What is your morality and where does it come from?
- Thread starter Swift
- 39 comments
- 1,297 views
- 5,080
- Panama City, FL
danoff
That doesn't give the poor the right to victimize the rich.
A possible exception would be, of course, if the poor perceive themselves as being victimized by the rich. Then you get things like the French Revolution or the overthrow of the Czars, but these are societal instances, not individual.
Sage
Staff Emeritus
- 12,533
- United States
- GTP_Sage
Social contract. Morality means nothing to animals thus they ruthlessly kill each other and tend to do some very counterproductive things. Because we are able to rationalize, weve decided that its in our best interests to have morals so that we can carry out the Social Contract (in hopes of not having to worry about others killing us, being able to grow as a society through productive means, etc.).
Morals give our life more meaning than killing and sleeping.
Morals give our life more meaning than killing and sleeping.
Rogue Ssv
(Banned)
- 1,448
Damn. I actually had an answer to this.
I dont know what 'social contract' is, but building off what the wise, wise Sage says, morality is what seperates us from animals.
Its what keeps GTP alive, keeps us relatively safe, and prevents a dramatic rise in the already scarily high number of murders, rapes, robberies, and other crimes that happen every day.
Without morals, we would be in a state of anarchy, which, although it might be fun for some time, (free xBox360s!!!), would soon lead to our demise. Without morals, we wouldnt have laws. Without laws we wouldnt have government. Without government, we would have anarchy. And along with anarchy, would come useless and ruthless crime and prejudice.
Black people would still be slaves, unless they revolted and went on a killing spree, the Ku Klux Klan would still exist and probably be pretty popular, Chinese people would still be treated like crap in America and forced to build railroads, jobs and businesses would evaporate like smoke, and with these businesses would go new developments, medicines, and entertainment, and with the nonexistent jobs would come people not only freely stealing and killing, but being FORCED to, at the very least, steal daily for food and other needs.
Nothing would stop us. We would kill each other. Only the best would survive. I would be dead by now. All of our houses would be burnt down, our computers stolen, and GTP vandalized.
Well, thats one scenario. The one without morals. The other one, with morals, would be the exact opposite, except for a relatively small amount of people who have no or very bad morals, and still live by those above rules.
As for the 'animals have no morals' statement, I kind of disagree. Animals may not have morals, and may have less reason to, but they still live by some general social rules and traditions. Maybe not morals, but they still all do those things.
Then again, think of how many animals just eat their mates or mothers.
Aww, I thought that would be longer.
Hmm, that was better a post than I first expected, but in the end it was worse.
I dont know what 'social contract' is, but building off what the wise, wise Sage says, morality is what seperates us from animals.
Its what keeps GTP alive, keeps us relatively safe, and prevents a dramatic rise in the already scarily high number of murders, rapes, robberies, and other crimes that happen every day.
Without morals, we would be in a state of anarchy, which, although it might be fun for some time, (free xBox360s!!!), would soon lead to our demise. Without morals, we wouldnt have laws. Without laws we wouldnt have government. Without government, we would have anarchy. And along with anarchy, would come useless and ruthless crime and prejudice.
Black people would still be slaves, unless they revolted and went on a killing spree, the Ku Klux Klan would still exist and probably be pretty popular, Chinese people would still be treated like crap in America and forced to build railroads, jobs and businesses would evaporate like smoke, and with these businesses would go new developments, medicines, and entertainment, and with the nonexistent jobs would come people not only freely stealing and killing, but being FORCED to, at the very least, steal daily for food and other needs.
Nothing would stop us. We would kill each other. Only the best would survive. I would be dead by now. All of our houses would be burnt down, our computers stolen, and GTP vandalized.
Well, thats one scenario. The one without morals. The other one, with morals, would be the exact opposite, except for a relatively small amount of people who have no or very bad morals, and still live by those above rules.
As for the 'animals have no morals' statement, I kind of disagree. Animals may not have morals, and may have less reason to, but they still live by some general social rules and traditions. Maybe not morals, but they still all do those things.
Then again, think of how many animals just eat their mates or mothers.
Aww, I thought that would be longer.
Hmm, that was better a post than I first expected, but in the end it was worse.
- 2,734
- AndrewPaul
danoff
It's an interesting question... a 'desert island' scenario comes to mind: 20 or so people lost on a desert island, and if only three or four people were to actually own the only water and food that exists there and refuse to share it, would it be 'immoral' or 'unjust' for the rest of the people to take (steal) it? I want to say no.
However, in an society where everyone generally has the same opportunities from the start, if only a few become rich and the majority stay poor, then no, it's not moral for the poor to take what the rich don't want to give.
- 23,800
- Philippines
There is quite a bit of difference between Morality, Justice and Altruism.
Stepping away from my personal sense of ethics for a minute.
Morality and Ethics are concepts which are entirely relative and act to preserve or protect a society or social system. An act becomes moral or immoral based on the accepted norms of the society. Its ethicality (?) is determined by the impact it has on others and upon the fabric of the society in question.
In the desert island case, it's unethical for a small group to try to starve the larger social group according to the group's internal ethical rules, but it may be perfectly ethical from the point of view of that smaller group, which is trying to ensure its own survival.
Justice is an absolute and is abstract in nature. Simply, justice hinges upon the concepts of laws and rights, and whether the application of justice within a society is ethical is entirely dependent upon your point of view or social orientation. For some, the death penalty may be ethical, as a means of redressing wrongs and protecting the society from further harm. For others, it may be unethical, partially for sentimental reasons, partially as it is a waste of a potential future contributor to the advancement of society (if you believe the "criminal" in question can be reformed).
I don't believe that "Justice" is ever entirely "Just", as it stems from a set of arbitrary rules that are perceived as universal, but clearly can't be.
Complete altruism may not be possible in the real world. I think it would only work if it were guaranteed of all members of society. It would be nice, though.
Stepping away from my personal sense of ethics for a minute.
Morality and Ethics are concepts which are entirely relative and act to preserve or protect a society or social system. An act becomes moral or immoral based on the accepted norms of the society. Its ethicality (?) is determined by the impact it has on others and upon the fabric of the society in question.
In the desert island case, it's unethical for a small group to try to starve the larger social group according to the group's internal ethical rules, but it may be perfectly ethical from the point of view of that smaller group, which is trying to ensure its own survival.
Justice is an absolute and is abstract in nature. Simply, justice hinges upon the concepts of laws and rights, and whether the application of justice within a society is ethical is entirely dependent upon your point of view or social orientation. For some, the death penalty may be ethical, as a means of redressing wrongs and protecting the society from further harm. For others, it may be unethical, partially for sentimental reasons, partially as it is a waste of a potential future contributor to the advancement of society (if you believe the "criminal" in question can be reformed).
I don't believe that "Justice" is ever entirely "Just", as it stems from a set of arbitrary rules that are perceived as universal, but clearly can't be.
Complete altruism may not be possible in the real world. I think it would only work if it were guaranteed of all members of society. It would be nice, though.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,058
- Mile High City
niky
It would be the worst kind of torture I can possibly think of. To live in a world without logic, without justice, where I am a slave to every person I see, subservient to even the least deserving member of society... I'd fight it to the death. Because I'd rather die than live like that.
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
If the society has a situation where you can define a least deserving member then it is not truly altruistic.danoff
Similar threads
