Morals, as most people know them, are a MYTH.

reply to post by boncho


i guess it depends on how you define morals. there are some things that are wrong, and will always be wrong. and there are things that are right, and will always be right. other things are based on culture, but i would classify those mostly as etiquette differences.

are you a "moral relativist"?

reply to post by boncho


Dear boncho,

I guess the best place to begin is by separating some issues. Morality does not equal good, one can have bad morals. As a Christian I would start by describing "morals" as they first come up in Genesis. It begins with the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Just because somebody knows the difference does not mean they will make their choices based on good although they probably should.

Our morality is in the choices we make while understanding good and evil. None of us live perfect lives, we all fall short; but, that doesn't mean that we don't know what is right, just that none are perfect. Hey, the second I meet a perfect person I will post about it. The fact that people are imperfect does not prove that there is no right and wrong (morality), it proves that we are imperfect and human.

reply to post by boncho


I see your point there OP. Personally, i've been giving similar topics that same thought. However, it may be just the difference in our definition of "morals" that separates you and them.

To some, moral is like a code. The moral code. Personal rules to live by.
You prefer personal judgement. "Without morals, one would kill people, you have no morals, but you don't kill people".

Following personal judgement is your moral perhaps?

A final thought on your topic: Yes, this world is # with silly concepts like "morals". It should be personal judgement and left at that. I think "morals" was created when people were needed to do good/behave well, but no one could give a reason why.

We created morals, which we twisted to our own needs.
We created religions, which we twisted to our own needs.

People should be told, "there is no god. no heaven or hell. Doing good or bad will have no consequences. Now you go find your own reason why you should choose to do good over bad."

reply to post by boncho

...you can condemn it [morals] with simple reasoning. The trick is encouraging people to do things that are positive for themselves and the community. I don't see why guilt has to be the number 1 factor in decision making.

You do realise this is very firm moral stance?

Another well done thread. Kudos.

Morality and relative morality is a favorite pet subject of mine. I do not believe in absolute moralism. I never have, really. For every hard and fast rule anyone has given me, I have always found a valid exception.

In my eyes, morality, like religion, is a tool used to make one feel comfortable in one's own skin. It is centered on the sense of mortality and how people will remember you. To wit, if noone remembered anything that you did after you died, would it matter if your raped and pillaged, etc?

I live my life by a relatively simple creed:
* Do not impose yourself into the lives of others without permission
* Do not intentionally harm others
* Protect those in your care from those who would do them harm

And even then, I admit that it is still relative and fluid to the situation. I would not steal food from a starving family with few resources -- but I would raid a stockpile of reserves from a well-fortifed group. I would also expect and understand if they defended their stockpiles and hold no hard feelings.

Humans try to hold themselves to some higher standard, but, in my eyes, we are not at all removed from any other animal on this planet. We simply talk about it more.

reply to post by boncho


Cheating becomes acceptable once your significant other cheated first lmao

reply to post by rogerstigers


1. Nothing is forbidden
2. Everything is permitted

I haven't any morals, i have Creed.

I'm having trouble conceptualizing what you think morals are to even make such a statement as that they are "myths"?

That doesn't make any sense to me.
Morals are a set of ideas that a community or group agree upon together that determine what is acceptable behavior and what is not, within their community.
They form a framework which allows each member to have some idea of what is expected of them, what shall be met with objection or rejection, and a collective understanding of how certain acts or gestures shall be interpretted in intent.
They are part of the culture.

In the focus upon individual personality construction, personal morals are the ideas on what is acceptable and not are determined by the individual alone, and serve for that person to have a sense of their own character and limits they have set for themselves, in exercising self mastership. They then do not serve as a collective agreement, so are open to misinterpretation by others, or opposite reactions (others around can consider an act bad and worthy of rejection, while for the individual, the act could be in the good catagory, causing them to not have a sense of guilt or shame despite the rejection of the group).

The personal morals allow (if self discipline is exercised effectively) to form a character for that individual, which gives them a sense of stability and a pattern of behaviors or responses that others can percieve as consistant.
They can call that "good character" or "bad character", but character still means that they can know beforehand what to expect from that individual and choose their acts towards that person in function. This gives the individual with the character a measure of power, as others bend according to their will,
but also gives those around a but of personal power too, as they have the power to choose whether they will enter into conflict with the individual, or not- they gain some measure of power over their own experience.
This is why many people and animals feel a draw to be around those of character, whether they consider it a good or bad character.....it is always more empowering to be around consistancy and predictability.

But myth? Sometimes myths carry morals, that is why they are communicated and passed down in a culture. Is that what you mean?

reply to post by Annee


I've really enjoyed your comments abut I have to disagree with this one.

Of course someone can trigger your emotions - - they are still internal - - not external. The response/reaction still comes from you.

As an example from a males point of view (though any example of primal urges will do), if you find yourself in a fight much of what you will do will be instinctive - even an expert will access his / her fighting instincts.

The reaction is biological. That's how it manifests.

Another example is romantic love. The emotions are biochemical.

Too me...

Morals are relative. One man's trash is another man's treasure.

There are two paths always but either path leads to the same source so it doesn't matter which path you take.

reply to post by smithjustinb


relative eh? well, i like setting fire to people's cars. so....where'd you park?

see the problem? if morals are relative, then they don't exist. it completely defeats the point if both sides are right. they can't be. its a huge logical fallacy.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

if morals are relative, then they don't exist. it completely defeats the point if both sides are right. they can't be. its a huge logical fallacy.

So then, is morality "absolute", meaning for example that murder is ALWAYS wrong?

That's usually called the deontological view. The other competing view generally goes by a name like "consequentialist", meaning, people who prefer that way of looking at things, judge a thing based on the consequences of the action.

Both views have logical reasoning behind them.

What is illogical about a system of morality based on relative consequences?

JR

"A person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do AS MOST PEOPLE KNOW THEM ARE A traditional story, esp. one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events."

Not sure the title is easily translated... but...

I think the OP is stating that persons who consider themselves moral will often, if not always, lack the character to live by those morals?

Ah, uncomfortable words come to mind: "Suffering produces endurance and endurance produces character."

Yep. Few will tolerate suffering if it can be easily avoided and even fewer will accept any suffering at all. If a lie will suffice to avoid suffering, most will simply lie.

* I did not shave that unicorn. Monica Lewinsky.

Or something like that.

reply to post by JR MacBeth


i'm talking about one single situation. there will always be a right choice, and a wrong choice. you can't just say "killing is wrong" because there are some situations when it is the right thing to do, but the morality of a choice isn't determined by the person who chooses, otherwise everything they do would be "right".

lets say i want money. so i go outside, kill the first person i see, and take their wallet. that is an example of killing being wrong.

what is right and what is wrong depends on the situation, not the person committing the action. "what's right for you is right for you, and what's right for me is right for me" is a logical fallacy because the same exact action can be both right and wrong.

morality is absolute in the sense that given a situation, there is a right choice, and a wrong choice, and who makes the choice and their views doesn't change that.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

morality is absolute in the sense that given a situation, there is a right choice, and a wrong choice, and who makes the choice and their views doesn't change that.

It would be nice if things worked like that I suppose.

I can't recall the Hungarian Nobel Prize winner's name who dealt with this issue, but his contribution might resonate with what you're getting at.

His example was that of a person with "amnesia", making moral choices, without any personal bias. For example, the amnesiac might be asked about whether it is OK to sacrifice the one, for the many. In the case of the person who retains their memory, they might prefer to know if they themselves are that "one", or one of their loved ones. As for the amnesiac, he is at the disadvantage of not knowing who he is, so he could very well be the victim. And yet, his choice in the matter "should" be considered the more reliable one.

And yet, people do seem to be moral relativists, perhaps "naturally", even though most of us probably prefer not to think this is the case. Since this is easily shown, we might well wonder if our general moral instinct, that seems to imply there "should" be some "absolute" for a given situation, might be what's wrong.

Again, not that anyone wants to go there, but we are who we are. People, all of us, seem to take advantage of a somewhat "compartmentalized" way of looking at morality.

An example I use sometimes is the fact that most of us are perfectly OK with thousands of people dying today, needlessly, and we prove we are OK with it by virtue of the fact that we literally do nothing about it, we literally don't care. And yet, if we were to ask the amnesiac about it, what would she say?

"Ms. Amnesiac, we have a question for you. Today, quite a few people will die, because they will not find a kidney donor. Almost all people are walking around with two kidneys, and one could be given to save these lives, without significant damage to the donors. Ms. Amnesiac, you are the Law Giver today. Should we save these thousands of people, many who are very productive members of society, should we save them by requiring certain healthy members of society to donate their "extra" kidney??"

What will she decide, and why? Would another person, with memory (perhaps knowing they could be the one called upon to donate), would they decide differently, and why? Would the non-amnesiac propose "logical" alternatives to the general plan, if they learned that they were to be one of the donors? For example, perhaps they could suggest that prisoners on death row be the designated donors.

This is the kind of "dilema" that is actually rather mild, since other ones can be proposed that may quite logically demand a life, whereas in the scenario above, everyone gets to live.

Genuine moral relativism, seemingly part of the fabric of our "moral" existence. No wonder we usually prefer not to think too hard about it.

JR

reply to post by JR MacBeth


who someone is and their views may effect their choice, but what is ultimately right and wrong doesn't change. its an absolute. yes, some situations are so messed up that knowing what is right may not be possible.

two people fall off a bridge, and you're the only one who can save them. neither can swim, and you can support only one. person A is a 14 year old male, and person B is his 65 year old grandma. you save the boy, but then 6 years later he becomes a serial murderer, did you ultimately save the right person? no. could you have known? no.

erego, there are situations where right and wrong are difficult to distinguish between, though i think we can all agree that your choice to jump in after the two was the right thing to do, instead of letting them both drowned.

but situations like this aren't common, and as i've said, the right choice in a situation is always the right choice in the same situation, irregardless of who chooses or what they believe.

Originally posted by boncho

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by boncho

 

That is what people without them always try to say.
I think that is a myth.

The simple fact of not "having them" is just not believing that you governed by some magical feeling inside of you.

To what do you say to the people that "have them" but break them?

Simple...

page 1
Karma will catch up with them.
I don't know if it ever will, but it makes me feel better the believe that.
Someone elses so called 'morals' aren't an excuse for me not to govern what I do, morally speaking.
There certainly seems to be a lot of people without them imo, but I couldn't stoop the their level to fight them on it.
Funny how truth is hidden in humour a lot.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

the right choice in a situation is always the right choice in the same situation, irregardless of who chooses or what they believe.

This is an intuitive belief, IMO, but I am open to logical proofs. Have any?

Actually, I largely agree with you, thank the good gods that we aren't often faced with difficult decisions, but when it comes to these mind games we play with philosophical questions, so we do in fact formulate rather "extreme" examples, to test the validity of our ideas.

While I like the elegance of the notion that there would always be a "right" choice, in a particular situation, something tells me that things aren't actually so orderly.

When if comes down to it, there may in fact be examples of "two" (or more) right choices, each rather equally logically valid. This is the essence of the problem. The "solution" is to consider the possibility that there really is no "absolute" answer, in each given situation, in spite of every leaning we find in us.

I suppose I could resort to examples. We all recognize some "evil", or problem among us, such as a disease. Perhaps it's high blood pressure, or AIDS. Some (sizable) segment of the population suffers from it. Would, or "should" we do something rather repugnant, if it would result in some relief of this evil among us?

For example, can we, if we allowed this hypothetical, torture a dog, to death, slowly, if by doing so, we were somehow able to cure AIDS? If so, why? If not, why not?

Here we have a "choice". There is an undoubtedly "innocent" dog. It will suffer, and die, but the wonderful thing is, AIDS will be no more! From a utilitarian point of view, this dog's suffering may very well be "justified".

And yet, what is it inside us that says, "No! You shall not torture some poor animal, no matter what good may come of it! Torturing animals is WRONG!"?

Realistically, in this case, we are forced to make difficult choices. AIDS, being cured, would be a great blessing. And yet, torturing a poor animal is "certainly" "wrong"...What to do?

In fact, our biology does make such decisions. Things such as our way of "averaging values" when it comes to colors, suggests that there is a very utilitarian approach to solving these problems. In my post further up the page, I even mentioned a particular brain structure, discovered to play a significant role in decisions involving "morality". What do we do with this information?

We shall see!

JR

reply to post by boncho


Morals come in handy,when your are dealing with a infidelity with a spouse . I hold my own standards up, so should my other half. My daughter understands it, knows right and wrong and black and white, reguardless of any petty bickering.
Speak the truth, you will never be in the wrong spot. A nice Op, but it doesn't give them any right to amend their moral standards as they deem fit to adjust at their own whims.
Why change the goal post?

A lot of people seem to hold the moral that it's wrong to # with people unless they # with you first.

I don't really agree with that one, but it is still a moral, and not mythical, I think.