Morals (attn: Maverick)

[Mr.Positive]

We all have a different moral code, however in my 34 years there's one thing about morality that I've found extremely consistent.

The people that have the highest personal moral code and lived based upon that code, have been the happiest, most peaceful, well rounded people I've ever met.

For they have found the key and truly unlocked their own happiness.

And likewise, the people that I've dealt with that seem to have no morality, have been the most miserable.

 

[Mavrick]

We all have a different moral code, however in my 34 years there's one thing about morality that I've found extremely consistent.

The people that have the highest personal moral code and lived based upon that code, have been the happiest, most peaceful, well rounded people I've ever met.

For they have found the key and truly unlocked their own happiness.

And likewise, the people that I've dealt with that seem to have no morality, have been the most miserable.

Profound and something I will definitely be thinking about.

 

[ketostix]

I
Think of morality as something such like religion. There are doctrines and beliefs from one religion to another and morality could be the same from person to person. The complexity comes in when there is a large group of people who hold similar beliefs and feel that their way is the right way and that they need to convert the masses.

Is this really any worse than govermental/societal rules and laws that most of the people are subjected to, who never really had a vote or a choice?

The most common one are those who believe "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." It sounds good if we were all the same but we're not and so in comes the contention.

You've made this argument last time a "morals" debate came up. You make it sound like how people want to be treated by others doesn't follow the bell curve but that it is evenly and randomly distributed. It's really just silly to argue that. Do you really think anyone would complain if another person even treated them at the lowest percentile of what that other person would want to be treated anyway? It's just common sense that most people are self-centered and want everyone to treat them way better. It's just a way of counteracting self-centeredness. The more self-centered you are the more the rule demands you to not be if you think about it. It's just a inverse feedback loop. What's you're better rule of thumb, do unto others how you wouldn't want done to you?

Did I mention morality is much like a religion?

And so are many other beliefs people hold.

 

[Centaurion]

REally? I won't dispute that for better or worse ethics and morals are forced on memebers of a society. But you mean I can't through my own reasoning decide what I think is moral and unmoral. On'y "society" has that capability? I think everyone has the capibility to individual come to the same conclusion, they just choose not too.

That is the core of the discussion.

Cognitivits believe that we have cognitive abilities which allows us to deduct and find a set of morals/ethic guidelines for ourselves, while the non-cognitivst believes the opposite. They believe that we all live in an "illusion" were we have accepted the morals of the society, and tricked ourselves into believing that the morals that we follow are our own. We think that have made our own moral, but in reality we are nothing but sheep, following the general consensus regarding this issue.


EDIT : Sorry for the sh!tty language. English is not my first language, which makes it hard to have a philosophical debate regarding this topic, as I can't put forward my viewpoints as eloquently as I wish.

 

[ketostix]

We think that have made our own moral, but in reality we are not but sheep, following the general consensus regarding this issue.

Well a simple test for that is to see if your morals are in harmony or disagreement with the majority. I often find my morals going against the majority. I'm not trying to make a religious like argument but just show another belief. The belief that morals came from outside of man and was instilled in him just the same as reason and logic was/is and doesn't really need to be taught by others.So I guess you could put me down as a cognivits.

Sure every intelligent being is a somewhat a product of their enviroment. But my point is good natured being are inntrinsically good natured seperate from their enviroment. Sort of like how a lamb has a more docile nature than a tiger.

 

[fertileTurtle]

Morals are rules to live by. Everyone has morals of some kind or another. Two people can't live in the same world without some set of morals. The golden rule is a good start. Without morals is anarchy. Are you prepared to live in a world of anarchy? Nobody is, that is why we need to take the subject seriously. You have to find out on your own what is right and wrong. Nobody can tell you, but you can observe and understand.

 

[fertileTurtle]

Well a simple test for that is to see if your morals are in harmony or disagreement with the majority. I often find my morals going against the majority. I'm not trying to make a religious like argument but just show another belief...

The majority means nothing, the minorty means nothing: the truth is everything.

 

[Mavrick]

The majority means nothing, the minorty means nothing: the truth is everything.

Might is right! lol

 

[ketostix]

Might is right! lol

I agree. My point is unless it's one-itis why would you want to get with a married woman if it weren't to spite her husband or because you're lacking in ability to get an unmarried woman? And to say there's not a higher probability of negative repercussions in getting with a married woman over a single one I think is erroneous. She's already proven she's not a trustworthy woman for starters.

 

[fertileTurtle]

Might is right! lol

If a million people jumped off a bridge would you jump? Scarry thought: some of us might.

 

[ketostix]

If a million people jumped off a bridge would you jump? Scarry thought: some of us might.

When Mavrick quoted you I assumed he was agreeing with you. I'm actually agreeing with you Turtle.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

If a million people jumped off a bridge would you jump? Scarry thought: some of us might.

And the ones who wouldn't have to watch out for those who would that would want to push off those who wouldn't! :nervous:

 

[MacAvoy]

Keto

Are you telling me that these two scenarios are different?

Scenario 1

John Doe turns down offer of sex from married women.

Scenario 2

John Doe accepts offer of sex from a women who's been in a committed relationship for 10 years.
____________________________________________________________________________________

Are you saying that the only way for a moral person to respect a relationship is if there is a marriage certificate?

If that's the case, then I think that only once again reinforces Dongorgon's post that Another word for morals is hypocrisy. In today's society, a larger portion of society is gettin away from organized faith and as a result there are less marriages but if you think thats the only way you can have a commitment, then I'll agree to disagree because it will be a never ending arguement.

 

[SharinganUser]

This should be settled by Mavrick and MacAvoy in a steel cage. But only instead of a steel cage, a jello pit, and instead of Mavrick and MacAvoy competing, it will be 6 women (two teams of 3) of our choice.

 

[ketostix]

Keto

Are you telling me that these two scenarios are different?

Scenario 1

John Doe turns down offer of sex from married women.

Scenario 2

John Doe accepts offer of sex from a women who's been in a committed relationship for 10 years.
____________________________________________________________________________________

Are you saying that the only way for a moral person to respect a relationship is if there is a marriage certificate?

If that's the case, then I think that only once again reinforces Dongorgon's post that Another word for morals is hypocrisy. In today's society, a larger portion of society is gettin away from organized faith and as a result there are less marriages but if you think thats the only way you can have a commitment, then I'll agree to disagree because it will be a never ending arguement.

No I never said there was a difference between sleeping with a married woman and one in a commited relationship if that's what you're asking. Not that I'm advocating mariage, but if some guy was with a woman for 10 years you have to figure that one or the other isn't really commited or that serious about the relationship. I never said anything's changed though, the woman is still untrustworthy and a guy that pursues a "commited" or married woman is untrustworthy too etc. I'm not the one making it all about a marriage certificate.

 

[jacob]

Whenever a human being bases his actions upon the love of Jesus Christ, he contributes to the building up of a society of love that flourishes a culture of life. Such love, centered in an encounter and relationship with the living Lord that is most personal, serves as the basis of natural law, such that when a person carries out any self-giving act, his true nature as a human being is more fully revealed.

However, wherever man refuses to offer himself as self-gift to God and others, and fails to respect the dignity inherent in human beings who have been formed in the image and likeness of the Creator, he foments a culture of death that leads to the breakdown of relationships and society, ultimately reducing the human being in a utilitarian manner to serving merely as an instrument for personal gain or pleasure. In such a culture of death, the human being is not valued for his intrinsic personal value and consequently is all too frequently considered disposable once the person has served his perceived purpose.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

SECURITY!!!

 

[Falcon]

I've always derived morals from empathy. I also suspect that people who have a lack of empathy will have a lack of strong morals. Morals can be built through doctrine or experience. Doctrine is when you learn it by your parents telling you, or at school, or even in blind following of religion etc, a very superficial way of learning and often does not hold up well in the long run. When you learn from experience is usually when a great deal of empathy is involved.

Imagine this, some player likes to cheat in his relationships. He never really cares what happens to the people he cheats with, whether it destroys their relationships etc. But one day, many years later, a good friend of his is completely devastated by the friend's wife cheating in the marriage. It goes as far as putting the friend into depression. The empathetic player will eventually start to ask questions of himself, such as, "could I be doing this to other people/families?" The player lacking in empathy will likely see his friend as weak and probably not question his actions.

This example gets much stronger if it actually happens to the person himself. I once had a teacher in middle school tell me a story that when he was a teenager, he messed up somebody's expensive car (as some kind of prank). At the time, he thought it was funny, but the other person of course didn't. Many years later, when he himself has bought an expensive car (and spent so much effort to get one), by karma or mere coincidence, a teenager messed it up, in his own driveway!!! He told me that that was the point when he realized what he did as a teenager. His empathy kicked in. He actually felt so bad that he sought out the guy and apologized to him. I'm sure the event changed his life from a moral standpoint.

 

[ketostix]

I've always derived morals from empathy. I also suspect that people who have a lack of empathy will have a lack of strong morals. Morals can be built through doctrine or experience. Doctrine is when you learn it by your parents telling you, or at school, or even in blind following of religion etc, a very superficial way of learning and often does not hold up well in the long run. When you learn from experience is usually when a great deal of empathy is involved.

This is a good point. This is one of the reason why I don't trust religious people, their morals are often superficial. Another thing is that other people acting unethical/immoral towards another can teach the latter to be empathetic so there's the suggestion "there has to be bad to find good", but I think most people who didn't start out with certain intrinsic or native level of morals tend to become even less moral the more they experience others treating them unethically.

This example gets much stronger if it actually happens to the person himself. I once had a teacher in middle school tell me a story that when he was a teenager, he messed up somebody's expensive car (as some kind of prank). At the time, he thought it was funny, but the other person of course didn't. Many years later, when he himself has bought an expensive car (and spent so much effort to get one), by karma or mere coincidence, a teenager messed it up, in his own driveway!!! He told me that that was the point when he realized what he did as a teenager. His empathy kicked in. He actually felt so bad that he sought out the guy and apologized to him. I'm sure the event changed his life from a moral standpoint.

This is the basis for do unto other as you'd have them do unto you. No one wants someone else to scratch their new car, so you shouldn't scratch their car.

 

[Technical1]

One time I stole food from the refridgerator in my dorm and ate other people's food. I felt bad about it and I think they knew it was me. So I wont do that ever again. That being said, I didnt respect those people and if I had, I would never have done it. But now I wouldnt do it no matter whose food it was.

Ultimately, if you dont respect someone and they cant harm you, whats preventing you from fvcking with them?

In my case, its the vague fear that it could come back and bite me in the a5s, like them confronting me (they did).

I vacillate regularly between a nietzschean, survival-of-the-fittest dog-eat-dog type thinking and an upstanding citizen type thinking. It represents to me the two sides of the coin, kind of like the dark and light side of DJing– once you have power over a woman you can be sincere with her or you can play her.

Perhaps everyone strikes a balance between these two types of thinking. I know that without a bit of nietzschean selfishness people often come across as boring, harmless nice guys. Without any upstanding back bone, you wont like someone because you cant ever trust them and they dont appear to have integrity.

Ultimately I think people view me with more respect for the fact that they recognize I have integrity while knowing they can never fully have me in their pocket nor predict exactly what I'm going to do. The mixture of the two viewpoints has proven profitable thus far.