When we make a statement, we often neglect to use the word ‘I’. For instance when we say ‘The sky is blue’. What we really meant is ‘I see the sky is blue’. maybe someone else is seeing it the other color we don’t know. the same thinking applies when someone says ‘killing is wrong.’ what he is really saying is ‘I think killing is wrong’.
Morality is a bunch of rules accepted by some people. One person’s concept of ‘right and wrong’ varies against another. What they dislike they say ‘it’s wrong.’ Morality changes as people change, as society changes, so what I think is wrong today maybe right tomorrow and from different angle
For instance, the act of stealing. For the thief, he thinks he is doing the right thing because he’s getting more he didn’t work for. For the guy being deprived he thinks stealing is wrong because he lost something.
There is nothing as something which is ‘right or wrong’ for all ages, morality is in a constant state of flux. The strong willed impose their version of morality on others. The concept of right or wrong does not exist independent of the person assuming he understands and obeys the rules.
Actually, as a general rule, “if you call a thief a thief, they will blush”. Try it sometime and see what happens, call a person on their immoral actions and see how well they take it. While they usually give some explanation they are also usually pretty angry/embarrassed about it. A recent example on ILP would be the thread on Prostitution. Observe the reactions of DesolateThief and you’ll see an example of what I mean.
As for the sky being blue, you have it backwards. On a clear day (and under the normal conditions that would lead one to say “the sky is blue”), the sky is, in fact, blue. Now, the blue that you or I perceive may in fact be different. What you call blue, I might call red were I to see the world through your eyes. However, since we have both been taught to call this color “blue”, we call it blue, irrespective of the subjectivity of experience.
That is the nice point of defining common experiences – despite the subjectivity of our perception of the event, as long as the event was defined those differences quickly become irrelevant.
Yet it’s neither a constant, nor could there be something that makes it
constant.
If I lived on a farm and was out on vacation, and a man, fleeing from wild dogs ran through my yard, and picked up a pipe owned by me, to help defend himself. In running and swinging he lost it, I would not think it was wrong for that man to steal my pipe. In fact, had he broken into my house to escape them, ate some food, drank some water, and poured some of my best scotch on his wound, I would still not believe it to be wrong.
I think understanding morality is necessary to be moral. I think there are a LOT of immoral people out there who wrongly believe they are moral.
I’m not entirely sure what I mean by that but it sounds good, doesn’t it? (You can disagree).
Morality is primarily about how we humans behave as Singular Entities and within a Group!
Morality is in fact Moralities (Plural! O, I do love, English grammar, even if I sexually abuse English grammar, by shoving my pen up its…rulership!)
Being Moral? What is that? - Certainly, it is not admitting you are bad.
Morality then is a kind of cloak around which people wrap themselves, to keep out the cold harsh reality, of the untamed meat matter within their mind, in varying degrees.
Morality, and the desire to be moral, is a safeguard, against total Madness!
we need to break down your statement. First of all, what does stolen from actually mean? It means being deprived of possessions without consent. What does it mean to be wrong? It means you are not happy. So what you are really saying is that people are unhappy when they are deprived of their possessions without their consent. But why are you unhappy? Because you think you have done nothing to deserve that fate.
Christ said ‘whoever lives by the sword die by the sword’. A Christian thief stole something and later someone steals it back, he may think it is only natural justice for something like that to happen. And he may not think it is wrong to be stolen from. It all depends on your perspective.
Xunzian
what about robin hood?
have you ever watched Jerry Springer?
good point but not the point i was referring to, I was trying to say that there is no external existential fact that is as many believe to be independent of human existence. so morality can not exist independent of humans.
Colinsign
agreed
Xunzian
by law do you mean common law. For instance, the law may say it is ok to commit adultery but as a Christian your law or morality would conflict with the common law. Is that what you are refering to?
Ahhh, but Robin Hood is a legend, isn’t he? That is what makes him such a dashing mystical figure – his ability to redistribute wealth without actually stealing. It reminds me of a passage in the Mencius, where Mencius finishes explaining the role and importance of a King so a minister asks why Mencius also holds an individual who committed regicide as a cultural hero. Mencius replies that the particular person in question committed wanton acts of depravity and was no longer fit to be called anything other than a “robber”. So, regicide can’t be said to have been committed, since they just killed a robber. Robin Hood operates on a similar principle where an agent who restores the mean can’t be said to be criminal.
People mistake individual actions for moral when larger morality deals with not only the actions but the context they are placed in.
As for Jerry Springer, remember, that is a show known for its fights. Jerry Springer thrives on precisely the human faculty I’ve outlined here. That and shameless pandering to humanity’s worst voyeuristic/exhibitionist instincts.
As for “law” I mean any system imposed from without, really. But common law, will suffice. The separation between these is why Robin Hood is no thief, Tang is no regicide.
Morality generally refers to the principles governing proper behavior. If it was just proper behavior, it would be called that. It is implicit as opposed to explicit.
The OP stands, it’s proper relative to what declares what’s proper.
If a society bands together and declares it’s morals and enforces them, that’s grand and all, but it’s still a bunch of individuals choices of what is or is not proper.
Humans are all the same species, and all exist in the same universe, and on the same earth, so yes, it’s not unlikely that we share many if not most of the same beliefs as to what is or is not good for ourselves. But extending that to “good for everyone”, is the leap that not everyone wants to take.
I don’t quite agree, it all depends on how you define a king. If there is a rule saying a king can’t be king if he robs his own people, then you are right. I define king as someone with great power not necessarily for the right reason. Take for instance Machiavelli, he ask the question if it is better for a prince to be fear than loved, and he reckons it’s better for the population to fear the prince than to love him. Not all leaders have popular support, for instance George W Bush, he has lost popular support but he is still the President because he still carries the office until the next election.
What is the mean? Who determines the mean? The rich stole from the poor but not from Robin, so why does he steal from the rich?
Yeah, I agree, it does depend on how you define a king and, more importantly, what you think a king’s authority rests on.
Robin Hood corrected the excess of the rich by returning what they had taken to the poor. Look at the word “revolution”, it means “to turn back” and that is all Robin Hood is doing, turning back the wheel to the point it was at before. Whether or not that is a good thing or not is up for debate, but can such an act be called “stealing”? I think “stealing” really only applies when done for personal gain.
(Now, if we leave the realm of myth, you and I both know that the historical Tang and Robin Hood no doubt benefited greatly from their actions [assuming they even existed] but I am discussing them as mythological entities)
Nice to see another topic opening just as I start mine in the religion forum.
This would jump to the conclusion that every single human being thinks that his possessions have some worth. Any Nihilist, who believes that nothing has any worth or meaning, would necessarily, if he was a true nihilist, not think it ‘wrong’ to be stolen from.
Don’t you think that’s most likely due to social conditioning? They’ve been taught all their life to believe that these things are ‘wrong’, and that they should be highly embarrassed when they commit these ‘wrong’ actions, so even if they don’t actually agree with the rationale that this thing is wrong, they’ll likely display signs of embarrassment anyway?
I agree with your rationale on blueness though, blue just being a word used to denote that particular colour. Though you also seem to be doing old timer a slight injustice, because you also need to similarly analyse the word ‘wrong’. What does this word mean. Does it mean ‘bad for me’, or ‘bad for society’? There’s a difference.
Morality itself can also have different meanings, as has come clear to me from my ‘moral atheism’ thread. A theist generally sees morality as something objective which is handed down to him from something greater than himself - something which he feels draws him upwards. An atheist sees morality as something invented by man to be used as a guide for the organisation of society - a groundwork which he puts into place below him. I think one of the problems of talking about morality is that people generally fail to specify what they particularly mean by the word. Old timer is quite right when he says that, according to atheism (a necessary addition), “morality can not exist independent of humans”.
Morality is not as changable as you have said, but is rather constant.
We once read children moral stories, and at the end of the story would ask, “what is the moral of the story?”. The answer would always be a cause and effect answer. The cause and effect is universal.
“The Little Red Hen”, “The Fox and Grapes”, “The Little Engine that Could” are all moral stories. No one helped the little red hen make her bread, when she asked for help, so she didn’t share her bread. The fox gave up on getting the grapes and grumble that they were probably sour away, and didn’t get the grapes, (created an excuse for his failure, low self esteem). The little engine didn’t give up on getting over the hill, and made it over the hill, ( felt very proud of himself, high self esteem). The moral is the result of the action taken.
I think the problem with our understanding of morality today, is religion, and public schools no longer preparing students to make good moral decisions. Religion would have has believe morals are black and white, and are dictated by God, and the property of religious authority. My friend’s religion goes so far as to teach, without Jesus no one has God or morals. This is very problematic to the understanding of God, morality and democracy. Very problematic!
Galileo and others would argue our perception of matter is in the preceiver, not the matter. This is hugely important, and lead to much debating about what is real. For example, out in space, the sky looks dark and black, instead of blue. The sun looks white instead of yellow. This is because there is so little atmosphere on the moon. There is no scattered light to reach your eyes. We do not percieve the sky, but sunlight as it passes through our attimouspher. Remember sometimes the sky is red. The color depends on which colors are being aborbed by our attimouspher, and a sun flare can fill the sky full of colors, aurora.
Furthermore, if a person is color blind, this person will not precieve the same colors as people who are not color blind.
This also gets tangled up in the debates about morality. From different perceptives, morals may seem different. This can happen when the understanding of moral is too small. Like thinking the sky is blue, because one doesn’t know enough about light and our perception of it.
All this gets tangled up in how we teach people to think. Education for technology is not a complete education for beings capable of thinking, and this is now a huge moral and political problem.
Wow, you are amazing. What an excellent example of a superior understanding of morality. What a great example you are of the importance of literacy. That is the literacy essential to our liberty, and why our Statue of Liberty holds a book for literacy and a torch for enlightenment.