Can you admit your bad morals?

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?

homah_7ft

Jakkass a geniune question for you. What are my morals? My actions or my thoughts on my actions?

Darlughda

Jakkass wrote: »

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

But many people do share the view that morality is always subjective, Jakkass! I have to say it is an abhorrent idea of subjective morality you are condoning otherwise.

Grand for you. But not for others. **** that.

philologos

homah_7ft wrote: »

Jakkass a geniune question for you. What are my morals? My actions or my thoughts on my actions?

How your moral compass is set defines how you feel about your actions.
Your actions either fall short, or fall on your moral compass.

Other philosophers disagree with me. I personally believe there has to be a good intention behind every good action for it to be ultimately good.

For Aristotle he employs circular reasoning. The good man is defined by his deeds, but the good man is more likely than the bad man to carry out a good deed.

So if you are good, you are more likely to do good, but to be good in the first place you have to do good.

I personally hold a Judeo-Christian view on good, I.E we can only be good through the knowledge of God.

philologos

Darlughda wrote: »

But many people do share the view that morality is always subjective, Jakkass! I have to say it is an abhorrent idea of subjective morality you are condoning otherwise.

Grand for you. But not for others. **** that.

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

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.

There are always absolute and objective lines that people draw. This is the reason why I believe moral subjectivism is a flop.

homah_7ft

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.

philologos

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.

You hold a view rather similar to Darlughda. Friedrich Nietzsche also believed that morality was contrived. 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.

We can either learn about physics, decide not to learn physics, or attempt to learn physics and be mistaken about it, but the laws of physics remain the name. I feel the same about morality. We can learn about morality, decide not to learn about it, or be mistaken about morality but the Moral Law remains the same.

homah_7ft

Jakkass do you always follow your own morals? Do you think everyone should be following your morals too? In other words are everyone's morals the same? So many questions hehe.

WeeBushy

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.

There are always absolute and objective lines that people draw. This is the reason why I believe moral subjectivism is a flop.

EDIT: Didn't read your post properly I'm taking back what I said

philologos

homah_7ft wrote: »

Jakkass do you always follow your own morals? Do you think everyone should be following your morals too? In other words are everyone's morals the same? So many questions hehe.

I don't believe that I define my morals. I believe I receive them from a higher source external to myself.

As for following them, no I don't. I fail occasionally like every fallible human, but I feel it's inspiring to be able to have a goal that I seek to achieve as I get older, and I have much more to learn about morality obviously. It's really about aiming to live both to honour God and by neighbour effectively.

As for everyones morals being the same. People can choose to ignore the ultimate source of morality. So no, they aren't the same. People can differ in morality in the same way that people can differ about the laws of physics. However, some people can be more accurate than others.

WeeBushy wrote: »

Thankfully I would not be able tell you that genocide or lunch time killings of ethnic minorities are fine. However if you speak to a Muslim they might argue that horrible actions similar to what you have mentioned are morally correct. So in that sense morals are subjective.

Why single out Muslims? People who have had no faith had been responsible for many of the genocides of the 20th century. It has nothing to do with religion.

For the most part people do draw clear and objective lines about what is acceptable when it comes to death and genocide. Why is that if there isn't an objective source to lead them to that position?

WeeBushy

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't believe that I define my morals. I believe I receive them from a higher source external to myself.

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.