It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


morality question

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 07:42 AM
Hi again.
I seem to bomb this site with my thoughts and opinions
well take it for what it is.

Been thinking alot about our responsibility in society as a whole.
And one thing that goes around and around in my mind is imprisonment.

Lets do an example:
Lets say i live in a place where i hear my neigbour through the walls, i hear him abusing both his wife and kids.
I of course feel really bad about it, but chose to take the easy path and tuck it away somewhere in my mind where it dont bother me anymore.
The kid that gets abused by both his father, and mother who in frustration does it as a response to her self getting abused, that kid goes to school, and the teachers early on see that somethings is not allright with the kid.
They also see that the kid is bullying some other kids.
They perhaps scold the kid for being bad to others, but they dont dig in to whats really going on.

The kid gets put in special education classes,
The bullying continues and worsens.
He hangs out on the streets with kids who comes from simmilar backgrounds, late at nights, kids who aint got no reason to show anyone but them selves respect.
Perhaps its a gang, where the entry ritual is getting the # beaten out of him. and perhaps its a gang where he beats up kids that wants to join the gang.
Girls who wants to join allow him to rape them as their entry ritual.

In this neigbourhood where his gang roam, lots of people who are aware of his home situation bend down their heads afraid to make eye contact when he and his boys passes on the street.

He now gets expelled from school for not caring about anything or anyone,
and at nights he smokes pot, drinks beer, steel cars, and robbing convenience stores.
He dont get caught by the police, even though some folks in the neihgbourhood are fully aware of who the kids making trouble are, perhaps because the fear retaliation if they go to the police.

One night he and his crew desides to hold up a stranger on the street, the stranger is an old school tough guy who pulls a knife to defend him self,
It becomes a struggle and a gun goes off, the tough guy falls to the ground, everyone runs off, except the kid in the story,
He stands next to the dead body of the tough guy and holds a smoking gun in his hand, He dont feel anything about what just has happened, and he wonders why.
He always thought it would feel terrible to kill someone, but dont feel a thing,
He looks at the dead body and thinks about how he looks almost asleep where he lies still on the ground,
He hears sirens and shouting.
He hears how someone screams "drop the gun"
He thinks about if he should point the gun at the cops so that they should end his life for him.
as a tear falls down on his cheek he drops the gun, angry and scared. angry at himself for being to scared to end it all now when he had the chance.

yiehaaa!!!! storytime over.
now my thoughts,
is it morally right to judge that kid to prison or to take his life?
we live in a society where caring for others is a virtue and many would say that caring for others is a must to have a working society.

is it not more morally right to judge and condem me for not doing anything when i heard the abuse, or the teachers who took the easy way out at the school and choose not to meddle.
or the lot that where afraid to go to the police.

some might say that theres lots of kids with rough uppbringings that have turned out ok, and therefore it absoloutley ok to judge the kid straight up to the executioners chair.

but the fact is that these matters cant be compared to eachother because we as humans are not equally strong, and everyone has its own way of dealing with things, so yeah, some makes it while others dont.

we have laws in the society to protect us, and we judge people by these laws, and if we reserve the right to judge, dont we then allso have a responsibillity to try and give people a fair chance to abide to those rules.

this is an old question and it probably have been mentioned a lot here on ats, i tried a search on morality and got 108,000 hits so i figured that i rather put something up here than going through all those hits.

there is a rather famous book out there, it got some chapters about this longhaired carpenter dude.
he has a rather rough uppbringing,
a single lightly neurotic mom, running alone in the street and all. later he became the leader of a gang.
if this dude was real or not, i dont know, (actually i dont care much either)
but this dude, real or not had some pretty good ideas.
one good idea he had was when he told a crowd about to throw rocks at a girl who had commited adultery,
to quit throwing rocks. he told them something like this.
"let he amongst you who are without sin throw the first rock"
i believe he saved the girls life.
that was a brilliant idea, but it has not completley worked, since many of us keeps throwing rocks at eachother.

we are overall pretty good at throwing crap at eachother instead of reflecting where the crap we throw comes from.
i mean if i got lots of crap at home, would it not be better if i made a big pile and used it as maneur instead of feeding others with my crap.

i say like the longhaired carpenter did, only with a slight modification.
"lets get the rocks in the air, aim at everyone and everything for every reason you se fit"
perhaps it would then make us realise that rocks are hard and that helmets are kind of nice to have.


edit on 14-12-2012 by jisujaaljo because: thisnthat

posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 08:11 AM
A judgement is a shadow over your perception of truth. Judging things as good is also a judgement. It's no different than judging things as bad.

There is a way of living life that doesn't see the necessity of believing in good or bad. This way of life allows you to just watch. The information you receive is unadulterated. The receptivity of information is amplified.

posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 09:02 AM
reply to post by jisujaaljo

You're looking at it the wrong way. Both the "good" peoples' and "bad" peoples' views are subjective.

You're thinking, two wrongs don't make a right. Society is thinking, if they won't play by our rules, we will separate them from ourselves. The easiest way to separate them is to cage them. They do not cage them to take their freedom - they cage them to keep their own freedoms.

At first thought, one would think the best thing to do would be to move them to an island somewhere, but that wouldn't really work, as some of the "criminals" would deprive the other "criminals" of all their freedoms.

So, imprisonment really is a governed separation - not a cage to rob someone of their freedoms. Prisoners still have human rights.

edit on 12/14/2012 by Bleeeeep because: corrected spelling errors

posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 09:18 AM
reply to post by Bleeeeep

no not really how i think

i think that we live in a society where we abide by rules, good or bad dont really matter.
and by those rules we punish the rulebrakers.
and if we use the rules to punish someone, dont we then have an obligation to make sure that all have the same fair chance to abide the rules.
the kid in the story, it was his upbringing that made him what he bacame, and as a child he cant be blamed for his upbringing,
but when as grown up he kills someone, and that killing is in a way a result of his upbringing, wich he cant be blamed for.
do we then have the right to blame him for the murder?

heck! the same goes for his abusive dad, if we look at the dads life, could his upbringing be the reason for his behaviour and therefore he indirect is not to blame either.
edit on 14-12-2012 by jisujaaljo because: missing letters

posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 09:33 AM
reply to post by jisujaaljo

The thing is, society teaches that it's not okay to kill someone for their property – just your own. Well the military actually does, but not the public. If the action opposes said society's rule set, then it can't really be blamed on anyone who didn't promote or teach it was okay.

You could, in a sense, blame anything he came in contact with that promoted the behavior, but society, as a whole, doesn't promote it.

posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 09:54 AM
reply to post by Bleeeeep

i hear you and agree to what i hear partly.
no, society dont promote it, not like in "telling people to kill"
but society indirect promote it by "not caring about the kid" before its to late.
am i making sence?

society teaches that it is not ok to kill, but what is society, and is it not society that has thougt the kid that it dont work to abide the rules.

edit on 14-12-2012 by jisujaaljo because: added a sentence

posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 10:29 AM
Great OP.......and indeed a BIG question.......what would or "should" any of us do when we bare wittness to abuse and injustice? If we do nothing, do we personally "own" some moral responsibility to any further harm that may come as a result?

In the example given in the OP, would things have been different for the kid had he been shown acts of kindness and had intervention in some way before he became "heartless" ?

Then you can go into the whole "what" is or isn't moral? When is it best to mind your own business, and when do you act, and how? If my neighbors are abusing thier children, or domestic violence is occuring is calling the police the best way to help them? Would a better approach be to befriend the the family and offer some support, and perhaps some accountability to the offending parent?

Of course every situation will vary and we all will have to react from our own frame of reference and our ability and willingness to become involved. Taking on damaged people is no easy task, and frankly takes alot of heart and courage.

I will end with a sweet story my Mom told me, that always stuck with me. When I was a baby my parents drove across country, lol, and if you knew the dynamics between my parents this is quite funny he ever talked her into it to begin with, but anyways, I apparently was not a happy camper, and cried ALOT the whole trip. My exhausted, hungry Mom, finally gets my Dad to pull over to stop and eat. I wouldn't stop crying and my Mom "lost it"...she broke into tears and started screaming at my Dad for bringing her and thier new baby on a road trip.

A kind waitress in the restaurant came over and offered to walk me around and let my Mom eat and freshen up, and gave my parents a chance to re-group, my Mom never forgot this act of kindness and went on to own an Educational Toy Store, and became a childrens advocate, LMAO and she always had a great selection of toys to travel with for children...

posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 10:54 AM
reply to post by jisujaaljo

I've understood you the whole time.

Bad and good are ingrained in most of us. Good is the concept that any constant or change, that gives benefit, is positive. Bad is the concept that any constant or change, with no benefit, is negative. When someone is afraid of change, it's because they cannot see benefit. This is the heart of where “bad things” come from, aswell. Someone who does bad sees benefit in the action - they do not apply the golden rule. This is why I say it is really subjective and depends on the society.

Now knowing the above, is it society's responsibility to tell anyone any rule other than the golden rule? Do all cultures not teach the golden rule? These two rhetorical questions address what I think you're not equating - but should be.

I think that if a society doesn't promote “bad behavior”, then they shouldn't be responsible for it.

All the laws we have, including religious doctrines, are really overkill. All we really need is the golden rule, and a properly functioning mind. If one doesn't have a properly functioning mind, that allows them to determine right from wrong, then they need to be closely governed, as they may become dangerous.

eta: You are calling for more governance - I don't like that idea.

edit on 12/14/2012 by Bleeeeep because: replaced way with why and added the line at the bottom

posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 01:52 PM
reply to post by MountainLaurel

Hi and thanks for apreciating the topic.
Yes i really think it is a hard question, one with no given answers.
I would think if the question was put forth to a very religious person, that it would be easy for that person to answer that of course the kid should pay the price.
But as non religious it gets harder.

Lovely story you shared

Lots of hugs.

posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 02:32 PM
reply to post by Bleeeeep

Bad and good are ingrained in most of us. Good is the concept that any constant or change, that gives benefit, is positive. Bad is the concept that any constant or change, with no benefit, is negative. When someone is afraid of change, it's because they cannot see benefit. This is the heart of where “bad things” come from, aswell. Someone who does bad sees benefit in the action - they do not apply the golden rule. This is why I say it is really subjective and depends on the society.

Agree with you on the above qoute.

Now knowing the above, is it society's responsibility to tell anyone any rule other than the golden rule? Do all cultures not teach the golden rule? These two rhetorical questions address what I think you're not equating - but should be.

Om this one i say that as long as we live in a society that do tell other rules than the golden rule with its actions or non actions, then it is societys responsibility.
But with that said, i dont think we should need those rules.
Its a little "what if it was so or so" in what you say.

In a world where all live acording to the golden rule it would be a different story all together.
And if someone dont have a proper functioning mind that could make them dangerous we absoloutly need to closely govern that person. But that dont by default make the one with a faulty brain guilty of having a faulty mind.

And ooono. Im not one who seeks more rules and regulations. Quite the opposite in fact.

posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 02:52 PM
Who are YOU to judge what is right or wrong? Who is ANYONE of us to make that judgement? Consider your story. If someone HAD stepped in maybe the person stepping in might have died, maybe the whole family might have died. Who would be to blame then?

When I was a young man I took my girlfriend to a table at a bar. Her friend came in a few minutes later and started crying, talking about killing herself because she was pregnant. We had talked her out of it when her boyfriend came in, sat down at MY table, and proceeded to try and talk her into suicide again. I told him to shut up and leave MY table. He took out a gun and put it on the table. I picked it up and told him to move. The girl who was going to commit suicide, the one my girlfriend and I were trying to help, attacked me for threatening her boyfriend.

My point is there is no way to determine ahead of time what the conclusion of something will be. All you have in life is the rules that you YOURSELF are willing to enforce. Not society's rules but YOUR rules. Society changes its rules from day to day and you will see that if you live long enough and have a good memory. YOUR rules are your honor, something most today know little about. The reason I capitalized MY is because that was my rule. No one attacks, threatens, or otherwise inflicts damage to anyone while they are sitting at my table or in my house. If we had been sitting at the bar I would not have stepped in.

posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 02:57 PM
Sam Harris has the best argument for the foundation of morals and what morals we should have depending on they type of society we want to live in. He describes morality as being based upon the florishing and wellbeing of concious creatures and that we as a society have to find the best ways to define and discribe how to go about doing that.

posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 03:08 PM
reply to post by Wertdagf

Nope. Not a answer. He says WE as a society have to figure it out. That is not a answer for us because as a society we have NOT figured it out. The best we can do is figure out what is right for US as individuals. One of the side problems of having to many immigrents at one time is that it prevents us from figuring that out. To many new ideas at once, no time to decide before something else is shoved on us. Of course the good side of that IS the new ideas that might be right but with so many at once it is most likely we as a society will miss them in the crowd.

Consider society says we can smoke one type of weed but not another type. Even having the other type is illegal. Hold it, hold it now. Society NOW says we can have the first type of weed which is legal but if we smoke it we go to jail. The second type of weed is still illegal but NOW in certain states even though it is illegal to HAVE it they have changed the rules so it is legal to smoke what you are not allowed to have.
Since society can not make up its mind, since it is constantly changing the rules, then there is NO morality in society and no chance of it. There is only morality in the individual and it changes for each individual.

posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 03:12 PM
reply to post by Jerk_Idiot

Progress is happening everywhere. Its a shame you dont see that. Just because we dont have and answer that you like now... doesnt mean we cant get there.

Concensus should be valuable to everyone.. and in the end is the only thing that can stand the test of time.

posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 03:32 PM
reply to post by Wertdagf

Consensus is not very valuable. It is like saying the majority is right. Nope. Lets say the majority wants you dead for some reason. They do not like your haircut, your religion, the way you snore at night. Well gee if the majority wants you dead, they have a consensus, then obviously you should be killed right? No! That is supposedly why we are supposed to be a nation of laws, not of the majority. It is to prevent the majority from acting on what they, at that moment, have a consensus on.

The constitution can be changed but it is VERY hard to do so. That is why so many want it destroyed rather then changed. So the present majority, the consensus, can not just take what they want at the moment. I happen to believe that things are either right or wrong, good or bad, and if society, your consensus wants to reverse themselves that is their problem, not mine. A mob, a consensus, a majority of people, does not make them right. It just absolves them of personal responsibility for whatever actions they take.

posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 03:36 PM
reply to post by Jerk_Idiot

Our society is slightly more advanced than what existed in the past.

Claiming that majority rule always ends in you being murdered is an unfair use of history.
edit on 14-12-2012 by Wertdagf because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 03:54 PM
reply to post by Wertdagf

I did not say that the majority always ends up with you murdered. I said it gives them that option, which I have seen done before in person.

Society is a little MORE advanced then before?
Society is LESS advanced. Society is devolving. By constantly changing the rules society is saying there are no rules and no law anymore. Do whatever you please! Particularly if you are in a position of power. In THIS society honesty is frowned on, politeness has gone out the window, and people are not other people's problems, they are the governments. Absolve yourself of ANY responsibility for your actions. It was my parents fault, it was the other kids fault, well everyone else is doing it so why blame me? No honor, no personal responsibility, no rules to follow. Steal from the IRS, take home supplies from the job, pick up that money when no one is looking even if it is not yours. That is what THIS society teaches. That is not evolving. That is devolving.

posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 01:46 AM
reply to post by Jerk_Idiot

Who are I to deside whats right or wrong?
Uhm, i believe that i indirectly do that by abiding by the rules of society.
Not nessicarily what i want or what i think is the right thing to do, but as long as i accept societys rules by beeing quietly living after them, and quietly accepting the punishment system, i and everyone else who does the same DO deside what is right and wrong.

And to say that we should not try to meddle in things, out of fear that something bad is going to happen is removing the right to punish the kid in the story,
Because we dont know if the tough Guy who died, we dont know if he would have gone in to a bar with his knife and killed the man who had sleept with his wife.
And thus the act of killing him saved someone else.

posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 10:44 AM
"Why them and not I?"

posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 11:23 AM
reply to post by SystemResistor

Because i suck at grammar ?

top topics


log in