Morality!

J

JadussD

New member
Many people claim that there is some absolute basis for morality, that the attempt to discard or form one's own, relative moral values is tantamount to narcissism and arrogance. However, could it not be said that those who ascribe to traditional moral values are simply parroting the views of people who could be said to be equally narcissistic and arrogant, but whose views over time have come to be adopted by a large portion of the populace? Since any knowledge as to the nature of reality I may have may be merely an illusion, and it is possible that the nature of knowledge is such that it may merely manifest and give form to what is "known", with the knower not realizing that it is the knowledge itself, and the process of obtaining it which gives it influence over an illusory reality, and that a real reality is beyond knowledge and the forms created by it, I will accept the possibility that transcendent power may illuminate a mind and give it access to a form of morality which is beyond my comprehension and is absolute. However, in this case I will address the issue of morality from a more down-to-earth standpoint.

If one were to examine "traditional morality", they could always trace back the system of morality to someone who was a moral innovator. Now, if one is a moral innovator, does not this put him in the same boat as the person who creates his own system of morality? The person who says that we must ascribe to traditional morality is saying exactly this: "We must not create our own system of morality; we must adhere to the moral principles created by someone who created their own system of morality."

How exactly does this make any sense?
 
As "morality" has been left vague, I will simply say mine isn't traditional, I just try not to hurt people. That doesn't seem worth questioning.
 
Last edited:
did anyone else think of Mortal Kombat with they saw the topic title?

Just think of it....

SUB-ZERO WINS!

Morality!
​
 
Putting Nietzsche aside for a second...Now, on the other hand, Kant's idea of the Categorical Imperative, that one should act only by that maxim which one would will to be universal law is interesting. However, his idea that one should act morally out of duty, and that any other action is not truly moral, is puzzling. I advance the perhaps baseless speculation that Kant discovered something about reality that he did not find fit to explain, perhaps because it was beyond explanation, or when explained would cause a misunderstanding, or perhaps ridicule, and thus saw fit to prescribe the categorical imperative based on "duty", when from a higher standpoint the categorical imperative would be seen as something which one may do out of self-interest.

Going beyond mere binary oppositions like good and evil, acting by that maxim which one would will to be universal law is a flexible moral system which does not rely on good and evil: If one would will universal selfishness and amorality, then one would act selfishly and amorally. If one would will selflessness and concern for others before oneself, one would act by that principle. Perhaps, if we have a subjective view of reality, or if we divide the universe into subjective and objective components, subjectively reality behaves in such a way that ones actions place oneself in positions where ones actions do seem to universal law, from a first person standpoint. These are not arguments, just speculations.
 
Help people who need help. Hurt people who hurt people who need help. Exact vengeance on anyone who hurts you.

Simple enough for me.
 
JadussD said:
Going beyond mere binary oppositions like good and evil, acting by that maxim which one would will to be universal law is a flexible moral system which does not rely on good and evil: If one would will universal selfishness and amorality, then one would act selfishly and amorally. If one would will selflessness and concern for others before oneself, one would act by that principle. Perhaps, if we have a subjective view of reality, or if we divide the universe into subjective and objective components, subjectively reality behaves in such a way that ones actions place oneself in positions where ones actions do seem to universal law, from a first person standpoint. These are not arguments, just speculations.
Click to expand...

Once you add in subjectivity, are we really talking about morals anymore? I can accept that people will draw their own moral code from any number of sources (religion, universal imperative, whatever), but if what is moral changes from situation to situation, how is that even morality? It's saying, "I'm going to do whatever is right in any given situation", but not giving any kind of basis for these decisions.

Suppose you simply "do what is right". At some given moment, you make a decision you decide is right. If you regret later making this decision, wouldn't that imply you made an incorrect decision -- that you acted immorally? What is the source of this regret if morality is subjective?
 
Last edited:
One must make the best decision they can based on what information is available at the time. In hindsight it may appear to have been the wrong decision, but that does not necessarily mean that it was an "immoral" one. Because of this informational aspect, I find it impossible to say that morality is anything but subjective; what our brain processes is unique to ourselves (and changes every time to some degree) and will vary even more from person to person. There are too many variables for universality to be possible (culture, biology, personal experience, emotion, etc) and all decisions must be made given a new and unique set of circumstances.

We can try to lump the world into "right" and "wrong", but the fact is that most of the world is not so very simple, and the many complexities involved in decisionmaking further complicate any attempt to always do what is "moral".
 
GeminiMan said:
We can try to lump the world into "right" and "wrong", but the fact is that most of the world is not so very simple, and the many complexities involved in decisionmaking further complicate any attempt to always do what is "moral".
Click to expand...

Is it? I can agree that every situation we face is unique, since our minds are unique. If I enter into a situation blindly, it is not unlikely that I will make a different decision than if I had been better informed (since my mind is not in the same state in both cases, so the two situations would be unique). What we know definitely alters the choices we make.

Morals, in a sense, would be a set of information that applies to all situations that we face. If you walk into a situation with absolutely no context, your decision making isn't going to be random. It will be based on something. These somethings are your morals.
 
Free Will

Ugly Joe said:
Is it? I can agree that every situation we face is unique, since our minds are unique. If I enter into a situation blindly, it is not unlikely that I will make a different decision than if I had been better informed (since my mind is not in the same state in both cases, so the two situations would be unique). What we know definitely alters the choices we make.

Morals, in a sense, would be a set of information that applies to all situations that we face. If you walk into a situation with absolutely no context, your decision making isn't going to be random. It will be based on something. These somethings are your morals.
Click to expand...

A lack of morals. the amoral the immoral, they all make decisions, but not always on what is right, but sometimes based on temptations all man kind in some way struggles with. Infomed concent is important, but somewhat amoral not to question the lack of information, but dangerous to judge at the risk of being immoral and persecutorial.
None the less, if I put you under the influence of hypnotics or charm or something psychotropic it may increase your ability to be misguided and redirected to not make a decision on correct information.

Now as for voting for a Candidate, sometimes uninfomed or maliciously voting, voting for a new law on an issue they never ran on or told you, leaves your vote for them or their vote on your behalf as an uninformed concent as well.

Scum suckers.

"Moral Matters" although not perfect, is a pretty good book on the subject, even better, books like Being and Time by Martin Heiddegger; some Kant and Maslow and all that Jazz Club crap.
 
Ugly Joe said:
Morals, in a sense, would be a set of information that applies to all situations that we face. If you walk into a situation with absolutely no context, your decision making isn't going to be random. It will be based on something. These somethings are your morals.
Click to expand...

It sounds like you're describing experience rather than morals. Experience would be, I guess, everything you've learned in your life up to the point where you would make the decision. Whereas morals seem like they would be the opposite. They would be rules you apply to a situation regardless of your experience. One rule might be "do not kill," but what if you're in a situation like war where you have to kill or you will die. You're experience would say to kill the enemy. But your moral law would still say don't kill.

For every choice there is probably a best answer, but the only way to decide is to use your experiance. If you blindly follow moral law you give up your freedom and your humanity. But many moral laws are usually right. It’s better not to lie for example.
 
Umiliphus said:
Mental Midget Slayer?
Click to expand...

Yes?

Morgoth said:
It sounds like you're describing experience rather than morals. Experience would be, I guess, everything you've learned in your life up to the point where you would make the decision. Whereas morals seem like they would be the opposite. They would be rules you apply to a situation regardless of your experience. One rule might be "do not kill," but what if you're in a situation like war where you have to kill or you will die. You're experience would say to kill the enemy. But your moral law would still say don't kill.

For every choice there is probably a best answer, but the only way to decide is to use your experiance. If you blindly follow moral law you give up your freedom and your humanity. But many moral laws are usually right. It’s better not to lie for example.
Click to expand...

A little knowledge and observation of other experiences never hurt. One needs to screw up when they see others screw up. A conscience about things are bound to show themselves. Never hurt to debate them. Sometimes politics shies from moral issues because it assumes religion is involved. But Thomas Paine (believed in God as a home praying Deist) did not have a church but argued morality in a secular manner.
Libertarians for Life, the morality of (l4l.org) abortion in Scientific terms (yes I agree science can take a religious tone or be religion at times; but not here).

Really looking into the reasons why people or faiths would say something is wrong is always worth while, this can take one to understand things in a secular way why morality is how it is. Or what morality is.

Causality really puts indirect pain in our own fault when we don't even know. Did we push a block of dominos down or did we not stop it? "Cause leads to effect that go on meeting other effects and those make a new cause for a new effect." My theory of human connection and effect on each other. We live in a continuum of the perpetual penultimate (event).

Stay Cool.
SZabadság!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom