Morality sucks

[LMNO]

A brief thought, but first, a summary of one of my catmas:

I think morality is indeed relative, and tends to be based upon a mixture of personal experience and social conditioning & re-conditioning.

That much said, it would only stand to reason that there are very few people who have exactly the same moral values, no matter what the Republicans say.

Even further, when Era proposes that Morality is a means of justifying atrocity (if I'm over generalizing, forgive me), that justification in itself is generally regarded as an immoral act.

Hence, there was no morality in those actions and justifications to begin with.

Not to mention that "amoral" seems to imply that literally anything goes; that paedophilia, beastiality, cannabalism, murder, and rape are acceptable to an amoral person.

But I could be wrong.

[Eldora, Oracle of Alchemy]

Not to mention that "amoral" seems to imply that literally anything goes; that paedophilia, beastiality, cannabalism, murder, and rape are acceptable to an amoral person.

But I could be wrong.

I think you are, but let me explain why.  Amoral people are those which give up on society's ideas of morality, they do not give up on morality itself.  The people who do the things you mention are immoral, because they have been messed up by society, they have bought into this ideal of what people "should" or should not do.  When they figured out they could not live up to these ideals, they snapped and decided to violate them.  

Amoral people come to the same point, but instead of snapping, they make their own ideals.  I remember going through this.  I questioned everything anyone ever told me was right or wrong.  I have a nasty habit of questioning authority anyway, so it was easy for me. I think Erapassing is in the middle of this process. I can't climb into her head, but she is in the middle of something.  I am just glad all of us crazies are here for her to bounce all of this off of.  

A lot of words have been thrown around, but I think what it amounts to is this:

Do what is "right" because you think it is "right", not because someone else does.

Do not do what is "wrong", not because someone says it is "wrong", but because you believe it to be "wrong"

Right, wrong, moral, immoral, should, should not, whatever.  You have to develop your own moral compass.  Unfortunately, society does not encourage this.  And I don't mean just the scoiety that I live in, all societies are like this.

[LMNO]

Man, I hate doing this, but:

My Dictionary gives "immoral" as "Contrary to established moral principles."  

It also defines "amoral" as "Not admitting of moral distinctions or judgments; neither moral nor immoral", and "Lacking moral sensibility; not caring about right and wrong."


That much said, if someone still believes in things that are "right" and "wrong", but they happen to go against society's definitions, you are still a "moral" person; that seems closer to Immoral that Amoral.  Amoral is the lack of a value system entirely.

All I'm saying is that you may want to think of a different term than "amoral".  Perhaps "alter-moral" or "counter-moral".

[agent compassion]

"Counter-moral" would work. Or "Super-extra-moral." Or you could just wear a button that reads "Ask me about my moral values of the day!"

I think the key word there is "ESTABLISHED." To be amoral is to be contrary to "ESTABLISHED" moral principles - but those established principles could very well be bullshit nonsense, like the sex laws in some states, or the prohibition against alcohol sales on Sunday(so this prevents drinking HOW?)

Or, say, a religion that professes to take good care of its members' spiritual and familial health, whose members are there for you 24-7 to help you with everything from marriage to cleaning out your fridge, and are insufferably kind and gentle - unless you're gay, in which case they electrocute your dick until they think you're straight. (The Mormons, in case you were wondering.)

Morals may make sense at an individual level for individual needs, but once society gets a hold of them, they often get distorted into these ridiculous contradictions.

[LMNO]

[semantic alert]

To be amoral is to be contrary to "ESTABLISHED" moral principles - but those established principles could very well be bullshit nonsense, like the sex laws in some states, or the prohibition against alcohol sales on Sunday(so this prevents drinking HOW?)

Actually, to be immoral is to be contrary to established moral principals.  Other than that, I agree.

[/semantic alert]

[Wishfarple]

Personally, I prefer to think of these things in terms of values instead of morals.  There are certain things I value more than most anything else, so my behavior arises from this.  I value equality, so I don't walk around calling everybody idiots or proles and I don't kick the homeless.  I value non-violence, so I don't go to bars and pick fights.  That's not to say I think violence is wrong, it's just not something I'm particularly into.  

I don't know, maybe it's the difference between defining acceptable behavior in terms of DOs rather than DONTs.  

I think the key word there is "ESTABLISHED." To be amoral is to be contrary to "ESTABLISHED" moral principles - but those established principles could very well be bullshit nonsense, like the sex laws in some states, or the prohibition against alcohol sales on Sunday(so this prevents drinking HOW?)

Fun Fact: I can buy liquor at the grocery store on Sundays now.  

[Taco Jones]

Yea! You're teh win!

[agent compassion]

Whoops! I just looked back and yep, I misread "immoral" as "amoral", LMNO. Anyway - I haven't had breakfast yet, and....

:scans the board, spots Taco Jones:

Anyone want this taco?

No?

::CHOMP::

[East Coast Hustle]

Not to mention that "amoral" seems to imply that literally anything goes; that paedophilia, beastiality, cannabalism, murder, and rape are acceptable to an amoral person.

But I could be wrong.

yeah, you could be.

let's not forget that at various points in various societies throughout history (and in some places today, even), every single one of the abovementioned activities was not only condoned, but considered de rigeur...so why don't you just quit trying to pass off your newfangled humanist values on the rest of us and leave the cannibalistic baby donkey rapers alone.

[Not Nurbldoff]

There's always a lot of confusion in any debate about the nature of "morals" and so far I haven't found a way of untangling the arguments that seems meaningful to everybody.

However, I think the whole concept of "morality" is pretty much empty words. You can talk about a "system of values" which is accepted by the majority if you ask them. Probably there is such a system that is statistically reasonably stable and even seems non-contradicting. But then there are real situations where people have to face tough decisions and sometimes they have to weigh one "value" against another. It suddenly boils down to gut feeling. Not that the gut feeling excludes what you think others will think about your decision... but, still, a moral decision becomes something entirely different when it's about you. Maybe we should just stop pretending that it doesn't.

And you get all sorts of "other" factors entering into it. Ask almost anyone if killing is OK and you'll get a "no". Still, a country can go to war and most of the population thinks that is OK because, well, they started it, or it's about freedom or whatever. It's so far away and we're too caught up in choosing the texture of our new wallpapers, and so on. And still, Joe-on-the-street, if asked, will not agree that things like personal comfort should have impact on moral decisions.

"Right", "wrong", "good", "bad", "evil", ... all concepts people use when they need to give children reasons why they can't do this or that. It's always a simplification; perhaps they don't want to have to explain something about sex or death, or maybe they just don't know. But children start to associate the words with punishments and rewards, which means that later on they can be led by the nose by people who know this. These are the real fnords. And they're usually the reasons that people get so worked up over moral issues in a debate. But when the real, infinitely complex situations occur, the simple words aren't there and people suddenly have to make their own decisions.

So yes... "amorality" sounds pretty good to me actually. Even though I don't think it's possible to rid oneself entirely from these semantic reactions, making yourself aware of them is the first and probably the most important step.

[Guido Finucci]

There's always a lot of confusion in any debate about the nature of "morals" and so far I haven't found a way of untangling the arguments that seems meaningful to everybody.

Confusion in debates tends to arise from people using language differently. This confusion generally vanishes when people come to agree on what words mean.

If you want to have a debate that references the moral literature that is around (and much of it is worth looking at, if only to uncover why you disagree with it) then you should understand the accepted techhnical meanings for the following terms:
moral code
moral theory
meta-ethical theory.

You should also understand the difference between duty-based and value-based ethics, consquentialism and intentionalism, and moral relitavism and moral absolutism.

For the keen, compare and contrast the ethics of Plato and Aristotle and gain an appreciation of why their veiw of the world shaped the way they thought people should act. Our American readers may enjoy looking at the history of Utilitarianism (much of it happened at about the same time as your Founding Fathers were founding stuff and several of them were quite involved in the debate) and ask yourself why European ethics were so different at the time.

Learn to distinguish between moral and non-moral assertions.

And then ask yourself where all this confusion went.

-----

Alternatively, get really high and realise that none of that shit matters and it all sounds like too much effort.


.

[Not Nurbldoff]

Veritas: well, if you must know, I did actually study philosophy for a while, and I do think I have a fair grasp of most of the fancy terms that you mentioned. I agree that these studies was mostly useful for finding out what I don't agree with.

In any case, I've found out that a) until I rejected basically all the theories I leared (except perhaps the semantic and ontological theory of emotivism/value-nihilism which seems kind of neat) I was even more confused than before, because I was bombarded with all sorts of questions and dilemmas that I had never even contemplated before. This was all well and good, because I came out of it with a much clearer picture (IMHO).

But the thing is, b) trying to use this knowledge in a debate with most people who have not studied moral philosophy (and some who have) is just not workable. They will either dismiss you as a total academic with no real understanding of reality, or they will be confused because their words don't mean the same as yours. And this is not a very productive confusion that usually leads nowhere. It's not made any easier by the fact that many people get very emotional over hypothetical examples of moral dilemmas, etc.

It's easy to say that philosophers have worked the whole thing out (and they're not even agreeing, are they?) but that just doesn't matter to most people.

[Guido Finucci]

Veritas: well, if you must know, I did actually study philosophy for a while, and I do think I have a fair grasp of most of the fancy terms that you mentioned.

I am very happy for you. Perhaps you could explain why you continue to dribble things along the lines of:

However, I think the whole concept of "morality" is pretty much empty words. You can talk about a "system of values" which is accepted by the majority if you ask them.

because I sure as shit can't figure out why you've managed to completely fail to have a clue after studying all that philosophy. (Either that, or explain to me why the people who you studied with were being paid to avoid educating you.)

... or they will be confused because their words don't mean the same as yours. And this is not a very productive confusion that usually leads nowhere.

At least we agree on something. We seem to disagree on the solution to this though; I still maintain that agreeing on language is the best way to disolve this confusion.

It's easy to say that philosophers have worked the whole thing out (and they're not even agreeing, are they?) but that just doesn't matter to most people.

To start - I never said that. Not even close (and here I am assuming that you had a point and this wasn't just a poorly executed Discordian Non Sequitur Troll).

Second - Philosphy isn't about figuring things out or agreeing with everyone. It is about understanding the arguments, their strenghts and weaknesses, and why there are no answers.

Third - Your actions seem to be entirely governed by your moral intuitions and your hind brain, correct me if I'm wrong. Did you actually pay attention during all your study or did you just passively sponge up enough to squeeze out all over your exam paper?

[agent compassion]

Did you actually pay attention during all your study or did you just passively sponge up enough to squeeze out all over your exam paper?

Ooh! Ooh! Philosopher fight! ::grabs some cookies and popcorn and takes a seat to watch::

[Guido Finucci]

Ooh! Ooh! Philosopher fight! ::grabs some cookies and popcorn and takes a seat to watch::

Sorry for the poor show but I doubt that the monkeys will actually get anything that isn't an ad hominem attack.


The gazing at ones navel is irrelevant if one doesn't know what one is looking at.