Morality.

[Seefu Sefirosu]

I am presenting a clear-cut theory that is not based on science. I won't cite any sources, because this is stream of consciousness thought.

Just wanted to get that out there before-hand.

Here we go.


Moral code has long been a very important part of society. Taboo actions were and are met with harsh punishments, up to and including, in some cultures, torture and death. But who made up that moral code, and if we don't agree with it, why do we follow it?

I hypothesize that who made up whatever moral code you follow is irrelevant. If you were told their name, your life would not change, because you already know who that is (e.g. Jesus) or because the person is so radically insignificant now that you wouldn't care.

The important part is why we follow it.

There is a niche for every type and kind of moral code. Thus, we should be able to live the way we see fit. But most people in a society don't think about it, and thus don't realize what they're doing. For instance: Most of the laws in my country, I don't agree with. I wasn't consulted when they were made, and I signed no contract saying I'd agree to these laws (to my knowledge). Yet I still follow them. Why? Because of the consequences that follow (if I stay) and because of the options available (if I leave). If I stay and break the law, I will be imprisoned. If I leave, I may end up worse off than when I started. Caught between a rock and a hard place. I think this is why most people follow moral codes that they may not agree with. If they stay where they are, they will be punished for their difference; if they leave, they may be shunned entirely.

Input and replies encouraged.

[Afrobean]

Re: Morality.

It's called a social contract. You respect my personal freedoms, and in return, I respect your personal freedoms. The basis of all true morality is right there.

Laws and government are just an officially mandated method of paying back those who renege on the social contract I mentioned. Without laws to punish those who would trample upon others' rights, there would be no strong system to punish and hopefully reform those who are not pure of heart.

But of course, religious zealots and other miscellaneous fools need to try to control things and so you get laws not related to morality and that do not protect civil rights. But that's a consequence of democratic republic system we have; sometimes people will get power and use that power to make laws which are based on personal feelings rather than true morality.

[MDMAngel]

Re: Morality.

Certain morals exist in one place, and others in another...

They are set to certain cultures because it's part of the tradition that they want to preserve... and they certainly don't want to change it after being so accustomed to their culture.

Since you (I believe) are American, it is your CULTURE to think that way, since you DO have the right (viable) to veto. The thing is that the interest of one isn't the interest of all. Which leads us to the fact that a "Utopia" can not exist by letting certain things be legal. It may give certain people the feeling of being able to "do anything and get away with it", which can cause chaos and havoc within the society...

There, also, are a lot of corrupt people... and as long as there are a big number of those people, laws will be hard to change...

That's what I believe, at least...

[QED Stepfiles]

Re: Morality.

It doesn't really matter that you never explicitly agreed to the laws set in place in your country - you implicitly agreed to follow them by living in your country. You are given the benefits of safety and stability, and in return you are expected to contribute to that safety and stability (by following laws, paying taxes, etc.)

That fear of consequences that you cited is more of a mental manifestation of this "implied contract," in that you realize the benefits afforded to you by society, and realize that you do not want to let go of said benefits.

[dore]

Re: Morality.

For every law that we disagree with, there is a law that we enjoy taking advantage of (such as murder being illegal, I know I wouldn't enjoy getting murdered in my sleep), so that's why we follow laws and moral codes. You have to set standards, and whether you agree with them or not is irrelevant because the standards force everyone (in theory) to follow the same code of conduct and ergo create an ordered society.

(by ordered society I mean one where you don't have people running around killing each other for money just because they're greedy and there's no law saying they can't, not a Big Brother is watching you! ordered society)

[Necros140606]

Re: Morality.

interesting subject.

as has been said before, morality is a social contract which allows you to act so that you won't hurt other people's freedom. but that is also the result of the culture shared inside a certain gorup of people, so it's not absolute and can't be defined as "right" - it may, at best, feel right in relation to the societal standards which belongs to.

i'd also like to add, morality is nowadays strictly linked with more or less radical puritanism. it's not a correct view, and the significance might result distorted. this should be stressed as it is somewhat easy to get confused, and i istinctly find the morality idea pretty detestable myself in the first place because of this.

[Seefu Sefirosu]

Re: Morality.

It's called a social contract. You respect my personal freedoms, and in return, I respect your personal freedoms. The basis of all true morality is right there.

Laws and government are just an officially mandated method of paying back those who renege on the social contract I mentioned. Without laws to punish those who would trample upon others' rights, there would be no strong system to punish and hopefully reform those who are not pure of heart.

But of course, religious zealots and other miscellaneous fools need to try to control things and so you get laws not related to morality and that do not protect civil rights. But that's a consequence of democratic republic system we have; sometimes people will get power and use that power to make laws which are based on personal feelings rather than true morality.

Agreed with the social contract statement. But if laws were for that purpose, then why isn't that socal contract itself a law? Why do we need about thirty-five thousand laws to ensure one sentence?

Certain morals exist in one place, and others in another...

They are set to certain cultures because it's part of the tradition that they want to preserve... and they certainly don't want to change it after being so accustomed to their culture.

Since you (I believe) are American, it is your CULTURE to think that way, since you DO have the right (viable) to veto. The thing is that the interest of one isn't the interest of all. Which leads us to the fact that a "Utopia" can not exist by letting certain things be legal. It may give certain people the feeling of being able to "do anything and get away with it", which can cause chaos and havoc within the society...

There, also, are a lot of corrupt people... and as long as there are a big number of those people, laws will be hard to change...

That's what I believe, at least...

I actually agree pretty much with all of that. Yes, I am American.

It doesn't really matter that you never explicitly agreed to the laws set in place in your country - you implicitly agreed to follow them by living in your country. You are given the benefits of safety and stability, and in return you are expected to contribute to that safety and stability (by following laws, paying taxes, etc.)

That fear of consequences that you cited is more of a mental manifestation of this "implied contract," in that you realize the benefits afforded to you by society, and realize that you do not want to let go of said benefits.

I disagree with fear. I don't fear imprisonment. I simplly recognize it as undesirable. The rest of it, point noted.

For every law that we disagree with, there is a law that we enjoy taking advantage of (such as murder being illegal, I know I wouldn't enjoy getting murdered in my sleep), so that's why we follow laws and moral codes. You have to set standards, and whether you agree with them or not is irrelevant because the standards force everyone (in theory) to follow the same code of conduct and ergo create an ordered society.

(by ordered society I mean one where you don't have people running around killing each other for money just because they're greedy and there's no law saying they can't, not a Big Brother is watching you! ordered society)

Well, it's sort of like the police officer saying "Drop your weapon!" like, fifty times, and the unsub isn't listening. You can say "Drop your weapon" as many times as you like, but if it doesn't work, you have to try something else. I think the law system is like that. If people break the laws, even though you have prisons and such, you gotta try something else.

interesting subject.

as has been said before, morality is a social contract which allows you to act so that you won't hurt other people's freedom. but that is also the result of the culture shared inside a certain gorup of people, so it's not absolute and can't be defined as "right" - it may, at best, feel right in relation to the societal standards which belongs to.

i'd also like to add, morality is nowadays strictly linked with more or less radical puritanism. it's not a correct view, and the significance might result distorted. this should be stressed as it is somewhat easy to get confused, and i istinctly find the morality idea pretty detestable myself in the first place because of this.

Can someone from America, or another country than Italy, confirm this statement, please?

Not to say you're an idiot or something Necros, but I don't see that at all, at least, not where I live with the people I'm around. Maybe I'm just not looking hard enough? Could you give me an example?

[QED Stepfiles]

Re: Morality.

Agreed with the social contract statement. But if laws were for that purpose, then why isn't that socal contract itself a law? Why do we need about thirty-five thousand laws to ensure one sentence?

How exactly do you propose we write this social contract in objective terms in one sentence? The idea of the social contract is just that - an idea - it takes much more than one sentence to articulate it in terms that are logically precise and unambiguous. In a sense, the law is an attempt to express this social contract concretely.

Certain morals exist in one place, and others in another...

They are set to certain cultures because it's part of the tradition that they want to preserve... and they certainly don't want to change it after being so accustomed to their culture.

Since you (I believe) are American, it is your CULTURE to think that way, since you DO have the right (viable) to veto. The thing is that the interest of one isn't the interest of all. Which leads us to the fact that a "Utopia" can not exist by letting certain things be legal. It may give certain people the feeling of being able to "do anything and get away with it", which can cause chaos and havoc within the society...

There, also, are a lot of corrupt people... and as long as there are a big number of those people, laws will be hard to change...

Ah, but I think we're glossing over a big point here; can we actually justifiably say that morality is culturally relative? Is there not one overarching, "true" sense of morality, or at least some things that we can say are universally immoral? For example, if some strange society had a system of laws that made it perfectly okay to go on murderous rampages through the street, even in the context of that society, would that action be considered "moral?"

I disagree with fear. I don't fear imprisonment. I simplly recognize it as undesirable. The rest of it, point noted.

I think for the purposes of this discussion, the concept of "fear" and the concept of "not desiring something and thus acting in a way that would prevent that something from happening" are two things that can be used interchangeably.

i'd also like to add, morality is nowadays strictly linked with more or less radical puritanism. it's not a correct view, and the significance might result distorted. this should be stressed as it is somewhat easy to get confused, and i istinctly find the morality idea pretty detestable myself in the first place because of this

I'm not exactly sure where you are getting the connection between morality and "radical puritanism."

[MDMAngel]

Re: Morality.

Ah, but I think we're glossing over a big point here; can we actually justifiably say that morality is culturally relative? Is there not one overarching, "true" sense of morality, or at least some things that we can say are universally immoral? For example, if some strange society had a system of laws that made it perfectly okay to go on murderous rampages through the street, even in the context of that society, would that action be considered "moral?"

I'm sorry... I think I may have misinterpreted something... what are we talking about exactly? haha d:

(edit): Are we talking, arguing, debating, or are we discussing?

[Seefu Sefirosu]

Re: Morality.

How exactly do you propose we write this social contract in objective terms in one sentence? The idea of the social contract is just that - an idea - it takes much more than one sentence to articulate it in terms that are logically precise and unambiguous. In a sense, the law is an attempt to express this social contract concretely.

I think Afrobean did it just fine: You respect my personal freedoms, and in return, I respect your personal freedoms.


Also, MDMAngel, I'm just discussing...

It's sort of an amalgamation of all of those.

[QED Stepfiles]

Re: Morality.

I think Afrobean did it just fine: You respect my personal freedoms, and in return, I respect your personal freedoms.

Whoa there... the problem is that this "law" isn't well defined at all. What count as "personal freedoms"? What counts as "respect"? Are there exceptions where said freedoms are forfeit for the good of society? Are there any special allowances given to people in special circumstances? What would happen if said personal freedoms are not respected?

Herein lies the problem - just saying "yea we'll respect personal freedoms of those around us" is completely ambiguous and, consequently, completely meaningless in the context of law. If you leave something as free to interpretation as that, you're just asking for trouble.

I'm sorry... I think I may have misinterpreted something... what are we talking about exactly? haha d:

(edit): Are we talking, arguing, debating, or are we discussing?

Well... I think most of these threads start out as discussions, but once somebody says something that somebody else doesn't completely agree with, the thread invariably turns into more of a friendly debate (or sometimes, not so friendly, but hopefully that doesn't happen too much) =p. Such is the fate of a critical thinking thread...

And as far as I can tell, I think we're discussing to what extent we're obligated to follow the "moral code" that our society seems to have set out for us. We're also touching on the incentives for following this code, as well as the source of this code (or, indeed, whether this code is even well defined in the first place).

[Seefu Sefirosu]

Re: Morality.

Whoa there... the problem is that this "law" isn't well defined at all. What count as "personal freedoms"? What counts as "respect"? Are there exceptions where said freedoms are forfeit for the good of society? Are there any special allowances given to people in special circumstances? What would happen if said personal freedoms are not respected?

It appears that we have hit the two poles of the line: The point at which the law is too much of a burden, and the point at which there is something equivalent to anarchism. So the discussion now turns to, how much law is enough, and how much is not?

The current United States lawbooks are overloaded with laws that make no sense. The real problem with that is that we have two categories of laws that don't make sense:

1) Laws that are old and no longer apply to current times (e.g., you can't chain your alligator to a fire hydrant in some cities. While apparently this was a problem some time ago, it certainly doesn't appear to be now).

2) Laws that are actually current and still don't make sense (e.g. In a certain town in Colorado (Devin, Devon, something like that) you are prohibited from lending your vacuum cleaner to your neighbor; the entire Encyclopedia Britannica is banned in Texas because it contains a recipe for making beer that could be used at home; it's illegal to buy beer after midnight Sunday in Houston but perfectly all right any time Monday, which starts - that's right - right after midnight Sunday).

I suppose the point I'm attempting to make (as I've now lost my train of thought) is that while my idea was too little, that doesn't change that this is far too much.

Edit: My keyboard is slowly failing. In that last sentence, I meant "this is too much", not "his". Apologies.

[Afrobean]

Re: Morality.

how much law is enough, and how much is not?

This is the driving principle behind politics. Not actually applied so much as of late, but if not for this question, politics would not exist.

As for an answer, I submit that the libertarian system has it right. Government does JUST enough to maintain order, to deny anarchy, but does nothing else. It's essentially anarchy minus the bad stuff. No silly laws about chaining your alligator, no silly laws about no sale of alcohol at certain times. They're even in favor of legalizing things such as marijuana. Really, is there anything immoral about drinking alcohol or using marijuana privately in one's own residence?

Agreed with the social contract statement. But if laws were for that purpose, then why isn't that socal contract itself a law? Why do we need about thirty-five thousand laws to ensure one sentence?

It's because the idea I presented is too gray. It's far too open to interpretation. One person might believe that they're not infringing on others by acting in a certain way, while others may disagree. For example, killing another person is pretty clear as wrong (it infringes upon the killed person's right to life), but what about self defense? What level of self defense is appropriate whereby it becomes justifiable kill someone from it? What about serial killers put to death by the state? What about accidental homicide? What about negligent accidental homicide?

The idea I presented is gray. The law is much more black-and-white. The law is open to interpretation itself, but in its scope, it is a lot more well defined.

ps what QED said

[MDMAngel]

Re: Morality.

Morals have been an issue of life for as long as there has been an established society, but they evolved over time... and, if I remember correctly, not all changes are good.

Complaining about morals won't change them. Morality, I suppose, defines socially acceptable behavior... but certain things aren't legal and are extremely taboo... and certain things that used to be taboo aren't any more.

I have a good example, but I'm ending here.

[Seefu Sefirosu]

Re: Morality.

This is the driving principle behind politics. Not actually applied so much as of late, but if not for this question, politics would not exist.

As for an answer, I submit that the libertarian system has it right. Government does JUST enough to maintain order, to deny anarchy, but does nothing else. It's essentially anarchy minus the bad stuff. No silly laws about chaining your alligator, no silly laws about no sale of alcohol at certain times. They're even in favor of legalizing things such as marijuana. Really, is there anything immoral about drinking alcohol or using marijuana privately in one's own residence?

Politics statement noted.

I like the libertarian argument, sans legalization of marijuana, but this is a completely separate discussion from drug legalization, so that ends there. At the moment, there are no laws against drinking alcohol in your own residence, regardless of age. You can be like, 12, but as long as you're in your own home, your guardian condones it, and you have no one else present, you're home free to get wasted.

It's because the idea I presented is too gray. It's far too open to interpretation. One person might believe that they're not infringing on others by acting in a certain way, while others may disagree. For example, killing another person is pretty clear as wrong (it infringes upon the killed person's right to life), but what about self defense? What level of self defense is appropriate whereby it becomes justifiable kill someone from it? What about serial killers put to death by the state? What about accidental homicide? What about negligent accidental homicide?

The idea I presented is gray. The law is much more black-and-white. The law is open to interpretation itself, but in its scope, it is a lot more well defined.

ps what QED said

Well, obviously, too gray, and all of those questions are up to the INDIVIDUAL'S interpretation: What is self-defense to one situation (running away) is completely stupid to do in another.