# Morals and their application



## JazzByChas

In a previous thread, we came across the idea of “moral absolutes,” which some may agree with, and some say are a contradiction of terms.  So what, then, in your perception, are morals?  Where do they come from, how do you apply them, and who determines what _*is*_ or _*isn’t*_ moral, and what do morals have to do with what is "right" or "wrong?"
 
Thoughts, please…
 
*(One) Definition (from here )*
 
Mor-al    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (môrl, mr-)
adj.  _Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary. _


----------



## *Cowgirl*

Moral - my definition - what is right, and what is wrong

I think that the individual decides their own morals under the influence of outside pressures ex. family, church, etc


----------



## HDragomiroff

A good rule would be, you can pursue your happiness as long as it doesn't infringe on someone else's rights.


----------



## cuchuflete

HDragomiroff said:
			
		

> A good rule would be, you can pursue your happiness as long as it doesn't infringe on someone else's rights.



This goes nowhere until you define "rights".

Do I have a 'right' to healthcare paid for by the state?  
Lots of people want it. Some countries have it. Some don't.
What makes something a 'right'?

How about something as basic as work?  Is it a right?
Can I have a right to medical care, but lack a right to a job?


----------



## Outsider

I think I agree with **Cowgirl** above (cute username ), but I would add that there are two closely related notions of morals/morality. One is what each individual considers right and wrong, and how he acts. The other is what the society around him considers right and wrong, and how it encourages right behaviours, and discourages wrong behaviours.

It seems to me that, under either definition, morals are relative, in the sense that there is no universal standard from which they can be derived. Individuals, of course, have a very wide range of different opinions on what should and should not be done. And, while most individuals in any given society may share a certain subset of norms (a certain common core morality), we can see that those norms are not the same for all societies, and that they are subject to change within each society. What's considered right, or desirable, here and now, isn't necessarily the same as what's considered right or acceptable half way across the globe, or the same as what was right and acceptable here, a hundred years ago.

Now, some people may object that all this variation simply means that many people, and many societies, have followed the wrong morals. That there is a one, true morality out there which _all_ human beings should adopt. To that I reply: how can I tell a true morality from a false one? Each society seems to believe that theirs is the best morality. Each individual certainly does believe so. If there is an objective way to separate those who are right in their righteousness from those who are wrong in their righteousness, I've never found it.


----------



## JazzByChas

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> This goes nowhere until you define "rights".
> 
> Do I have a 'right' to healthcare paid for by the state?
> Lots of people want it. Some countries have it. Some don't.
> What makes something a 'right'?
> 
> How about something as basic as work? Is it a right?
> Can I have a right to medical care, but lack a right to a job?


 
Intersting point.  What you are talking about, I believe is what is called in governmental terms as "entitlement."  Those are really priveleges.  They are not "owed" to us in the strict application, but they are granted by our government if the populace supports such a thing.  My opinion is that these things begin to be taken advantage of, example in point being welfare.  I am sure this had good intentions originally, but there started to be "welfare mothers" whose job, in the end, was to have babies every year, as they would get more money for every child.  The result, at least was, that they would have no incentive to be productive citizens in their own right.  They just had the "right" to be their own day-care center, and the source of all the children, with government subsidy.

Do I think this is the correct, or moral thing to do?  No...I think you should teach every citizen to be productive and contribute to society.  And luckily, at least presently, we have the "privilege" of being able to obtain jobs.  Making others pay your way in this democracy is taking advantage of those who work hard to support their families, Social Security, and the welfare of this country.

This is reminiscent of the "hippie" counter-culture of bygone years, where "you did your thing, and I did mine, and as long as everyone was happy, all was copasetic."  In the end, all aging hippies had to get a job to support those children "conceived in love."


----------



## HDragomiroff

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> This goes nowhere until you define "rights".
> 
> Do I have a 'right' to healthcare paid for by the state?
> Lots of people want it. Some countries have it. Some don't.
> What makes something a 'right'?
> 
> How about something as basic as work? Is it a right?
> Can I have a right to medical care, but lack a right to a job?


 
I meant rights in a very restricted sense i.e. those contented in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment etc.


----------



## maxiogee

HDragomiroff said:
			
		

> I meant rights in a very restricted sense i.e. those contented in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment etc.



You could  slaughter all the wild animals in Ireland and still be _moral_ if the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is your only guide.


----------



## HDragomiroff

maxiogee said:
			
		

> You could  slaughter all the wild animals in Ireland and still be _moral_ if the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is your only guide.


 
Of course it´s not my guide, but it´s a good point to start, a minimun.

Sorry for my bad English


----------



## cuchuflete

Every time I read somebody declaring something to be

-moral
-absolutely moral
-Right
-Indisputably correct, and not open to question

on the basis of their own sectarian training....

I start to ponder the morality of a wild goose playing the krummhorn in the bathtub on 12 March.


----------



## HDragomiroff

In some Berber tribes slavery is permitted, according to the relativist logic. Slavery is good for them and bad for us. 
If one doesn’t admit the possibility of arriving to universal principles.
How can someone condemn the genocides and the torture? 
What reasons one would have to abolish the slavery and fight against racial discrimination?.


----------



## annettehola

"what, then, in your perception, are morals?"
 
Careful now, careful now..it's a huge and enormously complicated one this one is.
 
Try to be simple, Annette. Alright: It is what I find right as opposed to wrong and vice versa.
 
I like very much the way in which Jazz asked the question because I think *perception* here is a keyword. My moral is the way I _*view*_ things here in life. 
 
My view brings feelings with it. I.e. I see something and I feel something. Then I judge that something.
 
This, to me, is what morals are.
 
And this is, I believe so, the reason all talk about "moral absolutes" is nothing but air in a bottle: A useless concept in a vacuum.
 
I also believe this: That there are areas in Life that morals have no access to. 
 
- Sex
 
- Art
 
- being two. 
 
Reason? I don't know the reason. I just think it's like that. Because sex and art are necessary both of them, but not good nor bad in themselves as such. You know? Of course sex is fantastic but more than that it's transcending all limits. Art as well.
 
Thus, morals needs limits. Sex and art not.
 
That's Annette's opinion on this.


----------



## Outsider

HDragomiroff said:
			
		

> In some Berber tribes slavery is permitted, according to the relativist logic.


Is it according to the relativistic logic that they practice slavery, or according to the absolutist one? When slavery was widespread in the world, a few centuries ago, most people believed in moral absolutes...



			
				HDragomiroff said:
			
		

> If one doesn’t admit the possibility of arriving to universal principles.
> How can someone condemn the genocides and the torture?
> What reasons one would have to abolish the slavery and fight against racial discrimination?


I would argue against slavery on the grounds that all human beings should be free, and given equal chances in life. Slavery creates inequality. In other words, the argument against slavery is the same as the argument for democracy.


----------



## HDragomiroff

I distinguish between morality and ethics. What is moral and immoral depend on time and culture and is very linked to religion. I don’t believe in imposed moralities. Morality is a personal issue. Ethical rules in the other hand try to distinguish what harms the society and the individual throuth reason.


----------



## cuchuflete

Annette said:
			
		

> Thus, morals needs limits. Sex and art not.


And yet...some self-styled "moralists" are so very troubled by
sexy art.  I don't suppose their morality allows for artistic sex, either.


----------



## HDragomiroff

> Is it according to the relativistic logic that they practice slavery, or according to the absolutist one? When slavery was widespread in the world, a few centuries ago, most people believed in moral absolutes...


 


I stated "In some Berber tribes slavery is permitted, according to the relativist logic. Slavery is good for them and bad for us"
Sorry I should have stated "according to relativistic logic slavery is good for them and bad for us". 
 
Sorry for my bad English.


----------



## Outsider

I would rather say that for them slavery is right, and for us (most of us, at least) it's wrong.


----------



## HDragomiroff

Outsider said:
			
		

> I would rather say that for them slavery is right, and for us (most of us, at least) it's wrong.


 
Well, from my point of view it´s unethical because Slavery goes against the universal right of freedom every human being should have. 



> I would argue against slavery on the grounds that all human beings should be free, and given equal chances in life. Slavery creates inequality. In other words, the argument against slavery is the same as the argument for democracy.


----------



## Outsider

_Should_ every human have the fight to be free? I agree, but that's just my opinion. If you agree with me, it's still just two opinions. So, what makes it universal?


----------



## HDragomiroff

Outsider said:
			
		

> _Should_ every human have the fight to be free? I agree, but that's just my opinion. If you agree with me, it's still just two opinions. So, what makes it universal?


 
In the real life this right it´s not universal because they think they are moral, but I think they are unethical.


----------



## maxiogee

annettehola said:
			
		

> Reason? I don't know the reason. I just think it's like that. Because sex and art are necessary both of them, but not good nor bad in themselves as such. You know? Of course sex is fantastic but more than that it's transcending all limits. Art as well.
> 
> Thus, morals needs limits. Sex and art not.



So _*all*_ sexual activity is morally neutral?
And _*all*_ art is morally neutral?


----------



## annettehola

"The fight to be free"....*Wonderful*!

And everyone is entitled to it. It's a right we have.

Annette


----------



## annettehola

"So _*all*_ sexual activity is morally neutral?
And _*all*_ art is morally neutral?"

My answer: Yes. The two activities are to be found beyond morals. That's why they have liberating qualities to them.

Annette


----------



## fenixpollo

maxiogee said:
			
		

> So _*all*_ sexual activity is morally neutral?


Yes.

Sex is a biological function of the human body, which has procreation as its goal. 

It has no inherent moral, ethical, religious or other significance of any kind.


----------



## cuchuflete

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> Yes.
> 
> Sex is a biological function of the human body, *which has procreation as its goal. *
> 
> It has no inherent moral, ethical, religious or other significance of any kind.



I beg to differ.  What you have written may be true for most species, but for humans, the sexual instinct continues past the point at which procreation is feasible.  It's still a biological function, but not limited to procreation.


----------



## fenixpollo

Cuchu -- Do you mean that in most species, the animals stop having sex when procreation is not possible?  

Are you implying that, because human sex is practiced (or not practiced) for reasons other than procreation, it has another significance besides mere reproduction of the species?


----------



## Fernando

I beg to differ from you all. Any human act is subject to moral and sex or art are not beyond morals. Why should be? Introducing my finger in my nose is a natural act that involves me only me (well and my finger and my nose) and most of you probably would make a severe judgement on me and my morality if I perform it in public.


----------



## cuchuflete

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> Cuchu -- Do you mean that in most species, the animals stop having sex when procreation is not possible?
> 
> Are you implying that, because human sex is practiced (or not practiced) for reasons other than procreation, it has another significance besides mere reproduction of the species?



Hi Pollo,
I really don't know about other species..maybe they too do it for pleasure.  Do they stop when they can no longer procreate?
I have no idea!

I turn your question back to you...Given that humans practice sex when procreation is no longer possible, does it have some other "significance besides mere reproduction"?

Pleasure??


----------



## Fernando

Pleasure, expression of love, of ownership, of power,...

but the first (not the only one) end is procreation.

By the way, we are talking about sex and morality.


----------



## GenJen54

Fernando said:
			
		

> Introducing my finger in my nose is a natural act that involves me only me (well and my finger and my nose) most of you probably would make a severe judgement on me and my morality if I perform it in public.


Nosepicking as an immoral act? Hmmmm. While I might judge it as impolite in that it breaks social conventions (if performed in public), I couldn't consider it immoral. Now, if I lived in a society where nosepicking were considered tantamount to having sex with underage children, then yes, in that culture, it might be immoral.  As someone else noted, it's all about perception.

One has to think of the societal constructs that "define" morality. Is morality a personal set of tenets, or is it societal?

As for sex and art, that's another question altogether. 

For the record, I do believe some primate species to participate in "sex" for pleasure. This has been noted in chimpanzees, especially, who even engage in onanistic actitivites and homosexual activities (among males.)

My question to *Annette*, however is this?

If sex is beyond morality, then what do you consider rape? Sex when one partner has been "drugged?" Sex with a child? Sodomy of a minor? Any sexual situation where two adults are NOT consenting?  Are these not immoral, or are these "within the bounds" because sex is beyond morality?

As for art, is pornography, in ALL of its forms and deviations, "art?" Is it moral? (We might have to go into another thread on this one.)


----------



## cuchuflete

Should Fernando or any other person choose to insert a digit in a nostril, I would make no moral assessment.  Let us not confuse morality with mores and conventions.

Scratching one's backside at a formal banquet may be considered inappropriate, but it hasn't anything to do with morality.  It's all about an itch!


----------



## fenixpollo

My point is simply that any given physical act, such as copulation, nose-picking, farting, etc., has no intrinsic moral value. Humans choose the moral value that they wish to attach to such acts. Different individual humans or groups of humans may attach different moral values to the same act. 

I don't mean to argue that we should consider sex as purely a physical act and thereby remove from it any social context (which is an artificial and pointless exercise); I merely wanted to point out that assigning a moral value to sex and other human biological functions is completely arbitrary and subjective.

edit: while mores address convention more so than concepts of right and wrong, the process is the same -- society attaches value to human action.  They are distinct, but not separate ideas.


----------



## annettehola

"I beg to differ from you all. Any human act is subject to moral and sex or art are not beyond morals. Why should be? Introducing my finger in my nose is a natural act that involves me only me (well and my finger and my nose) and most of you probably would make a severe judgement on me and my morality if I perform it in public."

What does picking your nose have to do with morals, sex and art?

I don't follow you at all.

What nonsense.

About art and morals: I hate and abhor "art" written or sung or performed in any other way within the framework of morals. That sort of crap is called "didactic" and has nothing to do with the PLEASURE art and sex can give you. Do you usually read a handbook on how to do it right before you do it? I never do. I just do and enjoy. And, señor, I am pretty sure that's what they do them guys that make art that is good. And sex.

Annette


----------



## Fernando

Not to confuse morality with mores????

While, of course, education convention are not so enforceable or not so universal, its concrete development depends on the social background.


----------



## GenJen54

Annettehola said:
			
		

> About art and morals: I hate and abhor "art" written or sung or performed in any other way within the framework of morals.


 
But what does "in the framework of morals" mean? If an artist - like Van Gogh - is expressing him or her true self, yet the painting is still "moral" to the viewer, is it then bad? Is the only art worth appreciating that which is "immoral?"


----------



## Mei

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Hi Pollo,
> I really don't know about other species..maybe they too do it for pleasure.  Do they stop when they can no longer procreate?
> I have no idea!
> 
> I turn your question back to you...Given that humans practice sex when procreation is no longer possible, does it have some other "significance besides mere reproduction"?
> 
> Pleasure??



Bueno, jeje yo he visto documentales de animales (chimpaces para poner un ejemplo) donde practican el sexo miembros del mismo sexo... y seguramente, no lo sé, ocurre con otras especies. No creo que sea inmoral, sólo es sexo.

Mei


----------



## annettehola

"My question to *Annette*, however is this?

If sex is beyond morality, then what do you consider rape? Sex when one partner has been "drugged?" Sex with a child? Sodomy of a minor? Any sexual situation where two adults are NOT consenting? Are these not immoral, or are these "within the bounds" because sex is beyond morality?

As for art, is pornography, in ALL of its forms and deviations, "art?" Is it moral? (We might have to go into another thread on this one.)"

*Annette tries to answer:*

But GenJen, rape is not sex; actually. Rape is rape which is to force someone to be the object of an attack with a sexual motive. It is absolutely different.
A sexual act takes place, alright, but it is in this case a crime. Because it has been defined as such in the law that society wrote based on democratic rules (hopefully).  I think that kind of law is totally fine.

No, what I meant was something totally different. I wanted to say: Good sex and good art (ooh-ooh, can you see them getting their counter-acts together??..there in the corner..whispering:"Ask her next what "good art" is, ha-ha..") do not require a moral attitude from you. Sex is not a good act and it is not a bad act. It is an act, simply. A pleasant one at that.
It's the same with books and those (us, for ........sake) that write them: It's not a good thing to do. It's not a bad thing to do. It's simply a thing to do. And some feel great liberation and deep pleasure doing it.

Annette


----------



## annettehola

"But what does "in the framework of morals" mean? If an artist - like Van Gogh - is expressing him or her true self, yet the painting is still "moral" to the viewer, is it then bad? Is the only art worth appreciating that which is "immoral?"

You did not see my point, then. 

I say: There is no morals to art. Thus, no work of art can be "immoral." 
Impossible, GenJen.

Art can and should - oh! it MUST - show the face of the one who is behind it. If not, it is sexless and so, totally uninteresting. 
That is not the same as being moral. At all.

What you are on about is whether the viewer attaches a moral definition to a work of art viewed. That's the viewer's problem, man! Not the artist's. How could it possibly be? No-no.

Annette


----------



## JazzByChas

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> I don't mean to argue that we should consider sex as purely a physical act and thereby remove from it any social context (which is an artificial and pointless exercise); I merely wanted to point out that assigning a moral value to sex and other human biological functions is completely arbitrary and subjective.


Sex, in and of itself, which is a physical act, is, in my opinion, morally neutral...discounting rape, which is an act of violence. What transcends this, is, the two humans involved. This can get very complicated, but it basically gets into emotional issues. Sex is used to provide pleasure to someone you care about, especially emotionally. If it is done just for each individual's satisfaction, one or the other or both may feel 'used' at some later point. Like words or body language (no pun intended), sex is a form of _*communication*_ as well, which communicates the intentions of the participants, which, if not motivated by _*love/agape*_ (not lust) for the partner, belie a selfish motivation. And unless your emotions are totally dead, you will react on an emotional level at some point to sex.

Pornography is a similar issue...again sex, per se, is neutral. But the intent of promoters of porn is that arousal and pleasure are the only results of sex...but as stated above, human beings are complex animals, and more that just physical pleasure is involved. Not to mention, porn rather objectifies its participants, losing sight of the humanness of its participants, and making them (emotionless) bodies, who are merely engaging in a pleasurable act.

So morally speaking, sex motivated by lust and physical pleasure only, and porn, are emotionally demeaning, and, I would go so far as to say, emotional abuse.


----------



## emma1968

annettehola said:
			
		

> "
> 
> 
> 
> I also believe this: That there are areas in Life that morals have no access to.
> 
> - Sex
> 
> - Art
> 
> - being two.
> 
> Reason? I don't know the reason. I just think it's like that. Because sex and art are necessary both of them, but not good nor bad in themselves as such. You know? Of course sex is fantastic but more than that it's transcending all limits. Art as well.
> 
> Thus, morals needs limits. Sex and art not.
> That's Annette's opinion on this.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Annette,
> I'm not agree with you.
> Beginning by saying that I consider moral anythink that not limit the others' freedom, I post you a question: who does say that sex and art are not moral?
> only because of most people have this opinion, have I  to think the same?
> Who does force me?
> As exist the free will so exist the free thought and basing on this I definitely can say that my morality is created by my own, by my conscience,with only a limit:
> "don't stomp the others' rights"
> I think in fact the sex become immoral when there is sexsual abuse
> In this case you do stomp the others' freedom.
> For the reasons above said, I also think  "the  euthanasia" must would be   a legal possibility
> However this is another topic.
> 
> That's my viewpoint
> Ciao Emma.
> 
> edit : Sorry Annette I misunderstood your post n.12 without having red the n.23 one
> However my opinion remain the same
> I think art and sex aren't beyond morality, I think they are full inside because  they  are   part   of our  life
Click to expand...


----------



## fenixpollo

JazzByChas said:
			
		

> If it is done just for each individual's satisfaction, one or the other or both may feel 'used' at some later point.
> Maybe, but maybe not.  Maybe they're both very happy with their own satisfaction.
> 
> Like words or body language (no pun intended), sex is a form of _*communication*_ as well,
> Sex is not a form of communication; it's a form of copulation that involves communication.
> which communicates the intentions of the participants, which, if not motivated by _*love/agape*_ (not lust) for the partner, belie a selfish motivation.
> Here you're starting to attach values to sex, by saying that being selfish is wrong, therefore sex with selfish motives is wrong.  Let's open a different thread if you want to debate whether humans are inherently selfish or not, but basically I hold that every human is selfish by nature (cf. self-preservation).
> 
> Not to mention, porn rather objectifies its participants, losing sight of the humanness of its participants, and making them (emotionless) bodies, who are merely engaging in a pleasurable act.
> More values?  Is objectification of humans wrong?
> 
> So morally speaking, sex motivated by lust and physical pleasure only, and porn, are emotionally demeaning, and, I would go so far as to say, emotional abuse.


 Your conclusion: sex for pleasure is wrong.  Sex for communication, for relationship-building is right.  What about sex for procreation?  Is it wrong for two humans to have sex just to make babies?


----------



## JazzByChas

Mr. Pollo said:
			
		

> Your conclusion: sex for pleasure is wrong.


_*NO..sex for selfish pleasure is wrong...emotionally speaking*_





			
				Mr. Pollo said:
			
		

> Here you're starting to attach values to sex, by saying that being selfish is wrong, therefore sex with selfish motives is wrong


 
*Well, this thread is about Morals, and morals, by definition, deal with goodness, badness, character, and by extension, values.*




			
				Mr. Pollo said:
			
		

> _*What about sex for procreation? Is it wrong for two humans to have sex just to make babies?*_



_*Of course sex for procreation is not wrong...that was its original purpose. Now if those two people are teenagers, and just making babies and not caring for them later, and expecting the teen-aged mother, for example, and her family to raise it, I believe that is irresponsible on the biological father's part. It cheats both parties of their childhood, and puts an added burden on the mother, her family and society.*_


----------



## maxiogee

annettehola said:
			
		

> "So _*all*_ sexual activity is morally neutral?
> And _*all*_ art is morally neutral?"
> 
> My answer: Yes. The two activities are to be found beyond morals. That's why they have liberating qualities to them.
> 
> Annette



Sexual acts between adults and children are morally neutral?
Pornography is morally neutral?

Sorry Annette, but I can't agree with you. *Everything* has limits.


----------



## JazzByChas

Now that I have digested these thoughts for a while, it seems that I come to this conclusion:

Things, bodily functions, and events in nature are morally neutral.

Unfortunately, human beings are not:  we have wants, needs, emotions, and agendas...whatever they may be.  Whenever two human beings interact with each other, there are "values" being projected back and forth.  No matter what each considers "right" or "wrong", "moral" or "amoral", each wants their agenda to be met to some degree or another, even if it is meeting they perceive to be the needs/agenda of the other person.  So "morals" must alway come into play when humans interact.  Otherwise, we are just physical beings, with no capability to think, feel, love, or communicate.


----------



## emma1968

JazzByChas said:
			
		

> Things, bodily functions, and events in nature are morally neutral.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree!!
> there are actions that my conscience tell me not to do, such as pornography,
> but I don't even consider who does pornograrphy as doing something immoral, at the other hand I bet  that there are persons who consider as immoral that kind of actions.
> After having done things I often say : "I done it and I feel morally in piece with my consciense".
> So I think, who does pornography  says the same, otherwise why do it?
> I don't  think  they say :  "I  can  do it  because is morally neutral"
> 
> Probably it's a different way to see things, not from a objective viewpoint but from a  subjective  one
> Because if there are actions objectively considered from the society as morally neutral but there also are subjects that feel morally in piece doing these actions, this means that these actions are not neutral at.
> 
> This is what I think very difficult for me  to explain in English but I felt
> I had to do
> Emma.
Click to expand...


----------



## Jpinzon

I think moral are the principles you learn from your parents, for example. being loyal, honest and faithful....and the way you apply them is your choice.


----------



## annettehola

Hi to all...

Thanks for not agreeing. Now we can discuss.

You know this feeling that you feel something to be very true and yet you find it hard to define just what that something is?
I feel like that.

Now we speak about sex and art. But in what way? What is your point of departure on these matters? And what is mine?

If you have gotten it into your head that I am of the opinion that in sex and in art all goes in a limitless sort of soup, just mix whatever you want and let's see what we get, then you have only grasped part of what I believe on these matters. I said - and say - that they *descend beyond* morality. It is not the same, no. And, in fact, I was talking about the *act of creating, not the outcome*. To descend - or ascend - beyond something implies that you've been where that something is. You just got further, that's all.

"I had great sex yesterday," says whoever. Good, and what does that mean? In my opinion you can't have good sex without giving good sex.
You create what is good for you, both when it involves only you and also others.

"Art" is a Greek word. It means "Ability" or "Skillfulness." So, to follow this line of thought, art is to be good at something. To be able. To be able to do something well.

It is nothing, nothing more than that.

Nor less.

What is it like, then, to be good at something?

What I know is just this: When I love something, that something gives me pleasure. I do it again and again and one more time again because I really feel like doing it. I get absorbed by it. I want more. Just doing and doing and doing. Till there is no more energy in me. Then I wait till tomorrow or whenever that feeling comes over me anew. Sometimes you have to wait for long, sometimes that feeling comes right back the moment after. There is no controlling it.

I don't know what to call it. No idea.

Sex and art....Can you recognise your desire, then, in the description? I can. That's exactly how I feel about things that I like. I can't force them to appear. I can enjoy them only when they choose to appear. And when they do, time and the world disappear.

And with it: Morals.

Sex and Ability....a mixture between what is of the world and what is not. It's physical and it's *magical*. At the same time. Obviously it takes two or more bodies of this here world to have sex. And obviously it takes paper to write (on) and canvas to paint (on). And there is paper that is *good* for you and _*bad*_ for you and with canvas it's the same. Just as there are theatres with the *right* and the _*bad*_ acoustics. But you can change what is wrong or bad to you with Ability. If you are good at sex and you're having and giving it in an uncomfortable place, you can change the uncomfortable place into a matter of no importance at all by being good at doing.

Art...writing; fx. The French has this fine expression: "La mot juste."
Translation? "The word that is *right*/ that _*fits*_ in/ _*THE*_ word.

*But "right" here is not "morally right."* 
It's "emotionally right," maybe.
It's what you feel to be right just there.
And this is something morals cannot define.


We were talking about different things: You; of the result. I; of the getting there, the process. The doing. I maintain that to be beyond morals.

Annette


----------



## annettehola

"Pornography is morally neutral?"

Yes, of course it is.

It is money.

Money is also neutral.

Where morals come in here is when speaking of your attitude towards it, the way you use or abuse it.

Pornography is what you want it to be. In itself it is nothing.

Denmark, by the way, was the first country in the world to legalise pornography. The sale and the buying of it.

I think, that's just fine.

Annette


----------



## JazzByChas

Emma1968 said:
			
		

> there are actions that my conscience tell me not to do, such as pornography,


 
Like I said in post #44, sex is morally neutral.  But the people involved are the catalysts for the moral reactions.  I personally think that people who perpetuate pornography don’t realize they are demeaning and dehumanizing the participants.  If they were just animals or beings with no conscience or feelings, moral neutrality could be considered.  As I observe nature, I notice that most animals will try to “couple” with others without “thought” or “care” for with whom or why.  But human beings seem to have feelings and emotions, and somewhere down deep they realize that porn is just emotional abuse, really.  I can’t say that I find flaunting your sexual experience and dehumanizing it are a desirable thing to do.  It makes you an exhibitionist, to be sure.  Yes, the participants express pleasure of the physical variety...the desired reaction is always visceral.  

In the end, porn makes us *things* that merely *act* and not think, express emotions, or feel.  but I would like to think that we as human beings are capable of better than that.


----------



## annettehola

So why apply any morals to it?

Annette


----------



## cuchuflete

If pornography is immoral, what about puritanism?  It denies things that exist, for biological reasons, and which have no inherently moral aspect.  Thus, puritanism is dishonest.  Is dishonesty immoral?


----------



## maxiogee

The pornography may be morally neutral - I'm unconvinced, but the process of its production certainly isn't. Nor is its effect on the consumer. In both there is a dehumanization and an objectification of the participants, and a presentation of world view which is both demeaning and threatening to women.
Anything which does that can not be morally neutral.


----------



## nycphotography

JazzByChas said:
			
		

> In the end, porn makes us *things* that merely *act* and not think, express emotions, or feel.


 


			
				maxiogee said:
			
		

> The pornography may be morally neutral - I'm unconvinced, but the process of its production certainly isn't. Nor is its effect on the consumer. In both there is a dehumanization and an objectification of the participants, and a presentation of world view which is both demeaning and threatening to women.
> Anything which does that can not be morally neutral.


 
Although WE may merely act, and not think, emote, or feel and porn may be a tool we use to that end, porn itself, does nothing.

By projecting our weaknesses and failings off onto external objects, whether those objects are people, places, things, circumstances or events, we ultimately rob from ourselves our sense of power.

Producing porn (in a free will setting) cannot reduce a woman to an object. The woman has to reduce herself to an object. Period. To say that porn itself reduces her, is to rob her of her own power to be herself.

The world is full of evils, injustices and inequities that I wish I could fix. Pornography may be a result of many of them but it's the cause of none, althogh if I could fix them all then pornography would go extinct as well (from a lack of both demand and of supply).


----------



## Outsider

Does everybody here really think that pornography as a whole, or sex as a whole, can be classified as either "good" or "bad"? Wouldn't it be better to focus on particular acts under particular contexts, and judge those?


----------



## fenixpollo

The point is whether we are judging or not judging particular acts or types of acts in general.  Assigning a moral value to something means judging it to be bad or good.  Nothing is inherently bad or good until you look at specific acts in specific situations, from a certain point of view.


----------



## annettehola

"Is dishonesty immoral?"

This question is superb.

Dishonesty is not right. Thus, it is wrong. Thus;.......moral...-ly....unacceptable......
......................
- HEY! "Immoral" and "morally unacceptable"..Different or the same thing??

I'm damned if I know!

NO! I think there is a difference. "Immoral," to me, is a word that comes out of the religious channel on the radio or something spinsters say. It has this terrible auntie Mildred-tone to it. You know? "No, I reeeeeaaly can't have you stay the night, no. No, I caaan't. What wouldn't the neeiiighbors say? No, it's immoral. I am not having it."

BVADR!

Whereas "morally unacceptable" is, perhaps, another word for "wrong."

Killing is not immoral. Neither is rape. Nor stealing. They are morally unacceptable. They are wrong. And so is dishonesty.

I think so this morning.

Annette


----------



## maxiogee

annettehola said:
			
		

> "Immoral," to me, is a word that comes out of the religious channel on the radio or something spinsters say.



Does this mean that the word "immoral" has no valid meaning to you?


----------



## annettehola

Yep. So it is with me.

Annette


----------



## annettehola

I want to know if anyone knows of this: What is the meaning of the word "Pornography" or "Porno"?

I am unable to find it in any dictionary I have at hand at this moment in time. And it's very relevant.

Help me know!

Thanks.


----------



## Ratona

From the free dictionary

*por·nog·ra·phy* http://javascript<b></b>:play('P0451600')(pôr-n-f) 
_n._ *1. *Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.
*2. *The presentation or production of this material.
*3. *Lurid or sensational material: _"Recent novels about the Holocaust have kept Hitler well offstage _[so as]_ to avoid the ... pornography of the era"_ _Morris Dickstein_


----------



## annettehola

Thanks, that's not what I meant. I meant this: Where does *the word* "pornography" come from? What is/are its roots?

It's extremely interesting to see what's in the word, I think.

Annette


----------



## Ratona

Pornographer, Pornography

These words are from Greek _pornographos_ "writing about harlots", from _porne_ "harlot".  In English _pornography_ referred primarily to ancient Greek and Roman texts of that subject.

(from takeourword.com)


----------



## annettehola

HOW interesting, Ratona!

I now really have some storm in my head..I think about Harlequin and commedia del arte and lovers and Columbine and prostitutes and..tomorrow maybe there will be more order in it all..

Harlots..writing about harlots...the word "pornography" has changed a lot in meaning over the years, then..it has even been infected with morals and immorals and what not. I bet the word, from the beginning, was just a concept to describe the activity of those that "wrote about harlots." 
No morals involved. Who gave "pornography" a moral mask to wear?
Religion? Or what?

Tomorrow...-

Annette


----------



## zebedee

Annette,

You're taking the thread off-topic here by sidetracking onto sex and the origins of the word pornography. Please don't hijack the thread for your personal musings.

Lets get back to the topic on hand:



			
				JazzbyChas said:
			
		

> what, then, in your perception, are morals? Where do they come from, how do you apply them, and who determines what _*is*_ or _*isn’t*_ moral, and what do morals have to do with what is "right" or "wrong?"


 
Thanks,
zebedee
Culture Moderator


----------



## cuchuflete

> *1.* what, then, in your perception, are morals?
> *2.* Where do they come from,
> *3.*how do you apply them,
> *4. *and who determines what _*is*_ or _*isn’t*_ moral,
> *5. *and what do morals have to do with what is "right" or "wrong?"


 
1- Morals are commonly held assumptions about what sorts of behavior are acceptable and unacceptable.  In societies in evolution, that is, those not stagnating under dictatorships of religious or military nature, there are usually numerous and conflicting notions of what behaviors are acceptable.  Some values seem to endure change rather well, and become ingrained in a society as "morals", while others prove, by their ephemeral nature, to be "fashions" rather than morals.


2- Typically they come from an ill-remembered past time.  Selective memory on the part of every generation makes prior generations more "moral".  When I was a child, the advent of Rock and Roll music was condemned as "immoral" by those who had danced the Foxtrot and the Lindy as youths,
when Jazz was condemned as "immoral" by the parents of those who called Rock "immoral".  

3- I personally apply my morals in my own behavior, and try to share them with my family.  

4- Each individual makes their own determination.  The state may declare something legal or illegal, and sundry religious zealots try to shove their notions of morality down the throats of the willing and unwilling, the thinking and unthinking, alike.
Political parties, those most immoral devotees of power, use words like "moral" and "immoral" at every opportunity, while ignoring morality in their daily practice.

5- see #1.


----------

