# morals herding society stuff...



## Benjy

Morality is herd instinct in the individual.
- Friedrich Nietzsche 

i noticed this in a members signature a second ago. i was wondering if we could discuss it 

i guess more than question whether he is wrong or right, i want to know whether you think morality is a positive or negative force.

see, the way i understand what he saying is this: morality is the set of rules which society needs to function. when morality breaks down society/the herd doesnt tend to work so well. hence its not to much of a jump to say that morality represents the herd instint, or deisre to bandy together and survive. now obviously this is a odds with religion, which says things are absolutely right or wrong. but absolutes dont make for a good debate.

from what i understand of nietzsche he thought morality was a bad thing and that it binds us down and prevents us from moving on. from becoming "supermen". i would contest that. i think the evolution which he proposes is impossible. i really dont think we will ever get away from the fact that we need to live together and for that to happen  we need rules. we have all seen the results of what happens when "morailty" or the fabric of society breaks down, its usually not pretty.

any thoughts?


----------



## modgirl

Benjy said:
			
		

> now obviously this is a odds with religion, which says things are absolutely right or wrong.


 
That may be true for some religions, but it is inaccurate to paint the entity of religion with the same brush stroke.


----------



## rob.returns

Benjy said:
			
		

> Morality is herd instinct in the individual.
> - Friedrich Nietzsche
> 
> from what i understand of nietzsche he thought morality was a bad thing and that it binds us down and prevents us from moving on. from becoming "supermen". i would contest that. i think the evolution which he proposes is impossible. i really dont think we will ever get away from the fact that we need to live together and for that to happen we need rules. we have all seen the results of what happens when "morailty" or the fabric of society breaks down, its usually not pretty.


 
Amen to that! Moralist dont exist because they want to have war. They simply don't want us to cross the line. That border that tells us, that we have a soul, that we are human. That we need to stay with our norms and morality.

Just look at the world today, we are fractured, broken, and lost. We have advancements in science and technology, but how are we as a race? Wars, political turmoil, civil predicaments. I would grade humanity as failure. Somethings right with the world today...AND EVERYBODY KNOWS ITS WRONG.

I could give a lot of examples wherein morality is an issue. Like abortion, euthanasia, genetic engineering, atomic testing, and a lot more. MOre than ever, we have cross a lot of lines, made a lot of leaps. But where are we right now? Its a prerequisite that we must know our limits, where we belong. The essence of being a human is to be what we are, as we are, erring but keeping it together. and not "be like GOd" or "act like God".

Just another post.


----------



## cuchuflete

Benjy said:
			
		

> Morality is herd instinct in the individual.
> - Friedrich Nietzsche
> whether you think morality is a positive  or negative force.
> 
> see, the way i understand what he saying is this: morality is the set of rules which society needs to function. when morality breaks down society/the herd doesnt tend to work so well. hence its not too much of a jump to say that morality represents the herd instint, or deisre to bandy together and survive. now obviously this is a odds with religion, which says things are absolutely right or wrong. but absolutes dont make for a good debate.
> 
> from what i understand of nietzsche he thought morality was a bad thing and that it binds us down and prevents us from moving on. from becoming "supermen". i would contest that. i think the evolution which he proposes is impossible. i really dont think we will ever get away from the fact that we need to live together and for that to happen we need rules. we have all seen the results of what happens when "morailty" or the fabric of society breaks down, its usually not pretty.
> 
> any thoughts?



Thoughts?  ok, a few, in random order.

- I agree with modgirl...some religions are more flexible than others.
- herd instinct? maybe, but two other possibilities
...1. some aspects of what we call morality, such as the incest taboo, come from herd behaviour in a primitive, biological sense. Some things simply don't work for the survival of a healthy herd;
...2. Morality can be and historically has been imposed. In that case, it doesn't originate in the desire of the herd to survive; rather it is the desire of each individual to survive. Herd survival is a consequence.

What do I mean by imposition of morality? Religions have been at it for thousands of years, often in alliances with political and military power groups. They taught, with a spear or sword for encouragment, obedience to the religious hierarchy, for one easy example. 

Most people think it is immoral to tell lies, to be deceitful and untrustworthy. Is this a result of herd instinct, or has it been imposed?
I don't know.

Theft is also generally considered not only criminal...against the codified legal expressions of morality....but immoral in a non-legal sense. This appears to be a moral code item that is breaking down. Just read the posts in these forums declaring that it is just fine to take property, to steal, from those who have more than enough, in the eyes of the thief.

Is Marxism a moral code, among other things? It advocates some things that are in strict opposition to traditional religious moral codes. Does that make it a counter-code? 

I'll wait for answers...

ciao
Cuchu


----------



## rob.returns

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Is Marxism a moral code, among other things? It advocates some things that are in strict opposition to traditional religious moral codes. Does that make it a counter-code?
> 
> I'll wait for answers...
> 
> ciao
> Cuchu


 
HOnestly chuchu, I think Marxism cannot be compared to morality. 

Based on webster dictionary,(and also my point of view) it is a theory advocating elimination of private property *b* *:* a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed.

Morality is deeper than that.. You could compare democracy and communism. But i think morality is more of the heart and soul. And not mind and theory.

Just my point of view.


----------



## modgirl

Benjy said:
			
		

> from what i understand of nietzsche he thought morality was a bad thing and that it binds us down and prevents us from moving on. from becoming "supermen".


 
What he calls "supermen" I would call animals. The mentality is "If you're in my way and won't easily move, I'll kill you." Why not? Without morality, it isn't wrong. Morality stops us (or at least slows us down....) from being savage animals. 

I don't mean to insult animals, and many do show compassion. However, what separates us from non-human animals is our level of compassion and our morality. Without knowing any rights or wrongs, it's all men out for themselves. What is the purpose or quality of that life? It isn't one that I'd want to live.

I believe it was Socrates who said that the unexamined life is not worth living.  I might change that to say that a life without limits or morals is not worth living.  Just my humble opinion...


----------



## rob.returns

YOur humble opinion is exactly what makes it correct. I totally agree with you.





			
				modgirl said:
			
		

> What he calls "supermen" I would call animals. The mentality is "If you're in my way and won't easily move, I'll kill you." Why not? Without morality, it isn't wrong. Morality stops us (or at least slows us down....) from being savage animals.
> 
> I don't mean to insult animals, and many do show compassion. However, what separates us from non-human animals is our level of compassion and our morality. Without knowing any rights or wrongs, it's all men out for themselves. What is the purpose or quality of that life? It isn't one that I'd want to live.
> 
> I believe it was Socrates who said that the unexamined life is not worth living. I might change that to say that a life without limits or morals is not worth living. Just my humble opinion...


----------



## Benjy

modgirl said:
			
		

> That may be true for some religions, but it is inaccurate to paint the entity of religion with the same brush stroke.



ok, sorry  i guess i will clarify what i emant. major monothe-something or other-i-cant-spell-the-stupid-word religions and the hindu/buddhist/sikh reicarnation type all have works which spell out rights and wrongs. there is a god/force and he/it decides ultimately what is wrong or right. admittedly within each of these religions there are broad lattitudes for interpretations and people within the same faith can live differently. i wasnt trying to paint religion as a necessarily forcing people to live in a certain way, all i'm saying is with religious truths the argument usually reduces to either you belive or you dont. thats what i meant by absolute


----------



## deGerlaise

Morality - The quality of being in accord with standards of 
right or good conduct. 2. A system of ideas of right and 
wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.

If I may - 
Morality of the herd - The herd must have morals or it 
ceases to become a herd. What's wrong with being a 
member of the herd? We are all members of some herd, 
be that the English herd or the Canadian herd or the 
French herd or the Catholic herd or the Muslim herd.

Most systems that contain ideas of right and wrong evolve 
over time and consist of those ideas which are relevent to 
that particular society at that particular time. Most morality 
deals with maintaining the health of the group so, " Thou 
shalt not kill",  maintains the integrity of the group in that
killing a member of the group destroys the cohesion of the
group. It's the same with thou shalt not steal and so on. 

Morality as such is not a static thing and moves and shifts 
constantly. Certain groups like the Catholic church (my 
background) have endeavoured to fix morality at a 
particular point in time. Unfortunately, for this particular 
herd, morality as it is understood in the western world has 
evolved from those dictates and there is a consequent 
reduction in the number of those who are faithful to the 
morality maintained by this herd. 	

For my part, I believe there is a biological basis for most 
moral dictates and some of these dictates make perfect 
sense and instinctively men will adhere to a particular set 
of beliefs which promote the good of the group. For 
example, it is considered immoral to have sexual 
intercourse with offspring and close relatives. Where did 
this come from? Animals do this - why not humans? 
Humans being somewhat smarter than your average alley 
cat noticed fairly early on that bad things happen when 
close relations reproduce, e.g. physical deformities, 
deafness and dumbness and so on. If my  biology serves 
me well when close relatives reproduce there is a chance 
that recessive genes will combine and the result is a 
deformity of some sort. Because the gestation period of 
the human is so long compared to other mammals and 
because we have a long period of dependance and nurturing, 
and as we do not have a litter of 4 or 5 or 6 young with 
room for error, it is then imperative that we do things right 
the first time, i.e. not mess around with close relatives.

On the other hand a society that is able to reduce its 
infant mortality rate to the point where the vast majority 
of infants survive does not  need all hands on deck. This 
fact combined with a still mushrooming population
means that it is acceptable that certain members of the 
herd are sexually attracted to the same sex, thus a taboo 
is becoming increasing irrelevant among the numerous 
herds and is no longer a part of the prevailing morality in 
most of the western world.

So what is your morality? That is where it starts. Is it 
Catholic or Protestant or Muslim morality? Is it the morality
of the secular state which is constantly evolving? Is it the 
morality of the IRA or Hamas which regards the death of 
others as a morally acceptable result? What are your 
particular limits? Where do you draw the line? How do you
feel when you see a woman giving a passionate kiss to a 
woman in the street or a man to a man for that matter? How 
do you feel about the woman who has had her fourth 
abortion? How would you feel if you saw someone 
kneeing and making the sign of the cross in Riyadh? 
Are you a relativist or do you have an entrenched
morality? 

In response to a your orginal query: "... i want to know
whether you think morality is a positive or negative force."
It depends where you sit and what your perspective is. 
The question is completely subjective. The only absolute 
is the fact that it is a force.

A wonderful question. Thanks. ​


----------



## modgirl

Hi Benjy,



			
				Benjy said:
			
		

> all i'm saying is with religious truths the argument usually reduces to either you belive or you dont. thats what i meant by absolute


 
If I'm not mistaken, the philosophy of _belief _is primarily Christian. If one believes, then he enters the afterlife with God. However, I don't believe it's quite that way with other religions. 

There's a "joke" (_joke_ is not the correct word, because this is not humorous, but I'm not sure what noun to use -- _saying_, perhaps) of which I am reminded:

A priest and a rabbi are friends (no, this is not tasteless, I promise!) and get together for a drink. As they part, the priest says, "Keep the faith!"

The rabbi replies, "Keep the _Commandments_."


----------



## Benjy

faith as a principle which saves is a christian thing, agreed. i guess i am explaining myself badly here. i dont mean faith, i mean you either accept what someone says at face value or you dont. i have yet to see the 100 percent logical argument which proves or disproves any religion or even the big bang.

the joke did make me laugh 



			
				modgirl said:
			
		

> Hi Benjy,
> If I'm not mistaken, the philosophy of _belief _is primarily Christian. If one believes, then he enters the afterlife with God. However, I don't believe it's quite that way with other religions.
> 
> There's a "joke" (_joke_ is not the correct word, because this is not humorous, but I'm not sure what noun to use -- _saying_, perhaps) of which I am reminded:
> 
> A priest and a rabbi are friends (no, this is not tasteless, I promise!) and get together for a drink. As they part, the priest says, "Keep the faith!"
> 
> The rabbi replies, "Keep the _Commandments_."



deGerlaise : food for thought, thanks for taking the time


----------



## Benjy

rob.returns said:
			
		

> HOnestly chuchu, I think Marxism cannot be compared to morality.
> 
> Based on webster dictionary,(and also my point of view) it is a theory advocating elimination of private property *b* *:* a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed.
> 
> Morality is deeper than that.. You could compare democracy and communism. But i think morality is more of the heart and soul. And not mind and theory.
> 
> Just my point of view.



mmm.. i dunno if you can pigeon hole it like that. marxism is a set of paradigms i guess about the way things are, and the way they should be based on a whole bunch of "axiom"s for want of a better word. its a complete philosophy and i could see someone successfully arguing its place among religions.


----------



## Outsider

Nietzsche trashed morality because he'd like us to get back to the good old days of the law of the jungle. People have been thinking he was cool and modern for doing that ever since.   

Seriously, though...  morality can mean different things to different people. Some respondents have interpreted morality as something which is imposed on us by others. But morality can also mean how we think everyone should behave.

A point I think Nietzsche makes somewhere is that 'morality' is just a kind of ideological 'net' that we make up in order to submit others to our will. I think there is a lot of truth in that. 'Morality' is certainly quite variable, and often favours the natural inclinations of the moralist. Nietzsche also wrote something to the effect that 'Two people who uphold the same principles invariably want different things.' By that I think he meant that people aren't born with a set of principles with which they judge others and themselves; they start out with predispositions of their own, and _then_ select a set of convenient principles to justify their actions. So maybe we're all just hopelessly selfish...

But, on the other hand, I also tend to believe that all human beings, or at least most of them, can find some basic common ground. For example, it's wrong to kill a person just because you felt like it -- I think most people would agree. Obviously, mass murderers wouldn't (or would they?), which is why I say 'most people'. So perhaps morality is not universal, but it can exist as a sort of dialectic majority consensus. Then again, most people never change their minds about moral issues, no matter how much they dialogue. Oh, well...


----------



## modgirl

Outsider said:
			
		

> For example, it's wrong to kill a person just because you felt like it -- I think most people would agree. Obviously, mass murderers wouldn't (or would they?), which is why I say 'most people'.


 
And here we can branch into a new subject: the people who really, really don't think they are wrong to just go out and do as they wish (rape, pillage, plunder, and mass murder) -- are these people mentally lacking some chemical component that the rest of us have? (In other words, are their brains not working as they should?)

Or, are they totally sane, but as children, were never given any kind of guidance as to how they should act? If they are not mentally unbalanced, then shouldn't they see the logic behind the importance of compassion, civility, and respect for other human beings?

For instance, in the last month or so, there has been a court case in the news. An American man has several children, has engaged in sex with his daughters, and has produced many of his own grandchildren. (Personally, I'd like to literally string up this sub-human by a very specific part of his anatomy...) Here's what makes me sick. At least one of his daughters testisfied on his behalf, pleading for him, saying that he is a great father, and that their way of life is healthy and normal! (She was one of the daughters who bore him children) This man has ruined his children's lives and caused much mental destruction.

Personally, I can't think that he is anything but insane. However, what about his daughters? Are they also insane, or have they simply been severely brainwashed?

Benjy, you aren't explaining yourself badly at all. I think I do understand what you're saying. This topic is rather complex!


----------



## Everness

Outsider said:
			
		

> Then again, most people never change their minds about moral issues, no matter how much they dialogue. Oh, well...



"Didst thou not know that men prefer peace, even death, to freedom of choice in the knowledge of good and evil?" -Dostoevsky


----------



## rob.returns

Outsider said:
			
		

> A point I think Nietzsche makes somewhere is that 'morality' is just a kind of ideological 'net' that we make up in order to submit others to our will. I think there is a lot of truth in that. 'Morality' is certainly quite variable, and often favours the natural inclinations of the moralist. Nietzsche also wrote something to the effect that 'Two people who uphold the same principles invariably want different things.' By that I think he meant that people aren't born with a set of principles with which they judge others and themselves; they start out with predispositions of their own, and _then_ select a set of convenient principles to justify their actions. *So maybe we're all just hopelessly selfish...*


 
Tell me, would dying for someone or everyone, sacrificing your life for the good of all would mean selfishness? If your principles dictates you that it is right and moral, and it will make you happy if it would be manifested...would dying then be just another set of predisposition, all just for one's self?

A lot of men and heroes have died this way. Jesus, Gandhi, Ninoy, and a lot to be mentioned. Are they selfish? My answer:NO.


----------



## modgirl

rob.returns said:
			
		

> A lot of men, heroes have died this way. Gandhi


 
Gandhi was assassinated on 31 January 1948.  However, he did embark on several hunger strikes.


----------



## rob.returns

Yes and Im sure he knows that a lot of personalities want to assasinate him and never did he run out of courage. So its like steppin on a lions den...And never was he afraid.





			
				modgirl said:
			
		

> Gandhi was assassinated on 31 January 1948. However, he did embark on several hunger strikes.


----------



## Benjy

i guess this + what outsider/modgirl has said thus far is what it boils down to. if morality is jsut a set of controls set up to benefit the few then i guess its obviously not such a great thing. nature vs nurture. i have often read with great interest peoples suppositions on the origin of religion, how it all kicked off. are morals a totally man made construct? then where does the desire come from to start with? the problem is you always see to have the two polar opposites and everything inbetween. you have the guy on the one hand who deos things because he feels they are right and benefiting to the herd if you will, then you have the other bloke who manipulates the rules of herd life to get ahead. arguments could be put forth suggesting that the nice guy is just the pawn stuck in a net set up by more ruthless individuals but i would like to think that having reasoned it out most people end up complying with socially acceptable norms because they actually want to. 

i think that part of the problem is that people feel whenever they comply with someone elses ideas they have somehow lost out on making a choice. this is utter crap, in my humble opinion, but you see it all the time. a lot people if you ask them to do something and they know what you want them to do feel that they are only exercising their free agency if they choose to do the opposite of what you want. pffffffff



			
				cuchuflete said:
			
		

> 2. Morality can be and historically has been imposed. In that case, it doesn't originate in the desire of the herd to survive; rather it is the desire of each individual to survive. Herd survival is a consequence.
> 
> What do I mean by imposition of morality? Religions have been at it for thousands of years, often in alliances with political and military power groups. They taught, with a spear or sword for encouragment, obedience to the religious hierarchy, for one easy example.
> 
> Most people think it is immoral to tell lies, to be deceitful and untrustworthy. Is this a result of herd instinct, or has it been imposed?
> I don't know.
> 
> Theft is also generally considered not only criminal...against the codified legal expressions of morality....but immoral in a non-legal sense. This appears to be a moral code item that is breaking down. Just read the posts in these forums declaring that it is just fine to take property, to steal, from those who have more than enough, in the eyes of the thief.
> 
> Is Marxism a moral code, among other things? It advocates some things that are in strict opposition to traditional religious moral codes. Does that make it a counter-code?
> 
> I'll wait for answers...
> 
> ciao
> Cuchu


----------



## Swettenham

modgirl said:
			
		

> However, what separates us from non-human animals is our level of compassion and our morality.


Those do distinguish us, as does our intellect.  But despite our compassion and morality, we are more violent than non-human animals.  In some ways, our morality is a reaction to our immorality.  We learn to be compassionate because we see others suffering needlessly.  We learn to be moral because our environment would otherwise dissolve.  Animals suffer, but not needlessly, and their environment manages itself.


----------



## Swettenham

outsider said:
			
		

> Nietzsche trashed morality because he'd like us to get back to the good old days of the law of the jungle. People have been thinking he was cool and modern for doing that ever since.


Not having read Nietzche, I must ask, did he propose that all humans relocate to the jungle?  I'm not sure what relevance the laws of the jungle have to Nietzche's ideas of supermen.  In fact, there are many herds, packs, flocks and hives in the jungle, and for most of human existence people native to the jungle have lived in tribes.  Nietzche's _individualism_ is what's modern.  "The good old days" were the millenia characterized by the herd mentality that he opposed. 

Maybe I'm overreacting to a purely rhetorical strategy, but I'm sick of people arguing that humans are supposed to be "better" than other animals and saying that when we do anything wrong we have degraded to some kind of "animal state."  How many genocides— uniquely human activities more often than not rationalized according to some moral code or other— do we have to commit before we deign to grant other species, and humans who live by the laws of nature, a little esteem?


----------



## Outsider

rob.returns said:
			
		

> Tell me, would dying for someone or everyone, sacrificing your life for the good of all would mean selfishness? If your principles dictates you that it is right and moral, and it will make you happy if it would be manifested...would dying then be just another set of predisposition, all just for one's self?
> 
> A lot of men and heroes have died this way. Jesus, Gandhi, Ninoy, and a lot to be mentioned. Are they selfish? My answer:NO.


I shouldn't have written "all". But enough of us are selfish. This human world can be pretty nasty, in certain places and times.



			
				Swettenham said:
			
		

> Not having read Nietzche, I must ask, did he propose that all humans relocate to the jungle?  I'm not sure what relevance the laws of the jungle have to Nietzche's ideas of supermen.  In fact, there are many herds, packs, flocks and hives in the jungle, and for most of human existence people native to the jungle have lived in tribes.  Nietzche's _individualism_ is what's modern.  "The good old days" were the millenia characterized by the herd mentality that he opposed.


'Law of the jungle' was a figure of speech, and I was only being half serious (notice the smilies?) I do not think that Nietzsche was in favour of a return to the Neolithic. Still, I did get the impression, from what I read by him (which, wasn't a lot, I must say) that he was a social conservative who despised democracy, and would much rather have lived in the aristocratic 18th century than in the vaguely more democratic 19th century. Hence a return to the 'good old days' of the _ancien régime_. To me, his talk about the 'new man' always sounded like a desire to turn back the clock. 
This is not to say that he didn't have some sharp insights into human nature.

_'The Germans invented gunpowder -- but then they spoiled it all, by inventing the press.'_
F. Nietzsche



			
				Swettenham said:
			
		

> Maybe I'm overreacting to a purely rhetorical strategy, but I'm sick of people arguing that humans are supposed to be "better" than other animals and saying that when we do anything wrong we have degraded to some kind of "animal state."  How many genocides— uniquely human activities more often than not rationalized according to some moral code or other— do we have to commit before we deign to grant other species, and humans who live by the laws of nature, a little esteem?


_'The better I get to know people, the more I like animals.'_
F. Nietzsche


----------



## Swettenham

Outsider said:
			
		

> Still, I did get the impression, from what I read by him (which, wasn't a lot, I must say) that he was a social conservative who despised democracy, and would much rather have lived in the aristocratic 18th century than in the vaguely more democratic 19th century. Hence a return to the 'good old days' of the _ancien régime_.


How myopic.



> _'The Germans invented gunpowder -- but then they spoiled it all, by inventing the press.'_
> F. Nietzsche


Is there a fact-checker in the house?



> _'The better I get to know people, the more I like animals.'_
> F. Nietzsche


Touché, Fred, but I still don't want to read you.


----------



## Outsider

Swettenham said:
			
		

> How myopic.


I must insist that this is my own, tainted reading of his motivations. Many people do not interpret him that way at all, and you would probably do best to judge for yourself.


----------



## meili

Uhuh.  I say I also like what Outsider and Modgirl and Benjy have said.

Also, Benj, I think it boils down to people thinking that they should act this way or that way, according to what the 'herd' or other people would want him or her to act (though sometimes it is only them thinking), in order for him to feel that he belongs to that herd - like there is really a need for him (or her) to agree with the group so that he/she will get the feeling that somebody also do or does agree with him.

Hmmm.. come to think of it.  Humans are indeed more complicated than cats. 



			
				Benjy said:
			
		

> i guess this + what outsider/modgirl has said thus far is what it boils down to. if morality is jsut a set of controls set up to benefit the few then i guess its obviously not such a great thing. nature vs nurture. i have often read with great interest peoples suppositions on the origin of religion, how it all kicked off. are morals a totally man made construct? then where does the desire come from to start with? the problem is you always see to have the two polar opposites and everything inbetween. you have the guy on the one hand who deos things because he feels they are right and benefiting to the herd if you will, then you have the other bloke who manipulates the rules of herd life to get ahead. arguments could be put forth suggesting that the nice guy is just the pawn stuck in a net set up by more ruthless individuals but i would like to think that having reasoned it out most people end up complying with socially acceptable norms because they actually want to.
> i think that part of the problem is that people feel whenever they comply with someone elses ideas they have somehow lost out on making a choice. this is utter crap, in my humble opinion, but you see it all the time. a lot people if you ask them to do something and they know what you want them to do feel that they are only exercising their free agency if they choose to do the opposite of what you want. pffffffff


----------



## Beautiful Princess

the way i understand it is that: as human beings we have this instinct to preserve oneself since time immemorial and because of this we set certain rules in order to maintain human populations and we couldn't deny that we human beings tend to become selfish at times(just my humble opinion) through this sanctions created by our forefathers it regulates our actions not because they want to hinder the individuals freedom but to put things in order...

i am not saying that he(Friedrich Nietzsche)is correct on this matter but this could be a two way street,wherein it could give a positive feedback or negative connotations to certain individuals...but sometimes morality that was set up by our own religion tends to obstruct our freedom(i am not against the church)we may have what we call the separation of state and the government however at times those who are in secular area tends to meddle with the affairs of the government especially if it concerns "MORALITY" this is what i observe here in our country and sometimes i can't help but think that KARL MARX is correct in saying that "RELIGION IS OPIUM OF THE MASSES".... though Religion are really guidelines... we will not know we're wrong till there's standards... right! It all boils down to how we view things and how we judge things as morals or ammorals or even immorals... in the end... we are judge on how we believe and live the things we believe..


----------



## Amityville

Benjy said:
			
		

> i think happiness is simply living according to principles you know to be right. everyone has a concience, whether they choose to listen to it or not is another question ;p all the guenuinely happy people i have ever met are peaple that have always struck as the kind who are always ready to help you when you down. i suppose altruistic people might be a good way of saying, people who are just the opposite of selfish :s


 
That was in the Happiness thread but it's morality as well, isn't it ?  We can all benevolently drift about but when put to the test how do we fare, sometimes not even aware at the fateful moment that we are making a moral choice. Moral blindness can descend all too easily, through haste, confusion, conformism, ambition, wanting to be liked, let alone genuine moral dilemmas where there is just no obvious right answer. 
I think having children makes a difference to your morality. Once you have them you know that you would sacrifice your own and anyone else's life to preserve the life of your child in a given desperate situation. That's a terrible thing to say and thank God most of us aren't faced with it but I believe it is commionly felt. It doesn't mean to say that you can water that down to mean look after 'number one+offspring' in all situations and at anyone's expense, or what kind of example are you setting them but I wonder if that is where moral blindness sets in - you can justify selfish action on behalf of your children that you couldn't justify for yourself and you take it from there. Thinking of Tony Blair and his kids' schooling for instance.


----------



## modgirl

Amityville said:
			
		

> Thinking of Tony Blair and his kids' schooling for instance.


 
Would you please elaborate just a bit?  (I'm not aware of the situation at all)


----------



## Amityville

He sent his sons to the London Oratory who operate selection by parental interview, miles away from where he lived at the time (Islington) .Islington had the third-worst exam results in Britain. Not all parents have this choice.

Another example, another Labour MP, is Diane Abbot who sent her son to a £10,000-a-year private school instead of a comprehensive, admitting it was "indefensible".



> "It is inconsistent, to put it mildly, for someone who believes in a fairer and more egalitarian society to send their child to a fee-paying school."
> But, she added: "I had to choose between my reputation as a politician and my son."
> 
> "You can't defend the indefensible - anything you say sounds self-serving and hypocritical."


....Because it is.

When Tony Blair sent his sons to the London Oratory she had criticised him.


----------



## Outsider

> "It is inconsistent, to put it mildly, for someone who believes in a fairer and more egalitarian society to send their child to a fee-paying school."


I don't understand. Why should that be inconsistent? 
If the local schools are bad, what was she supposed to do?


----------



## Amityville

Well, why don't we all just do that then there'd be no problem !? 'Let them eat cake.'

The Labour party officially supports comprehensive education and opposes selection. Good quality education for all, not just a privileged few.


----------



## Outsider

Amityville said:
			
		

> The Labour party officially supports comprehensive education and opposes selection. Good quality education for all, not just a privileged few.


Not knowing what 'comprehensive education' and 'selection' mean in this context, I can't go on much further.

But in my opinion it's possible, and not inconsistent, to believe that:

1) There should be good education available to everyone.
2) However, for various reasons, that does not happen in practice.
3) Therefore, it's important to choose a good school for your children.

I guess I'm probably missing something about the political context of the statement, right?...


----------



## Amityville

I don't want to get bogged down in the details of what may not, for most, be the central issue of the thread. Briefly, Diane Abbot and other Labour Party members, professed sincerely held beliefs in public but in private did something which directly contravened them,  and I am saying that the reason for betraying those beliefs was a visceral protectiveness towards their children which was strong enough to undermine everything they had previously felt was right. It became right only for other people.


----------



## Maria Juanita

some unaware thoughts...(or may I say "opinions"?) here we go...
_What's wrong with being a 
member of the herd?_
Well, I guess memberships make you lose identity or at least that's what Zaratustra -and some other gurus- wants us to think...

_If they are not mentally unbalanced, then shouldn't they see the logic behind the importance of compassion, civility, and respect for other human beings?_

There's no logic behind compassion, civility, etc. It's a problem of perspectives and points of views. Sometimes, what's apparently wrong may have good consequences and viceversa. By the way, I don't think there are just biological reasons for morality, there are also political, spiritual, psychological, and social reasons for it. It's all part of what our ancestors used to call "Devil/Evil" in lack of better terms.  

Maquiavelo said: "El fin justifica los medios"

Saludillos...


----------



## Benjy

membership in anything does not cause a loss of identity. obeying societies rules has never caused anyoe to cease to be an individual. this all comes to down to the fallacy of the line of thought which goes something like this:

if someone presents me with two options A and B, and wants very much that i pick A the only way that i can exercise my right to choose (stand out from the crowd be an individual etc) is to pick B.

this is of course not really very logical at all.

and yes there is a logic behind being nice to everyone else. humans dont tend to do so well by themselves. hence, we erect our little moral constructs and use them to make sure everyone gets along with each other.




			
				Maria Juanita said:
			
		

> some unaware thoughts...(or may I say "opinions"?) here we go...
> _What's wrong with being a
> member of the herd?_
> Well, I guess memberships make you lose identity or at least that's what Zaratustra -and some other gurus- wants us to think...
> 
> _If they are not mentally unbalanced, then shouldn't they see the logic behind the importance of compassion, civility, and respect for other human beings?_
> 
> There's no logic behind compassion, civility, etc. It's a problem of perspectives and points of views. Sometimes, what's apparently wrong may have good consequences and viceversa. By the way, I don't think there are just biological reasons for morality, there are also political, spiritual, psychological, and social reasons for it. It's all part of what our ancestors used to call "Devil/Evil" in lack of better terms.
> 
> Maquiavelo said: "El fin justifica los medios"
> 
> Saludillos...


----------



## Maria Juanita

hi Benjy...

Maybe you are right. Perhaps when I posted that reply, I was thinking about:

a. Catholicism.
b. Apartheid.
c. Middle Ages.

Hence, we can trust all "isms" and think about institutions and herds. 

 

Nevertheless, I believe there's some natural wisdom in some of the rules we humans set for society. It's like, preservation (or conservation???) of mankind, I guess.

Saludillos...


----------



## JazzByChas

> think that part of the problem is that people feel whenever they comply with someone elses ideas they have somehow lost out on making a choice. this is utter crap, in my humble opinion, but you see it all the time. a lot people if you ask them to do something and they know what you want them to do feel that they are only exercising their free agency if they choose to do the opposite of what you want. pffffffff


 
I must agree with Benjy here...I can't help but think that "societal norms" that prove good for the "herd" are not that which takes away the individuals right to choose...if fact, these kinds of things re-inforce the right to choose.  You must make a choice in every action you take to either do something destructive to yourself and others around you (physically or emotionally), or to do something that benefits yourself and other around you.  Morals are a safeguard to help keep a society (or herd) from self-destructing.  And I will go a stop further, and say that morals must derive from absolutes.  There must be a starting point somewhere, that defines a basic principle from which others come.  Whether or not they are defined in religions makes no difference.  Sort of the "proof is in the pudding" concept: a good "Moral law" will prove itself worthwhile by its longevity...i.e. how long it has proven itself to bring about _*positive*_ results.  If a society of cannibals were put on an island, sooner or later, there would be no one left....


----------



## Outsider

Careful with that line of reasoning... Mankind has been canibal (and patriarchal, and slaver, and undemocratic...) for much longer than it's been the opposite!
While I broadly agree with Benjy's point, I also think that morals can be improved.


----------



## tvdxer

Morals are most certainly absolute.  It has become popular in recent years to speak the contrary, however.

But let me ask...what's the point of human rights if their indeed aren't moral absolutes?


----------



## JazzByChas

TVDXer said:
			
		

> But let me ask...what's the point of human rights if their indeed aren't moral absolutes?


 
Absolutely! Without moral absolutes, their can be no 'human rights' because we would not know what they were or how to define them. Men can always practice injustices to men...it is in thier nature...but to know what is "right" and "wrong" there needs to be absolute values in order to have something to measure "right" and "wrong" with.


----------



## Outsider

JazzByChas said:
			
		

> Absolutely!  Without moral absolutes, their can be no 'human rights' because we would not know what they were or how to define them.


Even with moral absolutes, we don't seem to be doing much of a job...


----------



## JazzByChas

Outsider said:
			
		

> Even with moral absolutes, we don't seem to be doing much of a job...


 
Well, that would have more to do with the "moral relativism" going on today..."secular humanism" is becoming the norm, wherein, in essence, what is good for me is good, and what is good for you is good, and if we happen to agree, then all the better. Problem is, what is good for you or me could be destructive to someone else [and usually ourselves, as well].


----------



## fenixpollo

JazzByChas said:
			
		

> ...but to know what is "right" and "wrong" there needs to be absolute values in order to have something to measure "right" and "wrong" with.


 I don't agree that there are absolute values.

For example:  Taking another human life. This is invariably held up as the most heinous crime, it's the first one of the commandments, and it's universally condemned by every culture around the world. Yet it's acceptable to kill someone in self defense, as punishment for a crime, in abortion (although that one is debatable), in vengeance, in war... the list of exceptions to this "rule" goes on and on. 

In using cannibalism as an example of a lack of morals, you're overlooking the fact that historically cannibalistic societies are just as moral as our own -- they just have a different set of values that they accept as absolute.


----------



## Outsider

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> Taking another human life.  This is invariably held up as the most heinous crime, it's the first commandment, and it's universally condemned by every culture around the world.  Yet it's acceptable to kill someone in self defense, as punishment for a crime, in abortion (although that one is debateable), in vengeance, in war... the list of exceptions to this "rule" goes on and on.


Not the _first_ commandment, and not all forms of killing, at least in the original form of the text.


----------



## cuchuflete

A moral absolute is a contradiction.  If the morality is not enforced by those with power, it is likely to change, to evolve.

Slavery was once considered morally correct, with all sorts of biblical arguments to back it up.   Women were once considered unworthy of the vote, property ownership, etc...again with lots of religious "moral" justification.
The self-styled moral people of not many decades (or days??) ago found lots of absolute moral grounds to practice religious and ethnic discrimination.

Any given belief system may have its own internal moral absolutes, but when it attempts to impose these on people with a different, and equally valid or equally invalid system, there will be clashes and wars.  

When supporters and opponents of the death penalty debate, each side calls the other immoral.  I suppose that either both are immoral, or neither is.  

What is clearly ridiculous are those who oppose abortion and support the death penalty and the killing of doctors who perform abortions.  Of course they will be quick to provide 'absolute moral' justifications for their stance.


----------



## annettehola

" i want to know whether you think morality is a positive or negative force."

I think, morality is probably positive in contexts where it makes sense to apply it (I will explain....) but I think that the areas of Life with most essence are areas that descend beyond morality (I will try to "explain"...)

By the way, I also think this: That morality is often applied to areas meant to rule people and their ways in order to cover up the fact that there is nothing, nothing, nothingness behind that particulary area. (How can I explain this....? I must, I must!) 

Probably I should try to say what "morality" is to me: A set of rules, more often than not, unwritten. I do not claim to be particularly "moral" in any sense, I just simply think that there are right things and wrong things. My personal set of morals are for the most part based on my feelings. If I feel that thing over there to be fine and good, well; then I am likely to go over there and have a closer look. If, on the other hand, I feel that thing not to be good, then I'd be likely to say:"No, I don't think I'll go over there. There's something *wrong *with the whole thing.." You see? But these are my personal guidelines in dear Life. They cannot possibly be the same for all. And since I live in what is called "society" I must acknowledge the need for a set of morals....no! should not rather we call that "ethics," actually? What is the difference? Is there one?....Well; now I think this:"Morals" is perhaps the consequence of a set of ethics...is that crap? But what..underlies "ethical rules" if not a moral stance? Well; no matter! Perchance it's just a play on words, that could be, that could be. Anyways, in society we are many and many never agree. So it's best to have at least a couple of rules to govern our behaviour..basic ones, such as f.ex. when the green man appears, don't cross the street because that would be a wrong thing to do as that could kill you and others, don't steal because that hurts those you steal from, and hurting others is a wrong thing, don't rape, because the women do not wish to be raped just because you wish to rape them, don't...and so on. Sure, that's well and good. Sure it is. But I can absolutely agree with Cuchu:"A moral absolute is a contradiction." It is doublessly true. What happens if you say:"The Bible is the book of Life. There all is written down for you to see clearly how you should behave. Read it and apply it's rules to your life." One of the Ten Commandments goes:"Do not fool around with your neighbor's wife." Fair enough, but if Mr. Q fell in love with her and she too with him, and her husband was an old fart that watched telly from dawn to dusk and drank and raped her on a regular basis? Why, then, should they apply that bloody and rigid commandment? You know? This is what is so difficult to incoorporate in commandments of any kind: The _*life*_ that is in Life, the circumstances of lived existence.

What do you think about politics? I can't figure it out at all. I understand that most politicians wish to work for people to have some rules to live and act according to, no? But is that morality? No-no, I think not. And the church? They aim at the same, don't they? And what's the result? Brainwash, at best, or the creation of new parties that say the opposite.

No. For me, morals are personal and subjective. They can never be streched so as to encompass the opinions of all. So let's stick to the basic ones only here in society (the green man, no killing, no stealing, no raping).

But who shall define them? 

Annette


----------



## cuchuflete

Here's one for the moral absolutists to chew on:

Can you morally justify the actions of imperial western nations (I'm sure there are Asian and African examples too...I leave those to others to describe...) who colonized "savage" places, and imposed their religion, mores, and behavioral standards?

This had the consequential effect of destroying cultures, and causing great misery, all in the name of 'giving' morality to the subjugated peoples.  

Colonizer: See, we've got this book.  It tells us what is right and wrong.  You will obey it, no matter how strange it is to you.  If you don't do what it says, we will save you by killing you.  By the way, we will take your land and make you slaves, because we have the moral right to do so, according to this here book.  Now get down on your knees and pray in this language you don't understand.  

Oh? You already have a God?  Well that doesn't matter. Ours is the real one.  It says so in this book.  Your God doesn't really exist.  My sword and gun are the proof that my God is better than your God.


----------



## Outsider

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Colonizer: See, we've got this book.  It tells us what is right and wrong.  You will obey it, no matter how strange it is to you.  If you don't do what it says, we will save you by killing you.  By the way, we will take your land and make you slaves, because we have the moral right to do so, according to this here book.  Now get down on your knees and pray in this language you don't understand.


And the funny part is that the book didn't even say any of that.


----------



## maxiogee

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Here's one for the moral absolutists to chew on:
> 
> Can you morally justify the actions of imperial western nations (I'm sure there are Asian and African examples too...I leave those to others to describe...) who colonized "savage" places, and imposed their religion, mores, and behavioral standards?



Of course you can't.
In fact, it is difficult to (morally) justify almost anything one nation does to any other. Or any one person to another for that matter. We are driven by our baser natures all too often.

I believe this so firmly that I won't even impose my spelling of *behavioural* upon you.

Nations have been imposing their mores, attitudes, religions and rules upon others since before morals were delineated or codified.


----------



## JazzByChas

> Colonizer: See, we've got this book. It tells us what is right and wrong. You will obey it, no matter how strange it is to you. If you don't do what it says, we will save you by killing you. By the way, we will take your land and make you slaves, because we have the moral right to do so, according to this here book. Now get down on your knees and pray in this language you don't understand.
> 
> Oh? You already have a God? Well that doesn't matter. Ours is the real one. It says so in this book. Your God doesn't really exist. My sword and gun are the proof that my God is better than your God


 
...and the irony is that the Book never says to do anything of the sort...

I'm amazed how many persons of (very) questionable character commit attrocious acts and justify them with that Book. Maybe they should consult the Author of that book, and clear up their misconceptions....


----------



## maxiogee

JazzByChas said:
			
		

> ...and the irony is that the Book never says to anything of the sort...
> 
> I'm amazed how many persons of (very) questionable character commit attrocious acts and justify them with that Book. Maybe they should consult the Author of that book, and clear up their misconceptions....



There's only one problem with that - JBC, it appears the author doesn't return calls. And I get really worried when guys tell me he returned theirs!!


----------



## tvdxer

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> I don't agree that there are absolute values.
> 
> For example:  Taking another human life. This is invariably held up as the most heinous crime, it's the first one of the commandments, and it's universally condemned by every culture around the world. Yet it's acceptable to kill someone in self defense, as punishment for a crime, in abortion (although that one is debatable), in vengeance, in war... the list of exceptions to this "rule" goes on and on.
> 
> In using cannibalism as an example of a lack of morals, you're overlooking the fact that historically cannibalistic societies are just as moral as our own -- they just have a different set of values that they accept as absolute.



The problem is the values those societies held as "absolute".  They contradict God's law and natural law.

We once thought the sun revolved around the earth.  We were "wrong" then.  

The problem of killing is an interesting one.  Simply because something has exceptions does not mean it is generally an absolute evil - for example, killing might be necessary in some cases, such as self-defense - that doesn't make it any less absolute that killing is evil when not done for self-defense.


----------



## fenixpollo

tvdxer said:
			
		

> The problem is the values those societies held as "absolute". They contradict God's law and natural law.


  If I were to ask a moral person from any society, he or she would say the exact same thing.  How do you know that they are wrong?


----------



## nycphotography

I think the answer is actually quite plain and simple.

<clambering up on soap box>

*coff*coff*

Divide the human race into two groups as follows:  

First group:  All those who simply lack the capacity (or perhaps the interest) to process abstract philosophical concepts and evolve their own morality over time.  

Second group:  Those who strive to understand systems of morality, always questioning (socratic), always evolving, always improving, with philosophies which are universal and applicable across all people, regardless of religion.

Absolute morality is absolutely neccessary to the vast vast vast majority of humanity in the former group, which includes all infants.

People can graduate to the second group when they are ready.  Some during childhood, others as adults.  Unfortunately, most never make it at all.

The absolute morality that's so necessary... usually becomes a cage to ones mind, making a transition to the second group much more difficult.


----------



## maxiogee

tvdxer said:
			
		

> We once thought the sun revolved around the earth.  We were "wrong" then.



But that's nothing to do with morality! That's a lack of knowledge.

Thinking that taking the life of someone else for one's own gain can never be verified or validated by knowledge.
Forcing someone to do one's will was done in the past, but it was wrong then and it is wrong now. It may have been 'acceptable' to those who did the forcing, but that didn't make it right.


----------



## annettehola

"If I were to ask a moral person from any society, he or she would say the exact same thing. How do you know that they are wrong?"

1) How do you know that person was "a moral person"?

2) What is "a moral person"?

Annette


----------



## JazzByChas

TVdXer said:
			
		

> Simply because something has exceptions does not mean it is generally an absolute evil - for example, killing might be necessary in some cases, such as self-defense - that doesn't make it any less absolute that killing is evil when not done for self-defense


 
I would say that killing, or taking of human life, is always an absolute evil...now, has the practice gone on for thousands of years...yes. Has the practice taken place in wars...yes. Does that make wars the best way to solve our economic and political differences...no. Is killing (of another human being) really necessary...no.

The point is, that there are lots of "evils" in this life that are wrong, but which we do all the time, and have grown to tolerate...I think most societies agree on some sort of template by which they function and live, hopefully in harmony with each other. Now, are these mutally agreed upon rules (laws) broken? Yes...and there is usually some sort of penalty to be paid for these infractions, which are also decided by the society/herd at large. In democracies, at least, we all get to participate in what the rules that govern us are, and these become the "morals" of that society. As to absolute morals, they would have to come from a source other than men, because as I have discussed before, men are "flawed" (i.e. capable of doing harmful things to one another), so they cannot come up with an "absolutely moral" law. Who can? That's the subject of another debate...


----------



## cuchuflete

Chas said:
			
		

> I would say that killing, or taking of human life, is always an absolute evil...


 Therefore, with or without any reference to religion, unholy scripture, holy scripture, political cartoons, or turnips.....

Those who favor the death penalty are immoral;
Those who participate in war are immoral;
Those who direct war and other acts of killing are immoral.

Osama and W have something in common?


----------



## JazzByChas

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Therefore, with or without any reference to religion, unholy scripture, holy scripture, political cartoons, or turnips.....
> 
> Those who favor the death penalty are immoral;
> Those who participate in war are immoral;
> Those who direct war and other acts of killing are immoral.
> 
> Osama and W have something in common?


 
Perhaps...I cannot say I like war, but I imagine it a necessary evil, similarly the death penalty. Osama is driven by his "Holy War" and W is driven by "National Security."  If they are the same motivation, then so be it.

 And if someone were caught by me raping or trying to murder my daughter or wife or son, I might have the urge to become "immoral" as well...


----------



## annettehola

"Perhaps...I cannot say I like war, but I imagine it a necessary evil, similarly the death penalty. Osama is driven by his "Holy War" and W is driven by "National Security." If they are the same motivation, then so be it."

War is necessary when it's justified. Immorals can never be justified. Thus; what is immoral is not war in itself, it's the people that make them. I am also sure I would always, always fight for what and those I love. If they were attacked physically? Would I attack back? I would.
I find it hard to kill a chicken and there are always more ants in my kitchen during the summer months than in those of my neighbors because I can't bring myself to kill and spray them away like they do. But I believe I could kill for love. I must say it. I think it is so. 
Political leaders' war waging on other nations in our time is different, I think. This is not what I would call *honest war*. Honest, in the sense of revenge. And is revenge committed because one loves an immoral thing? Osama and Georgeeoh are terrible persons. So, logically, they've done terrible things. Because Doing is based in Being. They're provoking wars for their own purposes only. That's clearly why they need all them words and books and scriptures and flags and what not they surround themselves with in order to justify what cannot be justified: Their bloody actions. They need a cause, and since there is none, they create fictions to support their crap. Today we work to kill. How many people are employed in the weapon industry? Is that moral that societies base their economies on means of killing? Wars are needed in that sense today. No war is honest anymore. The murderes are not punished, for no one can see where they are anymore. They have hid behind veils of words and flags and politics. But as the boy said in "The Emperor's new clothes:" - But, look! The king's not wearing anything! Why, he's stripped!
Annette


----------

