Morality- We All Know What That Is

I’m a moral person. So are you. We all know right from wrong. So if we are so moral, so knowing of right and wrong, why are we the way we are? We’ve just come off the Nature of Nature thread, and we’ve consensus that man is neither good nor evil, but has the capacity for both. It would seem then, that morality must have some mediating influence in how we act out our understanding of good and evil.

So just what is morality? Are mores universal? Is moral behavior something that can be defined? Who does the defining? What are the consequences of moral behavior? Of immoral behavior?

Come on all you moral people. Tell me how it is. (immoral people are welcome as well :sunglasses: )

JT

Morality is a product of our conditioning. A judgement of the mind. The idea lurks in the minds of all of us who have been brought up with the ideas of sinfulness and virtuousness, of morality and immorality. Our conditioning is like a cage. Our ideas are our cage. The word morality only exists because there is immorality. Morality is a kind of culture. People try to behave in a moral way - this is bogus morality. Morality must arise out of our awareness. Then we respond to any situation out of our awareness - awareness can never do anything that is immoral. If we want to understand morality we should first become aware.

A

I actually ran into a moral dilemma this weekend. After purchasing my groceries I picked up what I thought was a free magazine (I thought it was on the same rack as the other free magazines.) and only after I got home did I realize that it was 1.10.

The obvious moral correct thing to do, would be to take it back and pay for it right?

How many of you out there would do that?

if you found a dollar on the street would you look for the owner?

where do you draw the line if you have one?

I think morality is truly subjective to the culture. In american culture we consider it moral to acquire as much stuff as possible. Many cultures find this behaviour disgusting and immoral.

in some cultures they stretch necks of children so that when they are older they have an attractive (in their eyes) long neck. Some in our culture would find it immoral that they treat children that way.

There are some universal morays, murder… but even thinking about that one, their are “cannibilistic” tribes that don’t consider killing other men or women for food to be immoral.

So that is a good question… are there truly any universal morals? if not what’s stopping us from making universal morals? (for example a non-deified golden rule.)

I think killing your sister without any kind of justification, but simply because you could do it, would be morally wrong for any culture. Maybe.

I presume you know, who you think you are, because I don’t. :wink:
My definition of moral is opposite of yours, because I am spirit in My body
and you are not, your definition is not yours, because you believe.

Now this right here, is retro-active Humor, something specific for Texas or
Monty Pyton :stuck_out_tongue:
" We all know right from wrong. " does this include Lawyers, Politicians,
Suicide bombers, Serial Killers , christians and mentally challenged ??

We are all" Good " Souls, because we are alive, it is all that matters.
Our spirits are different, unless we are all (let say on ILP) Holy spirits, Spirits that talk nothing bu truth.Holy Spirit makes you know everything you need to know.That is why, are we All connected with that true love called destiny.
Evil is just illusion created between your senses and what you see mentally challenged people do, something that is inherited, like down syndrome or Psychosis (christians) etc.
None of these “groups” can not be accountable for what they did.
It is simple, Nature is taking care of Business, by taking care off Balance.
I am not moral, but immortal, it’s probably just me :cry:

                                      much life !

Mores are socially conditioned (much like other behaivoral codes like gender). We do act out what we are taught–think about how we are taught from the beginning of life–everything from potty training to play nice with your friends.

However, morality is a personal thing. It’s what you can live with.

Example 1: I personally do not eat meat because it’s not in my morals. But I will happily sit across from you while you devour a steak. In fact, I have gone to steakhouses with friends–the waitress has sort of laughed at me. I do, however, expect the occasional courtesy of those same friends to go to a vegetarian-friendly restaurant so that I can find something on the menu.

Example 2: Last month I found a kitten at the train station. I could have kept walking, and many people did. The kitten did seem fine. However, I just couldn’t leave him there, and since I have trapped him I can’t bring myself to take him to an animal shelter where he might be euthanized. So know I am stuck with a kitten that I really didn’t want…but then I think, at the end of my life, do I really want to say to myself that I rescued too many kittens?

Maybe it all boils down to courtesy. Maybe it’s a sense of smugness or self-satisfaction. Maybe I’m just a bleeding heart with lingering catholic-school guilt (those nuns will get you with that!) Anyone want a cute little kitten?

Who knows? I do know that I can’t expect everyone to do and think exactly the same way that I do, or I will end up all alone ranting in a corner.

[/i]

Pft,

I suspect that you were making a point, but it would really help if you would make a statement, and back it with explanation. I understand and enjoy ‘stream of consciousness’ writing, but it doesn’t work very well here. I have no idea what point you were trying to make, or if there was a point to be made.

Enlighten me.

Cogic,

Yes, morality may be prescribed, but it finally comes down to that which is personal. Incidentally, the kitten episode says more about your true morality than you may suspect. :slight_smile:

JT[/b]

Still having a think about the meat of this topic… But just so long as I’m on the subject of food:

As far as I remember the tribesmen have two justifications for their canabalism - neither for food. On the one hand they consume the bodies of those enemies they admire/respect, in the hope of ingesting some of their prowess and skills along with the flesh. And on the other they consume the body of a particularly hated enemy they’ve killed - as a final insult, they literally turn him into shit…

Morality is nothing more than popular opinion.

JT
I’ve just read what you wrote, then I wrote what you read.
I can not make a point, because I am telling the truth, truth is not mine,
it is universal.You having hard time understanding what I am trying to say,
because my effort to tell you what is really Life is something you can not
believe, you have to feel it.
Concept of God was flat out 100% misunderstud, and Religion was born.
Your flesh is 100% God, because God is everything.Your life was created
from beginning to the End (that includes eternal existance, which is not
Life anymore), because God have beginning and the End ( as Trinity, when
“the End” happens, it is going to be only Holy spirit and Eternal flesh,
no one will ever know who is Mr. Love actualy, or what used to be called
Son of God, because He is true Love, and true Love does not Rule or
comand )
Try to imagine your Spirit (when you were born) as a piece of very fertile
soil (Unique and not possible to match DNA pattern) while you growing there are so many seeds (outside information), trying to get into your soil
to create tree that will bear Fruit.Now your soil can grow only certain trees
and other ones just can not possibly grow, they die.
What I see in “your garden” is tree of knowledge of good and evil,tree of Life,and lot of grass.
You see dear JT, Tree of Life have leafs, God used those leafs and created
“breath of life” and “blow” that breath into nostrils of everyone who was ment to feel life.Then He created Holy grass, that produces holy smoke,
that creates Holy Spirit.
That is why Nobody can Enlighten you, if you are not enlightened yourself.
That is why you can not understand what am I saying to anybody.
:cry:
That is why only Simon (the only Human ever born, until" last days ") felt who Jesus was, and that is why Jesus had to change his name into Peter.

       I feel you do not understand any of this, it is OK, because
                      It's all good  :wink: 

                        much love !

                                                       Peter

I am feeling this, because is truth ! :stuck_out_tongue:

Howdy Tentative, all…

I think there are three layers to morality with regard to people:

[i]As moral as you were made to be.

As moral as you could be.

As moral as you can be.[/i]

To start with - In my view, there is only one moral fundamental - from which all the others are derived. “Do not cause/allow suffering.not “do not kill”. Think of someone related to you dying slowly and agonizingly in a hospital bed, conscious/semi-conscious, an expression of utmost suffering upon their faces - the morphine ain’t cutting it, and the doctors are throwing up their hands. At some point - “do not kill” goes out the window. Think of someone tortured, fingers crushed, eyes put out, guts twisted out on a spike - irrevocably damaged. Mercy, they cry with what’s left of their tongue. And you give it to them. You do not through inaction, prolong their suffering.
Do not be the cause of suffering ripples out, to do not kill, to do not harm physically, to lesser suffering causals, do not take the possessions of others, do not lie when in doing so you would cause others to suffer, do not envy - for that is the precursor of theft/physical conflict, do not commit adultry, do not break a vow when others are depending on it/you… Then it ripples out more - to include those not of your species - animals, and then perhaps to anything that you can convince yourself, can suffer. It all stems from the basal.

Made to be:

So - I say we are made to be moral, only in that we are preconditioned with an aversion to activety that causes expressions of suffering on the faces of those with whom we’ve formed strong emotional bonds with from infancy. Note I do not say family - a baby/infant will bond with whoever (or in extreme cases - feral children for example - whatever) protects them and cares for their needs. This allows some flexibility, ie: the possible suffering of yourself and of those you regard as intimate to you, outweighs the suffering of those you do not - you may cause pain and suffering to percieved competitors/enemies of yourself and/or the group, with a relatively clean conscience, at least at this primitive level of morality.

Could be:

The most rarefied level of morality known and described - but not necessarily yet achieved - by the society you find yourself in. The tippity-top of the moral iceberg, a state of responsibility/empathy for everything within your possible sphere of effect. A life choice in which the individual tries to preserve physical self without directly causing harm to anything, nor allowing those/that which they are able to aid to suffer. An impossible, and frankly damn near inhuman pinnacle, only slowly being approached/made possible in real terms with the aid of technology.

Can be:

This is the compromise position where we all live. We get our moral conditioning at first from those we accept as family and friends, then later from the various institutions/factions of society we come into contact with/are influenced by. Then we adapt and rationalize the morality we have absorbed: Grey it, bend it, completely disregard portions of it, over-emphasize others - dependent on our personality to some extent: For the hawkish some the amount they think they can safely get away with, and the percieved levels of risk involved with the consequences should they fail. For peacock others - the moral level at which they wish to be perceived by others as living. And for the more sincere few - the level of morality which they think they can achieve for an acceptable level of personal sacrifice.
For some the decision to live at a chosen level of morality is taken out of their hands - a man, or woman may cut moral corners for the furtherment/maintainace of their family - the primitive moral code, almost always overwhelming the social. very few would deny their sick child treatment out of principle, and a great number of people would do almost anything, however immoral - to gain the wherewithal to aquire that treatment.
Our ‘can be’ moralty is also dependent on our social/material status. We cannot all be Stoics living in barrels - each of us have our comfort threshold. Their is a personal limit to what we are prepared to sacrifice for a clean conscience. It is easy to live a moral and socially upright life - if you have the material wealth to insulate you from having to make moral choices. The richer you are, the easier it is to live a lifestyle which, at least on the surface, harms no-one. What you may or may not have done to get to that point of material wealth is another matter. The richer you are, the easier it is to give significant portions of that wealth away to help others.
But scrape away people’s creature comforts and you also scrape away the moral swaddling of the majority of them. Make them compete harder for limited resources, and you will find the higher levels of morality get lost along with struggle to survive.
Scrape harder - take away all comfort, shelter, food, water, and even the most primitive levels of morality get dissolved - and you end up fighting your brother to death over a bacon sandwich. Well, maybe not your brother, but certainly a nasty part of your brain will be thinking about it.

Anyway -

I’d give my definition of abstract morality as the point where the basic “Do not cause/allow suffering” becomes so diffuse as to involve pretty much everything. More mundanely - Morality is a system of checks to free-will, to guarentee the survival of the group/society at the expense of the indivdual.

I’d say “Do not cause/allow suffering” though not universal at the moment - is the way it’s heading, at the pace of technological advancement in the case of the masses, and much faster for the very few.

Ultimately, morality is defined personally and sits at the point where the “made to be” meets the “could be” in any given individual, dependent on their variables of material wealth/beliefs/responsibilites. Rather than being fixed - this definition gets updated constantly. The boundries of anyone’s definition contract and expand according to their ability to act effectively upon the abstracts they choose as moral, and still preserve self image, or, at the extreme - their physical self. No-one wishes to hate themselves for any length of time - so rationalization of moral boo-boos brings an eventual downgrading of moral values back to a workable threshold, should a transgression be consciously made or forced.

The consequences of moral actions (judged as right by self) - are emotional well being and peace of mind, the consequences of moral actions (judged by society of one of its members) acclaim and praise/material gain, and possibly - a greater likelyhood of procreation.

The consequences of immoral actions (judged as wrong by self) - is initial mental anguish, fading along a time period accordant with the perceived magnitude of the wrong , the consequences of immoral actions (judged by society of one of its members) denigration, shunning, loss of freedom, loss of privileges available in said society, lowered certainty of procreation.
(Though of course, the consequences of immoral actions, undetected/overlooked/illicity condoned by society, can be extremely beneficial to the individual involved. And thus the little devil on our shoulders never loses his silver tongue)

Time for bed.

And an old priest said, “Speak to us of Religion.”

And he said: Have I spoken this day of aught else? Is not religion all deeds and all reflection, And that which is neither deed nor reflection, but a wonder and a surprise ever springing in the soul, even while the hands hew the stone or tend the loom? Who can separate his faith from his actions, or his belief from his occupations? Who can spread his hours before him, saying, “This for God and this for myself; This for my soul and this other for my body”? All your hours are wings that beat through space from self to self. He who wears his morality but as his best garment were better naked. The wind and the sun will tear no holes in his skin. And he who defines his conduct by ethics imprisons his song-bird in a cage. The freest song comes not through bars and wires.

And he to whom worshipping is a window, to open but also to shut, has not yet visited the house of his soul whose windows are from dawn to dawn.

Your daily life is your temple and your religion. Whenever you enter into it take with you your all. Take the slough and the forge and the mallet and the lute, The things you have fashioned in necessity or for delight. For in reverie you cannot rise above your achievements nor fall lower than your failures. And take with you all men: For in adoration you cannot fly higher than their hopes nor humble yourself lower than their despair.

And if you would know God, be not therefore a solver of riddles. Rather look about you and you shall see Him playing with your children.

And look into space; you shall see Him walking in the cloud, outstretching His arms in the lightning and descending in rain. You shall see Him smiling in flowers, then rising and waving His hands in trees.

  • Kahlil Gibran

A

Am I alone in being amazed that PieceFullThyme can actually get his head out of the bong long enough to type anything…?

Hi Tab

Does this include ridicule? For example you wrote:

Maybe I’m wrong but it seems to be an attempt to ridicule and naturally some people can be hurt by it. Do you view it as moral, immoral, or neutral? If it is moral what is its benefit? If it is immoral, what is its attraction to you. If it is neither then of course it is irrelevant. I’m curious as to your reasoning here.

Hi Nick_A,

Ridicule is a cause of suffering… So yes, immoral.

So yes - I’ve acted immorally… But I also said:

Tick…tick…tick - BING.!!!, I’m over it.

What’s the attraction…? I get a bit sick of people posting unthought-out, badly written, second-hand psychobabble in a reasonably serious forum. Something you are not guilty of, nor, at least recently :laughing: , am I.

Though you point up a problem with morality, or at least my version anyway:

ie: the immoral action of an individual is punished by actions taken toward that individual designed to make that individual suffer - ie: by the definition - further immoral action on the part of the punisher.

If someone punishes the immoral acts of another, by behaving (in this special case) ‘immorally’ toward them - does this count as immoral action…? Or does the shield of the group term ‘society’, like the one real bullet and 4 blanks situation used in the old firing squads, suspend the immorality of the punishment - leaving it without a direct perpetrator…? By condoning society’s rules and justice/punishment systems - must we also shoulder a fraction of the immorality done in its name…?

Also - how about the ignorance defence…? If I undertake an action that causes another to suffer at some remove, or beyond my range of perception, have I acted immorally…? If I clean a plate glass window so well that it, heh, appears invisible - then later someone breaks their nose by walking into it, while I’m at home bouncing the baby on my knee -have I acted immorally…? - accidents always have their causes, beyond/before the time and current variables on scene.

Does immorality on a personal level reflect only those outcomes which you deem yourself responsible for, how much blame you are willing to accept…?

[size=75][Hmm… I’ve begun quoting myself - a sure sign of over-inflation of the ego][/size]

Sorry guys, couldn’t resist… :slight_smile:

…Oftentimes have I heard you speak of one who commits a wrong as though he were not one of you, but a stranger unto you and an intruder upon your world.
But I say that even as the holy and the righteous cannot rise beyond the highest which is in each one of you,
So the wicked and the weak cannot fall lower than the lowest which is in you also.
And as a single leaf turns not yellow but with the silent knowledge of the whole tree,
So the wrong-doer cannot do wrong without the hidden will of you all.
Like a procession you walk together towards your god-self.
You are the way and the wayfarers.
And when one of you falls down he falls for those behind him, a caution against the stumbling stone.
Ay, and he falls for those ahead of him, who though faster and surer of foot, yet removed not the stumbling stone…

  • Kahlil Gibran, On crime and punishment

A

Regard my previous but one post as me shouting:

“Oi…! PFT Pick yer damn feet up - it gets stonier from here on in…”

Now look - in her singular way LA - admonished me, I could be deeply hurt by her words :cry: , she doesn’t know for sure - in just taking the risk of causing suffering - has she acted immorally…?

Tab - if you look closely you will see what I really meant.

Interesting that YOU take responsibility!

A

Hi Tab

I’m not being critical of you. I’m just trying to point out something we all do in differing ways. It is our nature.

If you look at either the “Great Beast”, or Simone, Plato" thread it explains that our psychological acceptance of such selective morality is one of the major sources of nutrition for the beast keeping it good and strong with a heavy foot ready to stamp down on anyone who expresses its limitations.

The Great Beast is not too fond of this one. It is much more satisfying and secure to accuse with group support. Just the collective action itself adds to our imagined self importance.

To begin with morality is only a midpoint between what was known by conscience and passed along to man on earth and the normal automatic reactions of man. Just like blue and yellow blended produces the many shades of green, higher influences of conscience blended with earthly influences produce morals. So morality isn’t an action but an attitude and the degeneration of conscience. If you hurt someone accidentally in the same way another does intentionally, your attitude is not negative so morality doesn’t come into play in the inner sense though it is fashionable to depict actions as either moral or immoral which I believe to be a mistake.