by Coded Logic 47 Replies latest social family
In regards to:
Respect
Sympathy
Gossip
Intellectual Honesty
Fairness
Family
Equality
Cost/Benefit
Epistemology
etc.
. . . ?
Scratching my head wondering what "Moral" standard these traits come from? Especially Equality. Are these supposed to be socially determined moral standards? Just confused
I agree with kairos and syme...
same here
Less Judgemental , and I have more empathy for people who are marginalised by society .especially transgender and gay & lesbian people who by all the information I can gather is not so much a choice , but a condition , whether it is genetic , DNA , or whatever .
I can`t imagine how it would feel to have a male body yet your brain is telling you your a female,
Or to be born into a female body and your brain is telling you your a male
And this is going on in young children before they even know about gender and sex .
And of course this means a male is more attracted to a male than a female .
And a female is more attracted to a female than a male
It is not something they choose , it is a natural progression of their feelings , needs , and desires .
Only then does it make sense .
Ignorant people blur these definitions with pedo`s .
smiddy
In some things, yes. In another, no.
I became more tolérant with people, because, clearly I understand perfectly what's to be lost in a seducing ideology
But I became extremely intolerant at all kind of ideology, religious, political or economical.
But Is that really immoral?
Smoking, drugs, sex with same sex, fornication and drunken recklessness most times.
I know, right? Most of my pioneer friends were having a freakin' blast! I was just too 'goody-two-shoes' to fit in. : D
Thats the problem with society today. Everyone has a different definition of "morals". No wonder the world has gone to hell in a hand basket. Someone or something has to set the standards. No one knows right from wrong anymore.
Yup. those crafty JWS! Preaching one thing, and then leading a whole 'nuther life in secret! Each one of them seems to have a different *private* definition of morals. They really need to get it together, set some standards, and police themselves! :D
This is a bit a loaded question...
What is (im)moral?
Is a person who rejects the Bible view of sex immoral? Is one who follows the Bible rules moral?
What about people following opposing sacred texts?
Morality is subjective.
People following a set of rules are not moral, they are simply obeying, possibly without thinking for themselves.
Interestingly, Lawrence Kohlberg wrote about the stages of moral development.
These are (according to him):
Level 1 (Pre-Conventional)
1. Obedience and punishment orientation
(How can I avoid punishment?)
2. Self-interest orientation
(What's in it for me?)
(Paying for a benefit)
Level 2 (Conventional)
3. Interpersonal accord and conformity
(Social norms)
(The good boy/girl attitude)
4. Authority and social-order maintaining orientation(Law and order morality)
When I say "moral" I mean the process of critical (and sometimes heuristic) thinking we use to evaluate the actions and behaviors of ourselves and others. Most generally, the metric we use for that evaluation is the well being of sentient creatures.
While the word "moral" may cover a broad range of concepts and ideas - it doesn't then follow that morality is subjective. People use the word "red" in a lot of different ways at different times. But it doesn't then follow that when I say something is "red" its color is entirely arbitrary or subjective.
Don't confuse the arbitrary use of a word as meaning that all concepts attached to that word are therefore arbitrary.
I swear a lot more now :)
@CodedLogic:
When I say "moral" I mean the process of critical (and sometimes heuristic) thinking we use to evaluate the actions and behaviors of ourselves and others.
Since the process of thinking if different for each person, doesn't that imply that morality is subjective?
Most generally, the metric we use for that evaluation is the well being of sentient creatures.
For those with a better developed sense of morality, yes.
For those (blindly) following sets of rules (such as homosexuality is immoral), the set of rules is the metric.
While the word "moral" may cover a broad range of concepts and ideas - it doesn't then follow that morality is subjective. People use the word "red" in a lot of different ways at different times. But it doesn't then follow that when I say something is "red" its color is entirely arbitrary or subjective.
For your example of colors, I agree. Someone stating that all cars are red doesn't make green cars red.
However, different reactions to the same situation can both be viewed as moral or immoral, depending on your viewpoint.
An interesting example of this is found in Heinz's dilemma.
A woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to produce. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $1,000 which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said: “No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it.” So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's laboratory to steal the drug for his wife. Should Heinz have broken into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?
There are of course multiple reasoning as to why Heinz should or should not steal the medicine (see the article for more background).
Stage six (universal human ethics): Heinz should steal the medicine, because saving a human life is a more fundamental value than the property rights of another person.
Or: Heinz should not steal the medicine, because others may need the medicine just as badly, and their lives are equally significant.
Apparently depending on a person's viewpoint, an conclusion reached about the morality of (not) stealing the medicine can go both ways, even when contemplating fundamental values such as universal human ethics.
Hence my conclusion that morality is subjective (especially when compared to assumed absolute morality coming from any God(s) or sacred texts).
I first read about Heinz's dilemma when still in, and I was kinda shocked that apparently my moral compass was on the lowest level: obedience. Of course that is what you get from being raised to be obedient to parent, elders, GB and God.
Love this discussion, eager to see your viewpoint
