Morals

[LHX]

so

i guess it is generally assumed that 'morals' are not popular amongst a community like this - which is true

but the term moral seems to be interpreted differently by different people


morals
rules
ethics


no - we arent the type of people who remove our hats when entering a building
and we arent the type of people who adhere to much etiquette or social niceties


but
when it comes to some situations, the foot comes down

and it comes down with more ferociousness here than it does in a lot of other places



in a attempt to define what the discordian 'moral stance' is, it seems like it would be something along the lines of

'dont do anything that you wouldnt do publicly'




the current social structure and legal system allows a lot of people to do a lot of things (harassment, doing things in the name of 'art') that would wind up being dealt with harshly in a 'free' environment


consider the story of a woman who is a victim of harassment, and whose family members would be more than willing to lay a fierce beating down on the harasser, but they are powerless to do anything in this situation without facing (almost certain) punishment themselves from the 'authorities'

what deterrent does the aggressor have in this situation?

little if any - in a lot of ways, he is protected and is able to continue victimizing


like a kid that runs up and smacks the next kid, then goes and hides behind the teacher




at first glance, the criticisms of this approach are along the lines of
'you cant have vigilante justice'
'people should be allowed to have freedom to express themselves'
'what makes you guys think youre so right?'


well - take a look at the situation

if you perform a action which you get negative feedback for - investigate it to understand why

there is usually a foundation for it



there is a difference between disobeying circus-style 'social etiquette'
and
violating things that are trying to live or contributing to oppression

victimizing
abusing
extorting
exhausting

there is no laws or rules

but if that is the course of action you are planning to take, dont act surprised at the feedback you get


its not a matter of anybody being 'right'
but
if youre the one who decided to pull the pin from the grenade, why act surprised when it blows up?

blame the grenade, right?


that stance is played out



and to address the segment that is in a situation that 'cant control what they do' - i have sympathy for that

it doesnt seem like that situation will prevent a person from getting whats coming to them


just because some habits and tendencies can be tough to kick (or really tough to kick)
doesnt mean you still get to hold on to them



these are just hunches

[AFK]

This is a great discussion topic.

And as you point out not very cut and dry. 

I guess for me, at least partially, my morality is based on family. 

If someone were to pick on my family I would be motivated to lay down some pain, depending on what was happening and to what degree.  But, another part of that morality is not getting myself in prison so I can be around to still watch over my family.

If, shudder the though, some muckrabbit were to come along and off my wife, I know I would be consumed with a desire for some bloodthirsty revenge.  However, I still have a daughter to take care of.  I would hope I would have the gumption and control to keep myself from getting imprisoned so my daughter isn't left completely alone. 

Of course there is also the morality of being true to yourself.  Not selling yourself out for money, sex, love, whatever. 

There can be strong forces to pull us from ourselves and our "families". 
Morality is probably like a medieval map.  Not all of the borders are completely defined. 

[LHX]

youre on point

there is some sort of dilemma here - because from another angle, it is cut and dry

if you experience or perceive injustice, then you take care of business


its simple as that


somebody fucks with your daughter, you go for the jugular and dont relent



but from that stance, i am sure somebody can argue that the path of revenge is a never ending spiral until there is nothing left



i am not so sure about that tho


there is a difference between being eager about revenge and being reluctant about doing what you have to do


there is a difference between destroying things and getting rid of a destructive element





there is a difference between destroying things and getting rid of a destructive element

[tyrannosaurus vex]

Revenge is the backbone of justice, regardless of everything you hear and read to the contrary.  Social justice is the idea that revenge should only be inflicted by a qualified (read: large enough) mob, but it's still revenge.

I think 'morality' is too often defined as "what you should always do."  morality can't be static like that because there's always a difference between what you should do, what you can do, and what you must do.

morality has to be contingent upon the situation, and as many factors as you have time to consider, should be considered.  so if some cockblister offs your wife or rapes your kid or says something nice about Jesus within 3 miles of your house, sure the first instinct is to drop a clusterbomb on his house and smite his family with a curse for 17 generations.  but you can't always do that, unless you want to make things worse for yourself, like RWHN said.

in a vacuum, i agree with LMNO.  i mean, our society places way too much importance on acting like you're getting along with some asshole you could care less about, putting up with retarded small talk when you'd rather introduce your heel to his uvula, saying "excuse me" and "bless you" at all the right places, and making polite euphemisms for everything from having sex to taking a piss.  but given that that is the society where you live, and morality is just one code of conduct, like any other code of conduct, to achieve some goal or other; it stands to reason that morality should be as solid and steadfast as chocolate pudding, at least where it concerns action.

i guess all i'm saying is, let morality define your motivation, and let intuition and your brain define your actions.

[faust]

no - we arent the type of people who remove our hats when entering a building
and we arent the type of people who adhere to much etiquette or social niceties

speak for yourself, I do but not to conform to others standards, rather to conform to my own.
when I pass someone on the street I will smile and nod, simply because I do wish them a good day.
I hold open the door for women give my seat up to the old because I feel in myself that it it is right for me as an individual. Its only when anyone talks to me that they will notice any major oddity, as I lack tact or inhibitions on any topic at hand and could say something that horrifies someone to think about it.

as to political morality; Societies function should not be to punish if someone commits a crime, but it is the case of, if you are selfish and take what you want with no inhibition, we will take more from you, its our only defense,
there are always going to be killers out there people will always have asshole elements, if there is no room in prisons for them, or the conditions are more of a torture then a deterrent, I guess I even agree with execution, but only if it is while they are fully sedated and it is painless. 
It disgusts me how people want to watch out of vengeance as well.
Theft does not bother me so much any more, though I would never do it myself, I have never stopped anyone when I am at work, I honestly don't care if they are selfish enough to want some stupid dress from a clothes shop I am in.

War disgusts me as it is one selfish tribe after the wealth of another, I have yet to see a true case of 'Liberating an oppressed people" without selfish motivations.
most of this is probably full of holes, feel free to pick at them.

[Jenne]

Ah morality...the common glue that gels people together so they can live more or less peacably and trustfully in one space together.  Without going apeshit.

Morality is social and it's individual.  It's also sliding in scale according to situation and according to the actors at hand.  We are socialized into its usefulness early on, and we can  make judgments about its efficacy when we age.  Sometimes we are incapable of applying the morality we choose to adhere to simply because the choice is taken out of our hands.  Sometimes we supersede society's dictates on our behavior (those happen to be more multiple than most would comfortably agree to or accept) and go beyond the accepted form of morality.  The consequences of such actions meted out accordingly (unless you're a lucky bastard and you escape).

Some people think morality is a dirty word.  Others exalt it to the highest heights.

To me, it's just another facet of humanity.  We impose modes of behavior on ourselves and on others so that we can drive to the post office without being broadsided.  Ends to a means.

[LHX]

but does this type of morality prevent people from going apeshit?
or does it just make things bubble under the surface?


im saying - people use these notions of 'morality' to dress a lot of shit up

its easy to appear 'moral' on the surface when all you have to do is meet a series of checks and balances

[Jenne]

Both, I'd venture a guess.  I mean, what makes hoo-mawns think they CAN live together...with a modicum of peace and prosperity?

(we've done it for ages and not managed to completely off ourselves yet, but who's to say for the future, eh?)

And as to your last point, well, yes, of course.  Your "moral standing" in the universe is second only to your bank balance, after all.

[LMNO]

At times, it seems that morality is the thing that balances out selfishness.  Most of the behaviors describes as "amoral" can also be describes as selfish; that is, not taking the consequences of your actions further than your immediate self-gratification.

It seems like a good use of morality is when those around you, who are actually affected by your actions, are taken into consideration.  This eliminates the "God" morals, and gives allowances for what you do in private.

Now of course, you might consider those who are affected by your actions, and ignore them, or not care.  I say that's fine, as long as you openly recognize your impact on them, and are willing to face their objections.




That last bit is gonna take some more work to seal up the obvious holes..

[Cain]

The origin of morality must always be considered.  Morality based on resentment and revenge (such as Christian/Muslim/Maxist morality) is always going to be self-defeating, petty and authoritarian.

Conversely, the morality of the ruling elite will always be divisive, based in exceptionalism and power.  In both cases, morality is defined for a purpose, most of which goes over the head of those who follow it.

Morality based solely on the individual leads to the irrational madness of tyrants such as Periander of Corinth, or Idi Amin and Hitler for modern examples.  Equally, morality based purely on humanitarianism and love of the masses leads to systemic terror and the State Machine of the USSR and other states.

[LMNO]

Cain, in all the example of morality that you have given, your conclusions were negative.

Are there any origins of morality that lead to positive conclusions, in your mind?


If not, do you conclude that morals are a negative aspect?

[Cain]

Oh, there are positive aspects.  I'm just doing my usual job of reminding everyone of the pitfalls.

Morality should be based both around the individual and the wider society, recognizing each as reliant on the other and the tension between them.

The individual morality eventually becomes egotistical, the mass eventually nihilistic.  So what is needed is a morality that derives from the individual and is recognized as such, but because of what it is identifying with humanity in general.

Resentment is also basically passive as a moral base.  It typifies inaction, envy and the creation of otherworldly metaphysics to condemn its enemies.  A perfect example Christianity since the Roman Empire.  Since then it has sought political control through condemnation and dehumanization of non-Christian enemies.

So necessarily this morality would have to have an active element to it, one that is not based on wanting control and increasing power, but on drawing a negative conclusion of what should not be done and what lines should not be crossed.  A morality that defines itself both by what it opposes and its origins, but not by engaging in "culture wars" which so often typify moral debate.

[AFK]

Cain, in all the example of morality that you have given, your conclusions were negative.

Are there any origins of morality that lead to positive conclusions, in your mind?


If not, do you conclude that morals are a negative aspect?

I'll take it further, and I think I know the answer to this, are there any origins of morality that lead to positive connclusions for everybody? 

Morality seems to be a two-sided coin.  While some would applaud abortion rights as a positive moral others would chide it as a blasphemous, negative moral. 

Another thought, in the PD there is the discussion about cultures being a group of people that have a reasonable amount of overlap in their grids.  Based on the American Culture, it would seem that morality isn't an important component of that as you have several definitions of morality that exist in the culture. 

[P3nT4gR4m]

One of the problems I have with morals is they seem to be very more-ish. Ten commandments woulda done me. George Carlin got it down to two. There are so many laws now in the rulebooks that it's theoretically impossible to obey them all.

Victimless crime - let's go there for a look at how stupid the whole thing can become. No such thing, according to the rulemakers and enforcers.

I'm with the Prodigy - Fuck 'em and their law. I got my own code of conduct. If it's not good enough for ya - do something about it - suggest plucking thy sanctimonious eye out.

[Jasper]

Morals:

1. Don't betray.
2. Avoid debts and vendettas.
3. Pick your people.
4. Respect something.

6. Complex ethical systems are inhuman self-standards and you better just go by what the powerful entities enforce because when it comes down to it your ethics are just a set of behaviors that optimize your social status.