Morals

[SliK]

Feel free to disagree with any part of this and offer your own explanation of how personal morals are formed.

Morals are formed by society and instilled in us from the day we arrive on his planet. Western countries have the same types of society, where you find a job, get marred, buy a house, start a family.. And that is the accepted way of life. Murder is wrong, rape is wrong, etc. there are certain morals that are shared by almost every society on earth

But what about when people from different societies do not agree? Who is right?

For example, the Middle East is a very male dominated society. Women must cover their skin, do as their husband asks, are second class citizens, etc. Men can have more than one wife and can sleep with all of them. If a man from the Western world were to try the same thing he would likely be single and 'shunned' from his social group, frowned upon and seen as 'bad'.

There are more extreme examples, like the belief in the death penalty. Asian countries punish drug trafficking with death, and I know that outrages many Australians as you occasionally get the odd Aussie who is on trial and facing the death penalty.

Is it wrong for these societies to behave in such a way? Should they all "get with the times" and stop being so morally misguided? Or do our own personal values lose credibility when we try to apply them to a society that didn't help shape them?

How do you think morals are formed?

[SliK]

But what about when people from different societies do not agree? Who is right?

For example, the Middle East is a very male dominated society. Women must cover their skin, do as their husband asks, are second class citizens, etc. Men can have more than one wife and can sleep with all of them. If a man from the Western world were to try the same thing he would likely be single and 'shunned' from his social group, frowned upon and seen as 'bad'.

First off this is false when you say that "the Middle East is a very male dominated society "Women must cover their skin, do as their husband asks, are second class citizens, etc. Men can have more than one wife and can sleep with all of them.

I come from the Middle East, Well I was born in Canada but my family was born in the Middle East, we are a extremely huge family and my mom nor any female in my entire family has to cover there skin ever, my dad has 1 wife as does every other male in my family. The males do not dominate what so ever and females are not treated like 2nd class citizens. We are not the only family in the Middle East who treat treat there wives as I described.

What your saying applies more to Religion than specifically just flat out saying the "Middle East."

Yeah I understand not every family is like this, I was just giving an example of cultural differences. For those families (religious or otherwise) who believe that it is ok to have multiple partners, etc. they aren't morally out of line, even though if they were to behave that way in a western country it would be frowned upon.

[Jason M.]

They're different depending on the place. They've been formed by the society, and they've just became normal. Of course, they're not the same everywhere... I think people shouldn't automatically disagree with something that isn't done like it's done where they live, or they think it should be done.

[SliK]

Once your morals have been formed, is it acceptable to live by those morals in a different society? Should one have to re-evaluate their own ethical views to fit in with a new society, or should societies be more accepting of people with different moral views?

[classthe_king]

We get our morals from god

[SliK]

We get our morals from god

There are a lot of people who actually believe that. I was hoping someone would argue it seriously.

[Doodlebug]

I am Native American Indian and so what I was taught might be a bit different.

My Granny (mother's mother) spent time w/ me after I was ordered to (I busted up 2/3 guys that tried to rape me and had no guilt so.. I was sent to them to try to ... recover my humanity I guess).

My Granny taught me that we are born with knowing right from wrong in our heart. When we listen, it grows stronger, when we do not > it dims.

I had so many issues with hating those that had (we were poor) and those snobby pretty girls thinking they were hot because they were soo.. perfect ...

She had me stand in the shower -- arms folded - eyes closed and basically meditate. She said to not think of the room I was in - whether it be nice or simple. Do not think of the shower - whether it be encrusted in gold or .. simple.

Do not think of the clothes I put on the floor - are they growns or are they rags. Do not think about my title, the size of the wallet in my purse or even the size and beauty of our home.

DO NOT - let these things limit or define me. DO NOT let them be what I consider to be my worth and value.

Meditate and think about what is left > what is left is the sound of my heart - and the feeling of my strong spirit.

She would say - that - is the most valuable item I will ever possess > my spirit. My goal is to always remeber that. It is what will define me, it is what people will measure me by and it is what I live for. To make it stronger, and to do what is right and just.

Sometimes we can help others, but we should also not carry them. Sometimes we can say the truth but need to weigh - the real why - to say it - or to help the other realize it.

I believe our live here is to fix flaws within our spirit, and the world will work against us. We walk forward through life, and it is like walking through thick sand and mud - always we must struggle against it - and we must - else we stand still and no more struggle needed...

I guess I just feel morals is about ourselves - doing what is necessary to keep our spirits strong. For me, I defend smaller ones. I teach when I can, and sometimes I have to let them go - to fall or stand on their own.

I guess over time I just learn right from wrong... but I let my heart dictate that to me. Not others.

We live in a world where others bend to break to look an appear - as others that are doing same. All lined up - clones of each other.. fake laughs, and smiles with lies all around... no way am I going to bounce off of what they feel to be the truth.

[Block]

In order to answer this question we must first ask ourselves what morals really are and if they even exist.

Is murder wrong? According to some people it's morally reprehensible. To others it's means to solve a conflict. And even still, to others it's not a question of right and wrong, but rather consequence, because rape, murder and self preservation are all part of our animalistic nature.

If we, as a collective people, can get past the notion that we serve some sort of purpose other than procreation and self indulgence, the concept of morals would become obsolete.

Morals, in their simplest form, are a way to control a society. Much like religion and politics.

Someone is to say, "murder is wrong." Okay, why? The answer to that is usually, "you dont have the right to take a life." I obviously do--I just did. This is where survival of the fittest comes in to play. How are we any different than any other animal species?

[SliK]

David Hume would argue that no action is intrinsically right or wrong, actions are just actions. There are only feelings of right or wrong that come from within ones self, and no action can ever be "wrong".

[CrashBand]

Yeah, no ones really solved the deriving-is-from-ought.

Why should we not kill/rape people?

An answer might be "to not decrease the well-being of living creatures,"

Which I agree with, and I think we shouldn't needlessly kill/rape people.

But it still doesn't answer the question of why we shouldn't decrease the well-being of living creatures.

[Block]

It's a continuous cycle. One could argue, as you said, not to decrease the well-being of others, but there are 2 very legitimate counter arguments to that:

1. Are we then not supposed to eat live animals for fear of their well-being? (fuck you, vegans)

2. (figuratively) Raping and/or killing this individual will bring me pleasure, therefore increasing my own well-being. Afterall, self-preservation is our number one instinct.

[SliK]

Utilitarianism is the idea of bringing the greatest good (good = pleasure) to the greatest number. Under this philosophy any number of horrendous acts are acceptable. As Block pointed out in his second point, killing can bring pleasure and in a Utilitarian society, if killing would bring about the most pleasure to the most people (like in the Middle Ages when people were publicly hung drawn and quartered) this act would be quite acceptable.

[CrashBand]

It's a continuous cycle. One could argue, as you said, not to decrease the well-being of others, but there are 2 very legitimate counter arguments to that:

1. Are we then not supposed to eat live animals for fear of their well-being? (fuck you, vegans)

2. (figuratively) Raping and/or killing this individual will bring me pleasure, therefore increasing my own well-being. Afterall, self-preservation is our number one instinct.

Towards your second point - yes, someone's well-being could be increased by killing someone. And a lot of actions, it can be quite arbitrary to gauge if it is increasing or decreasing overall well-being. Someone's well-being has gone down and yours has gone up.

But there are certainly actions where we can objectively say "the overall well-being of living creatures have been decreased."

Let's say hypothetically - killing thousands of innocent people for no reason. And you got a tiny bit of pleasure from this.

For sake of argument, overall well-being has decreased - quite obviously in my opinion.

But we still have the problem - why should we care that well-being is decreased.
i.e. deriving ought from is. Why should we not do that action.

[SliK]

From a "survival" attitude - and lets face it, the meaning of life is simply to survive so that we may pass on our genetic material and ensure the survival of the species - we should only not do an action that is detrimental to our species. Nothing else matters, really. Even the well being of a few million animals, or even people, mean nothing in the grand scheme of things. If you consider the insignificance of an emotion in the vast infinity of time and space, really the only thing that matters is survival, if for no other reason than to marvel at the utterly astounding fact that life exists.

[CrashBand]

From a "survival" attitude - and lets face it, the meaning of life is simply to survive so that we may pass on our genetic material and ensure the survival of the species - we should only not do an action that is detrimental to our species. Nothing else matters, really. Even the well being of a few million animals, or even people, mean nothing in the grand scheme of things. If you consider the insignificance of an emotion in the vast infinity of time and space, really the only thing that matters is survival, if for no other reason than to marvel at the utterly astounding fact that life exists.

I have different morals to you then.

And I think you are committing the naturalistic fallacy.