p45fan

click on one of our sponsors! OR REMOVE ADS

Is there an ultimate morality in this world we live in? Or is every action we do relative, nothing more than a mere tool used for continuing our own survival?

If there IS a total morality, what is it? Or can we even define it? If there is, how come something that used to be considered at least acceptable to society (slavery, concubinage, having young boys as sexual partners) now be considered amoral? And how can we be sure that the morals we hold today will not be considered amoral 1,000 years from now?

The basic question is, what does morality mean to you and how do you justify it?

(And my apologies if this is a repost - just smack me upside the head if I goofed)

aquadude

Wow, I'm surprised that nobody tackled this subject. Oh well, time to post my thoughts.

Yes, I believe that there is an ultimate morality, but that you can't define it without belief in God. Because morality differs from situation to situation, you can't have a cold hard list like the 10 commandments to generalize across all situations. Even Jesus didn't moralize. He assumed that everyone had a good moral intution already.

I would argue that actions back in the past were accepted, but not moral. Being accepted by society does not necessarily make something moral. For example, slavery was accepted, but isn't moral. I think the fact that it changes shows that there is an ultimate morality to strive for.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I think that's a good start. Humans are inherently selfish, so if you think about others' well being before your own, then it would be a good place to start. Many wicked deeds are done out of selfishness. From selfishness comes a whole list of other vices--greed, lust, envy, jealousy, pride.... However, if we think of others before ourselves, then that would effectively "cancel out" those bad thoughts.

Just my take on it...

silver77

Morality is based on culture, so no. Everyone has their own value system defined by the culture/society they grew up in.... 'deviants' or 'amoral' people just have a different velue system from the dominant society of the area.

Insaniteus

For the most part, there is no ultimate morality. People's stances on everything from love and sex to food and drink are defined by their culture and upbringing. A Christian can have only 1 wife, a Muslim 4. Pork, Beef, and Beer are banned in some religions as well. Hell, the right of America to be in Iraq is a moral debate that splits the nation and the world. There is no absolute set of "right" morals.

I, however, beleive in ONE true moral, which is the solitary only one that I live by in life: You are free to do what you want, as long as you cause no harm to others in the process. I am perfectly ok with consentual sex between an 80-year-old and a 12-year-old, beleive drug use is the user's choice, homosexuality is fine, the right of peaceful religion or none at all is good, etc etc. Once your actions infringe on the rights of others, like stealing/murder/abuse, then they're wrong to me.

-Insaniteus-

p45fan

I am going to be really nitpicky here Insaniteus, and question you on consensual sex, because I know of very few groups that ever saw any sort of consensual sex with minors as moral (I'm not exactly sure what early people thought of it, I think it was one of those situations Aquadude alluded to where it was accepted, though not necessarily moral.)

So here's my question to you: If it is fair to have consensual sex between an 80 and 12 year old, how about with someone even younger? The point I'm trying to make is that, if the one true moral that you argue for is simply that you cause no harm to another, where (if at all) do you draw the line in terms of age or mental capacity? Certainly if you do not know that you are hurting somebody, if you are not consciously aware of that fact, you cannot be held accountable. In addition, if you do not forsee the potentially damaging effects of what you are doing (and this goes far beyond simply consensual sex), is it then amoral?

I guess that what I'm getting around to is that I'm just not satisfied with your answer. While certainly people may have differing beliefs on what morality itself is, does that alone require that no ultimate morality does exist?

Hell, while we're at it, why don't we try to define what morality even IS - is it a religious or spiritual idea, or a universal set of guidelines (or guideline) that we may follow to live in peace, happiness, and harmony with our fellow man and surroundings?

rage.ATM

Actually, interesting you all are discussing this because i just read about this in my european civ class, "Among male elite, romantic love in both Archaic and Classical Greece was homosexual love or, to be precise, pederasty. The ideal relationship was supposed to involve a man in his twenties and a boy in his teens." Obviously, if anyone tried to do this today they would end up in jail faster than you can figure out how to spell statutory. However, thousands of years ago, this practice was seen as correct. But, i don't think that you can say just because it was accepted that made it a moral action.

This is when you have to classify our interaction rules. (An intro to engineering course helped here also when we read about engineering ethics) But things can become clearer by looking at things as etiquette, law, morals, or ethics. And for morals, we agree that these are rights shared by everyone, regardless of whether or not a government recognizes them. For instance, slaverey was lawful in our country, but at no time was it a moral action. Unfortunately, I think it's only enevitable that something we do today will be seen as amoral in the future.

silver77

Note he said 'consensual' ... the morality has nothing to do with the reality of the situation. Whether a person can make an informed choice at a given age has nothing to do with the morality of the situation.

To expand... a given 12 year old may be extremely mature, well brought up, intelligent and able to judge for themselves whether they wish to consent or not ... a given 18 year old may be driven by hormones into consenting without thinking of the repurcusions... in this situation, insans' morality would indicate IMO that it's ok to sleep with the 12 year old but not the 18 year old.

I don't know if I was clear, i'm simply trying to indicate the vast difference between what may be moral, and what is real-world practical.

Insaniteus

If there's one thing I don't care at all about, it's whether my views were ever shared by any organized groups of the past lol. Honor killings are considered moral in several Muslim nations even now, doesn't mean that's swaying my opinion of them.

Either way, King Tut was married to an 18-year-old girl when he was 9, and this was normal for them, so HA!



To quote an old cliche, "If they're old enough to bleed, then they're old enough to breed." For guys, I'd say once they're old enough to cum.



In theory this is a good question, but it's become the basis for control and it's something I've always hated. Let's take R-rated movies as an example. Minors aren't allowed in. There's not a 16-year-old in the US that hasn't seen nudity, violence, swearing, drugs, etc etc, yet the "powers-that-be" beleive that they must be prevented from viewing R-rated movies because of the "potential damage they could cause that they wouldn't even be aware of". In truth, they fear diversity, and want people to fall into line.

In the end, this comes down to what classifies as "damage", which ironically varies in definition as much as morals do. If you have no intent to hurt someone with your actions, and don't know of any damage caused by your actions, then you're acting morally since you can't ask anything more of anyone.



Yes lol. Much the same way I discounted religions (which is another debate really), when there are thousands upon thousands of conflicting ideas, who's to say which are right and which are wrong? If there was a true universal morality, a set of rules that all humans were bound to follow, then all humans would follow them. More on that in a second:



The wild kingdoms do not follow morals, and we're animals as well. Civilization is the idea of us breaking from nature towards greater prosperity, but much as all civilizations are different, all morals and rule sets they create for the purpose of maintaining this prosperity are different. We all break from nature in different ways, yet it's all unnatural, and guided by no magic hand of "correct" morals.

Back on the sex issue, it bothers me that in the United States, land of freedom, an 18-year-old can be arrested for RAPE if he has sex with a 17-year-old. The law hinges on the assumption that minors are too "stupid" to give their consent to sex, which is laughable. I know people as young as 12 that know what sex is, the risks, and are able to choose for themselves whether they want to have sex or not.

I beleive in the solitary moral of not causing harm to others, anything outside that spec usually serves little purpose but population control. Our Christian-based culture fears sex, even before STDs were around, and the perception of age limits is just one attempt at making sure that they have plenty of time to program abstinence into people, or get them married not long after they're legal. Some people fear diversity, I do not, and beleive we should all be free to be who we want, do what we want, live how we want, as long as we aren't infringing on the rights of others to do the same.

-Insaniteus-

p45fan

I'll play devil's advocate again. It's fine and wonderful to say that there are 14-year-olds who are more mature than even 30-year-olds. But how do you stay off that slippery slope where you fail to draw the line based on a few cases?


Here's the issue: Don't we have a responsibility to hold "morality" to others? If we allowed children to be totally free to be who they wanted, do what they wanted, and live how they wanted, wouldn't we just be a bunch of apes? Doesn't morality bring along with it a certain sense of advancement in the human race? I don't think we, as a people, can just give up on morality by actually coming to a definition of it. By constantly pursuing true morality, we ensure that humanity will constantly improve itself.

silver77

Easy, you don't.

You can't have a discussion like morality without talking in a vacuum because in the 'real world' there will always be some complication.

Insaniteus

If all children followed my solitary moral, there would be almost no crime. Problem is, the main moral taught to children in America now is "Succeed at any cost". This leads us to have a society full of many amazing advancements in technology at the expense of a skyrocketing crime rate and the inability to trust your neighbor or even family anymore.

We have other morals which serve no good purpose, like it being bad for a woman to be sexually experienced with many partners for instance.

-Insaniteus-

the_dude

Posts: n/a/0

Threads:

Morality will always be what the majority sees to be right. In 99% of things the marority has it about right but there are certain things that always change through time. If it's not bad for a man to have several sexual partners then I can't see it being bad if a woman does. In todays time I believes the morals we put on children have slacked and that is causing some of the problems we have today. Parents can't discipline a child like they were able to do 20 years ago so I think that there is a lack of discipline in alot of kids today rather than a lack of morality. I don't buy the argument that the reason alot of kids are doing what they are doing today is because of the movies, tv shows and video games that are out today but rather the slack parenting they have had which brings a lack of undertsanding , discipline and it leads to undeveloped moral ideas.
We live in a time where you can get away with alot more and if you are punished for something it is just a slap on the wrist. Does that teach people what the majority set of morals is? No, it teaches people that they could do what they want because they will most likely get away with it.
Whether some people like it or not, majority rule and if whatever they want morals to be then thats what it will be. You can try and show them that some of their moral ideas are flawed and they might agree and change it but if they don't you are going to have to live with it till it ultimatly changes with the majority.

I probably get way off track there but this is what I was thinking at the time so I went with it!

p45fan

Oh come on now, you can't really think that, can you? It doesn't matter where the hell you live or in what society you live in! Now of COURSE if everybody followed your one moral, there would be almost no crime, that's like saying "if everyone was nice there would be almost no crime." Maybe we do have morals that serve no purpose, but you also have to consider why a moral is started in the first place. The fact that we don't want women to be sexually experienced arises from a cultural reliance on the need for procreation and stable married couples. Now don't get me wrong, experience is very nice sometimes, but again things come to a point and that is my point. I agree wholeheartedly, there will "always be a vacuum" when we try to explain morality in a real-world situation, but that does NOT mean we shouldn't talk about morality!

Morality is the BASIS of civilization. If the Founding Fathers of America, for instance, or the Abolitionists or Civil Rights Activists or ANYBODY who has brought a moral change to society just simply decided not to have a talk about what Morality is, then there would be no human evolution.

Humanity is on a constant drive towards perfection, and one way to get there is through moral perfection. I admit now that to ask to define morality may indeed have been an impossible question, but then maybe that was the point! So long as we continue to discuss morality and continue to try and find greater morality, then the human race will always move in a positive direction.

*Sigh* forgive me for I rant....

Jimi

Success isn't a moral. I personally think that there is a universal morality. Everyone knows that murder is wrong, harming others is wrong, theft is wrong, you know, the typical. However, everything's not so black-and-white. There are gray areas that leave room for personal interpretation. Some people think that sex is immoral, some people don't. Morality has a lot to do with personal religion and beliefs. I think that as long as you stick to the black-and-white morals, then you're alright.