Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Can you admit your bad morals?

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    homah_7ft
    Registered Users Posts: 6,121 ✭✭✭homah_7ft


    In fairness to the OP I think defining what morals are is getting away from the question.


  • Options
    #63
    Darlughda
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,886 ✭✭✭Darlughda


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I disagree with the mere notion of subjective morality. Everyone has certain absolute boundaries that they aren't willing to cross concerning morality.

    Yes, but who are you or the group you have faith in to decide this kind of morality upon the rest of us?


  • Options
    #64
    WeeBushy
    Registered Users Posts: 3,572 ✭✭✭WeeBushy


    homah_7ft wrote: »
    In fairness to the OP I think defining what morals are is getting away from the question.

    Well it is and it isn't. Only by defining what morals are can you know if you are breaking them.


  • Options
    #65
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Darlughda wrote: »
    Yes, but who are you or the group you have faith in to decide this kind of morality upon the rest of us?

    If I or my group were deciding the morality for anyone that would be a different story. I don't believe I decide anything concerning what morals are appropriate for mankind.
    WeeBushy wrote:
    What about people who receive them from another external source, such as allah. They can claim, as you do, that they are fundamentally right because god told them so.

    Truth claims about religion go beyond moral standards. For me to dismiss Islam as the truth would involve research and debate with Muslims involved. I have my reasons for believing that Christianity is true, but it is somewhat sidetracking from the discussion.

    Ultimately I believe that people can be mistaken. However, I also note that there is a fair bit of moral consistency between groups.


  • Options
    #66
    homah_7ft
    Registered Users Posts: 6,121 ✭✭✭homah_7ft


    WeeBushy wrote: »
    Well it is and it isn't. Only by defining what morals are can you know if you are breaking them.

    I agree but felt maybe we (myself included) were veering away from the original question more and more.

    What are morals?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    metrovelvet wrote: »
    Hitler had good intentions. So do the thousands of women who get abortions.

    I don't believe Hitler had a good intention. Hatred towards other people doesn't motivate good intentions.

    I also don't believe that women who get abortions for any reason other than life endangerment have good intentions.

    Both personal opinions of course.


  • Options
    #68
    WeeBushy
    Registered Users Posts: 3,572 ✭✭✭WeeBushy


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Truth claims about religion go beyond moral standards. For me to dismiss Islam as the truth would involve research and debate with Muslims involved. I have my reasons for believing that Christianity is true, but it is somewhat sidetracking from the discussion.

    Fair enough, it might be side tracking a little from the OP. But not from the mini-discussion that has been going on. It's very relevant to that.


  • Options
    #69
    Darlughda
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,886 ✭✭✭Darlughda


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I also don't believe that women who get abortions for any reason other than life endangerment have good intentions.
    quote]

    your opinion, I respect, Jackass, not out of a moraL compunction to understand where you are coming from, but merely an acknowledgement you are entitled to your opinion.

    IMO, you have nae idea what women go through when they are faced with this decision and surgery. It is astonishing that ignorant postings are allowed on this or any forum from religious die-hards or folk who clearly have no idea with the reality involved in this kind of decision.


  • Options
    #70
    WeeBushy
    Registered Users Posts: 3,572 ✭✭✭WeeBushy


    Darlughda wrote: »
    your opinion, I respect, Jackass, not out of a moraL compunction to understand where you are coming from, but merely an acknowledgement you are entitled to your opinion.

    IMO, you have nae idea what women go through when they are faced with this decision and surgery. It is astonishing that ignorant postings are allowed on this or any forum from religious die-hards or folk who clearly have no idea with the reality involved in this kind of decision.

    I agree 100% with Jakkass (atheist though) on this one but it really is getting off topic. Perhaps we should (myself included) get back to the OP. Homah, I think you were right the first time you said it!


  • Options
    #71
    homah_7ft
    Registered Users Posts: 6,121 ✭✭✭homah_7ft


    It certainly got me thinking. Thanks OP and all involved. :)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I don't believe Hitler had a good intention. Hatred towards other people doesn't motivate good intentions.

    I also don't believe that women who get abortions for any reason other than life endangerment have good intentions.

    Both personal opinions of course.

    OK I know what you are saying, but if I were to continue we would get into a tautology so I wont.

    Suffice it to say, neither party a or party b think of their terminatees as "other people."


  • Options
    #73
    Darlughda
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,886 ✭✭✭Darlughda


    So what happens now?
    How do we all live in a society that has the notion of equality at its core of what democracry means? None of us has an agreed idea of morality, yet we are making decisions based on morality all the time, regarding other people.

    I wish to live in a society that is diverse, and has all definitions of morality and spirituality, regardless from what persuasion a person comes from. But really. is it possible?


  • Options
    #74
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    How is that trolling? I would have thought it was pretty self evident that we are fallible creatures.
    Darlughda wrote: »
    IMO, you have nae idea what women go through when they are faced with this decision and surgery. It is astonishing that ignorant postings are allowed on this or any forum from religious die-hards or folk who clearly have no idea with the reality involved in this kind of decision.

    I don't believe it is ignorant to oppose the killing of the unborn. I understand that it is a hard decision, but that doesn't mean I respect or support carrying out abortions unless it is life threatening.

    As for posts opposed to abortion not being allowed on boards, I'm glad that boards doesn't get into excessive bias on such issues particularly when our State has a pro-life clause in it's constitution.

    The irony lies in the fact that you claim I am worthy of respect for my opinion (which the majority in Ireland still hold) and then you claim that my posts shouldn't be allowed and that I am a religious die-hard?


  • Options
    #75
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Jakkass wrote: »
    If you are a true relativist / subjectivist you should honestly be able to tell me that if someone commits genocide and thinks it's okay, it's just fine. If someone likes to shoot people of a particular ethnic minority at Sunday lunchtime with a few friends we shouldn't be forcing our morals on them.
    That's not moral relativism though. Moral relativism simply acknowledges that there are no moral absolutes, not that morality is irrelevant.

    From a purely sociological point of view, you can still reject moral absolutes, yet recognise the benefits of morality. For example, if one looks at the basic commandments of the Abrahamic religions, skip past the first few that simply stamp the authority of the religion, the rest are essentially pretty practical rules for any community to live under. Indeed, concepts such as "thou shalt not kill" or "thou shalt not steal" exist in almost all societies, from tribal and up - naturally with variations and exceptions.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I personally believe the Moral Law is as binding on human beings as the laws of physics. I.E That the moral law was created and that we can follow it if we seek it's example, otherwise due to free will we can ignore it.
    That's a bit of a cop out, honestly - "Moral Law is as binding on human beings as the laws of physics... except when it isn't". It also ignores that moral law does vary greatly, not only from society to society, but historically as well. You really cannot say that of physical laws.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I don't believe Hitler had a good intention. Hatred towards other people doesn't motivate good intentions.
    That presupposes that hate was his only motive.
    I also don't believe that women who get abortions for any reason other than life endangerment have good intentions.
    Why does life endangerment, as opposed to economic reasons, imply good intentions? It may be morally acceptable for you in the case of life endangerment, as opposed to economic reasons, but ultimately both are based on self-interest.


  • Options
    #76
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    From a purely sociological point of view, you can still reject moral absolutes, yet recognise the benefits of morality. For example, if one looks at the basic commandments of the Abrahamic religions, skip past the first few that simply stamp the authority of the religion, the rest are essentially pretty practical rules for any community to live under. Indeed, concepts such as "thou shalt not kill" or "thou shalt not steal" exist in almost all societies, from tribal and up - naturally with variations and exceptions.

    I agree with you. Indeed Paul and others claim basic moral laws are to be found within, we can reject them or we can adopt them as our own.
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    That's a bit of a cop out, honestly - "Moral Law is as binding on human beings as the laws of physics... except when it isn't". It also ignores that moral law does vary greatly, not only from society to society, but historically as well. You really cannot say that of physical laws.

    People can choose to be ignorant about matters of physics. For example there are numerous people who regard the earth to be flat. Both hypotheses cannot be true.
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    That presupposes that hate was his only motive.

    Point taken. Other motives are surely to be accounted for. I strain to account for what is good about a passion to destroy the Jewish people however.
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Why does life endangerment, as opposed to economic reasons, imply good intentions? It may be morally acceptable for you in the case of life endangerment, as opposed to economic reasons, but ultimately both are based on self-interest.

    Simply put in cases based on economy it is possible still to have the child and put it up for adoption. I.E to give it a chance at life as we all have had.

    I disagree that both are on self-interest. Life-endangerment is clearly more valid as it is better to safe one life than to lose two.


  • Options
    #77
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I agree with you. Indeed Paul and others claim basic moral laws are to be found within, we can reject them or we can adopt them as our own.
    Yes, however I was pointing out that a moral relativist would not necessarily think that genocide or any other action is morally neutral or irrelevant, as you suggested.
    People can choose to be ignorant about matters of physics. For example there are numerous people who regard the earth to be flat. Both hypotheses cannot be true.
    People can be ignorant about matters of physics, but those laws are still binding - just because you do not believe in gravity does not mean you can fly.
    Point taken. Other motives are surely to be accounted for. I strain to account for what is good about a passion to destroy the Jewish people however.
    I'm sure he had other motives that had nothing to do with Jews - you simply stated that he did not have any good intention, not that he had no good intentions in relations to the Jews.
    Simply put in cases based on economy it is possible still to have the child and put it up for adoption. I.E to give it a chance at life as we all have had.
    That this is your logic for justifying one over the other I will not dispute, and indeed recognised.
    I disagree that both are on self-interest.
    They are both self-interest though, it's pretty much impossible to get away from that - self-preservation is self-interest by definition. The only difference is that we do not morally condemn one, although neither do we consider it a good or moral act.
    Life-endangerment is clearly more valid as it is better to safe one life than to lose two.
    Utilitarian and logical (even amoral), but not the only possible scenario. A common life-endangerment case would be that an abortion is necessary, or inevitable, for a course of treatment (such as chemotherapy) to start. The pregnancy could go to term, but were it to do so the delay could prove fatal.

    In that scenario it your utilitarian argument of "better one than none" no longer holds.


  • Options
    #78
    scanlas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 542 ✭✭✭scanlas


    homah_7ft wrote: »
    Interesting. I love this sort of discussion. :)

    I suppose personally I think we are neither good nor bad in the classical sense. We carry out actions based on instinct and later impose a moral view on those actions and why we carried them out.

    Agreed, instincts and emotions come first. Reasoning later. If we felt terrible about making a species of bacteria extinct we would probably come up with some reasoning why it's immoral. ie all life is precious bla bla bla


  • Options
    #79
    clartharlear
    Registered Users Posts: 489 ✭✭clartharlear


    Kooli wrote: »
    One of mine would be shopping in Penneys or other places that are SO cheap that I know there must be some sort of ethical dubiousness along the line, but I still want cheap stuff.
    I feel this way too. This was my first thought when I saw the thread. My friend also recently pointed out that those lovely colourful acrylic jumpers will also probably outlive us, so we are also contributing to plastic mountains. Landfills give me nightmares, but I do love cheap jumpers...
    Similarly with free range chickens. I would never buy anything but free range eggs, but with chicken I will often go for the cheaper option even though I know it's wrong.
    Double ditto. However, I think chickens for meat and chickens for eggs are raised separately and non-free range egg-chickens are treated worse than non-free range meat-chickens...
    Or did I make that up to ease my cognitive dissonance?


  • Options
    #80
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    scanlas wrote: »
    Agreed, instincts and emotions come first. Reasoning later.
    If instinct came first (more correctly, if it were the basis of morality), morality would be uniform throughout human civilization, and it's not. In reality, morality is there to override instinct and thus varies depending upon where and when.


  • Options
    #81
    WeeBushy
    Registered Users Posts: 3,572 ✭✭✭WeeBushy


    clartharlear wrote: »
    Double ditto. However, I think chickens for meat and chickens for eggs are raised separately and non-free range egg-chickens are treated worse than non-free range meat-chickens...
    Or did I make that up to ease my cognitive dissonance?

    You're right, battery hens (hens kept for eggs) and Broilers (hens kept for meat) are raised in different conditions. However I wouldn't say that broilers are kept in better conditions than battery hens.

    Broilers are kept in typically barns but in such high numbers that they have very little room to move. The very high stocking rates means that a lot of excrement is produced and its very common for the chickens to have blisters and ulcers on their feet and legs from the high nitrogen levels. They've also been genetically selected to grow extremely fast. This means that their bones are not able to keep up with the growth, so can't support their body properly. It often causes joint issues. Suffice to say they are not kept in good conditions.

    Battery hens are kept in small cages which brings about a host of welfare issues. Inability to express normal behaviour, not enough room to move, poor bone formation due to high demands of egg production etc. etc.

    Neither system is good tbh.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    homah_7ft
    Registered Users Posts: 6,121 ✭✭✭homah_7ft


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    If instinct came first (more correctly, if it were the basis of morality), morality would be uniform throughout human civilization, and it's not.

    I don't understand your argument. Are you saying instinct is universal? I don't believe it is.


  • Options
    #83
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    homah_7ft wrote: »
    I don't understand your argument. Are you saying instinct is universal? I don't believe it is.
    Instinct's pretty universal in so far that it is hard-wired into our biology. The instincts to reproduce, survive, to perceive some things and organisms as threats while others as good are pretty common to all humans.

    Morality is not. If you live in a cave, as a hermit, morality is completely irrelevant to you. Only when you join other people in a community that it becomes an issue, and depending upon the nature and make-up of that community, the implementation of morality will vary.


  • Options
    #84
    homah_7ft
    Registered Users Posts: 6,121 ✭✭✭homah_7ft


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Instinct's pretty universal in so far that it is hard-wired into our biology. The instincts to reproduce, survive, to perceive some things and organisms as threats while others as good are pretty common to all humans.

    Morality is not. If you live in a cave, as a hermit, morality is completely irrelevant to you. Only when you join other people in a community that it becomes an issue, and depending upon the nature and make-up of that community, the implementation of morality will vary.

    How do you know that morality only becomes an issue in a community and that instinct is universal?


  • Options
    #85
    scanlas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 542 ✭✭✭scanlas


    We generally act out of self interest. We are all selfish, pretty much everything we do has a personal payoff. The point of morals is to allow society to function better in a similar way that the offside rule in soccer allows for a better game of soccer. Morals are made up the same way the offside rule is made up.


  • Options
    #86
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    homah_7ft wrote: »
    How do you know that morality only becomes an issue in a community and that instinct is universal?
    Because of what morality deals with - pretty much all morality is about how we interact with others; "thou shalt not kill/covet thy neighbour's wife/goods" and so on.

    Morality is irrelevant outside of a community for the vast body of moral code (suicide being the only one I can think of), because the scenarios in which it can be applied can only exist in a community.

    Instinct, on the other hand is independent of community. The instinct to "fight or flight" can be felt independent of one living with other humans or in a cave on a mountain.

    But if you want evidence of instinct being universal while morality is community based, all you need do is look at young children. Their parents do not need to teach them instinct as they are born with this, but they do need to teach them moral values.


  • Options
    #87
    Valmont
    Registered Users Posts: 5,856 ✭✭✭Valmont


    I believe there is great personal fulfillment to be achieved in casting out general social morals (within reason, of course) and listening to your own conscience on whatever may be bothering you.

    For a long time, I was anti-hunting although I did eat meat (hypocrisy noted) and recently, I spent 9 months in Alaska as I am an avid outdoors enthusiast. Invariably I was exposed to hunting and commercial trapping and through fraternising with individuals who orient their lives within these activities I realised that a lot of our seemingly strict morals arise largely because of our culture and where we grow up (obvious, I know). Add to that the notion (which some will dispute, I'm sure) that there is no cosmic right or wrong when it comes to morality- It should be determined by the individual. Not to mention prescriptive moral codes by definition impinge on one's own liberty, which is never good.


  • Options
    #88
    Joycey
    Closed Accounts Posts: 631 ✭✭✭Joycey


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    Yeah, the walking past homeless people and beggars is awful. It's as if we dehumanise them. Very sad.

    I dont think they become any less human when you walk past them. I think its due to a process of individualisation which has eroded the sense of community and a shared understanding/perspective that we have become dehumanised us to the extent that we are capable of walking past them without a second glance.


  • Options
    #89
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    ^ People cannot be compassionate for everybody or you get compassion exhaustion.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement