Morality

[Zevn]

Morality has a great number of meanings, a bare example of which would be: The principals of wrong and right. Great minds throughout known human history have sought the answers to the tremendous questions raised by the existence (or what is perceived as) good, and evil.

There are many answers to these same questions, as morality is ever shaded in grey. I will attempt to address some of the main places that humanity's ideals come to a focal point, then open the conversation for debate, and discussion.

1. Justice Systems

1a) Justice systems around the world impose laws based on the understanding of right, wrong, the influence of society, and religion(2 & 3). It can be said that justice doesn't exist for the inherently just individual, but rather for the unjust. A well functioning justice system provides a foundation for the progress of a community, be it a city, or a nation. It does this by simultaneously dissuading malicious behavior, and offering absolution for the wronged.

1b) What is hypothetically justified as recourse for wrong-doing, is not necessarily the correct course of action in reality. In the case of persons who are charged with the murder of another: Is the margin of error too high to allow the execution of the potentially innocent? The previous is an example, this does apply to lesser crimes as well, but obviously most of those punishments are rectifiable to an extent.


2. Society

2a) Cultural differences play a key role in what is considered acceptable by a society's moral code of conduct. Sexuality, and modesty are examples of things that are often strictly guided by a society's moral compass.

2b) What do you think are arbitrary confines on right and wrong in modern society?


3. Religion

3a) Religion has helped a great number of people differentiate between right and wrong, while giving them a profound sense of community and purpose. It's existence has done undeniable good in the world.

3b) Is it possible for completely conflicting ideologies to exist in tandem, without hatred growing between them?

3c) What is the best way to teach beliefs without disdain for difference?


4. Philosophy

4a) What exactly is evil?

4b) Does what exists in your "heart" define your true nature, or does your ability to keep it at bay? In this regard I am referring to the duality that exists, of good and "evil."

4c) Does the ability to suffer define life, would kindness lose all meaning without that suffering to accentuate it?


______
I have done my best to keep this concise. I have asked some questions that I am curious in hearing answers to from others, but please feel free to submit suggestions and I will try to edit them in.

 

[Malanu]

Morality is also influenced by life experience Zevn. My Bro (before he passed away) and I had many of the same social, religious & philosophical lessons, he however did not live the life I did and therefore we had many a strong disagreements on good and evil, justice, and other topics.

I spent several years as an Infantry Marine thus his idea of the sanctity of life and mine were very different, he was glad I was one of 'the good guys' and part of his family, but he could not make the choices I can. Does that make me evil? I don't know, I know it makes me more militant. I have a very cut and dry view on when and who I would kill without a second thought if I had to. I don't kid you when I say that many Marines thought it would be better idea to turn the middle east into a parking lot rather then constantly fight on both sides of the border. I firmly believe that evil people need to be tracked, pin pointed and executed before they kill more innocents. BlackOps should be used to destroy drug cartels, international terrorists & telemarketers(JK on this one). I think it is about time the US closes its doors to giving charity until we get ourselves back on our feet again. I also feel we should only help those who are our allies or at the very least have shown to be friendly and supportive of our views. I support eye for an eye justice. Have the courts punish according to the crime, with mitigating circumstances taken into account. A thief who steals food to feed his family should be forced to work a farm to repay the crime, but someone who steals a Video game should be fined/garnished an equal amount to what was stolen. A life for a life.

Then there is the fact that, I respect and support my tree hugging, flower child, moral opposite. Our world need them to balance the truly evil in the world.

 

[Zevn]

Morality is also influenced by life experience Zevn.

Sense of morality is indeed deeply influenced by life experience, but I also think that people have dispositions in their character.

I spent several years as an Infantry Marine thus his idea of the sanctity of life and mine were very different, he was glad I was one of 'the good guys' and part of his family, but he could not make the choices I can. Does that make me evil?

I believe most people are a mix of good and evil. As humans we are graced with the ability to have self awareness, and use the negative side for the work of good.

I don't kid you when I say that many Marines thought it would be better idea to turn the middle east into a parking lot rather then constantly fight on both sides of the border.

This could be an example of becoming damaged, and so jaded by their experiences that they severely devalue human life.

I firmly believe that evil people need to be tracked, pin pointed and executed before they kill more innocents.

We agree, but who gets to be the judge and jury?

BlackOps should be used to destroy drug cartels, international terrorists.

You left out flesh traders, who in my opinion are among the most vile people to ever exist on Earth. Execution is too good for them.

A thief who steals food to feed his family should be forced to work a farm to repay the crime.

We should also facilitate programs that get people out of such a trapping income bracket. While we have programs that "help" the jobless, or minimum wage workers, we don't have ways for them to get out of that mire.

A life for a life.

In certain circumstances I agree with you, but mistakes are made, and innocents are often executed. There is also the worry of continuing cycles of hatred, something which can only be undone by compromise and forgiveness.

Then there is the fact that, I respect and support my tree hugging, flower child, moral opposite. Our world need them to balance the truly evil in the world.

I know a lot of these, many of them don't think anyone is beyond redemption. I believe this to be insanely naive, not to mention arrogant. They think they could change the darkest hearts with a few kind words, and gestures.

Although, you are correct in saying that for the balance to be maintained as the world is now, they have a place.

 

[Malanu]

This could be an example of becoming damaged, and so jaded by their experiences that they severely devalue human life.

This could be... But from my memory, we had this attitude more because the bad guys were so difficult to find, and the application of excessive force can be a simple solution to a problem. Understand not a good solution, but a simple one. As there would be no bad guys left if the area was paved. The 5th Marines had a reputation for that kind of fighting thanks to The Battle of Belleau Wood.

 

[Ludwig]

As I wrote in my morality thread in the debate section a few weeks/months ago, I don't understand it because there is no basis for it.

 

[Raymond - king of ducks]

Religion has helped a great number of people differentiate between right and wrong, while giving them a profound sense of community and purpose. It's existence has done undeniable good in the world.

Religion may inspire some good at times.

However.

Religion has also caused an untold amount of pain and suffering in the world. Ever since religion was a thing, people have been killing each other over it. The Holocaust, for example, would not have happened had it not been for centuries of instilled Jew-hatred.

It's existence has done undeniable good in the world.

You could just as well say Hitler, Mohammed and Moses had "done undeniable good": Many improvements in Germany pre-1938 can be attributed to Hitler even though he left the country in a hell of a shape in the end. Mohammed convinced people not to kill their newborn daughters, although many of the girls he 'saved' would go on to endure regular rape and violence at the hands of their husbands in the future. Moses freed some slaves, sure, but he also wiped out entire desert tribes just because they didn't worship his god, and, ironically, those he didn't kill, he enslaved.

Time and again I hear people saying religion has inspired good, but when you look at the facts it has caused enough pain to cancel that out a million times over.

 

[Zevn]

]Time and again I hear people saying religion has inspired good, but when you look at the facts it has caused enough pain to cancel that out a million times over.

I have to disagree. People don't kill over religion as much as they use it as an excuse to kill each other for wealth, and power.

Humans fear what's different from them. Religion is easy to use to rally the masses, and that is why it can appear to be the cause. I contend that people would kill each other in the same fashion without the existence of religion.

My example would be the enslavement of Africans in early US history. They were different, and less technologically progressed. It is because of that, that they were dehumanized, treated like property, and could be killed without recourse.

 

[Raymond - king of ducks]

My example would be the enslavement of Africans in early US history. They were different, and less technologically progressed. It is because of that, that they were dehumanized, treated like property, and could be killed without recourse.

Okay, first of all, the African slaves to which you're referring were not enslaved by White Americans. They were slaves already: owned by many different people including other Africans and Arabs, and sold to anyone who wanted them. Many Africans today still live as slaves, to other Africans in their native countries.

Slavery, in case you didn't know, is accepted (and even encouraged) in Christianity, Islam, and other religions. In the eyes of your average 17th century American Christian, or modern arab Muslim, the Africans who practice their native religions (Voodoo and similar) are indeed sub-human; because they don't worship your god, they are little more than soulless beasts. Slaves who convert are usually treated somewhat more like actual humans, though.

I was raised in a non-religious enviroment, and yet I have no desire to own slaves. My cousin (a catholic), however, doesn't consider slavery of non-Christians to be a "serious problem", precisely because he thinks these people are soulless. The fact that these people may or may not be techologically inferior is irrelevant.

 

[7 tyranitars]

Okay, first of all, the African slaves to which you're referring were not enslaved by White Americans. They were slaves already: owned by many different people including other Africans and Arabs, and sold to anyone who wanted them. Many Africans today still live as slaves, to other Africans in their native countries.

Slavery, in case you didn't know, is accepted (and even encouraged) in Christianity, Islam, and other religions. In the eyes of your average 17th century American Christian, or modern arab Muslim, the Africans who practice their native religions (Voodoo and similar) are indeed sub-human; because they don't worship your god, they are little more than soulless beasts. Slaves who convert are usually treated somewhat more like actual humans, though.

I was raised in a non-religious enviroment, and yet I have no desire to own slaves. My cousin (a catholic), however, doesn't consider slavery of non-Christians to be a "serious problem", precisely because he thinks these people are soulless. The fact that these people may or may not be techologically inferior is irrelevant.

I have to disagree with you on one part. Christianity is very against slavery, that is why it became so popular under slaves of the Roman Empire. The reason why it was okay to enslave native americans, (and later after that was disapproved after a short period of time and because they where unfit for the work) upon was because they weren't considered full humans by the Pope. And people didn't minded it much in that time because of the superstition carried over from the darkages until the enlightment, towards Africans or rather black people, that they where citizens of hell/demons/the devil itself. This reason and what Zevn already said:

My example would be the enslavement of Africans in early US history. They were different, and less technologically progressed. It is because of that, that they were dehumanized, treated like property, and could be killed without recourse.

You are right on the Arabs though they did keep slaves from differend religions, but the were more lenient on Christians and Jewish people for atleast until the crusades aslong as they paid for it.

 

[Raymond - king of ducks]

Christianity is very against slavery

(Ephesians 6:5 NLT) Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.

And yet the new testament tells slaves to obey their owners as if they were god himself.

 

[Zevn]

This could be... But from my memory, we had this attitude more because the bad guys were so difficult to find, and the application of excessive force can be a simple solution to a problem. Understand not a good solution, but a simple one. As there would be no bad guys left if the area was paved. The 5th Marines had a reputation for that kind of fighting thanks to The Battle of Belleau Wood.

While there are times where there is elegance in simplicity, this example is not one of them.

Laziness is not an excuse for atrocity. I hold the belief that most life is sacred. It was raining tonight, and I stopped several times to take frogs out of the road, knowing full well that they would probably hop back soon after. I do not consider it a wasted effort, because it may have done some good. In that same sense, every effort should be taken to shield innocents from harm. Personally, I abhor the way our military treats civilians of other nationalities. When it comes to the preservation of life, nationality should not matter at all. Every human life is of somewhat equal value.

(Ephesians 6:5 NLT) Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.

Alright, as promised I have researched your previous point about African slaves in early US history.

While it is true that Africans sold each other to slave traders, they were also abducted, and rounded up by Europeans. The point of the discussion is not to blame the world's problems on a particular religion, but rather to examine a school of thought's boundaries on right and wrong.

 

[Raymond - king of ducks]

While it is true that Africans sold each other to slave traders, they were also abducted, and rounded up by Europeans.

On occasion, yes. However, incidents of Europeans capturing their own slaves weren't common. Why hire men who risk catching tropical diseases in the jungle in the pursuit of slaves when you could simply buy some already subjugated slaves? Slave traders were businessmen, after all.

Enslavement wasn't limited to African Blacks either. People from all over the world were taken (some more than others) and sold into slavery. Even today, woman and children in western countries, not just the third world, are abducted and enslaved.

You're saying religion shouldn't be blamed for this, and yet there is religious scripture that tolerates and even advocates slavery. Religion as a whole causes people to do things like this to each other. When you remove things like religious teaching and tribal superstitions, people begin to treat each other like humans instead of evil monsters who are out to get them.

 

[Zevn]

I made a reference to modern flesh trading in response to one of Malanu's points. This is an example of human evil, suffering inflicted on girls, women, and very rarely by contrast young boys.

I don't think that ancient quotes can sum up an entire group of people's way of thinking either. Nor do I think it is fair to paint them with that broad of a brush stroke.

 

[JDavidC]

(Ephesians 6:5 NLT) Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.

And yet the new testament tells slaves to obey their owners as if they were god himself.

When stuff pops up that doesn't make sense, I try to go to the source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_slavery

Specifically, the language the specific book of said Bible is written in.

The Bible uses the Hebrew term ebed to refer to slavery; however, ebed has a much wider meaning than the English term slavery, and in several circumstances it is more accurately translated into English as servant or hired worker.

Sometimes, there may not be straight translations of words, and meanings of words can change. So far, I've gone with this, and stuff that does make sense from the Bible, to conclude that, in my opinion:
A. The claim that there is eternal punishment for anyone is false. It does not fit the character of God as described in the Bible.
B. The claim that homosexuality is a sin is also false. You can't choose your sexual orientation. Some of the things mentioned as history in the Bible would have had to do with culture back then, and the view that not going against your own sexual orientation is what the real message is (at least in Romans 1) makes far more sense.
C. Supporting slavery violates a lot of the teachings that make sense. I looked into what was going on, and I found ebed, which has a broader meaning, one which makes a lot more sense. Finally, regarding some of the things, some of the teachings given may have been how the people being taught directly would go about not breaking the laws/cultural rules that applied directly to them at that time, rather than teachings that would apply for all time.

 

[Zazie]

2. Society

2a) Cultural differences play a key role in what is considered acceptable by a society's moral code of conduct. Sexuality, and modesty are examples of things that are often strictly guided by a society's moral compass.

Which is one reason I don't care for morals.

2b) What do you think are arbitrary confines on right and wrong in modern society?

The mass hegemony we have all inadvertantly forced upon ourselves.

3. Religion

3a) Religion has helped a great number of people differentiate between right and wrong, while giving them a profound sense of community and purpose. It's existence has done undeniable good in the world.

Pretty much. I don't see why people feel the need to blame it for unpleasant things. Without it, people will just find other excuses to do that stuff.

4. Philosophy

4a) What exactly is evil?

Evil doesn't exist. It is just a idea society uses for things it dissaproves of. Sometimes the idea ends up dehumanizing others and results in some pretty unpleasant things.

Answer in bold. Skipped some of it as well.

Anyway. I think morals are arbitrary self-policing rules, that humankind has somehow managed to force upon itself. Sometimes they prevent harm, such as laws against rape, but other times its just being nosy and instrusive, like anti-sodomy laws.

I say they aren't all that important and should not be emphasized so much. We should be coming to our own conclusions about things rather than being told to do certain actions beacuse it is socially acceptable.

Whats really important in policing ourselves is empathy. See other people no matter how different from you, as human beings with the same mond and feelings that you have. When you do it will be a lot harder to do bad stuff to them and a lot easier to wish to help them.

Most of the people who do truly awful things do so because they don't feel any empathy for their victims, whether due to the fact they have dehumanized them or because they arr sociopaths and have no empathy.

 

[Zevn]

I don't think you can deny the existence of evil action because you dislike the way it has been used to rally humanity in wrong-doing.

The word exists to express a group of ideas, some of which you have clearly implied as wrong.

ex:

Most of the people who do truly awful things do so because they don't feel any empathy for their victims, whether due to the fact they have dehumanized them or because they arr sociopaths and have no empathy.

This is an example of something where the idea of, and the word can be used accurately.

 

[mattj]

You're saying religion shouldn't be blamed for this, and yet there is religious scripture that tolerates and even advocates slavery.

Firstly, no scripture in the Bible advocates slavery. None. Secondly, the Bible acknowledges that all kinds of terrible things happened. Slavery, adultery, homosexuality, prostitution, murder, thievery; name your vice, the Bible talks about it. But again, mentioning that something happened does not equate to blanket advocation. Thirdly, slavery predates that scripture, and in fact all Biblical scripture. You cannot blame the Bible for slavery when slavery predates the Bible. If you want to take a swipe at the Bible you're going to have to do it another way.

Religion as a whole causes people to do things like this to each other.

I cannot say that religion in general has never once caused anyone anywhere to do terrible things. We've still got people walking into crowds and blowing themselves up because of their religion. But especially from the Bible's perspective, these terrible acts and slavery in general, are not in any way ever caused by the words of the holy texts themselves. You cannot point to a Biblical scripture and say "Ha! There! This is why so and so enslaved so and so!" or "Well, so and so murdered so and so because of what it says right here." There are religious ideologies and systems that people have put in place that may very well overtly cause whatever terrible acts, but those acts cannot be traced back to the words of the Bible.

When you remove things like religious teaching and tribal superstitions, people begin to treat each other like humans instead of evil monsters who are out to get them.

You mean like when Pol Pot or Mao or Kim Jung removed religious teaching and tribal superstition? I don't think people began to treat each other better. I think when you remove things like:

Blessed is he that considers the poor:

He that despises his neighbor sins: but he that has mercy on the poor, happy is he.

But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.

THEN people start treating each other poorly.

 

[Zevn]

Barring his comment about homosexuality mattj makes some excellent points.

There are plenty of "evil" actions committed in mediums devoid of non-personal religious thought. Here are a few examples:

-Enron Scandal (and other business scandals fueled by greed)
-Political power struggles, at the detriment of the given society
-Oil Crises
-Deforestation
-Over-fishing

 

[Zazie]

I don't think you can deny the existence of evil action because you dislike the way it has been used to rally humanity in wrong-doing.

You're not getting the point.

Morals are a societal/culturally made construct designed to categorize and police actions that group considers undesirable. Said actions need not cause anyone harm in any way. (hence why some consider sodomy and other harmless things immoral)

Evil is category constructed by people in which to place things they deem immoral.

Because evil is constructed by groups of people based on subjective criteria* and varies from group to group, I am willing to claim it does not exist.

*usually such criteria has reason for existing, but the reasons vary depending on the needs and thought processes of the group.

 

[Zevn]

You're not getting the point.

Morals are a societal/culturally made construct designed to categorize and police actions that group considers undesirable. Said actions need not cause anyone harm in any way. (hence why some consider sodomy and other harmless things immoral)

Evil is category constructed by people in which to place things they deem immoral.

Because evil is constructed by groups of people based on subjective criteria* and varies from group to group, I am willing to claim it does not exist.

*usually such criteria has reason for existing, but the reasons vary depending on the needs and thought processes of the group.

No, I definitely get what you're trying to say. I am quite familiar with your stance on the subject. It's one you share with my brother, and we have an ongoing debate on the subject.

I agree that there are many things that fall into the category of arbitrary, and baseless moral constructs. However, you cannot logically make a blanket statement like that to cover every circumstance.

With the emergence of self awareness, comes the ability to commit evil actions. Causing needless suffering on another consciousness is a good example of evil. Let's not get in to the shades of grey on my last comment just yet. I understand that there are multitudes of extenuating circumstances that could change the entire basis.