Immorality

[malachai]

I have read several threads here dealing with the question of morality and it has left me wondering: What is morality? Who is to judge what is or isnt moral?

We live in a society governed by rules, laws and regulations imposed upon us by many others and ourselves. Because something is “wrong” in the eyes of society, does that mean it IS wrong? Who can truly say what is right or wrong and upon what do you base it ? Your own views ? The views of society ?

What would be considered wrong in North America may be considered perfectly normal in another part of the world. Does that mean other societies are immoral ?

What today is considered immoral or taboo may have been commonly accepted practice in the past. Does that mean the generation before us was immoral ?

If morality is based upon what you believe is right or wrong, or what those in power feel is right or wrong, or even what current society deems to be so, then I ask who are you to tell me what I should feel, think or act ?

So I ask you to give me something which is immoral by any standard you choose and convince me what makes it immoral for the entire world.

BTW Prepare to be rebuked, either by current standardds elsewhere or past examples. Im not looking to flame anyone but I do intend to play devils advocate on this one.

[WillNZ]

Hey there, interesting topic. I invite you to rebuke my thoughts on immorality.

Basically, to be immoral generally, you have to go against your own morals. There is no implicit suggestion in the word immoral which says that in order to be immoral as such, you have to do something which is inconsistent with what society per se says. To BE moral is something you decide yourself. To be IMMORAL in another’s eyes is you acting in a moral capacity inconsistent with the other person’s held view of morality.

Howabout a “War for Peace?” That to me comes off as immoral. The very premise of Peace is existence without conflict. However, this statement plays on the aesthetics more than the logic of what it is, so in the sense that it plays two contradictory words in the same sentence, supposedly for the same purpose, doesn’t discount the reality that this supposedly illogical framework does affect what people fight for.

It’s immoral to wage war for Peace.

[thezeus18]

No, because there is judgment for our actions, or else we wouldn’t have invented god. The judgment is inherent in the definition of “good” and “bad”. It’s like this, imagine the rule about traffic lights. The “good” to do is to wait for the light to go green, the “bad” thing to do is to run the light. Moral actions can be divided into two categories: those that have more benefit for the individual acting when everybody else does them, and those that have more benefit when less people do them. The former category are actions labeled “good”, the latter “bad”. Waiting for a stoplight to go green only works when everybody else is waiting too; if everybody else is racing past the red light, you’re losing out. Speeding past the light is the opposite: if you speed past while everybody else waits, you get to your destination before everybody else; but if everybody is speeding past the red light, chances are you’ll be hit by somebody when your light is green (edited). That wasn’t a good example. Driving like a maniac may get you to your job faster, but if everyone drives like a maniac you’ll likely crash. So the actions of a delinquent rely on the majority not acting as he does, and the actions of a law-abiding (be they traffic laws or moral laws) citizen rely on the majority acting like him. Coherent?

That’s the definition of moral and immoral actions, basically. Moral actions are ones that benefit the individual when done by the majority, and immoral actions are the ones that benefit the individual when not done by the majority. Thus, moral actions are encouraged by everybody, whether they are moral or not, because the immoral person relies on the majority being moral the same as the moral people do. Does this make sense?

Quoting myself here, so be warned that the context may not be clear. Otherwise, this is my definition of morality.

[whenbothofourcarscol (whenbothofourcarscollide)]

This question has to be one of the oldest in philosophy. It’s right up there with the “Why are we here?” question. I don’t think there are any Divine Truths out there. I don’t think there is any ONE definition of morality, because of differing opinions. It’s all subjective and it all contradicts eachother. If I think doing something is right and you think it is wrong, I think that I will be right and that you are wrong, but you will think that YOU are right and I am wrong. Just a relentless circle. A Gordian Knot of a problem.

[gemty]

the beginnings of moral relativism. Because there’s somebody out there that believes it right, we can’t actually say anything is morall wrong.

I should probably explain this more clearly, and you can feel free to rebuke me if you like, but what if we used a moral standard that inflicting great psychological trauma and pain on another strictly for our pleasure was morally wrong based on the damage it did to the other?

Others may not agree that this is morally wrong, until it happened to them, or their child. Then they probably would. And even if they didn’t, it wouldn’t matter, because there is the possibility they could be insane, stupid, or just plain factually incorrect. It seems to me that to claim that certain things aren’t morally wrong just based on the fact that a few people think they’re ok is to reverse the burden of proof for these kind of claims. It seems to me that the greater the number of people who intuitively recoil at the thought of something, the more the burden should be on the proponent to demonstrate that the action is indeed morally acceptable.

Remember also that although some people may not think certain actions are morally wrong, and some societies may condone things that we feel are wrong, there still may be actions which in every circumstance create trauma and pain, and which are always morally wrong.

Cheers,
gemty

[malachai]

Weel it seems as though most people agree with my thoughts on the matter so I will try to stir the pot with a question.

Why is hate wrong?

If I feel ok about hating a person or goup of persons for any reason, be it religeon or race etc. Then how can it be judged? You may dislike me for my beliefs and even condemn me for them, but it is my perogative and if I feel comfortable with it, then its not wrong.

The KKK (to pick an extreme example) is an illegal organization because it preaches and promotes hatred. So is it wrong? True many people are offended by them and I dont want a historical discussion here, but by the same token their members are comfortable with the statements and agree with them.

Hate crimes are crimes because they are thought to go against the morality of society, but if as it has been said they are comfortable with it and feel true to those edicts, is it immoral ?

[Trevor_W]

we are all the source of our own morality(if we have one) so how can one be superior? by its implication.

when a system of morality is implicated(laws) we can only measure its value in relation to its acceptance by the general public

[WillNZ]

Here’s why I think hate is wrong…

hate=wrong
love=right

morally speaking. A morally good person will choose to have love as right and hate as wrong. The opposite, a morally bad person, will choose to have hate as right and love as wrong. But that seems inhumane to me.

From the evolutionary standpoint, anyone who holds the morally bad person’s viewpoint will be weeded out of evolution by nature. It’s that instinctive bond that holds us together imo. Morals are created to hold together the social fabric of communal humanity.

I have a feeling in less than 50 years someone will be able to answer this question after the research that is going on about human behaviour at the moment. Things are becoming more scientific, and we can hope to have some of these questions answered.