[fluff]

A posting by Kahuna in the 'What right do smileys have in my life' thread got me thinking. Our (Western) morals are based more or less on Christian beliefs. However, given that there is an ever increasing number of non-believers within Western society where should we base our future moral code?

Kahuna mentioned a conversation he had with a women who stated that the 'is no right or wrong' and she attempted to explain that with Karma etc, but as Kahuna pointed out, if you are talking about good and bad karma then there is a judgment involved and hence an intrinsic moral code.

From the examples he gave (rape, child abuse, etc) there are clearly many things that I personally would consider wrong (and I can think of many other examples). However there are also some things that are illegal that I personally do not consider bad, for example marijuana usage.

The thought occurred to me that if you based a moral code on the following precepts how would it work practically and how would it compare to what we currently have?

Basically if we could judge base a moral code on the responses of those effected by the action we would still see such things as rape, chld abuse, murder, theft, violence as wrong, but we may see other things change.

Does anybody else see merit in this (admittedly unlikely) scheme, or are there gigantic flaws that I have missed in my intense 30 seconds of thought?

 

[shocktower]

I wish I had those grammer skills ,I thing morality should be onlong the lines of humane behaviour (sp?) or what should be acceptable ,and if you break the human code you should pay for it ,I really think the chuches ideas are for them selfs and they don`t even follow their own rules so I say Fock`em

 

[Jr_Bullit]

Actually I've found through research and study that even though we get into wonderful fights and battles over various moral codes, essentially the majority of human societies follow the same basic moral code.

It's when you get down to the finer points, such as how infractions should be punished, what happens the person who did bad, vs. what happens to the person who had bad done to them, that you find the differences in societies.

There are also some differences as to how some cultures view different things. For example, Christians tend to be much more uptight about sex then other cultures, and there are other cultures that are even MORE uptight than Christians. But then, as we all know, sex always screws everything up unless you plan to be with that person for a long time to come, or the rules of the game are clearly stated and understood by all parties prior to engaging in any specific acts.

Hrm...okay shutting up now...

 

[Serial Midget]

Sex, money and the mass marketing of American popular culture. Damn - looks like the future is here. Did you want some fries with that?

 

[$tinkle]

"modern morality" maybe should be "modern legality", if you believe that morals are timeless (as i). IMO, the gub'ment shouldn't legislate morality, you should equip your kids if you're so concerned for their future. They'll be walking our path one day, eh?

I think i have a very good idea why bush-haters hate bush, rush, dr laura, et al. (hint: it ain't the "lies", "hypocrisy", or judgment leveled)

jr_bullit, you are wise beyond years when you say "sex always screws everything up" (especially that weird kind)

 

[LordOpie]

Karma is crap. Karma is for the weak.

Don't do the "right" thing cuz you're afraid of Karma biting you in the ass. Do the right thing cuz it's "right"... not so some mystical force won't snap your fork on your next huck cuz you didn't stop to lend your pump to a guy who forgot his.

 

[Jr_Bullit]

Karma may be a bag of horse poopie, and so may the "law of returns" but most people, when doing something inherently wrong or bad to another person, acknowledge that within themselves....and thus bad stuff comes back to you whether you want it to or not

Me personally, I can almost always count on bad stuff happening in threes....followed by something wonderful! It's a nasty little cycle.

Anyways - I just got bad news. So I'm out.

 

[LoboDelFuego]

The law of returns actually does work. Its part of chaos theory. It doesnt mean that if you rape someone you will subsequently be raped, but it states that if you do someithng wrong and harm someone else, either they may harm another or someone will be harmed in trying to remedy or mediate the initial harm. So when you do something bad you essentially "pass it on" and corrupt society.

The problem is, if you already live in a crappy society, and other people are doing bad things, it goes through you and eveybody else before it comes back to hit them, even if you are a good person (and sometimes even more so). So yes, doing bad things is bad for everybody and therefore bad for you. karma.

Most moral codes are based on biological fears. We fear being killed, murder is a sin. We fear being robbed, looting is a sin. We like to have power, so we invent the concept of rights and powers. We want to be able to rely on others and not be solitary, so honor and justice are important. These things are common to all cultures and the only things different are the "covers". Its the same frame with different paintjobs.


edit: spelling

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Originally posted by LordOpie
Karma is crap. Karma is for the weak.

Don't do the "right" thing cuz you're afraid of Karma biting you in the ass. Do the right thing cuz it's "right"... not so some mystical force won't snap your fork on your next huck cuz you didn't stop to lend your pump to a guy who forgot his.

hmm, seems you are familiar with the behavioral-punishment system???...

hello religions???? what makes this different from going to hell, of being condemned for your sins, and blablabla.... or any other imaginary system ?

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

i gues morality should be based upon ethics.

am partially an utilitarian, i define good as what is the best for the most, with some restrictions. i think it was kant who went thru all these thinking quite a few years ago.

morality is a relative concept to those who live by it. its subject to change, as human needs and awareness change.

so far, our morality is given by our laws, which are not exactly based on christian laws, because christians "borrowed" those from the jews. in fact the basic dont kill, dont steal have been around long before christianity, and are not exclusive of the western world.

there is a lot to learn from kant.

 

[slein]

the human race, and this world for that matter, needs another rebirth. we've come too far to keep relying on stuff and stories from ages ago. relying on past morals is hampering the effective progress of our entire civilisation.

there are many new "trains of thought" out there, and a good one to sum it up is sustainable development. karma can have a place in this. greed is killing us, and there is little moral justice on this issue. consuming more than what we need is killing the planet. and driving cars instead of riding bikes is a pipe dream too. our moral values based on antiquated belief systems are not solving the problems, since these problems have outgrown the capability of our moral system. if we take less and use less, perhaps even produce less, then our civilization and fragile (yet resilient) planet may have a future.

entropy is also increasing. chaos is everywhere, so our best answers in theories may not always come out in practice. there's always something that we don't know, and we suppose it. we don't sense it yet, and until we do, we use our system and the notion that judging post-incident is the only solution to our problem. i say fix the problem first, and get rid of morals - they obviously cause as much hurt and harm as crime does.

 

[DaKahuna]

I'm glad to see this thread going fairly civily so far, I'll try not to rock the boat too bad.

Morals are timeless. Everyone would agree that man will never fully understand the universe he lives in. Our long established moral code is designed to be bigger than us, we can't outgrow it. What these alternative theories all seek to do is to deny one part or another of the wisdom that has been here since the beginning of time, and will last through all time. This is always to the detriment of mankind in the long run.

Fluff -
I believe that trying to determine all possible consequences for any given action is impossible. Basing an entire system on that concept would be as well.

Shock -
I agree that through the centuries "the church" and its leaders have used and abused its position as moral leader for its own benefit and for the oppression of many people (all in the name of God!). That's why I won't be any part of the established church system. But it doesn't change the truth that has been passed down through the written record of the history of man.

Alexis -
"What is best for the most" = mob rule. Not good. You still have to have a way to judge what = best. How do you do that without a moral code? Who gets to make the judgement on that in a mob rule situation?
Morality is relative to a person's needs? That's actually a very scary thought.

slein -
I honestly don't believe that our problems have outgrown the capabilities of the moral system. Only our willingness to enforce it has. When there are no longer sufficient consequences for breaking the law, lawlessness abounds, with not enough people willing to stop it. This has been an ever progressing downward spiral of moral decadence for so long that I agree with you on one thing.... I don't know if society as we know it can ultimately survive, it may have to die the death of anarchy before we realize what right and wrong are again and return to a sustainable moral system.

Opinions humbly offered for your consideration, or ridicule, or whatever.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Originally posted by DaKahuna

Alexis -
"What is best for the most" = mob rule. Not good. You still have to have a way to judge what = best. How do you do that without a moral code? Who gets to make the judgement on that in a mob rule situation?
Morality is relative to a person's needs? That's actually a very scary thought.

Opinions humbly offered for your consideration, or ridicule, or whatever.

hmm, best for the most, a mob rule?? i also said with some limitations,

i mean, strictly and without limitations, its in the better interest of society to kill one healthy person to harvest organs to save 10 others. is this right?? obviously nope, thats were the limiation lays. as far as overall satisfacion doesnt run over someones rights (at least elemental), then give it a go.

democracy kinda works like that. thing are done the way most people wants them to be. a mob rule. thats not necesarily bad.

how u define best? easily, as the most beneficial for most. how u define beneficial?? easily, what causes the most benefit, whats benefit? what enriches rather than the opposite. the chain is ilimited, but u get the point.

morality is relative to people (as a group) needs, not to a singular persons need. morality is a set of parameter supposed to be applied equally to everybody.

its not scary, since if morality changes, the change is everyone, not just for some. and morality has changed a lot, as response to the need of people as a society.
some inmoral behaviors are moral now, and some moral behaviors are inmoral now. they change in time for everybody, not only for some while they stay the same for others.