Society's Impact On Personal Morals

Recently I've been having a lot of thoughts about what is real and not real. Thus far I've come to the conclusion that I know nothing about the world I live in and that everything we think is all based on what society has sculpted our minds to believe.

Take for instance the morality of murder. Before I took my first philosophy class I used to think, like many, that murder was wrong; not only because it was against the law but because I, as a human, had a moral obligation to not accept it.

Clearly, since some people murder and others don't, we as humans are not obligated to morally believe it is wrong. This brought on the question: What makes murder wrong for some and not wrong for others?

Immediately I found myself asking another question: Why do animals, such as dogs, kill other dogs? and, do they feel morally unjust when they do?

To answer these questions I started looking for the differences between animals and humans. My first thought was how much more advanced our society is than any other animals.

Running on that thought, would it be fair to conclude that the only reason why I feel morally obligated not to murder whomever I see is because society has brainwashed me into thinking that is how I should behave? Do I not kill my neighbour because my parents, teachers, peers and the law has told me not to for 18 years?

Had I of grown up completely cut off from "civilization" would I kill whatever I want without any moral bounds? I think I would. Why not? No one ever told me it was wrong and thus, it isn't.

So if that is the reason I don't kill people then what else does society tell me not to do that otherwise I would do?

Keep in mind, all these thoughts just started pouring into my head one day and after 5 minutes I was so boggled down with thoughts I started going off on all sorts of tangents.

The main one I would like to discuss, with respect to the previous topic; Society's Impact On Personal Morals, is: Is true happiness only obtained when there is no society to impact your thoughts.

I figured that, the reason I am never satisfied with life or truly happy and care-free at any particular moment is because I, like everyone else, is under constant pressure of society. Pressure to work, go to school, be a "good" person, etc...

So if it is society's demands which produces this unhappiness, then if society did not exist and I never knew it existed wouldn't I be happy?

Some may argue that it would be lonely to be by yourself for your entire life, but if you never knew anyone else existed would you still feel lonely? Or would you feel more connected with yourself; you being the only person you know.

As you may have noticed I spend a lot of my time thinking by myself, but you know what? When I'm thinking by myself I am happier then I ever am with other people.

I'd love to hear EVERYONE else's thought's too. All input is equally appreciated cause hey, it can't sound any more insane then what I've just rambled about.

P.S.

Don't let any of my mindless thoughts represent how I actually feel on any given situation. I just feel the best way to come about a conclusion is to look at all possible aspects. Especially those I don't agree with. I find it will usually help me to come to a logical answer.

Welcome to the boards my newfie friend. I'll be coming out to the east coast this fall for university :jointsmile:

My life changed a lot after I took some philosophy classes as well, so I know exactly where you're coming from.

My view always comes down to reciprocity and love. Since we are conscious beings with the gift of intelligent language, we have options besides murder. It seems basic to not kill so you yourself are not killed by another person. Who is then to stop the infinite regress of murder?

I think we are all working towards a greater cause. I believe this has been stunted significantly by GM's conspiracy against free energy and electricity. I'd say we have been put about 100 years behind. Nikola Tesla had ideas for free energy that were blackballed by Thomas Edison a long, long time ago. There is a lot hate in the world, and it all stems from the cost of energy.

Imagine if we went over to the middle east with a free energy device and a bong? End of the war, right then and there.

Well put.

So you`re coming here for university? MUN I assume? If so, I'd suggest some philosophy courses taught by Seamous O'Neill. You won't stop thinking the entire time you're in class, a joint doesn't hurt either :S5:.

You guy's need to look up the BLOOM energy project.

As far as civilization. We are all just a tank full of gas and a mickey D 1/4 pounder away from being just the animals we are. Think about if you had to kill just your food. what would you be eating ? cause all the store perishables won't last long.

If the fuel and the electric and comunications go down and your with a group of hungry people and you don't know what's for dinner. It's probbaly you.

A basic human race survival trait is the formation of groups to work together to solve problems. This ultimately led to society in all of it's myriad forms. Without the society of our fellow humans, we wouldn't be much more than animals. Scientists believe that the ability to communicate is when humans become significantly different than animals. IOW a six month old human baby is not much different than a chimpanzee infant, brain wise. Communication with each other is when we begin to think in abstractions, which is what led to our survival and domination as a species.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NewfieToker

...Immediately I found myself asking another question: Why do animals, such as dogs, kill other dogs? and, do they feel morally unjust when they do?...

---

dogs will kill other dogs to protect their territory. I think that is just a balance of survival instincts. dogs are inherently good, too. :stoned:

interesting thoughts, welcome to the board. :rasta:

Personally I think genetics have to do with a lot of it. Just have you said, "If society had not totally you to murder would you have no reason not to commit it?" If you've ever thought "I should do _____" and not done it, then you know that it's not so simple. We're motivated by a complex system of desires and rationality.

Personally I would never murder someone, but that may be because I was never the type to murder someone to begin with or it may be because of the rational morality I've adopted, which is murder is bad for me when other people adopt it thus it's not universally acceptable and therefore I should not engage in it. But there's plenty more reasons to do the "right thing" than that.

Though I hate some of the societal blunders we have to resolve, I'm very glad to have an iPod, laptop, and HDTV. Take nothing for granted though.

Basically this is the timeless question of Nature vs. nurture. Through all the years this one has failed to garner a straight answer from me. There are elements of both, I believe, which make the case for innate actions which are built into the human being, and those actions which can be attributed to tradition, values, and morality.

I think every human being is capable of murder. Everyone. And anyone who says they aren't just has not been in a situation that made them capable. Humans lose control, and none of us are perfect.
If someone killed a loved one? If the circumstances were so that it was preventable?
We all know laws are man-made. So I believe that through the years people made that law because they have been in this predicament. And so they have figured it out on their own, and didn't need a law to tell them. I think they just wanted to save some lawyer bills for the rest of us? :thumbsup:
Taking ones life is serious, but you don't need the law to tell you that. The laws have been crafted through various needs demanded by society, and not all of them make sense to all people.
Now, if you asked people two questions.
a) Do you think you're capable of murder? - Lets assume the majority say no.
and then
b) If you knew someone killed your mother/father/sibling/child, do you think you are capable of murder? - I would trust most people would say yes.
Two wrongs don't make a right yes...but thinking as a human being...you ARE capable most times when thinking of a situation such as this one.

This is where the clusterfuck starts
You won't normally act upon it, but you consider it. Do you refrain because society tells you its bad? I say no. You refrain because to take a life is the worst crime one human can do to another. Life is a gift - if you think about how INSANE it is that people, the planet, or the universe is..the fact that we are all here...just living...? It's nuts, and each day is a gift. Cause none of us know whats going to happen. Bottom line for me is, you don't take the life because it's terrible. That's where the initial laws against it have come from. And I don't think you needed the law to tell you that.

That being said, there is a direct relation between societal norms and behaviour. Undeniable. I just think there are a few things you are born with the capability to do, but can rationally persuade yourself not to do.
And I don't think its the law. Cause if I went with the law all the time, I wouldn't smoke weed. And we all know that's not the case.

Human beings are nothing more than over-glorified animals who have conspired amongst themselves and convinced each other that they have (the) natural rights of dominion over the earth and all it's resources.


The result is less than natural, and more than diseased.


Human civilization has introduced several diseases of the mind, including, but not limited to:

Entitlement, superiority, blind faith & trust, and the entertainment of fictional laws.


Legal is not a naturally recognized term by physics nor a physically recognized term by nature.



Listen to nature and physics, not men and women.