morality

shadowind · 05-04-2008, 09:48 AM

heres paragraph from an essay i'm writing for school, it sums up my ideas

"Morality what is moral? One man’s moral is another man’s immoral. How is one to say which man is correct? Most judge this by how much that person’s morality aligns with their own morality. It’s a mistake to think that there is an objective and well defined morality. Each morality is one’s own, not a universal experience. The guilt one may feel is the excitement of another. Each man has his own code, his own morality. To say that man would fall into immorality with out society is meaningless with out the definition of that morality. Man may differentiate from the morality of his original society without the constant pressures of that society. The new morality may be seen as different and thus immoral by the old standard. However by the current standard, the current standard is correct, or perhaps doubted. To judge a group as immoral or moral is to judge one’s own morality. Ones own is usually considered the “right” one, unless one considers the relativity and context of the situation and can detach himself. Then another standard would be used to judge the correctness of an action. However what standard do we have to judge a standard? If we have a standard to judge of standard, then what standard to judge the meta-standard? It goes on like this forever. Similar to how an idea about an idea, is just another idea. There is no way to know 100%, no “absolute” good or bad. Those adjectives only have meaning as a descriptor of a relationship, a relationship between two standards or ideas. Without two nouns, the adjective of good or bad is nothing, nonsense, nothing but perhaps a emotion. Words carry more then just ideas, they carry emotions. They also carry associations not in the definition of the word. Like the word “water” may carry the association of death, or it may carry life. It depends on the associations of water, the associations are unique to the individual. It is in large part these associations that help in defining an individuals sense of wrongness or rightness. "

dameedna · 05-14-2008, 07:42 AM

I think you are repeating yourself a bit too much there.

The concept of an objective morality vs relative, can be simply and clearly defined, so reduce your verbosity and simplify. The most elegant statments make the greatest impact.

What is the purpose of your paper btw? I mean a paper just on Morality would encompass quite a bit. Is it on objective vs Relative? Is it on the problems WITH objective morality? The problems with the idea of morality in the first place?

shadowind · 05-14-2008, 02:53 PM

a book report on the Lord of the Flies, about a possible theme presented to us.

dameedna · 05-14-2008, 10:31 PM

Ahhh...Phenomenal book!!!

I'm not sure that this shows that we don't have morality however. If you look closely there are many kids that prefered the original leader(can't remember the name) and deliberately pretended that they didn't see him during the final scenes when they were trying to kill him.

It also does not show what would happen, if they did kill the original leader, would the other kids have eventually revolted against him? and if so, why would they have?

It does show however, that what is perhaps our natural morality(based more on biology than learning) can be overwritten by a survival instinct or fear.

I loved the book. A civilized society only exists for one generation. The next, has to "learn" their ethical and moral values all over again. Without it, all we have is natural morality which is not enough to keep us in line, when we are scared.

Do you think this book showed morality as only be subjective or not really existing at all?

shadowind · Yesterday, 06:24 PM

the possible interpretation of it i heard on a movie she showed us was that "without socaity's rules and laws we would fall into inmorality and anarchy. "
i think human nature is more amoral and selfish, and that morality is a subjective thing, something that descripes more of a relationship, not an absloute attribute.

dameedna · Today, 04:43 AM

I think to a degree you are right.

The only issue with this is that Society IS a human creation. Society isn't something that keeps us under control because it's been created outside of us. It's a part of us and we are a part of it.

IF without society we'd become monsters, how did we move forward in the first place before current civilization began?? If we were truly so selfish and naturally brutal, how did we end up with laws that attempt to protect the weakness, the most vunlerable..and why does the world do things like pull together to help after Tsunamis and earthquakes? these laws didn't grow out of no-where, they came from us.

Not sure if that made sense. None of it sits outside of us...even the moral parts that are supposed to be created by God, they are more than likely..created by man. And many of them work.

I think we are 20% natural morality, 40% subjective and 40% relative. (replace Subjective for Objective for the religious) but that's my guesstimate.

For me what's interesting is trying to determine what situation pushes us into a position where we behave immorally(compared to our own usual individual behaviour). I alway's remember that given where I live, I have the luxury of behaving ethically and morally. Not everyone has that luxury...and it seems "fear" is one of the situations that pushes us to our moral and ethical limits.

That's what Lord of the Flies is about to me. Not just what we can become, but what pushes us to go against our own nature and even our own learned ethics. Most of those kids, did what they did out of fear..most knew it was wrong but did it anyway.

The only thing to fear, is Fear itself

shadowind · Today, 06:53 PM

i would agree about the fear part, they feared the beast and wanted meat, jack was the hunter/provider and gave a sense of security from outside fears, then he used fear though to control the group, to differ from jack was a big no-no.the Sociaty(s) of the boys on the island seemed to change, from a democratic one to more of a dictatorship.

i've not sure about the distiction between natural, subjective and relative, arn't relative and subjective about the same thing?

i need to finish the communist manifesto i'm about 1/4 or 1/3 way though the book, already read the actual part containing the manifesto just not the additional added stuff after it, also i have dragonLance annoted legends and my sherlock holmes to read, school/work though is a pain and keeps me busyish, i think i would spend my entire pay check at barnes and nobles if i didn't have some inhibitors stoping me.