Morality, what is it?

[DreamLord]

Hello all! I am doing a report for school and I would like a few opinions on a touchy topic. here it goes.

 

According to your beliefs:

 

Where does morality come from?

 

How do you determine what is right and wrong?

 

Is there really such a thing as “right” and “wrong?”

 

And why do you believe the way you do?

 

I don’t want to start a big fight or anything' date=' I just want some quick comments, and maybe some discution.

 

Ty[/quote']

 

Morality, I think, in part comes from what we observe. But it also just in us, somehow. No matter how people grow up there's always going to be the violent bastard, and the goody goody person. Perhaps it's genetics or something, that I'm not so sure of. But, it's more than just our surroundingd I think.

 

Right and wrong is all in how you percieve it. I think that Bush is wrong and everything he does is completely moronic and sometimes immoral too, that goes for the other conservatives. I think whatever you beleive strongly in is going to be "right" to you.

[Coral Rhedd]

If you hit or reprimand a dog every time it goes inside' date=' it is going to think it is bad to go inside. It will eventually either get nervous and scared everytime it goes inside (behind your back). Or avoid it entirely.

[/quote']

 

Or avoid you.

 

There are better methods of dog training.

____________________________

 

While there may be no absolute morality that we can tap into by communing with God, nature has provided its own methods of rewards and punishments both to species and to individuals.

 

Within that sphere (the only one we have) we can contruct our own. Not to do so, implies a certain carelessness and neglect. Most people enjoy the mental exercise of applying their constructed morality to their lives. It is sort of like green vegetables; we suffer when we refuse to partake.

[Sayonara]

Sorry RedAlert, but that comes across as threatening. What difference does it make whether a person writes in the same style as another or is infact the same person using a different nick? Does it really matter?

Yes.

[RedAlert]

I got a supporter! So Sayanora, does he have the same ip as "hebrewboy"?

[paleolithic]

Or avoid you.

 

There are better methods of dog training.

 

I agree that there are better methods of training, but it still produces more or less the same effect on the dog. I was merely using that as an easy to understand example, rather than waste time trying to explain the psychology of a dog.

[weasel54849]

RedAlert you crack me up. go ahaed Sayonara check me out. I love seeing people proved wrong.

[RedAlert]

You may be hiding behind a proxy. Maybe that is your way of hiding from us.....

 

Whatever it may be, you can run, but you can't hide....

[weasel54849]

.

 

LOL

 

 

.

[Dak]

what in the name of gert big wobbly testicles are you two talking about?

 

RedAlert, im sure if they are the same person, sayo, blike or dave will sort it out.

 

also, what with this being a sciense forum, maybe you should substantiate your claim with some quotes from the two of them, highlighting any interestingly similar distinguishing charechteristics of theire two wrighting styles (eg spelling mistakes, gramma mistakes, syntax mistakes, word usage, collequialism use etc) and explaining why it is more likely that the similarities result from the two posters being the same person, rather than by coinsidense. a little ameture forensic wrighting analysis shouldnt be too hard.

 

back to morality, carrying on in skyes cynical vein, morality is peoples justification for stopping other people doing things that they dont want other people to do.

[Coral Rhedd]

back to morality' date=' carrying on in skyes cynical vein, morality is peoples justification for stopping other people doing things that they dont want other people to do.[/quote']

 

Too simple.

 

If this were true, why would people suffer guilt?

 

And why all the uproar in the dog/cheetah thread.

[Dak]

because our morals are forsing us to attempt to stop people from doing things that we disagree with, ie duct taping a dogs mouth shut.

 

and anyway, like i said i was being cynical, although i suppose guilt could be stopping ourselves from doing something that we disagree with, ie morality is the 'stopping people doing stuff...' drive focused externally, whereas guilt is the 'stopping people doing stuff...' drive focused internally?

[Coral Rhedd]

because our morals are forsing us to attempt to stop people from doing things that we disagree with' date=' ie duct taping a dogs mouth shut.

 

and anyway, like i said i was being cynical, although i suppose guilt could be stopping ourselves from doing something that we disagree with, ie morality is the 'stopping people doing stuff...' drive focused externally, whereas guilt is the 'stopping people doing stuff...' drive focused internally?[/quote']

 

I can't remember where I read it, but there is a sort of theory about morality that says that the more developed that it is the less black and white things become and the more people are willing to look at nuances and grey areas.

 

Take the dog already being dead for instance. Nothing will bring him back. But it is not just outrage that drives us but compassion because we imagine what the dog must have felt. Then someone of wisdom steps in and reminds us that everyone makes mistakes and that not everyone possesses the same obvious common sense.

 

Again we are called upon to have compassion. To try to understand and forgive. I think morality can have two sides: The prohibitive side and the more active compassionate side. One side functions using the big don'ts. Don't do this. Don't do that. Another says that we must act to show care.

 

Take poverty for instance. Wouldn't the same people who were inclined to do a lot of finger shaking find it easier to blame people in need for their own distress? This allows them to judge rather than to feed those who are hungry.

[Dak]

as its the second time its been alluded to, then i guess it might be useful to give a link to the duct-taped-dog thread

 

I can't remember where I read it, but there is a sort of theory about morality that says that the more developed that it is the less black and white things become and the more people are willing to look at nuances and grey areas.

 

from my own observations, i think also that the more developed the moral system, the more succinctly it can be described, ie a (n in my oppinion) poorly developed moral system will consist of a long list of 'dos' and 'donts', whereas a well developed moral system will consist of a few guidlines, or 'moral axioms' i suppose might be a better term.

 

for example, 'rape is wrong' is not one of my morals as such. however, my moral guidlines leave me with no option but to view it as immoral, even though it is not spesiffically refered to in any of my morals, if that makes sense?

 

also i think its interesting to contrast 'intuative' morals with 'inteligent' morals. ever notised how some people naturaly know what is right/rong without ever having had to think about it? if i tried to do that, ie do what i felt was right without actually thinking about the moral implications, id be such a b*****d!

 

maybe the more morals someone has, the more naturally a/immoral they are?