Theory on Morality

When morality and ethics are enforced, they become ritualized, and the purpose for those morals and ethics is usually neglected or simply forgotten.

I have often tried to illustrate that concept in other threads, but I have never been able to just put it all in one easy sentence. My tendency was to add half a dozen paragraphs trying to expand on the concept, when it stands by itself just fine.

I think you got it… almost :smiley:.

Put a few people together, and they’re bound to agree on some rules out of practical concern. That’s a good thing. Even an enforcing entity can be necessary. As long as the rules stay adaptable and grounded in the practice of a community it’s fine. Bottom-up.

Pull them out of context, and make the rules the the most important, the unchangable beginning, metaphysical… and enforce them from above and you’ve got a problem. Top-down.

Agreed. When one speaks of the subject all one needs to know are the words detterence and function.

The enforcement is used as a means of detterence in order to enact a functioning social organization.

That’s all there is to it.

What is interesting is the people that is enacting and enforcing the detterence whereas usually it is those in power that enacts enforcement in order to consolidate their own power because they do not wish for their power to be competed against especially by uncontrolled irregular competition that they themselves cannot regulate.

I would also argue that morality and ethics have a origin in religion where even their modern secular social forms can still be traced to religious customs of our historical past.

I’ve argued this position in the past a great deal.

Absolutely.

This is likely the reason that morality is considered in terms of the usefulness or viability of a respective act rather than the motives that drive the act. Thus robbing “morality” of any real morals – the concept of morality seems more dependent upon utility than any reason or purpose.

A worshipful stance with regard to public morals is indeed a sinful and slavish form of idolatry. Unfortunately, it’s this that is praised and promoted, at the expense of the subtler form of morality, morality as a means to an end (mores for Man, and not Man for mores). The genuinely religious person in all ages was usually considered immoral by the public at large. So we have Diogenes, who openly masturbated in the town square or Jesus the Nazarene, who consistently sided with convicted criminals and personally chased dignified banking cartel representatives with a whip while inside of a holy temple, where so much as rawdy word would normally have been strictly forbidden to any lawabiding person.

-WL

Utility however is subjective considering that different members have different utilities at their disposal in a power structure.

Indeed, but that only tells us the purpose of a moral, not the intent behind it. A focus on ‘utility’ is a focus on a means to an end; but how do we justify the ‘means’ to begin with?

Subjectivity is subjective.

With ritual we try to recreate the past and in this fashion to drive the cycle of time forward to the past… What ever we did last time worked and here we are at new years, and if we do it again, even the part where we end up drunk and stuck in a snow bank, then we can celebrate new years again next year like last year… Look at the calender, and you can see why people practiced ritual behavior at specific times, usually at the extremes, the equinoxes, and solstices… Lent is coming soon… Why would an Anglo Saxon word end up in the Roman Church???The word is seasonal…It may be difficult to hear, but if you say it slowly, you can hear it: Length… The days were growing longer… The wheel of time was turning…

It may be a crude example but often all that we do that turned out well can become ritualize, and ethics is best when it is practiced without thought…It is best as natural behavior…But, people once learned by trial and error, and they were inclined to believe that if they did not punish crime, or immorality, then the Gods would punish with disease…Ethics are aimed at the life and health of society…

I would say you can’t because there is nothing to justify to begin with because that of justification along with all other concepts of justice are illusory and fabricated to being baseless beyond the mind formulating such concepts.

Can you translate that into Sober???

Beyond belief justice does not exist and the illusion of justice comes from it’s very contradictions not to mention justice is somthing litigated from the upper social classes where they implement their form of inequality by legalizing it through various measures of social propaganda which through various forms of litigation than becomes a form of acceptance.

Beyond belief justice does not exist and the illusion of justice comes from it’s very contradictions not to mention justice is somthing litigated from the upper social classes where they implement their form of inequality by legalizing it through various measures of social propaganda which through various forms of litigation than becomes a form of acceptance.
[/quote]
Ob; you are drawing a lot of false conclusions, but I cannot say from where…Yes; we do know justice from its want; but in wanting it we also recognize that the need for it is the need for life, because justice denied is life denied… You are wrong to equate justice with law… According to Abelard; Justice is the Genus, and Law is a species of it…Yet we know from our experience and from history that all that is legal is not just, and so we must conclude that all appearing to be law is not law, because law as a species of justice must result in justice, as law often does not…Clearly Law is a form, and its meaning as a form of justice can be sucked out of it until it is only the coercion of the powerful over the weak, and that will not in the least affect the fact that people need justiice and enough justice to live…