wu :: forums (http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi)
general >> truth >> Morals? Real?
(Message started by: Jsparco on Jan 23rd, 2012, 8:04am)

Title: Morals? Real?
Post by Jsparco on Jan 23rd, 2012, 8:04am
What are your thoughts on Morals?
In the republican race, I see many attack ads happening on Newt in regards to his ethics and morals.

Personally, I don't really believe in morals as they are a social construct. Our society deems what is moral or not and leaves no choice. It's just semantics...

Thoughts?  

Title: Re: Morals? Real?
Post by rmsgrey on Jan 23rd, 2012, 8:34am
There have been many attempts by philosophers to come up with a way of deriving some form of universal moral code based on sound logical principles, with little success.

On the other hand, while the details may vary, certain ideas keep coming up.

Hypocrisy is bad. Harming others without good reason is bad.

In general, behaving in the way you believe the people most affected by your actions would want you to behave is good, but there may be scenarios where that produces pathological behaviour.

Title: Re: Morals? Real?
Post by towr on Jan 23rd, 2012, 9:03am
I really believe in social constructs. ::)

Some strategies for keeping a society going work better than others. Societies with better social constructs flourish, whereas those with bad social constructs bite the dust; on average. So while you might say "morals are just social constructs", it's like saying a car is just some bits of metal, rubber and plastic. But not all piles of metal rubber and plastic are equal, and neither are all social constructs.
Morals are important because they work well to keep society going. We can trust each other rather surprisingly well, in great part because we're ingrained with a very similar moral code as we grow up (don't cheat, play nice, share). Other social institutions, like police and the justice system, help, but they are by no means a replacement for an (internalized) system of morals and norms.

Title: Re: Morals? Real?
Post by Grimbal on Jan 23rd, 2012, 9:44am
I agree with towr.  Morals are what they are because they help the World go round.

I'd say morals keep up by themselves because those who don't have any mostly don't loose time raising children.

It is reassuring, because it means there is little risk that the world will go to the ground because of a failure to teach proper morals to the young.  I see some kind of long-term stability.

Title: Re: Morals? Real?
Post by Speaker on Jan 27th, 2012, 11:22pm
Do you suppose there is a form of evolution of morals?

Do moral societies thrive, and supplant amoral socities?

Title: Re: Morals? Real?
Post by towr on Jan 28th, 2012, 3:35am

on 01/27/12 at 23:22:17, Speaker wrote:
Do you suppose there is a form of evolution of morals?
In a sense, I do think that's the case. What is considered moral definitely changes over time; and it should change because the demands on it change.
For example new technologies can pose new (moral) problems; e.g. transplanting, IVF etc. There always seems to be a kind of default moral impulse against change, but eventually it has to adapt; what was once weird, unnatural and 'therefore' immoral becomes accepted and good when it's benefits to society become clear.
And of course our (scientific) understanding of the world also changes and improves, and that is then reflected in our moral understanding. Once upon a time many diseases were seen as a punishment from the gods, but now we know many of the causes of disease and that it's often bad luck, rather than comeuppance. Same for natural disasters. And of course the opposite happens, we know that we are responsible for climate change and its consequences, which gives us a moral obligation to deal with it (though there are still many people that try to wash their hands of it).


Quote:
Do moral societies thrive, and supplant amoral socities?
I don't think there are complete amoral societies; I think that by definition that couldn't be a society (because there would be nothing to keep it together). I also wouldn't say that more moral society will necessarily always thrive compared to less moral ones; after all sometimes cheaters do prosper.
But it's self-destructive for a society not to have good morals, suitable to their time and context. In my opinion morals have to be "something that works", it has to sustain the momentum and survival of society. So by that "definition" bad morals lead inevitably to a decline of society. And unfortunately in this globalized world that might take the rest of humanity with it if we don't stand up to it. (So suffice it to say that as a society of nations, I think we are currently somewhat failing.)

Title: Re: Morals? Real?
Post by Three Hands on Feb 1st, 2012, 1:15pm
In terms of how morals are derived, from what I remember of my Philosophy degree the three main approaches taken are:

Deontological - Follow these rules and you'll be doing "good".
Consequentialism - Bringing about "good" results is all that matters.
Virtue Ethics - Live in a "good" way and things will be "good".

All of these require some concept of what is "good" and what isn't, which is where a lot of the main arguments come from - not to mention when one system declares something to be "good" when another (and often common sense) would consider it monstrous.

Certainly co-operation tends to produce better life results than complete independence, and I find most approaches to morality are about agreeing ways in which people won't act in order to set acceptable boundaries of behaviour, and so an expectation of how others will act and react. It is often the case, though, that finding ways to act outside the moral code without being caught, or punished, for it tends to be a popular way to achieve power/influence/wealth/comfort. I suppose it then shouldn't be too surprising that those in positions of power/influence/wealth/comfort are often of dubious morality... ::)

Title: Re: Morals? Real?
Post by StubbyNubbs on Feb 17th, 2012, 1:33pm

on 01/23/12 at 08:04:07, Jsparco wrote:
Personally, I don't really believe in morals as they are a social construct. Our society deems what is moral or not and leaves no choice. It's just semantics...

Thoughts?


Of course morals are a mere construct of man. To think otherwise would as ridiculous as a pile of molecules questioning it's purpose.

Title: Re: Morals? Real?
Post by towr on Feb 17th, 2012, 2:05pm
I wonder why a mere pile of molecules deigns to post its opinions.
But maybe 'mere' is the wrong qualifier to use for a construct/pile that has evolved over millions/billions of years.

Title: Re: Morals? Real?
Post by wade32 on Apr 8th, 2012, 1:07pm

on 02/17/12 at 14:05:15, towr wrote:
I wonder why a mere pile of molecules deigns to post its opinions.
But maybe 'mere' is the wrong qualifier to use for a construct/pile that has evolved over millions/billions of years.


Lol!  Do you think that was the moral thing to say?


Title: Re: Morals? Real?
Post by towr on Apr 8th, 2012, 2:02pm
I don't think morality really factors into it much.
Though I suppose in so much as it might nudge someone's perspective in the right direction (or broaden it temporarily) I could consider it moral. That is, supposing it does that.

Title: Re: Morals? Real?
Post by wade32 on Apr 11th, 2012, 9:36am

on 04/08/12 at 14:02:14, towr wrote:
I don't think morality really factors into it much.
Though I suppose in so much as it might nudge someone's perspective in the right direction (or broaden it temporarily) I could consider it moral. That is, supposing it does that.

I agree

Title: Re: Morals? Real?
Post by littlemisschic on Jul 26th, 2012, 10:04pm
There are things you should be allowed to do !
but the majority of society would choose not to!

as far as i'm concerned....If its legal, It's allowed!

Title: Re: Morals? Real?
Post by Grimbal on Jul 31st, 2012, 8:30am
Like farting in elevators?

Title: Re: Morals? Real?
Post by rmsgrey on Aug 13th, 2012, 6:04am

on 08/13/12 at 00:06:03, Jack Hadin wrote:
There have been many attempts by philosophers to come up with a method of deriving some form of universal moral code based on seem practical principles, alongside little achievements.

However, while the information might vary, certain ideas keep coming up.

Hypocrisy is bad. Harming others without good factor is bad.

In general, behaving in the way you believe the individuals many affected by the actions would want you to act is great, however there may be situations in which that generates pathological conduct.

Ooh, copy-paste with synonym replacement...

Anyone else feel a Monty Python song coming on?

Title: Re: Morals? Real?
Post by towr on Aug 13th, 2012, 8:37am
The same goes for the other two posts he/it made. So I've deleted them all.

Title: Re: Morals? Real?
Post by littlemisschic on Sep 10th, 2012, 1:02pm
You are correct in saying that Morals are Socially constructed.

However its your morals that stop you doing something you know is wrong even though you really want to.

I wouldn't want to live in a world without morals... though you could also describe this as a guilty concious:)

Title: Re: Morals? Real?
Post by towr on Sep 10th, 2012, 10:45pm
Morality isn't just feeling guilty about doing something wrong, but also taking pleasure in doing something right.

Title: Re: Morals? Real?
Post by littlemisschic on Sep 14th, 2012, 1:40pm
Very True!  ;), your morals are there to help guide you to make the right decisions and steer clear of the wrong ones!

Title: Re: Morals? Real?
Post by sanaya on Sep 2nd, 2013, 7:05am
Keeps changing according to situations...What is considered moral for one can be immoral or others. Very difficult to go deep and find out the real meaning and apply in life.

Title: Re: Morals? Real?
Post by anglia on Aug 15th, 2015, 1:30am
Whatever we experienced from our REAL life, we make it motivational quote and add it as a morals in our life.



Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.4!
Forum software copyright 2000-2004 Yet another Bulletin Board