Can you admit your bad morals?

Tim Robbins

Hi,
Like most people I eat meat. However, I have read some of moral arguments in favour of not eating meat and I can't see any problems with them. In fact, I think they are compelling.

However, I just couldn't live without eating meat. I can't stand vegetables.
So as a compromise, I'll try and eat free range and cut down on meat in-take.

I'll also concede the moral highgrounds to the veggies on this one and admit they are just stronger than me.

Similarly with Santa, I see bad morality in it. Despite what some of you might think, I don't think I'll be able to be complete Santa atheist( if you know what I mean). I'll certainly not ruin it for other people's kids and I think I'll reach some compromise with my own. Even though I am convinced, the Santa atheists have the moral high ground.

So my question is what do you do that you know to be morally weak but for some reason you just can't do what you think is morally right?

Morlar

Morality and vegetarianism ?

That connection may exsist in the mind of the vegetarian but it is not a general connection. Eating meat is not immoral.

Nevyn

You are human ergo you are flawed get over it.

miec

Setting aside the vegetarianism and believing in Santa, what other 'bad morals' do you have?

liah

The term "morals" is entirely subjective, to be fair.

Some people think it's immoral to be gay, some people think it's immoral to not treat gays equally.

Some people think it's immoral to be polygamous, some people think it's immoral to not allow people freedom of choice.

While you may think that eating meat is immoral, another person may think it's not.

Why bother worrying about it? As long as you're not hurting anyone else, do whatever the hell you please.

Kooli

I do think it's an interesting question!

If we leave aside that each person has different morals, it's about whether I myself do something that goes against my own moral compass. So it actually doesn't matter if someone else doesn't think vegetarianism is immoral. If the OP does, and he still continues with it, then that is the issue being discussed. Same with Santa. If you want to argue about whether Santa is immoral or not, go to that thread!

I have definitely thought of examples of this for myself before, will have to rack my brains...

Astrogeek

I am new to this forum but does the OP mean

So my question is what do you do that you know to be morally weak but for some reason you just can't do what you think is morally right?

is the topic up for debate?

I don't think I do anything I would consider immoral. But just yesterday I managed to eat an entire tub of ice cream because I was so lazy to go and get a bowl. I know I shouldn't do that. But I make sure I don't do it too often and it's not quite as bad.

Dades

liah wrote: »

While you may think that eating meat is immoral, another person may think it's not.

I think the point is Tim believes eating meat to be immoral - but admits to doing it anyway. Given that there is no universal morality you have to kinda limit any response to doing what you feel is immoral.

Besides there are very few things that everyone (who sees this thread) will agree are immoral that you can admit to without getting abuse. Nobody is going to admit to murdering or raping someone.

That said, I drive way too fast in built up areas when the traffic is light. :pac:

NothingMan

I find it very strange that I was not only reading the Santa post earlier and completely agree that while I don't agree with telling kids a santa exists, I would not feel comfortable sending them off to school to tell all the other kids he doesn't exist either.

The reason it is strange is because at lunch I was thinking about the vegetarian issue exactly the way you described it.

I tend to be an outright Meatatarian, and make jokes and slag off my veggie friends all the time. But when I think about it in my own mind I completely agree with vegetarianism based on morality. What right do we have to purposely fo kill and eat another creature now that we have reached a level where there is no need for it? I cannot think one reason why we should have that right, but I love rare fillet steak and will eat it til the cows come home....Or not, because I ate em!

Joey the lips

I never got the meat morality thing. Dont eat meat cause its alive. Plants are alive as well. Its a stupid arguement.

Besides if you were not ment to eat meat they would not have invented the Big Mac:D

Red Hand

Yeah, I'd be the same, Tim. I agree with vegetarianism, and think that it is a noble and a practical way of dealing with a finite and rapidly diminishing environment but can't bring myself to eat only vegetation. I know what I'm doing is wrong...I mean I have a conscience, yet can't bring myself to eat no more meat.

So I guess, it is a compulsion...one that is deep rooted. Would you, OP, or Nothingman be prepared to go into CBT to help you out of your compulsion?:D

Red Hand

Joey the lips wrote: »

I never got the meat morality thing. Dont eat meat cause its alive. Plants are alive as well. Its a stupid arguement.

Besides if you were not ment to eat meat they would not have invented the Big Mac:D

Read into it a bit more. The proteins and fats we take in from animals as food have obviously come from plants originally. Therefore, if you cut out the middleman of eating meat, and get your nutrition directly from plants, you end

1) major source of pollution-methane from ruminants, runoff, BSE etc

2) needless suffering (plants don't have nervous systems)

3) waste in terms of amount of plant material needed for animals to maintain body temp, food thats not digested, etc

and end up with

1) more efficent use of the land we use

2) more efficient use of plant material

Many other reasons other than these, thats all I'll say, cause its off topic.

WeeBushy

Well for starters I disagree with both your examples as I don't necessarily morally have a problem with either, but I guess that's neither here nor there as that's not what you're asking.

Are you asking is there something I know is immoral, but don't have a problem doing? The answer to that is no. But I freely admit to breaking my morals from time to time, I'm human after all.

Tim Robbins

NothingMan wrote: »

Eh..... No. I will hold my opinion of vegetarian morality with a Bacon double cheese burger in one hand and a Chicken club sandwich in the other.

Here's another one of mine, I bought a new mobile phone this year.
I researched the hold coltan thing but couldn't find any company which had a good track record. My last phone broke and I couldn't read the text messages.

A friend in work offered me a very old Nokia but I still bought a new one.

I also don't make an effort to recycle everything, just most of my stuff.

Darlughda

Everytime I walk past someone homeless and suffering on the street, I mumble the usual sorry. (Before the right wingers get on their high horses, yes there are shysters and con-artists out there, but there are way more in a desperate situation.)

Occasionally I give money if I sense the person's pain. I could do a lot more.
I could spend time talking to that person and find out what their individual story is, what practical help I could give them with regard to finding an outreach worker or hostel for them.

Morals are personal, I do believe that. But for me, I have always been acutely aware of the horror of ending up homeless, trying to survive that existence and how much a single person can help. Therefore, I have no excuse when I don't help.

metrovelvet

tim robbins-

No one is or can be morally pure. Between personal and institutionalised sin, there is no way around it.

scanlas

Generally speaking emotions come first, morals second, often rationalized around what's convenient.

How can anyone justify buying a can of coke when that money could have gone to charity or helped the suffering in Africa? Although I suppose you could argue you are helping the economy which could benefit charity somewhere down the line. ( but that's just a rationaliaztion, you were going to buy the can of coke regardless.)

How can anyone justify killing animals and allowing them to suffer in order for you to enjoy the luxury of a nice steak?

I just choose to admit I'm bad, a lot easier than having contrived rationalisations of morality swirling around in your head.

metrovelvet

Why is killing animals bad?

Or is it how they are killed?

Or is it the ick factor, like in fois gras?

scanlas

Why is killing humans bad?

Or is it the way they are killed?

metrovelvet

scanlas wrote: »

Why is killing humans bad?

Or is it the way they are killed?

Some people dont think killing some humans is bad.

ChocolateSauce

scanlas wrote: »

Why is killing humans bad?

Or is it the way they are killed?

Are you implying that it is immoral for one animal to eat another?

Darlughda

Unlike other animals, we, as humans, have a conciousness that enables us to make decisions, to think, to rationalise etc.
Therefore, do we have a responsiblity to be more 'moral' in our choices than animals in the wild?

Tim Robbins

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

Tim Robbins

metrovelvet wrote: »

Why is killing animals bad?

Or is it how they are killed?

Or is it the ick factor, like in fois gras?

This will just go off on a tangent. If you are interested in the moral arguments of being a vegitarian, check Peter Singer or Colin McGinn.

metrovelvet

Tim Robbins wrote: »

This will just go off on a tangent. If you are interested in the moral arguments of being a vegitarian, check Peter Singer or Colin McGinn.

It's ok. Ive heard it all from my brother who called us all sociopaths last Christmas as we were eating Turkey.

Ive had this argument backwards and forwards.

Dave!

I agree with Tim actually... I've actually thought (and probably posted) about this before, and I find it hard to reconcile my discomfort at the idea of raising animals to be eaten with my "habit" (I guess) of eating the produce that results from it. I guess I just put it out of my mind and don't think about that contradiction.

Kooli

WeeBushy wrote: »

Are you asking is there something I know is immoral, but don't have a problem doing? The answer to that is no. But I freely admit to breaking my morals from time to time, I'm human after all.

I don't think it's about doing something immoral and not having a problem with it - it's about doing something immoral and having a problem with it, but still doing it.

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.

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.

Tim Robbins

Don't we all say things about people that we would never say when they are around.

WeeBushy

Kooli wrote: »

I don't think it's about doing something immoral and not having a problem with it - it's about doing something immoral and having a problem with it, but still doing it.

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.

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.

Ah right, I get it now.

+1 one buying stuff from Pennys. In fact a lot of companies that have poor history on workers rights. Coca Cola, Adidas, Nike spring to mind but I do still buy their products.

Dave!

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Don't we all say things about people that we would never say when they are around.

I don't think that's necessarily immoral tbh

Bottle_of_Smoke

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I'll also concede the moral highgrounds to the veggies on this one and admit they are just stronger than me.

Vegan's maybe, but not vegetarians. They eat the products of enslaved animals. I see very little if any moral difference between meat eaters and vegetarians.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdcrEo1eCBY

Myself I know its morally wrong to kiss/sleep with girls I have no emotional interest in and are liable to be upset when I don't call them. But it happens.
I justify it to myself by remembering viceversa situations and the girl didn't call me!

Darlughda

Tim Robbins wrote: »

So my question is what do you do that you know to be morally weak but for some reason you just can't do what you think is morally right?

Surely, if you accept the idea that morality is an individual choice in each person, then terms like weak/strong and right/wrong are assuming a person has such a definite value system that measures in this way, when life is after all, a continuous compromise, no matter what person's definition of what their code of 'morals' are.

Tim Robbins

Darlughda wrote: »

Surely, if you accept the idea that morality is an individual choice in each person, then terms like weak/strong and right/wrong are assuming a person has such a definite value system that measures in this way, when life is after all, a continuous compromise, no matter what person's definition of what their code of 'morals' are.

I don't accept morality is an individual choice or relative.

I think you can derive morals from reason and simple axioms such as the golden rule.

Tar.Aldarion

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Hi,
Like most people I eat meat. However, I have read some of moral arguments in favour of not eating meat and I can't see any problems with them. In fact, I think they are compelling.

However, I just couldn't live without eating meat. I can't stand vegetables.
So as a compromise, I'll try and eat free range and cut down on meat in-take.

I'll also concede the moral highgrounds to the veggies on this one and admit they are just stronger than me.

Similarly with Santa, I see bad morality in it. Despite what some of you might think, I don't think I'll be able to be complete Santa atheist( if you know what I mean). I'll certainly not ruin it for other people's kids and I think I'll reach some compromise with my own. Even though I am convinced, the Santa atheists have the moral high ground.

So my question is what do you do that you know to be morally weak but for some reason you just can't do what you think is morally right?

Hello Tim, nice thread. I was like you when it came to meat, I was 18 until I could stop eating it, I find it much easier to throw off being raised catholic than being raised to think eating meat was ok, because let's face it, nomnomnom. When I gave up I couldn't eat anything, I barely knew what a vegetable was. It was quite an internal debate I had about it
It was easy peasy since then, learning to cook ftw.

To me it's all about doing the best you can, I don't follow all my morals to the absolute yet, but I work on it. They are what I believe is right after all. What matters to me is doing the least unneccesary harm and lessening teh harm I do over time. Things like honey and dairy will most likely see the last of me in time, just getting used to this loving vegetables thing, nobody believes the foods I eat not compared to a few years ago. As for other morals, I probably follow them all, apart from some downloading. Don't do much of that anymore, hmm. ANother would be companies with poor human righhts records, but I am rapidly reducing those as I find them, hard to sometimes, sure ya know yourself!

Tim Robbins

metrovelvet wrote: »

Its to treat others as you would like to be treated.

Nonsense. Other's may not have the same taste as you.

There are actually slightly different versions of it from the different religions in the world.

The basis of it is try to consider other's happiness not just your own.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity

Tar.Aldarion

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYYNY2oKVWU

Darlughda

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I don't accept morality is an individual choice or relative.


I think you can derive morals from reason and simple axioms such as the golden rule.

Yikes. I do. Accept morality as an individual choice, and relative.
It is a founding belief or reason why I can accept other people and their choices otherwise I'm just putting them on some false measuring scale according to my notions of what right and wrong and good and bad is.

Well, reason has its limitations. And I have nae idea what you mean as the 'golden rule'. I could probably reel off at least ten different versions of what 'the golden rule' means to various religions, cultures, traditions and communites around the world. And how everyone's golden rules differs from each other, individually.

philologos

I got one:

I generally feel an urge to pick rubbish up and put it in a bin if there is one near by, or if I am relatively close to my house I will bring whatever rubbish back with me and bin it myself. However, if it is not close to my house or my bin I generally won't bother, but I don't feel this is good.

Tim Robbins wrote:

I don't accept morality is an individual choice or relative.


I think you can derive morals from reason and simple axioms such as the golden rule.

I'm almost in full agreement with you Tim. I believe that humans have a hardwired sense of morality to deal with basic issues of justice, but I feel that humans can either tweak this sense to be more tuned into moral living, or people can ignore it through constant suppression of conscience.

metrovelvet

I dont know. I think it is damn near impossible to be morally pure. No matter what I do, someone somewhere, will think it is bad.

For example, I cant ever see unnecessary circumcisions in either male or female babies as good, in fact I think it is pretty cruel and savage. But it is the practise of both Islam and Judaism. For me to think it is bad, is bad in itself isnt it, as it shows bigotry and religious intolerance. But so be it. I'd rather be accused of bigotry and religious intolerance than of endorcing cruelty to children [infants.]

scanlas

metrovelvet wrote: »

I dont know. I think it is damn near impossible to be morally pure. No matter what I do, someone somewhere, will think it is bad.

For example, I cant ever see unnecessary circumcisions in either male or female babies as good, in fact I think it is pretty cruel and savage. But it is the practise of both Islam and Judaism. For me to think it is bad, is bad in itself isnt it, as it shows bigotry and religious intolerance. But so be it. I'd rather be accused of bigotry and religious intolerance than of endorcing cruelty to children [infants.]

That's not bad, there's nothing necessarily wrong with religous intolerance. Most religions are ridiculous and have no divine right to tolerance or respect. You've been brainwashed to think you can't criticise someone's religion. The most ridiculous religion in my opinion is the muslim religion and I lose respect for someone at least a little bit if I find out they believe in such nonsense. That's not bad morals.

philologos

^^ I wonder what would happen if every person of faith decided that non-believers weren't worthy of respect. I can't imagine it would produce a favourable society.

Greenmachine

metrovelvet wrote: »

I dont know. I think it is damn near impossible to be morally pure. No matter what I do, someone somewhere, will think it is bad.

For example, I cant ever see unnecessary circumcisions in either male or female babies as good, in fact I think it is pretty cruel and savage. But it is the practise of both Islam and Judaism. For me to think it is bad, is bad in itself isnt it, as it shows bigotry and religious intolerance. But so be it. I'd rather be accused of bigotry and religious intolerance than of endorcing cruelty to children [infants.]

Interesting topic for a discusion.

Here are a few of my own little nuggets for though.
Who here question where those jeans tshirts runners etc you wear are made chance are whether they are designer hi street or whatever that they have been made in a sweatshop. Has the thought of this ever stopped you from buying that lovely top.

How about those eggs you used for your fry up this morning. Were they battery caged.

You have the issue of freedom of choice which has it's own complications.
I saw a documentry on judaism and some of their practices I found offensive, how they slaughter their animals, how some rolls out of every batch of bread have to be binned.

Equally so there are issues with Catholisism that people find morally obectionable priest not being allowed to marry, the role of women within the church.

Where the issue of moral is concerned what it fundamentally come down to is do you have some degree of conscience. Do you consider the consequence of your actions. Are you capable of remorce. Are you capable of saying maybe I made a mistake.

scanlas

Jakkass wrote: »

^^ I wonder what would happen if every person of faith decided that non-believers weren't worthy of respect. I can't imagine it would produce a favourable society.

No one is entitled to respect. You can't control whether any one individual respects any other particular individual. All individuals have the the right to feel a continuum of respect or lack thereof for any other individual for whatever reasons they feel like, and that's a fact. So you can't be entitled to respect.

The reason no one can agree on morals is it comes from the fact there aren't enough widely agreed upon axioms of morality on which to base any moral inferences.

Tim Robbins

scanlas wrote: »

No one is entitled to respect.

That sounds like Stone Cold Steve Austin talking.

The reason no one can agree on morals is it comes from the fact there aren't enough widely agreed upon axioms of morality on which to base any moral inferences.

The Golden Rule is agreed on by all civilizations.

WeeBushy

Tim Robbins wrote: »

That sounds like Stone Cold Steve Austin talking.

Its true though, why should you respect someone's beliefs, actions or way of life if you know they are ludicrous? I presume he is talking about intellectual respect btw.

If someone believes something (atheism included) and are incapable of backing it up with sound logic and reason I would not have respect for them, and I would find it difficult to believe that anyone else would. By the same token I would have respect for someone of a different opinion to my own if they were able to properly argue their side.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

The Golden Rule is agreed on by all civilizations.

As metrovelvet said, everyone might agree with it but that means nothing as it's interpreted differently by different societies. Muslims will agree with The Golden Rule, but look how their interpretation has brought them to their views on apostasy...

Darlughda

It seems to me that some people wish to judge others according to their subjective morality scale.

Darlughda

Jakkass wrote: »

^^ I wonder what would happen if every person of faith decided that non-believers weren't worthy of respect. I can't imagine it would produce a favourable society.

Indeed, this is a good reason why religious folk should never get 'control' of society

homah_7ft

I think some people seem to be missing the point of the thread. I often go against my own morals. I know I'm going to go against them and just ignore it as best as I can. Could you say that my actions are my true morals or is it the compass that tells me I'm doing wrong are my true morals?

philologos

Darlughda wrote: »

Indeed, this is a good reason why religious folk should never get 'control' of society

You've clearly missed the point. I was saying that if people of faith regarded non-believers in that light it would be fairly detrimental to society. I personally believe that people are worthy of respect whether or not they believe in God. Personally I feel that that is what defines someone as a Christian. If atheists wish to claim that people of faith aren't worthy of respect that's just another reason for me not to find an irreligious view to life all that appealing.

Darlughda wrote:

It seems to me that some people wish to judge others according to their subjective morality scale.

This assumes that morality is subjective always. This isn't a view that all people share by any means.

Darlughda

The more I look at this thread, the more convinced that I am that morality and what we, individually, perceive that to be, is a purely objective experience.
Therefore, how dare any one else tell me how I should feel or behave?

philologos

Darlughda wrote: »

The more I look at this thread, the more convinced that I am that morality and what we, individually, perceive that to be, is a purely objective experience.
Therefore, how dare any one else tell me how I should feel or behave?

Ironically you are describing subjectivism using objective terms. You yourself cannot be objective to yourself as a standard. However, if it is objective it must be binding on everyone including yourself. Therefore you cannot be an objective standard.

For objectivism to be the case morality has to exist outside of the self. There has to be a standard or an authority beyond oneself that people relate to. If you are referring to yourself it is subjective.

Simple logic?