|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Dec 29, 2007 13:40:38 GMT -5
reposting --------- Red Brigade10 (11/14/06 11:18 pm) New Post: Raising questions on morality?I took the initiative to open this thread from another topic. Well, well let's see... Prussia once said; Many people claim that things are moral or immoral but what does the word actually mean? Some claim that "non-reproductive sex" is immoral but you give no real explanation to what that actually means. Using the word moral or immoral implies that you understand the basis of morality, of which facts have been produced in order to validate its meaning. In other terms, there has to be a factual prerequisite to the standards of peoples lives which you are claiming exists and understand, and that the person performing "non-reproductive sex" does not understand. What are those prerequisites and why do we not all understand them? As far as I understand there are no factual prerequisites. It appears we are simply using a word that has been invented by humans, and which really has no consequence on the actions made by them. I could say "having sex in the ass is bugabuga" and it would have the same significance as if I had said "having sex in the ass is immoral." The word immoral, just like the word bugabuga has no basis, there is no meaning to it. There are no facts that prove the word has a meaning or a basis, which render the concept of morality useless. Of course we can attach meaning to it. I could say the word bugabuga means that you will damage society by performing a certain act, but that is equally as ridiculous as the word itself. Unless of course you have irrefutable evidence that human actions are defined by whether or not they effect society you have no reason, other than the abstraction in your mind, to claim that something is moral or immoral. From a 19th Century Russian Nihilist to his friend..."I will be immoral! I will be immoral and why should I not? Because the bible wills it? But the bible is just a collection of Babylonian and Hebrew traditions, traditions collected and put together like the Homeric poems, or as is being done still with Basque poems and Mongolian legends. Must I then go back to the state of mind of the half civilized people of the east?
Must I be moral because Kant tells me of a categoric imperative, of a mysterious command which comes to me from the depths of my own being and bids me be moral? But why should this "categoric imperative" exercise a greater authority over my actions than that other imperative, which at times may command me to get drunk. A word, nothing but a word, like the words 'Providence' and 'Destiny,' invented to conceal our ignorance.
Or perhaps I am to be moral to oblige Bentham, who wants me to believe that I shall be happier if I drown to save a passerby who has fallen into a river than if I watched him drown?
Or perhaps because such has been my education? Because my mother taught me morality? Shall I then go and kneel down in church, honor the Queen, bow before a judge I know to be a scoundrel, simply because our mothers, our good ignorant mothers, have taught us such a pack of nonsense.
I am prejudiced - Like everyone else. I will try to rid myself of prejudice? Even though immorality be distasteful, I will yet force myself to be immoral, as when I was a boy I forced myself to give up fearing the dark, churchyards, ghosts and dead people - all of which I had been taught to fear.
It will be immoral to snap a weapon abused by religion; I will do it, were it only to protect against the hypocrisy imposed on us in the name of a word to which the name morality has been given."Morality does not exist. It is a cultural figment of the imagination. Morality does not exist in nature. It doesn't exist anywhere but in the minds of humans who have created it to regulate actions and senses. For what reason? I have no idea. I've found through experience that if you probe people that believe differently, they eventually came in and gave answers like "Because it just is". There is no explanation for such things that I can come up with. It is subjective fantasy and bares no relevance on what we choose to do with our abilities to make decisions and then act on them. Nothing is moral or immoral. Or, everything is moral or immoral, depending on what you happen to believe.
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Dec 29, 2007 13:41:27 GMT -5
SULIOT (11/15/06 1:19 am)
Re: Raising questions on morality?
Just read some Dostoyevsky and lay off the nihilist trash.
Morality just like any other human creation...is created for the purpose of survival. Although I don't see it as a 'human' creation per se (at least in the form of the idea of morality), there is definitely something divine about it in my opinion. The whole idea that humans reason as to what constitutes a moral thing, whereas animals act primarily on instinct, is indicative enough that the notion of morality has to come from a higher source of knowledge (God, or as the feminists would say the 'divine being').
Of course there can be variations in morality, but that doesn't mean that there is no universal conception of morality. If you ask a westerner and a bush man, whether killing one's parents is wrong, they will both reply 'yes'. If you ask them whether someone who kills his parents should be killed in return, they might answer differently.
If you come to believe in moral relativism(like the good Raskolnikov), that everything can be subject to change and that there is nothing divine in the idea of morality or the good, then that will just lead to more human decay, not necessarily progress.
You can question moral ideas through your reason, but since our reasons have led us to two world wars, i don't think we should trust it much.
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Dec 29, 2007 13:44:29 GMT -5
Red Brigade10 (11/16/06 12:30 am) Re: Raising questions on morality?Although I don't see it as a 'human' creation per se (at least in the form of the idea of morality), there is definitely something divine about it in my opinion. The whole idea that humans reason as to what constitutes a moral thing, whereas animals act primarily on instinct, is indicative enough that the notion of morality has to come from a higher source of knowledge (God, or as the feminists would say the 'divine being'). I believe that it's more like the reverse. "God" or ''divine beings'' were invented to bolster morals. To make society obey the "morality" of its rulers without question. Even if a god or creator exists, humans have what amounts to "free will". If you ask a westerner and a bush man, whether killing one's parents is wrong We don't know that, it depends on the parent, the child, the given circumstances and many other things Hurting someone intentionally doesn't hold a lot of meaning and is most often than not completely unnecessary. But what happens in case your parent has a gun pointing your head? It is either you or him. What becomes of your morals then? Secondly, why is killing perceived to be wrong? Let me tell you why; it is because that is what the prevailing ideas of our society suggest, that's what our school books write, because killing is penalized, because that's what religion, today, suggests. Because the environment in which we grew up, the very environment which defines our personality, tell us that it is wrong. If we were brought up into a society in which the prevailing ideas suggested that killing is right, then killing would have been considered 'moral'. Ignoring that our perceptions, or 'morals' have been influenced by the society would be irrational. What I am trying to say is that we must always analyze morals in the social context of which they come from. Morals aren't entities that are unchangeable and exist outside of influence. Take slavery for example. In the past, different churches stated that it was okay and used the Bible to back it up. However, after the abolition of slavery, it has become a completely sinful act! What I think is important is to identify what morality is. It's subjective rationalization of reality, which is objective. If we are to consider the consequences of our actions they should be based on objective reality, rather than subjective thought. e.g. I would not have sex with a child because that child may not be able to perform the act, or may not be able to make a rational decision on whether or not they want to even have the act. I would not have a sex with a child because society says it is "immoral." That makes no sense. What if a given society encouraged or didn't condemn pedophilia or rape? It was once commonplace for prosperous middle-aged males to "marry" girls who had barely reached puberty. That would now be prosecuted as rape...and possibly child-rape with heavy prison time. Moreover, raping the women of your conquered enemies was not considered real rape at all...but part of the 'spoils of war'. This is not only still true in much of Africa but was true during the wars surrounding the collapse of Yugoslavia. Even UN soldiers in Africa have been caught raping African women. There was a time in the "west", not all that long ago, when the concept of a husband raping his wife was thought to be "nonsense". Last, morality is blaming society's problems on the actions of individuals, instead of questioning the system that is responsible for the problems, and that is because morality is a by-product of each given system. You can question moral ideas through your reason, but since our reasons have led us to two world wars, i don't think we should trust it much. I disagree, although I got your point. Ideologies and moralities are quite fungible and have probably done more harm than good, being used by rulers to control. Napoleon once said "religion is what keeps the poor from killing the rich." Even a rational and scientific ideology such as Marxism have probably done more harm than good by taking rational ideas and using them as justifications for acts which totally go against those ideas.
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Dec 29, 2007 13:46:28 GMT -5
SULIOT (11/16/06 1:02 am) Re: Raising questions on morality?red, you did not read carefully what I wrote, of course there are evolutions within the meaning of morality, but it doesn't mean it's not universal. back in teh day it was considered okay to beat your wife, now it isn't. but some things remain the same. you use examples of soldiers raping women, of course a rapist would say that is not morally wrong, but ask the average african what he thinks. Secondly, why is killing perceived to be wrong? Let me tell you why; it is because that is what the prevailing ideas of our society suggest, that's what our school books write, because killing is penalized, because that's what religion, today, suggests. Because the environment in which we grew up, the very environment which defines our personality, tell us that it is wrong. If we were brought up into a society in which the prevailing ideas suggested that killing is right, then killing would have been considered 'moral'. Ignoring that our perceptions, or 'morals' have been influenced by the society would be irrational. a society wouldn't be a society if killing was not considered wrong, name me one where that is the case. that's what the basis of society, respecting individual life. like i said the idea that killing might be wrong, is divine, the administration of that idea or its interpretation is human and can be subject to deviation. the example you said of humans creating god so that their morals could be obeyed to me does not make much sense. you fail to answer why create morals in the first place?? but look at the many morals created in religion that oppose the whole concept of might equals right. read aquinas on kingship, he says it's a moral obligation to depose an unjust ruler. like i said you can't simply say that all morals are subject to change and that we should hold nothing sacred, if that's the case what's to prevent me from killing you? would not have sex with a child because that child may not be able to perform the act, or may not be able to make a rational decision on whether or not they want to even have the act. I would not have a sex with a child because society says it is "immoral." That makes no sense. it is precisely because of what you stated above that society thinks it's immoral. although bear in mind, its definition differs in many time frames. but answer me this, isn't it society that defines consetual sex?? isn't it society that defines at what age a person is legally able to have sex? does that mean that those rules are flexible? i could use the same reason you used to argue that having sex with a child is o.k., would that make it right. see that's precisely why morality has to appeal to a higher being than humanity. Ideologies and moralities are quite fungible and have probably done more harm than good, being used by rulers to control. not really, maybe morals interpreted through faulty human reasoning.
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Dec 29, 2007 13:51:06 GMT -5
Red Brigade10 (11/17/06 10:09 pm) Re: Raising questions on morality? ( Debunking Morality) a society wouldn't be a society if killing was not considered wrong, name me one where that is the case. that's what the basis of society, respecting individual life. like i said the idea that killing might be wrong, is divine, the administration of that idea or its interpretation is human and can be subject to deviation. First of all, lets put aside terms such as 'right' and 'wrong' for a moment. I partially agree with the first scale of the paragraph. A society wouldn't function if killing was not penalized among its equal members. Note that I use the term 'equal members' because the laws do not apply to those who aren't accepted by the society as equals such as slaves during the ancient times, serfs during feudalism....and immigrants nowadays. The reason why societies came up was because it is impossible to survive completely on your own, we also observe this in the nature. (thus Ayn Rand's ''individuality is the mother of progress just went to crap')Now lets do a time travel, lets go say 1.8 millions years ago and remember homo erectus, or even homo sapiens. Do you honestly believe that in case one of our ancestors killed one of their fellow prehistoric tribesmen would have felt any kind of guilt? That they did something wrong? Or do you believe that they did not killed each other because something like that would deem wrong? The answer is no. They wouldn't kill one of their fellow tribesmen because they needed each other, because they knew that they can survive only by staying together, just like most animals do today. Animals, especially those who hunt or live in groups, of the same kind don't kill each other not because it is 'wrong' but because they need each other. And humans are nothing but sophisticated animals. So there's no such thing as right and wrong and thus morals. The only thing that exists is perceived self-interest which is also influenced by the prevailing ideas of a society. the example you said of humans creating god so that their morals could be obeyed to me does not make much sense. Because only via an infallible 'divine being' the rulers could impose the 'rights' and 'wrongs' - the morals - of a society. This is why most people's views on morality stem from theological beliefs. Morality is one of the most important tools of the rulers. Through this they have been able to force their own ends in order to gain submission and obedience. The problem with humanity is that it judges based on what is conceived to be right or wrong. It very rarely takes into consideration what is logical. Murder is not right, in what instance? What happens if it is necessary? A rather dark and crude moral conundrum, but I will pose it nonetheless. I could say that it was immoral to have sex with one's sister, but what happens when someone puts a gun to your mothers head and says "if you don't @#%$ your sister then I will kill your mother." What choice would you make? Would you accept your morality simply because you or society conceive it to be right? It would be distasteful to sleep with your sister, but to do it would prevent your mother being killed. Of course there are two people involved in this problem. Logically you and your sister could simply make an agreement to save your mothers life. But what happens if your sister refuses? Then what would you do? Ultimately, what is incest? What is rape? What would these things mean in such a situation? If you cannot claim morality to be applied in all instances, you cannot claim it at all.
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Dec 29, 2007 13:55:30 GMT -5
SULIOT (11/18/06 3:00 am) Re: Raising questions on morality? Now lets do a time travel, lets go say 1.8 millions years ago and remember homo erectus, or even homo sapiens. Do you honestly believe that in case one of our ancestors killed one of their fellow prehistoric tribesmen would have felt any kind of guilt? That they did something wrong? Or do you believe that they did not killed each other because something like that would deem wrong? The answer is no. They wouldn't kill one of their fellow tribesmen because they needed each other, because they knew that they can survive only by staying together, just like most animals do today. Animals, especially those who hunt or live in groups, of the same kind don't kill each other not because it is 'wrong' but because they need each other. And humans are nothing but sophisticated animals. basically you're saying the creation of the 'good,' is societal, I'm saying it's godlike. all the laws of the universe are created by god, so are the laws of moral conduct. How homo sapiens reasoned i don't know, i don't even know whether they did reason. Like I said before, 'good' is whatever enhances our survival, but that doesn't mean that 'the good' is not divine. Because only via an infallible 'divine being' the rulers could impose the 'rights' and 'wrongs' - the morals - of a society. This is why most people's views on morality stem from theological beliefs. Morality is one of the most important tools of the rulers. Through this they have been able to force their own ends in order to gain submission and obedience. but morality also constrained the rulers to act in a certain way, yet you forget this. they were always subject to the will of god. who do you think had more power a Christian monarch of a pagan tyrant?? The problem with humanity is that it judges based on what is conceived to be right or wrong. It very rarely takes into consideration what is logical. Murder is not right, in what instance? What happens if it is necessary? logics change, right and wrong is the same. A rather dark and crude moral conundrum, but I will pose it nonetheless. I could say that it was immoral to have sex with one's sister, but what happens when someone puts a gun to your mothers head and says "if you don't @#%$ your sister then I will kill your mother." What choice would you make? Would you accept your morality simply because you or society conceive it to be right? It would be distasteful to sleep with your sister, but to do it would prevent your mother being killed. Of course there are two people involved in this problem. Logically you and your sister could simply make an agreement to save your mothers life. But what happens if your sister refuses? Then what would you do? Ultimately, what is incest? What is rape? What would these things mean in such a situation? If you cannot claim morality to be applied in all instances, you cannot claim it at all. bro, you still don't understand. you take everything too literally. it is morally wrong to sleep with your sister. that doesn't mean that it would be morally wrong to sleep with your sister in order to save your mother. it's the same thing with killing, it's morally wrong to kill, but not so in self defense. it's morally wrong to have an abortion, unless you do it to save your life. yet, all these don't mean that sleeping with your sister, killing, abortion are not wrong. saying that something is immoral, does not mean that it can't be moral in other circumstances. p.s. do you know of any cases where a person has been convicted for killing in self defense, having an abortion in self defense, etc, etc, etc, and has been said by the church or any other group that he should be punished?
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Dec 29, 2007 14:06:13 GMT -5
Red Brigade10 (12/2/06 12:58 pm) Re: Raising questions on morality?I don't think that we will agree on this subject Suliot, we obviously have different perceptions. This is something that I found from Engels, he hits the nail. Anti-Dühring: Morality is Class MoralityThe conceptions of good and bad have varied so much from nation to nation and from age to age that they have often been in direct contradiction to each other. But all the same, someone may object, good is not bad and bad is not good; if good is confused with bad there is an end to all morality, and everyone can do and leave undone whatever he cares. This is also, stripped of his oracular phrases, Herr Duhring's opinion. But the matter cannot be so simply disposed of. If it was such an easy business there would certainly be no dispute at all over good and bad; everyone would know what was good and what was bad. But how do things stand today? What morality is preached to us today? There is first Christian-feudal morality, inherited from past centuries of faith; and this again has two main subdivisions, Catholic and Protestant moralities, each of which in turn has no lack of further subdivisions from the Jesuit-Catholic and Orthodox-Protestant to loose "advanced" moralities. Alongside of these we find the modern bourgeois morality and with it too the proletarian morality of the future, so that in the most advanced European countries alone the past, present and future provide three great groups of moral theories which are in force simultaneously and alongside of each other. Which is then the true one? Not one of them, in the sense of having absolute validity; but certainly that morality which contains the maximum of durable elements is the one which, in the present, represents the overthrow of the present, represents the future: that is, the proletarian.
But when we see that the three classes of modern society, the feudal aristocracy, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, each have their special morality, we can only draw the one conclusion, that men, consciously or unconsciously, derive their moral ideas in the last resort from the practical relations on which they carry on production and exchange.
But nevertheless there is much that is common to the three moral theories mentioned above -- is this not a least a portion of a morality which is externally fixed? These moral theories represent three different stages of the same historical development, and have therefore a common historical background, and for that reason alone they necessarily have much in common. Even more. In similar or approximately similar stages of economic development moral theories must of necessity be more or less in agreement. From the moment when private property in movable objects developed, in all societies in which this private property existed there must be this moral law in common: Thou shalt not steal. Does this law thereby become an eternal moral law? By no means. In a society in which the motive of stealing has been done away with, in which therefore at the very most only lunatics would ever steal, how the teacher of morals would be laughed at who tried solemnly to proclaim the eternal truth: Thou shalt not steal!
We therefore reject every attempt to impose on us any moral dogma whatsoever as an eternal, ultimate and forever immutable moral law on the pretext that the moral world has its permanent principles which transcend history and the differences between nations. We maintain on the contrary that all former moral theories are the product, in the last analysis, of the economic stage which society had reached at that particular epoch. And as society has hitherto moved in class antagonisms, morality was always a class morality; it has either justified the domination and the interests of the ruling class, or, as soon as the oppressed class has become powerful enough, it has represented the revolt against this domination and the future interests of the oppressed.
link
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Dec 29, 2007 14:07:43 GMT -5
JannissaryofByzantium(12/6/06 4:22 pm) Re: Raising questions on morality?Morality is a set of values with reference points to each disputable issue that might arisen. When one acts in line with the reference points developed by the respective society, then that person is deemed as moral, if not then the person could be deemed as immoral depending upon the set of values breached. However, there are times when the reference points developed by a certain society get eroded over time. When such set of values does not convey practical benefit for the individuals, then the corruption appears as a part of the equation, and such degeneration leads the given society towards some process that regenerates the set of values that would define the new reference points for having considered as ethical. Anittas (12/6/06 8:48 pm)
Re: Raising questions on morality?
I understand what you're saying, Janny. You could have just said that morality is relative, but I liked the way you wrote it. The only thing I don't understand is the wink. How should one interpret it?
(12/7/06 8:00 am) Thank you, Anittas. In my opinion, evolving nature of such relativity (dialectical) is the key issue. Slavery is a good example how morality could be evolved into an entirely opposite phase. When do you mean "wink", do you mean the blinking of an eye? As I know it that also means "a very short time".
|
|