Spirituality
18 Jun 06
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
19 Jun 06
Originally posted by 7ate9Calm down. God loves you too.
cause God don't do anything. he don't give a f@ck!
19 Jun 06
Originally posted by HalitoseI'll take this one. I don't think morality is a qualitative thing, at least in term of the relationship between both one moral an another, and between previous morals and future ones. Whilst new morals standards are generally seen to be an improvement on previous ones, I don't think they are necessarily an improvement on all morals which came before. The reason for this is that since they are a social contract, they are dependant on what the society sees as beneficial. If the competitive pressures in that society change; maybe resources, war etc. then what is beneficial to the society may alter. Consequently morals will alter in reflection. Now there are what I like to think of as core morals; not killing people for fun etc. and I think these are stronger in the society than, for example, swearing in public. This is because there is a stronger tie between the moral and the success of the society. Because of this, they are more likely to endure over time, since it would take a massive and unlikely change in the nature of that society to alter the benefits of not killing people for fun.
Does this "evolving morality" not presume eventual "super-duper morals" to which we are evolving to?
[b]His moral code (and that of most though not all people) values helping others and condemns the slaughter of humans for the sake of ethnicity.
Would you say this "moral code" is normative?[/b]
I would say moral code is just a relative adjective for the normative need for co-operation, in the face of competition and for survival. In caveman times it was pretty simple, in modern times; a lot more complex, this is a reflection on the complexity of society.
19 Jun 06
If you decide with full knowledge to do a particular thing, for example steal, which is considered moraly wrong by most people, have your morals changed? Are morals something we think that we would like most people to do but dont necessarily feel the need to follow ourselves or are they a code of conduct that we actually try to follow?
19 Jun 06
Originally posted by twhiteheadI don't think that's a question of morals as an onjective thing, but rather the morality of that person. If their morals are poorly upheld or their experiences are such that they have been taught stealing is less morraly reprehensible, then they are more likely to steal. Whilst morals are a social contract, adhering to them as an individual requires the awareness of how your actions impact on others and what it takes to keep to a good moral set.
If you decide with full knowledge to do a particular thing, for example steal, which is considered moraly wrong by most people, have your morals changed? Are morals something we think that we would like most people to do but dont necessarily feel the need to follow ourselves or are they a code of conduct that we actually try to follow?
19 Jun 06
Originally posted by StarrmanMy point is that a person can have a set of moral standards but not follow it. But are morals the standards we claim to follow or the ones we actually follow.
I don't think that's a question of morals as an onjective thing, but rather the morality of that person. If their morals are poorly upheld or their experiences are such that they have been taught stealing is less morraly reprehensible, then they are more likely to steal. Whilst morals are a social contract, adhering to them as an individual requires the awareness of how your actions impact on others and what it takes to keep to a good moral set.
19 Jun 06
Originally posted by HalitoseMoral values are universal, not "absolute", nor relative.
Originally posted by Starrman
[b]If morality is a socially agreed contract, we punish people and reward others on the basis of success. What is good for the success of the group is deemed morally acceptable, what is deemed bad for the success of the group is morally unacceptable.
The above post reminded me of a thread I had been meaning to s ...[text shortened]... ction of beliefs as to what constitutes a good life.
So -- are morals relative or absolute?[/b]
19 Jun 06
Originally posted by rwingettSo, in your view the Nazi's one day might be praised for what they did.
Relative.
As a society's beliefs change, their concept of morality will change along with it. Slavery is a prime example. It was once an accepted institution of society (even in the bible), but is now condemned. Times change. Beliefs change. Morals change.
Even you might evolve in that direction according to your own theory. Right ?
19 Jun 06
Originally posted by rwingettYou could say in the case of slavery that morals don't change but their application does. Men have always subscribed to the idea of "do as you would be done by" and kindness to your fellow man. Slavery depended on the idea of de-humanising human beings. It became Ok to do this to other humans if you didn't fully acknowledge them as fully 'human'. We catagorise people and use this as an excuse to treat them differently from how our morals would normally dictate. This trend continues today in Abu Gharaib/Guantananmo Bay. In a sense everything has changed but nothing has as well. Our basic morals are the same as always we just apply them differently (unless that person is a terrorist suspect).
Relative.
As a society's beliefs change, their concept of morality will change along with it. Slavery is a prime example. It was once an accepted institution of society (even in the bible), but is now condemned. Times change. Beliefs change. Morals change.
19 Jun 06
Originally posted by 7ate9Your mention of 'high morals' reminded me of the Iraq war. Many americans justify the war claiming that thier 'higher moral standing' justifies them killing iraqis.
in jail i could smack someone in the head for doing something and this would be 'acceptable'. in a church i could have the same thing happen to me, yet it would be 'unacceptable'.
moral values are proportional to a lot of things, of which i reckon environment... past, present, AND future dictate a persons moral values.
because of this it is wrong to impo ...[text shortened]... e-month old twins on national radio, it is evident to me this is a BIG problem in society.