burglar, and the buglar actually won the case. One particular incident that I can recall was of a burglar falling into a sunken living room and getting injured, he sued the homeowner and won. Does this seem moral to you? If you break into my home and I shoot you, should you have a right to sue me?

Just because someone claims it is their RIGHT, doesn't make it right.

What? That doesn't have anything to do with anything.

No it's not "moral", what you should asking is if it's lawfull. Morality has nothing to do with it, as it's subjective.

The only rights you can claim are those that were given to you by law, and by God. ( and no I am NOT a religious person)

Basically as far as the original proper law of the land, God made everything, died and then left it all to you in his last will and testament. Nobody can give, take or make up new rights.

Your example has little to do with rights or morality. It's just exposing how crooked the system is.

~Tenth

reply to post by newsoul
Secular humanists (in my humble opinion) have done a great deal in replacing traditional morality with the assistance of government. Government doesn't (didn't) like having to answer to any authority other than itself.

Hence, people started redefining morals in n attempt to eliminate any type of authority that they didn't "like" or agree with.

"If it feels good, do it." So the saying went.

reply to post by Grumble


Most people who study this issue would agree that "morality" was just an evolutionary requirement. Basically giving up greed for common goals and working together in order to improve the species evolutionary fitness.

Today's version of morality, where we ask are gays moral? Is abortion moral? Is smoking moral? And continue with a million other questions, is nonsense.

These are not moral issues, they are personal belief and opinion issues, and the two should not be mistaken for one another.

The only morality that should exist is from what I posted in my first response to the OP. Whether you killed, harmed, caused significant loss, or were purposefully dis-honest in your dealings.

Anything other set of rules or "moral code" is completely un-necessary and it's actually immoral to attempt to make anybody but yourself subscribe to any such code.

~Tenth

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I am astonished (but not surprised) by some of the comments that I have received in this thread. I do believe that abortion is wrong, but that has nothing to do with my belief in God or a higher being or the Creator. It has to do with the fact that I think killing is wrong. I also never said anything about homosexuality. I said sexual deviance. Which could mean adultry, promiscuity, beastiality. I gave some examples of what I consider immoral behavior, and I asked what you consider immoral behavior. You have gotten very defensive, I never attacked you personally. I asked for your opinion.

reply to post by tothetenthpower



The difference between what is considered right and what is wrong. I criminal winning a lawsuit against a homeowner, to me that is wrong.

Originally posted by newsoul
reply to post by tothetenthpower

 

If you break into my home and I shoot you, should you have a right to sue me?

No, because the person, in my case at least, would be dead. Break into my house and you'll leave in a body bag.

Originally posted by newsoul
Just because someone claims it is their RIGHT, doesn't make it right.

Here,Here. People seem to be doing everything these days for the sake of it. I like the way you think.

reply to post by newsoul


But that is subjective.

You can't expect EVERYBODY to think that one particular issue is good or bad. That would be a Utopia and it will never happen.

Your topic was morality, now you are talking about criminals, who clearly have a VERY subjective idea of what is right and wrong.

Just the variety of opinions in this thread so far proves how difficult and silly it would be, to make everybody think the same way regarding morals.

~Tenth

reply to post by Taupin Desciple


I'm glad you are here. Man, you would think I set the dogs on some people. I think that I am pretty articulate, but damn, people twist everything I've said. I appreciate your well thought out response to the actual question that I asked.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by newsoul

 

But that is subjective.

You can't expect EVERYBODY to think that one particular issue is good or bad. That would be a Utopia and it will never happen.

Your topic was morality, now you are talking about criminals, who clearly have a VERY subjective idea of what is right and wrong.

Just the variety of opinions in this thread so far proves how difficult and silly it would be, to make everybody think the same way regarding morals.

~Tenth

Having morals isn't forcing people to think the same way, it's a guide to people will behave in the same way.

reply to post by newsoul

Just because someone claims it is their RIGHT, doesn't make it right.

Just because someone claims something is WRONG doesn't make it wrong. It's all perception .. as long as what you think is right doesn't infringe on the welfare, rights, or property of others then there should be no qualms. Someone should be able to have all the deviant sexual episodes they wish, smoke whatever grass they like, buy a little gay sex on the side, be an all out libertine. And so long as it doesn't directly effect you by harming you .. preventing you from exercising you're inalienable rights .. or in any way infringe upon your property...

It's none of your business. And if society is your issue .. I advise a house in the woods.

This is one of my favorite topics. Why? Because this is one of the main reasons why I have always felt as though I was born in the wrong time period.

If you believe that it's OK for little girls to dress in sexy clothes, your morals have been corrupted.
If you believe that sex is a sport or live spectator event, your morals are lacking.
If you think it's funny to see an animal tortured and in pain, you are morally bankrupt.
If you believe that hazing has a purpose and is a normal part of the pecking order, you are seriously lacking in morals and you probably also think it's funny to see an animal tortured.

I believe one of the main problems that is causing the lack of morals in society is the media's constant barrage of images and messages telling the youth that it's OK to have sex with multiple people at the same time or during the same time period. This is especially unhealthy for women and we see this on the TV where they are on Maury Povich trying to figure out who the baby daddy is or the Bachelor where they are expected to sleep with the guy in order to be picked to marry him. Who wants to be with a guy who has slept with all of these women in contest fashion? Then, we have people who think that you're a prude if you aren't into the swinging lifestyle or orgies. This is just wrong. Whatever happened to the true concept of love and partnership? I don't even care if you're heterosexual or homosexual as long as you're only true to one person and love is the goal. If you think that being with one person is boring, you're obviously lacking in imagination.

I shouldn't even have to go into a deeper explaination of why hazing is wrong. Bullying should never be tolerated in an enlightened society. Using violence, intimidation, and/or humiliation in order to set the pecking order is so far removed from higher intelligence that it's ridiculous.

The problem is that I don't see things getting back to where they should be and the downward spiral will continue. Plus, I'm sure you'll see in this thread those who don't agree with the points above will resort to personal attacks and petty name calling as they try to prove their point. The devolution of society is a fast moving train and anyone that tries to put the breaks on it are usually ridiculed.

People simply need to remember to stand their ground and not allow anyone to errode their belief system. If being part of the group involves lowering your standards, you're better off by yourself.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by newsoul

 

But that is subjective.

You can't expect EVERYBODY to think that one particular issue is good or bad. That would be a Utopia and it will never happen.

Your topic was morality, now you are talking about criminals, who clearly have a VERY subjective idea of what is right and wrong.

Just the variety of opinions in this thread so far proves how difficult and silly it would be, to make everybody think the same way regarding morals.

That is kind of the reason for this topic. It is all VERY subjective. I am talking about people. People have such diverse beliefs in what is considered right and what is considered wrong. A person may break into a home thinking "it's not fair, this family has so much more than I do. It's not right so I am going to take from them" The thief believes that he is entitled to take from the family, he beleives it is his right. But is it really right. There has to be a line drawn. We have to be able to distinguish between right on wrong on a regular basis in order to function as a society. If there is no distinction and we are a barbarian society.
~Tenth

reply to post by Afterthought



Cheers to you!! You took so many words right out of my mouth!! Thank you!

reply to post by newsoul


I don't know why you're shocked at the comments. Or what comments are shocking you. Is there something I've said that bothers you in particular? I'm not sure of the purpose of that comment to me.

Originally posted by newsoul
I do believe that abortion is wrong,

Then don't have an abortion.
Jane DOESN'T believe abortion is wrong.

Should EITHER of your morals take precedence on a societal level? No. You are free to avoid abortion and she is free to have one.

I said sexual deviance. Which could mean adultry, promiscuity, beastiality.

Is that what you meant? Are you OK with homosexuality? Do you think it's morally wrong? When most people being up "sexual deviance" in this context, they mean gay people.

I gave some examples of what I consider immoral behavior, and I asked what you consider immoral behavior.

Outside of some illegal behavior such as murder, child abuse, stealing, etc, I think these are morally wrong:

Lying
Cheating
Controlling or manipulating adults
The fact that money is drowning out the peoples' voices (Citizens United)
Corruption in law enforcement (or any power structure)

That's about all I can think of for now.

The reason I sound aggressive and/or defensive is that I am defending my freedom to choose. I'm so tired of people sticking their nose into other people's business. I don't understand the NEED some have to control others' behavior. I don't want or need you or the law telling me what my morals should be or forcing me to live by your morals.

I will be aggressive when defending freedoms. Count on it.

.

reply to post by beezzer


Attempting to guide people to behaving a certain way is the same thing as trying to force them to behave a certain way.

People should stop trying to get people to behave any differently than how that person would like to behave, unless of course they are infringing on other people's rights.

~Tenth

What is the true purpose for morality?

The answer is that we no longer live on our own in jungles where the law of survival dictates you either live or you die on your own because no one is gonna take care of you.

But we are NO longer living under such conditions, unless we wish to do so on our own free will, cutting ourselves from others. We are today living in a SOCIETY, sharing the same public space, thus there MUST be Agreements of common grounds so that we can co-exist at least in peace, if we do not live in harmony where everyone sings Kumbaya every night.

From such en-nobling thoughts came guides and rules which is what Morality is all about. Every society begins with the family nucleas. Without families, there can be no societies and mankind will only eventually die out. Thus, such rules and guides start from the family first, and then expand into the communual space which we term it as political governance - the tribal leadership entrusted to ensure everyone is equal and none left behind in any manner.

Abortion, homosexuality, discrimination, sloth, pridefullness, jealousy, rage, over-indulgence, greed, lust, etc, are issues that civilised societies have to grapple with, and had been doing so over centuries. What one person does in a society affects another, and at times, detrimental to progress and evolution.

Mankind's leadership had tried various means to eradicate it, most of the time, very much draconianly, such as past centuries and what foriegn nations are doing, seemingly barbaric by today's more enlightened approach through better education.

There had NEVER been a time when humankind was known as morally perfect since civilisation started. We humans are not perfect and are very much flawed. The best thing is to acknowledge our faults and try our best ot rectify them, and not attempt to be hypocrite about it or try to hide it, or forever we will only continue with mistakes compounded.

And as for morality issues that affects the collective people, it is best that more discussions and debates be offered, so that a society can honestly decide upon the best and agreed upon course, to take full RESPONSIBILITY for the consequences that are fully and rationally spelt out, than to allow the minority to set the law.

We are no longer ignorant uneducated apes that cannot be trusted to make the right and correct decision.

To the OP

So you think abortion is wrong. That it is denying the right to live for a child and is a moral offense.

Now this is where imposing morality on someone else gets very very tricky.

You understand that we need to define the word abortion and the law. The law states that a woman has the right to seek proper medical assistance when she has decided to abort a baby. Try to think carefully here - the law does not give woman the "right" to an abortion. That has been the right of woman for millenia. The law gives woman the right to have proper medical assistance.

There is always times and places when the birth of a child is unwelcome. Animals know this. They don't have proper medical assistance - so animals carry through with the pregnancy and kill the baby at birth or shortly after.

Imagine in times past - when famine occurred and you - the woman - had to choose between giving food to existing children or nurturing your new foetus? Imagine getting pregnant as a jewish woman in a concentration camp or as a prisoner of an enemy tribe? Imagine getting pregnant when your mate has died and now you and the new child will be without his support.

Woman have always found ways to terminate inconvenient pregnancies. There have always been herbs and methods of "regulating the menses" and woman have made those decisions, usually without consultation with the father.

So what has changed in our modern time - NOTHING - except that now a woman need not die with her foetus.

Please see the following photograph. It is ugly but no more so than the photos of aborted foetuses that we are treated to by anti-abortionists as we drive down the street. It is also as true as those pictures. It is a picture taken before Roe vs Wade. Before the law that made it a woman's right to seek proper medical attention for an abortion. It is the picture of a young woman who was abandoned in a motel room after bleeding to death from a botched abortion from a back ally practioner.

iconicphotos.files.wordpress.com...

"morality" and common practice in this area has NOT changed since time immemorial!

Oh and by the way - since your morality is so involved in what I do with my body and my life - can you tell me what you are doing for the hungry children in your own country? Can't find them - look in homeless shelters and native reserves. And don't tell me that you "donate" your money. Screw you! Get out there - wash their faces and feed their bellies, provide for their futures on a personal level because that is what you condemn woman to when you presume to make their personal decisions for them! Make damn sure that those hungry children dominate your life for at least 25 years. Make sure that you spend every day and donate the majority of your earnings to them. Other than that - shut the hell up!

At least Mother Theresa offered a realistic solution. She said "don't kill your babies, bring them to me and I will love and care for them". You simply want to use pregnancy to punish woman for what you perceive to be their "immoral" behavior.(their sexuality).

Tired of Control Freaks