The Standard of Morality

[colour]

This is a topic I hope everyone can relate. If you are reading this message then you are a conscious human being with the ability to make value judgments.

I was hoping to just get into the minds of all you thinkers out there and how you have come to determine what is good or bad. Basically, everyone has a philosophy - If you decide to rape women and rob banks you still have a philosophy. Obviously this code of ethics is irrational and ultimately leads to some form of suicide; mentally or physically.

How have you come to conclude right from wrong? Jesus, God, Law, TV, yourself?

I could go on for days with this but lets start here...

[killerweed420]

I try to keep mine very simple. I try to never intentionally hurt anyone. Sometimes you do it unintentionally.

[TurnyBright]

I try to keep mine very complicated. The notion of a standard for objective definitions of "good and bad" implies that there must be some force to define them, a force that is wholly separate from one's self. It would seem that the only obvious form that this insidious force takes shape is in the geographical waves of structure of thought among human beings on earth.

That is, people, as they live their lives, form distinct aesthetic reactions and emotional behaviors associated with their conscious learnings and experiences, and those thoughts form their personal definitions for the polar concepts of right and wrong. Often the events that form these definitions are major points in people's lives, and the schemata they form from them can be intense.

Incidentally, humans live in close quarters, and have a clan structure that beautifully transmits individual communication, thus gifting each person great potential to influence the lives of those around them in weird, abstract ways. After a little time together, groups of people learn to agree with the each others moral aesthetics, on the major points at least. After a while, people don't even notice their agreement, or notice the moral dilemmas inherent to practically every facet of being alive. Some people never notice, from birth to death.

So my definitions of "right" and "wrong" are such.

Right: It is right to act as I feel is right, but only if I have examined it against the climate of moral thought and made a judgment as to it's accuracy upon my even baser aesthetic response to it.

Wrong: It is right to judge wrong as what I feel to conflict (not refute, only conflict) my definition of what is right.

[40oz]

I take a relative standpoint for what is right and wrong. In life, the only truth is the truth you accept to be true, so therefore what is morally right and wrong, or good and evil, can only be what an individual accepts as his personal morals.

When dealing with this issue, I like to think of a little thing Ernest Hemingway used to say, If you feel bad after you do it, its wrong. If you feel good, its not.

[colour]

so therefore what is morally right and wrong, or good and evil, can only be what an individual accepts as his personal morals.


Well, you're on the right track. To understand what is moral you must first ask and understand why man needs a code of values - or morals to begin with.

That is, people, as they live their lives, form distinct aesthetic reactions and emotional behaviors associated with their conscious learnings and experiences, and those thoughts form their personal definitions for the polar concepts of right and wrong. Often the events that form these definitions are major points in people's lives, and the schemata they form from them can be intense.

Sounds like you are describing perception. We see reality, process it, then the produce judgments from those experiences; emotions.

I'll give you all example of what I mean. My standard of morality is life. My life more particular. From when we are born we learn very basic values that we soon realize keep us alive such as water, air, shelter and food. As we grow and our minds become more sophisticated and our values evolve and become more complex: politics, religion, philosophy, language and so on. Again, along with the Objectivist thought, the standard of morality is one's own life: What makes ME happy? What are the values that will shape the course of my life to ensure that I will be productive and successful?

In essence, the code of values, or morality, that you adopt should be the one that is going to most benefit you -- rationally. I use that word because you can go out and con people but that is obviously uncool.

Does anyone disagree with the notion that man should live his life for his own sake and discredit the old religious injunction 'you are your brother's keeper'?

[40oz]

Does anyone disagree with the notion that man should live his life for his own sake and discredit the old religious injunction 'you are your brother's keeper'?

No I do not disagree, I do however feel that our survival depends on our ability to help eachother out, so I think it is important to be aware of the needs of others and help them as best you can...while still keeping your own needs and desires in mind, because those are really the only things that matter.

[GreenDestiny]

I stick by the quote in my sig

[TurnyBright]

Does anyone disagree with the notion that man should live his life for his own sake and discredit the old religious injunction 'you are your brother's keeper'?

I disagree, though it might seem like I'm contradicting what I said before. I think that although we have no choice but to weigh all our experiences and the moral compass we gain from those experience against our own perception, there is a state of being towards which our cognition is working, one where the ego is founded not in consciousness, but in a far baser and more distributed version of existence.

I think the closest one can get to this existence while still alive is in the form of love, real love, where the "you" in you becomes nothing more than a extension of someone or something else, and conscious thought only retains it's existence to better appreciate the being of the object of your love.

[colour]

"There's no right, there's no wrong, there's only popular opinion."

So the majority will always prevail against the individual? How can you morally justify?

I think the closest one can get to this existence while still alive is in the form of love, real love, where the "you" in you becomes nothing more than a extension of someone or something else, and conscious thought only retains it's existence to better appreciate the being of the object of your love.

Closest to existence...that fact that are reading these words proves your existence. Please explain that one.

[TurnyBright]

I meant the altered existence of ego-death. My current existence is of course, a given.

[angeltyreal]

This is a topic I hope everyone can relate. If you are reading this message then you are a conscious human being with the ability to make value judgments.

I was hoping to just get into the minds of all you thinkers out there and how you have come to determine what is good or bad. Basically, everyone has a philosophy - If you decide to rape women and rob banks you still have a philosophy. Obviously this code of ethics is irrational and ultimately leads to some form of suicide; mentally or physically.

How have you come to conclude right from wrong? Jesus, God, Law, TV, yourself?

I could go on for days with this but lets start here...

Hey, I understand your interest in the subject, I've actually studied and written a paper on individual ethics. I don't mean to be rude, but your first post shows a little what you believe as good. That over there in bold shows you don't really approve of raping women and robbing banks. Truly these things don't tend to lead to suicide, and the few suicides there are of these people are usually because of the large amount of stress society puts on the person because everyone thinks its "wrong". Although I also believe it is wrong, and I am sure many other people do, it still doesn't make it right, always take it with a grain of salt. Everyone is just a product of their youth. We have seen in 30 year studies that people tend act based on their genes as a sort of 60% factor, and upbringing is 40%.

[GreenDestiny]

The majority usually creates the system of rules we all must abide by, but it can't always guarantee that those rules are just. But in a dictatorship or similar system, it's a very small group that gets to decide for all the people.... and dictatorships usually don't work too well.

But what I believe is that it's ultimately the individual's choice to decide what is right or wrong. The concept of morality is totally relative to each individual, so really there is no definite right or wrong; it only matters what works best for each single person.

Right and wrong becomes defined once enough individuals agree with each other to make up the majority of the population. Once they have the power to control, they do it, and vote to form laws and punishments based on their similar morals. The minority then has to conform to the mandated moral codes or else face possible punishments for acts that conflict with the majority's rule.


It seems we have infinitesimal punishments for what we might do wrong... but very few special rewards for when we conform to the morals of the majority and do what is right. That's defnitely not a good system to model when raising children, so why use it as a form of government? We need less negative reinforcement and more positive reinforcement in this backwards world that's dominated by overbearing judgemental religious fanatics. Waiting for Heaven is not enough, we need some damned incentives that work now while we're still alive.


It's very trippy to contemplate things like this and then wonder what it'd be like to experience reality as another animal that governs it's life primarily on basic survival instincts.... no complex emotions.

[colour]

That over there in bold shows you don't really approve of raping women and robbing banks. Truly these things don't tend to lead to suicide

thanks for stopping in. but, i think you misunderstood me. 'suicide' was used loosely and was a bit extreme. 'suicide' by voluntarily denying reason and going with your animal-like whims. much like a rapist....i wasn't really referring to them any more than that..

Green Destiny.
Right and wrong becomes defined once enough individuals agree with each other to make up the majority of the population. Once they have the power to control, they do it, and vote to form laws and punishments based on their similar morals. The minority then has to conform to the mandated moral codes or else face possible punishments for acts that conflict with the majority's rule.

Ok. Let me use this example: Gay marriage. It is outlawed in many states. Gays in Ca were just recently given the privilege of same-sex marriage. How can you morally justify a group of people voting away an individuals right to life and its derivatives? Another example is cannabis use. Do you feel it is morally right for the majority to decide if we can smoke it?

This is the type of morality I am getting to here. Regardless of what it is, its right only if backed by proper moral standard.

[GreenDestiny]

Too bad there's no ultimate referee or judge to tell us all what shall be right and wrong, unless you believe in a deity. Either way, just because we're alive and can contemplate these things doesn't justify our reasons to decide the moral codes for everyone. We just make it all up as we go along, just whatever works to our advantages. Stuff happens, results are produced. Based on our emotional responses we label the actions and results as right or wrong. It also depends on which decision gives the best result for selfish reasons.

Despite what's really right or wrong, people will always push for the judgement that benefits them the most.... or are coerced by ignorance/fear/religion into following another's moral code.

I think it's totally wrong for anyone to force their morals on other people, no matter how good or right it may seem. What's right for one may be wrong for another. That's why I believe there is no right or wrong and it's the popular opinion that rules. I couldn't give the slightest crap about what the majority thinks. For me to be happy it only matters how I think and feel. Making others feel good is just a bonus, but not a requirement. And I do as much as I can to not hurt anyone.

Religious extremists will morally justify anything they do because they claim a divine creator has commanded them to follow the rules or else they'll be punished... and they'll twist logic around to justify their actions as the will of their creator.


It seems that just living harmoniously, or sybiotically with nature is the only right thing to do. The respect and preservation of all life. But when someone decides to do something extremely selfish or violent... ah, what do we do? MUST we do anything at all?

[TurnyBright]

asd

[llamapunch]

consciousness is a symptom of spirit (spirit/soul)

right and wrong = good and bad

good can't be defined so easily because I think we only see small parts of the "good" as it exists in separate things we call good. But what thing makes all good things good?

man does no wrong knowingly

[colour]

man does no wrong knowingly

so when one man steals from another he doesn't know its wrong?

[GreenDestiny]

Is it wrong for an atom to steal an electron from another atom? Or to steal a whole atom to bond with to give itself a better existence as a molecule? There's no concept of good and bad in the world of atoms.

We're just a collection of atoms. So is it really wrong for us to steal something else that's just a collection of atoms too?


But, yes, we seem to have free will to choose. Like choosing not to acknowledge posessive ownership of matter. We have no more control over the individual atoms in our bodies than we do for the actions of every person. Chaos is the motivation for bringing order to things. There will always be chaos and perfect order is never attainable. It's an ongoing, changing, evolving struggle. Unless you consider chaos itself to be the perfect order of things...

There's no right or wrong, good or bad; there's only the current -selfish- opinions of what can be observed at each moment by a complex hierarchy of atoms (us) that can contemplate such things.

And my opinion isn't right or wrong. It's just an opinion. Nothing more. <---And that's an opinion too.. <---And that... See it never ends. (oops, another opinion). It's my opinion that it's an opinion. hahahah. At what point does an opinion become fact? How can something abstract like morality be solidly proven beyond any doubt to be factual?

[TurnyBright]

â??Thieves respect property. They merely wish the property to become their property that they may more perfectly respect it.â?� -G.K. Chesterton

That sounds like a rightness to me.

[angeltyreal]

man does no wrong knowingly

I wish I could believe that one, there are many people that willingly and knowingly do wrong.




I'm pretty sure if I were an atom, and another atom stole one of [I]my electrons, I would be pretty pissed.

[QUOTE]But, yes, we seem to have free will to choose. Like choosing not to acknowledge posessive ownership of matter. We have no more control over the individual atoms in our bodies than we do for the actions of every person. Chaos is the motivation for bringing order to things. There will always be chaos and perfect order is never attainable. It's an ongoing, changing, evolving struggle. Unless you consider chaos itself to be the perfect order of things...

I like the way that you think and express your thoughts. I like to think a bit differently in that there will always be chaos, but there, in that chaos, we obtain perfection. As our world is completely controlled by chaos, corrupt leaders, illness everywhere, everyone living without thinking of sustainablity, the natural world seems to be growing to try and adapt to it. There have been new species of birds and other mammals that have appeared near manufacturing plants that actually breath carbon monoxide. Just a little peice of the perfection the world, and probably many other worlds out there, have to offer amidst the chaos.



There's no right or wrong, good or bad; there's only the current -selfish- opinions of what can be observed at each moment by a complex hierarchy of atoms (us) that can contemplate such things.

And my opinion isn't right or wrong. It's just an opinion. Nothing more. <---And that's an opinion too.. <---And that... See it never ends. (oops, another opinion). It's my opinion that it's an opinion. hahahah. At what point does an opinion become fact? How can something abstract like morality be solidly proven beyond any doubt to be factual?

Also, you are right here, there is really no true good and evil, only positive and negative. Good and evil seem to be our spiritual and in some cases "physical" manifestations of positive and negative. Someone steals your purse? Negative interaction. Since you may have liked the purse and are attached to it, you dub it as evil. And so on.

[Platinum Plus]

I think it all Depends on what you see and hear and learn as a child growing up.
Until a couple of years ago I wasn't thinking about how evil the government is
or how the news is feeding us bullshit.
All my life up until then I was told to do what elders said and shit like that.
Like how you shouldn't defy the bible and things like that.
But now that I'm older I have more of a grasp on what's going on around me and around the world.
So I make my own choices and Myself choose between what's wrong or right, Good or bad.
And that's how i think everyone should decide right from wrong is on their own.
Of course while you're young let your parents point out the little things lol.
But then again sometimes that isn't right either which is why things like racism an such still exist.
Sorry if my answer's a little dodgy i'm just not good at explaning things as clear as you smart bastards. :p

[delusionsofNORMALity]

ultimately, each persons views of right and wrong are based purely on self-interest. even our most altruistic acts are merely examples of enlightened self-interest and contain some element of personal gain, whether real or imagined. for the religious, there is the desire to please their deity or to repay the debt of gratitude for creation. for the secular there is the realization that they live within a society and what aids the growth and health of that society will, in some way, aid themselves.

of course; there are those who see themselves as solitary, unencumbered by the needs of those around them. these are seen as the sociopaths that blight society, when they are merely outsiders who are unable to gain any of the benefits of the society whose standards they refuse.

[colour]

why can't mans own life be the standard of morality..(have i said that already..?)? after all, you are what matters most, right?

[TurnyBright]

Because there ARE other people, and if one's own perception is any indicator of what their perceptions are, then they matter just as much.

[40oz]

Because there ARE other people, and if one's own perception is any indicator of what their perceptions are, then they matter just as much.

That's True. After all, the sensation of being a distinct individual experiencing a physical world separate from yourself is just an illusion. Right?

[colour]

Because there ARE other people, and if one's own perception is any indicator of what their perceptions are, then they matter just as much.

yes, i agree. and if they agree to interact or care for one another it is only because they want to out of their own selfish desire. see? rational self interest, or mans life as the standard, doesn't mean no one else matters. :jointsmile:

[TurnyBright]

What about the man who drowns in an attempt to rescue a stranger? Or the soldier who jumps on a grenade to save strangers in a foreign country? What self-interest are they acting on?

A desire to commit that unselfish act (self-sacrifice for a total stranger) wouldn't come out of selfish desire. Some people believe that their own life, consciousness, and self are inherently less important than those of other people, simply because one's self is experienced only by... one's self, who can choose to use it as they see fit, to extend their responsibility out to other people.

[colour]

now we're getting to the point.

i would have to pity those two men. there was no moral obligation to the drowning man or the foreigners.

the problem is philosophical. from seed up we have been brainwashed to think the only moral way to live is to be our brother's keeper. but, you have to ask: why should a stranger's life, or the collective, take precedence over the Individual's?

now, if one chooses to sacrifice their life to a stranger it's entirely their choice. but, i would not consider it noble. i would call it stupid. they are simply the victim of a poor, deadly philosophy.

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

I i were to standardize morality, i would put Free Will at the center.

WE ALL have free will, therefore we are all on a common ground.
How do i know if what i am doing is right or wrong?

I DONT! NO ONE does. "Right" and "wrong" in the world of morality, are nothing more than opinions.
Right and wrong are largely nothing more than opinions, however in a few physical circumstances, there can be a right way to do something and a wrong way, but this is in no way a matter of morality and a completely seperate topic.

Free will should be the center of morality because we all possess it.
If we are respecting the free will of others, we are morally right.
if we disregard other people's wills to act, to feel, to think, then we are morally wrong.

Weather any of this is true or not is impossible to discern, for morality and right and wrong are all arbitrarily man made concepts.
Man made concepts are usually arbitrary. and the more arbitrary, the fewer absolutes.

[40oz]

but, you have to ask: why should a stranger's life, or the collective, take precedence over the Individual's?



Maybe some people may think that being isn't born and it doesn't die. It can't be killed. Those who have disciplined minds understand to preform action because it is their duty. The undisciplined person preforms action for the sake of the fruits of their action. A person with discipline is indifferent to success and defeat because it is not the outcome of an action that matters, but action itself. Some people may feel it is their duty to sacrifice themselves. What is the worst that could happen in the end if you know that consciousness or being will never die?

[SnSstealth]

I would like to thank everyone involved in this discussion. I have been reading it for a while, and I am still waiting a bit to give my outlook.
The only reason I am responding at all yet, is because I can't figure out how to subscribe to a thread that I haven't posted in....lol
I have yet to have a thread hit my head so hard that I had to actually....wait for it...THINK like I did here. Truely have to dig deep to answer this question...Or I am truely too stoned right now to try...:joint1:
whiskeytango

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

it's a deep dig, indeed, but i dont know if there is an end to the digging...


Humans are self proclaimed intelligent creatures.


That said, we DONT KNOW if the rocks or the trees, or the sky can think, or is self aware.
EVERYTHING we hold in value has human-proclaimed value, not necessarily true value.

For we are human, we do not possess knowledge outside ourselves, only awareness and perceptions. our knowledge stops where our perceptions begin.

To assume we percieve the truth is, again, a self proclaimed assumption.

So when it comes to the topic of morlity, there are no absolutes, only opinions. so what is the standard of morlity? whatever the individual chooses it to be.

The social standard of morality is different from social group to social group, but how many of us stick to our own guns and learn for ourselves, first hand, what morality truly is?

[GreenDestiny]

mmmm... free will. I love it, it's so chaotic. and limitless.

Free will reserved only for the humans? Or free will for all forms of "life" and inanimate objects?

Free will to kill a plant or animal and consume it for sustenance.... or let IT consume you.

Free will to control everything.

Free will to resist control.


Free opinions.

Free chaos.

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

mmmm... free will. I love it, it's so chaotic. and limitless.

Free will reserved only for the humans? Or free will for all forms of "life" and inanimate objects?

Free will to kill a plant or animal and consume it for sustenance.... or let IT consume you.

Free will to control everything.

Free will to resist control.


Free opinions.

Free chaos.


And those who base their morality on free will would understand that "chaos" enough to permit others to do whatever the fuck they wanted, so long as your actions did not interfere with their free will, you would then know you were walking a morally sound path.

We are NOT our brothers' keepers, we are our OWN keepers, we are responsible for our OWN actions.

We ALL have free will from the lowly dust mite to the massive Whales of the ocean. we must learn to respect each other's boundaries.


WHY, do you suppose, the Native Americans cherished their hunt so emotionally to reenact the murder of a FRIEND for food?!?

they knew in their hearts that their source of meat, let's say the buffalo for now, had thoughts, emotions, families, friends, and loved ones. they KNEW the buffalo was ALIVE and AWARE. could YOU kill your own friend for food without mourning for him, without missing him?

Free will is not so chaotic when it is being respected. in fact, it is a most beautiful and natural thing. Humanity, in it's natural, pristine state of being, is nothing more than another animal walking the earth in search of food, water, shelter, and company.

[TurnyBright]

the problem is philosophical. from seed up we have been brainwashed to think the only moral way to live is to be our brother's keeper. but, you have to ask: why should a stranger's life, or the collective, take precedence over the Individual's?

It's not that we must be our brother's keeper, it is simply that our brother is OUR keeper, and we're obligated to perpetuate that relationship. Each individual owes a debt to the collective, which he can choose to pay or to spurn. It's called social responsibility, and it requires willingness to make personal sacrifice for the common interest. Why do you think personal freedom is so common nowadays? It was fought for, tooth and nail, by people who knew that their sacrifice was for an end they would never personally see.

For another angle, the man who throws himself on a grenade to save strangers has great perspective upon the human condition.

Imagine a situation where there are two choices for you (like the movie SAW).

Either you undergo great suffering, or a stranger in the next room undergoes great suffering. The choice is yours, never mind the problem of whatever put you in this situation, pretend it's a non-issue. What do you choose?

[GreenDestiny]

As for a guy that jumps on a grenade to save his mates, he could be doing it to quickly escape his own harsh reality and go out with an honorable bang. A patriotic death wish. To die a hero.
Glorification of self-sacrifice. Justifiable suicide. However you wanna look at it, you can't verify what was goin on in their mind as they did it.



And those who base their morality on free will would understand that "chaos" enough to permit others to do whatever the fuck they wanted, so long as your actions did not interfere with their free will, you would then know you were walking a morally sound path.
That's your free opinion, and it sounds good to me too. But to add boundaries/rules/laws/censorship to keep us from interfering with another's free will is limiting our own free will. I despise anything that limits my free will other than my own judgement. Trying to be your own "keeper" and not fuck with anyone else is harder than it sounds. I hold personal responsibility higher than I do social responsibility. but I think maybe I should really try to balance the two a bit more.

liberalism vs. conservatism... or something like that. the good old balance of things. A close balance of symbiosis and shit with everything is ideal for me I suppose; as long as I'm the one determining it for myself and everyone else can do the same for themselves.


Unless we live as a total hermit, we're gonna interact with people and those interactions can't always be perfect. Some disputes are hard to settle privately. A system of common morals seems inevitable.

[420_24/7]

First let me start off by saying that, in my opinion, there are two areas of morality. These being individual and general morality. General morality is the morals that are accepted by society, which should only be a vague outline for an individual's morals. Morality in itself is a difficult and somewhat paradoxical concept. Which is why the general populous tend to accept the morals that are handed down to them by society in the way that they are raised. For an individual to be morally good, they must come to terms with any issue of good or bad, and they must know, not think, that they're actions are of good. Morality is a state of mind more than anything. It isn't something that is to be shared between individuals. In this respect, for an individual to know that what they do is morally good, they must abandon the morals that have been instilled in them by society, and from their own experience and knowledge, create morals of their own. This is why morality cannot be shared. It can only consist of personal opinion. The essential problem with individual morality is that in some individuals, the good morality that they develop for themselves can be completely unlike that of anyone else, and in that, it can be what most others would not consider morally good. This is the reason that society has the responsibility of passing on general morality. Often times, people are not the slightest bit concerned with morality, in which case the idea of good and bad is pointless. These are the people whom society fails. They are not given the chance to make their own morals. They are not ever taught the concept of morality or general morality that they would do well to follow. They are not compelled by what is good or bad to themselves or anyone. This is also another issue that poses a problem to general morality. To be morally good, an individual's mind must come to terms with it's own morality, that is formed initially from the general morality and remade into that own individual's personal opinions of what is good and bad. The individual's opinions are only then truly their morals.

[TurnyBright]

The essential problem with individual morality is that in some individuals, the good morality that they develop for themselves can be completely unlike that of anyone else, and in that, it can be what most others would not consider morally good. This is the reason that society has the responsibility of passing on general morality. Often times, people are not the slightest bit concerned with morality, in which case the idea of good and bad is pointless. These are the people whom society fails.

It seems more like the people have failed society. There is no way an entire society can pass on morals to individuals, as the society is composed of individuals. It is the responsibility of each individual in society to agree with several other individuals upon key moral values, which is well facilitated by our language capabilities and ability to recognize patterns. If a new behavior or change in mindset chaotically evolves in an individual, it either propagates and spreads like an infection through the populace, or is quashed promptly by the "homeostatic thought-immunity system of the human collective," otherwise known as random emotional human whims and massive communication capabilities.

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

BASICALLY, we are trying to be ROBOTS, in our legal and moral systems. if x = true then y etc. bullcrap.

we cannot just simply write out a code of lawns and stick to it any more than we can morals. we are LIVING AND CHANGING ENTITIES, therefore EVERYTHING about our society must match our life and change rate.


nothing is set in stone so much that a single set of rules will adequately address all the issues. and while any set code of conduct can only encompas a small fraction of what human beings are, it must CONSTANTLY change, fluxuating with us, expanding as we expand, contracting as we contract.

Law cannot be some sort of set of rules that is more important than the individuals that it is supposed to police.


"Man, the living, creating, individual is more important than any set style or system."
~ Bruce Lee


Humankind, being a living, changing, entity is very much like a gas; the more you try to compress it to shape it to your will, the more erratic and explosive it becomes.

We cannot be molded into a set style or system, rather a style or system must be molded after us, to move with us, to change as we change.


I believe "anarchy" is what they call it these days, but a system where no person has more authority over anyone but themselves is a system that works WITH humanity.

[kapnobatai]

My own idea on the way I should treat others is the way I want to be treated, pretty simple but it's just a value I was raised upon. Along with being honest and not to steal. Of course everyone might take a pack of gum or lie about some petty things but overall I am an honest person, and in my eyes very trustworthy. That's just me, apart of me believes that peoples morals are different based on the environment that they are exposed to from birth until death. Things like social norms and ancient cultural history might have a huge impact on day to day life standards in certain parts of the globe. I think some morals might be present with us today because of religion, or maybe even genetics. Overall life should be one of the most respected things in this world for it is the greatest.

[kapnobatai]

YouTube - Jonathan Haidt: The real difference between liberals and con (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs41JrnGaxc&feature=user)

great video, figured I'd share :stoned:

[Coelho]

Well... i think i arrived at the basic principles of the morality.

For many people, morality is to do not some thing for someone if you wouldnt like it were done for you (or treat people like you would like to be treated, etc). And i think it is the fundamental principle of morality, from what everything else is based or deduced.

This principle comes from the assumption that other people feels the same way that us. So, as i know that being treaded on the toe hurts, i wont tread on other persons toes, cause i will assume that it will hurt them, and as im assuming that they feel the same way i do, if i tread on someones toe, it will increase the "total pain" felt by the mankind, this "total pain" being the sum of all the pain felt by all human beings. (It can be also extended by all living beings). The "total pain" would be increased by the same amount, regardless the toe traded on were mine or not, so i should avoid tread on others toes the same way i would try to avoid be treaded on, cause both would increase the "total pain".
(Of course the amount of pain caused by someone treading on anothers toe depends on the weight of the treader... but im not discussing this :p)

And the same goes for everything else, so we could talk about the "total happiness", "total well-being", etc...

BUT, the central assumption of the morality, that people feels the same way that us, cannot be proven rationally. There is no rational way to prove this. We can only infer this. If im treaded on the toe, it hurts and i yell. If i witness someone being treaded on the toe and this someone yells, i infer, i assume that this person felt the same pain i felt. But it just CANT be rigorously proven, but only assumed, inferred. We cant (rationally) enter into someone elses mind to feel the way they feel. So we cant know for sure if they actually feels the same way we do. (In fact, we cant be sure, using exclusively the means of the reason and logic, that other persons even exist. For all i know, everybody else could be only a product of my own mind, an illusion or hallucination.)

So, the conclusion is that morality is not a rational thing. In fact, morality cant be justified by pure reason.
Note that im NOT saying that morality doesnt exist, or its false, illusory, or whatever. Im only pointing that morality is not a reason-based thing.




PS. Of course there are the people who had "mystical experiences" and this ones says that we all are one, so maybe they percieved that the "total pain", "total happiness", etc, are the only real feelings, and that "personal pain", "personal happiness", are illusions created by the illusion of a self. But im not one of them, so i cant talk about what i dont know.
Also, i dont know if the logic and reason still are valid during this experiences, as both logic and reason are a product of the humans mind, and nothing ensures that they will remain valid in other consciousness states besides the usual "waking sober" one. So, even if this experiences prove the "realness" of the basic principle of the morality, it still remains an open question if the reason and logic can prove it.

[40oz]

So, the conclusion is that morality is not a rational thing. In fact, morality cant be justified by pure reason.
Note that im NOT saying that morality doesnt exist, or its false, illusory, or whatever. Im only pointing that morality is not a reason-based thing.





Im not so sure about that. If not constructed by reason, it would have to have been created by the passions, it would be a part of human nature. Now think about this...do animals have a sense of morality? I don't know, but my guess would be no, they do not have a sense of morality. That is a strictly human trait.

A person's sense of morality comes from our ability to rationalize and realize that if we look out for the good of the other humans around us, they will in turn look out for and protect us. Our moral code is then constructed surrounding this basic principle, which is a principle that is found in most all life forms. Without teamwork and traveling in packs, herds, schools, colonies, etc. individual organisms would never stand a chance.

So basically what Im saying is I think that a person's sense of morality is constructed by reason from a natural passion found within all life forms.

[Honkin22]

One man's right is other man's wrong, but I do think there are things all people should live by, and I think it is pretty simple, the old proverb "do on to others you wish them to do onto you" If you live you're life by that I think it covers most thing.:thumbsup:

[overgrowthegovt]

My thoughts:

There is the frustrating problem of subjectivity, of different people holding different values, etc. However, I think some value judgements can be deemed more correct than others, when held up to scrutiny. Frankly, many peoples' opinions do not mean shit, since they are merely the result of cultural indoctrination. I know, I know, to a degree everything everybody thinks (including myself) is a result of the same, but there are definite levels of it, and the fact that we are here discussing this shows that we have the ability to think in abstract terms, to transcend tradition, and to develop our own thoughts, a rare gift.

I think it is clear that the infliction of suffering is amoral--suffering is unpleasant to everybody, and only harm comes from it, the only positive result being that the inflictor's goals are achieved, the pleasure of which cannot possibly justify the extreme distress necessary for it. Extended thought reveals kindness, altruism, etc. to be commendable virtues, causing pleasure instead of pain. Most people have a basic concept of this ideal (however often they may break it), and in that they have it right.

Where I believe most people have it wrong is in asceticism, in restraint. Modesty, chastity and sobriety remain prevalent ideals to this day. Even most people who fuck left and right seem to hold the ideal of chastity, the false sense that their behaviour is somehow amoral or destructive. Sustained thinking reveals that there is nothing amoral about promiscuity or drug use, and that modesty is a social fabrication designed to keep people in line.

Loyalty is another bullshit value, probably invented by some emperor so they'd keep kissing his worthless ass. The value of loyalty usually leads to harm--few evils have caused greater suffering than patriotism, and yet nearly every citizen of every country continue to hold their own country or people above all others, never pausing to reflect on what exactly makes them so great. Interpersonally, it is nonsensical to take a friend's side when they are wrong, and in condoning a wrongness, you are doing harm.

I think the highest ideal is Truth, that which satisfies the noble/poetic soul and is unmitigated by deception.

[5thHorseMan]

I attempt to remain objective, while mindful of my own subjectivity. What I do is dictated by a need to do something, and the utility of that something.

If I cut down a tree, I do so because i have determined that removal of the tree will do a minimum of harm, while providing me and possibly others with maximum benefit.

So to me, a preacher or a banker for example are immoral individuals, because they don't do anything that materially benefits others, and don't actually do anything but take up space and consume resources, with no concern over the effect their consumption might be having.

[WeedFairy91]

Good and bad are just perceptions, point of views.
What might be good for you may be bad for another.


Our perceptions of "good" is usualy based around what benefits us, those around us and our values.

My perception of morality is to keep a steady medium between the good of others and myself while guiding my decisions with logic. Having a secular code of morality is tough, but I find "goodness" is so much more valuable when not shoved at the end of a flamming trident, eh?

[GreenDestiny]

I like to sum up the standard of morality with one word:
Compromise.

In any situation when morals are either forced or secretly made into law (even perhaps a political coup), then those morals would be wrong.

To reach a compromise, over 6 billion people's ideas would have to be considered all at once, and then once the votes have been counted, they'd have to all come together again to smooth it out. It would be nearly impossible to do, so that's why we have elected officials. But it doesn't carry over well. So, either way it's never going to work until someone devises an ultimate plan to get all those votes from everyone.

Until that happens, do anything you want. Free for all. All laws of the past and present are inherently unjust and unfair, they are purely arbitrary and irrelevant. Chaos reigns supreme.

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

I like to sum up the standard of morality with one word:
Compromise.

In any situation when morals are either forced or secretly made into law (even perhaps a political coup), then those morals would be wrong.

To reach a compromise, over 6 billion people's ideas would have to be considered all at once, and then once the votes have been counted, they'd have to all come together again to smooth it out. It would be nearly impossible to do, so that's why we have elected officials. But it doesn't carry over well. So, either way it's never going to work until someone devises an ultimate plan to get all those votes from everyone.

Until that happens, do anything you want. Free for all. All laws of the past and present are inherently unjust and unfair, they are purely arbitrary and irrelevant. Chaos reigns supreme.



Compromise! That there is the most responsible, respectful, tolerant, and compassionate usage of our Free Will. The only rational model of morality.

[colour]

If I had a time machine I would travel back to the night I started this and smack me in the face.

[79lostinspace79]

Do you know morally is only about sex man. So fuck anything that moves man party up

[Txbizpro]

Last year I read a poem about an ancient Amazonian tribe with no contact to the modern world.

I have to paraphrase... but:


When a baby is born in the tribe, everyone gathers in the towns center, and sings their 'song'. It is unique to them.

When the baby becomes a man, everyone gathers, and sings his song.

When the man gets married, everyone gathers, and sings his song.

When the man steps outside of the morality of the tribe, and commits a heinous act, they take him to the center of the town, everyone gathers, and they sing his song.

It's the idea that love repairs, not punishment. The town reminds the man who he is, where he is from, and acts as a moral compass 'crutch' for him to find himself again.

I thought it was a cool poem, it goes on to say that a friend who reminds you of you really are is a true friend