The Standard of Morality

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

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

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.