RE: Morals and Morality

RE: Morals and Morality (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

meatcleaver -> RE: Morals and Morality (8/1/2006 7:38:55 AM)
I never suggested the actions of the British Empire were benevolent, what I am saying that there were a lot of its priniciples once the British government had taken over the administration of the empire from private companies were moral through the eyes of the people at the time. What I am saying that what we deem moral and ethical today may not be so deemed tomorrow and many moral crusades taking place today maybe something for future generations to be ashamed of. We really do not know which course history will take. Morals and ethics change with time and place, they are in a constant state of flux so it doesn't pay us to view morals and ethics as absolutes.

twicehappy -> RE: Morals and Morality (8/1/2006 8:56:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gooddogbenji Sorry.... I was just sitting there, watching my tongue do its thing, and got bored. So I decided to post something, but, being exhausted from staring at my tongue, I couldn't think of smartass, so I posted facts. It is ok, the fellow you were replying too seems to do that to people, lol. I know you really are an intelligent hardworking young man(but i promise not to tell) when are not busy being our playful smartass.

NorthernGent -> RE: Morals and Morality (8/1/2006 11:42:39 AM)
meatcleaver, Partly true. 1) Agreed, values change according to levels of education in society. 2) I used the British Empire as an example of Government corruption. Regardless of changing values the British Empire was a corrupt form of Government. The reason being, the whole essence of Government is to govern for all of its citizens. The British Empire blatantly did not do this. To add, there are people who believe that the actions of the US and British Governments are not immoral - this board is proof of that. However, for those who can see beyond a flag and a national anthem (about a war from 1695 or something equally as pathetic) it is obvious that they have gone far beyond immoral. So, morals are not necessarily relative - for example, morals are not like wealth. Some acts are quite clearly driven by moral bankruptcy regardless of the age. To use one of your previous examples, a person would be hard pushed to define the Nazi Party as moral according to the morals of the day. Regards

LadyEllen -> RE: Morals and Morality (8/2/2006 9:20:04 AM)
Hi Apologies first of all if the following doesnt seem to make much sense - its a very difficult argument I tried to make, and I'm not sure I succeeded! I would have to say, rather idealistically perhaps but definitely from a practical point of view, that morals and ethics are universal and absolute. However that is not to say that when one behaves morally and ethically that one ever necessarily can live up to them in their pure, universal and absolute natures. One is always acting in a real world in which there are so many unknown variables, as well as the fact that all of us however moral and ethical we fancy ourselves and our deeds to be are affected by self interest and group interest as opposed to the interests of others. Factor in that each of us views what is moral and ethical from the perspective of our own past influences, present circumstances and future aspirations, and the world becomes a place where universal, absolute and pure morals and ethics have never been practised, are not being practised and likely never will be - also explaining why there is so much difference between us as to what is moral and ethical, and where and when these ideals might have been practised. For the nazis, as far as they were concerned their actions were moral and ethical, based on their self and group interest and coloured by their impressions of past injustices, present circumstances and future aspirations. That such a viewpoint was not shared by most of the rest of the world is irrelevant in this, since morals and ethics as absolutes are not determined by majority or committee decision. An extreme example of course, but it illustrates the point that even immorality and unethical behaviour can be rendered their opposites in the real world. In the end though, however strong one's conviction or one's force of arms, it does bring one into confrontation with others to practise such selfish morality and so it is usually defeated as a system. Equally in the real world though, what is acceptable morally and ethically is determined by majority and committee decision. There are several consensus groupings in the world as to what is moral and ethical - for example the western consensus, the Islamic consensus and so on. Both of these mentioned are moral and ethical for those who propose them, and yet their differences and the notion that morals and ethics are absolutes would mean that neither of them fully is. As a westerner, I would naturally tend to believe that our western consensus is closer to the absolute than any other. However the Muslim feels the same about his ways. The value of morals and ethics as unattainable absolutes is important for all to realise, for in acknowledging such a situation we remove the temptation to believe that we are always right, and others are therefore wrong. To accept that our consensus is not perfect therefore assists us in not only developing our morals and ethics, but also performs for us a valuable function in keeping us moral and ethical by hindering us in imposing our less than perfect system on others. What are the absolutes? I dont know, and if I did I could be very famous! What I and everyone else knows though is the nature of immoral and unethical action as we come across it in life. The best we can probably do therefore is to determine our morals and ethics according to their opposites - as indeed we do through laws that forbid certain actions and control others. We dont have laws that say "be nice", but we do have laws that say violence and theft are wrong, so shaping a moral and ethical society by reference to preventing an immoral and unethical society for example. I guess that the basis for moral and ethical action for me lies in the notion that all of us are One in what for ease I'll refer to as God, regardless of the differences that divide us. To harm another therefore is ultimately to harm myself, which is not usually a good idea. However, I accept that not everyone will agree with me on that, and will formulate their own moral and ethical behaviour on their own bases - thats fine, and also where we came in at the top of the page! One last thing though, and picking up on a post I made to "sharia law" on this site. No one can make wrong into right whatever laws they pass on this earth, however strong they are and whatever conviction they might feel. In the real world we set laws to ascertain right and wrong as described above, and there is now great precedence for the idea that moral and ethical law is universal and no respecter of boundaries or time. We dont describe such laws and the legal processes they give rise to in terms of morality of course, since that description opens up debate between different opinions of morals and ethics, but in the end this is what such laws are about. Saddam's trial is ridiculous if there are no absolute morals and ethics - he acted according to his and made a society with laws to support them - therefore he did not break Iraqi law. Yet he is still on trial by reference to a consensus view on right and wrong - not according to absolutes, but according to what we all acknowledge to be immoral and unethical as the best means of determining the breach of those absolutes. Hope that made some sense! E

gooddogbenji -> RE: Morals and Morality (8/2/2006 9:27:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: America has, through Guantanamo Bay and various prisons in Iraq, created concentration camps, where groups of individuals are kept without the usual process of trial. That does not mean treatment is inhumane (necessarily) but it simply means that groups are being kept there, which few will dispute. Two crucial points to add: 1) These people are being held without any sort of trial. 2) There is considerable evidence to suggest these people are being tortured. Regards Gent, I was going for a very neutral statement, however, I did touch on both those points. I bolded the references within my quote. The reason I did not say they were being tortured is because my point is to define concentration camps, and to let everyone see that no matter how you look at it, America has them. Whether or not they torture there is not the issue. Yours, benji

agirl -> RE: Morals and Morality (8/2/2006 10:56:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen As a westerner, I would naturally tend to believe that our western consensus is closer to the absolute than any other. However the Muslim feels the same about his ways. The value of morals and ethics as unattainable absolutes is important for all to realise, for in acknowledging such a situation we remove the temptation to believe that we are always right, and others are therefore wrong. To accept that our consensus is not perfect therefore assists us in not only developing our morals and ethics, but also performs for us a valuable function in keeping us moral and ethical by hindering us in imposing our less than perfect system on others. E /quote] A slight detour here...and not really significant...but being a westerner is to do with culture, while Muslim is to do with religion. I find it curious that in our newspapers, if a child is knocked down by a car.......it may be described as a Muslim child ....but if a Christian child is similarly afflicted, no mention of religion is made. agirl

NorthernGent -> RE: Morals and Morality (8/2/2006 11:07:27 AM)
benji, First point in bold - agreed, it will pay me to read posts in future. Second point in bold - I understood your aim was to define concentration camps. My aim was to point out that these are not concentration camps in the sense that people are merely being imprisoned. They are far more sinister than that. Regards.

Dtesmoac -> RE: Morals and Morality (8/2/2006 1:32:45 PM)
Perhaps as morals are always changing wth new experience, understanding and knowledge a good indication of how moral a society is would be to look at whether the society / governement / culture recognised the unacceptability of something or whether the change was forced upon it by others. I am particularly thinking of the "concentration camp" analogy the Boer War Concentration Camps, the Nazi Concentration Camps and the "disputed" Turkish / Armenian Camps all had very different mechanisms that brought about their ending. Perhaps the greatest moral failing is the inability to recognise that your morals may be wrong.........

IronBear -> RE: Morals and Morality (8/2/2006 2:34:57 PM)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Morality refers to the concept of human ethics which pertain to matters of good and evil —also referred to as "right or wrong", used within three contexts: individual conscience, systems of principles and judgments — sometimes called moral values —shared within a cultural, religious, secular, Humanist, or philosophical community; and codes of behavior or conduct derived from these systems. Personal morality defines and distinguishes among right and wrong intentions, motivations or actions, as these have been learned, engendered, or otherwise developed within each individual. Moral Codes Moral codes are often complex statements of right and wrong. Although some people might think that the moral code is simple, rarely is there anything simple about one's morals or ethics or for that matter judgment of others' morals. The difficulty lies in the fact that morals are often part of a religion and more often than not about culture codes. A common version of a moral code is a legal code which states the penalties or corrective actions associated with any particular act (note that many of the legal codes are built on a foundation of religion). A value system, which is the prioritization of the values held by an individual or group, can also be used to form the basis of a moral code. In some cultures, the relationship between moral and legal codes are often absolute—they're one and the same. Moral codes help drive personal conduct. Examples of moral codes include the golden rule; Wiccan Rede, the Noble Eightfold Path of Buddhism; the ten commandments of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam; the yamas and niyama of the Hindu scriptures; and the ten Indian commandments. A related and more advanced (some say more corrupt) concept is an ethical code, which establishes tradeoffs and rationale for making decisions for the greater good. Some of these resemble a moral code, most are less strict and make no special claim to actually distinguish 'right' from 'wrong' in any absolute sense. The ethical code is concerned with weighing all the negative and positive results of an action, and making a decision based upon the greater good for a greater number. Another related concept is the moral core which is assumed to be innate in each individual, to those who accept that differences between individuals are more important than Creators or their rules. This, in some religious systems (e.g. Taoism and Gnosticism), is assumed to be the basis of all aesthetics and thus moral choice. Moral codes as such are therefore seen as coercive — part of human politics. Ok so much for the definitions. There are times for what ever reason where it may become either expedient or perhaps necessary to maintain some semblance of peace either on the home front or to avoid nasty people invading when the what may be seen as “norms” of social morality has to put to one side and take action. The problem is that when this happens, there will always be those with invested interests in the opposition or who are members of the Civil Liberty groups oft referred to as the “Do Gooders” create merry hell in the press or any other public forum.. We cab see this here in Australia when Police crack down on groups or gangs who are members of minority groups, ethnic or cultural groups and the end result can end up where the Police (for example) are virtually powerless to act because of the public back lash and accusations that officials are targeting people because of their race, colour or other distinctions.. You guys in the US have many records of the Afro-Americans and Hispanics being unjustly targeted. We have it here with Aborigines. Yet the other side of the argument (I’ll take an example from 15 years ago in Western Australia) is where for this example and on record, the juvenile crime was at a high and unfortunately 80% of the juvenile criminals were Aboriginal Youths. Irrespective that the Aboriginal Community were behind the police cracking down on these kids there was a huge whorahaah and the question of racism was leveled. Yet the courts fearful of bad press were giving the offenders a slap on the wrist and thus virtually giving them the Ok to do what they liked.. As a single example but typical of many of these hard core juvenile criminals, three of them stole my new 1990 corvette and trashed it. One of these kids was out on bail for over 100 offences ranging from house breaking, robbery, drug trafficking, assault and attempted murder. The other two had similar records… One party claimed it was immoral to use a special police squad to take these offenders whilst the other party claimed it was immoral to inflict these offenders on society. What I am saying is that there are times when the book needs to put away and unconventional steps taken and if this means a loss of some freedoms for the duration then so be it. If it means that in the process some innocents are hurt it is regrettable but sadly that is collateral damage… If the opposing forces hide amongst and store weapons amongst or even attack via rockets whilst amongst innocent people (who probable can not leave on pain of death) it is sad but I would have no hesitation as a Last Resort in leveling that area… In the long run it is hoped and anticipated that such extreme actions would remove the opposition and people could resume peaceful lives after…. Doesn’t always work granted but that is also human nature to screw things up….

Dtesmoac -> RE: Morals and Morality (8/2/2006 4:23:51 PM)
Is it moral to kill an 18 month old baby? No Is it moral to kill a man? No It it moral to allow the man holding the 18 month old baby to live and go on to kill 5 other children with a car bomb? No Perhaps the real display of morality is that you know there is not a "moral" solution to the problem, but the lesser of the two immoral acts is to try and kill the man but not the 18 month old and be sad when you kill both. But also be sad if you succed in only killing the man, but glad that you have saved others.

IronBear -> RE: Morals and Morality (8/2/2006 5:42:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dtesmoac Is it moral to kill an 18 month old baby? No Is it moral to kill a man? No It it moral to allow the man holding the 18 month old baby to live and go on to kill 5 other children with a car bomb? No Perhaps the real display of morality is that you know there is not a "moral" solution to the problem, but the lesser of the two immoral acts is to try and kill the man but not the 18 month old and be sad when you kill both. But also be sad if you succed in only killing the man, but glad that you have saved others. I can live with and endorse that. I guess I won't be the only person in CM who has had to make that decision and have to live with it.. It never really goes away it just gets shunted untill some dark night when you wake up sweating and having the horrors....

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125