is having morals moral?.

definition of moral via web:

mor·al (môr'əl, mŏr'-)
adj.
Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.

Basically morals all depend on.................blah blah blah
 
"To live your life by any morals but your own is to live an immoral life" Ayn Rand (paraphrased, because I can't find the quote right now)
 
(Insert Title Here)

Morality is an inevitability of the human condition. The morality of having morals, aside from being a paradoxical question, can be determined by the objective foundation, the functional result, and the fundamental simplicity of the morals asserted.

"Christian Morality in America", for instance: no objective foundation, statistically unimpressive result, and a fundamental complexity fueled by pure arrogance. Christianity is more than a bit unsettling to me.

Oh, and Ayn Rand is tragically overstated. Much like Christianity, Randian philosophy is all about what you do with it. I suppose that's like any moral assertion. But, to illustrate my point, my partner has made her social life over the last three-plus years more important to her than her daughter. Of late, that includes her dart-throwing, roller-skating boyfriend. Apparently, he recently recommended to her that I read "The Virtue of Selfishness". Apparently altruism is a cancer. Whatever. Like I'm the one who leaves my daughter with the babysitter in order to get to the bar sooner. And, hey, there's also those morons over at Capitalism.org who have tried to turn Rand into a political platform. Does anyone wonder why Ayn Rand is on LaVey's Church of Satan reading list?

To use Thelema as an example: What is the difference between Crowley's exaltation of the Thelemic, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law" and the Gardenerian rede, "An' thou harm none, do what thou wilt"? Only the idiots at Thelema, and those who failed to learn from such a tragedy. Murderous feelings? How much of what thou wilt can you do while taking nine inches from your cellmate? "An' thou harm none" makes much sense to me; it is tacit in my reading of Thelema. It is part of the "selfish" preservation of one's functionality that is the "burden" of a "free" entity.
 
Last edited:
tiassa said:
Morality is an inevitability of the human condition. The morality of having morals, aside from being a paradoxical question, can be determined by the objective foundation, the functional result, and the fundamental simplicity of the morals asserted.

...

It is part of the "selfish" preservation of one's functionality that is the "burden" of a "free" entity.
Click to expand...

Yes. Do we, as individuals thrive under our moral system or not? If not then we are clearly doing something wrong. Our morality is "immoral". Otherwise, our morals are, well, moral.

PS, say the word "moral" over and over a dozen times or so. What a silly word.
 
morality is immoral, because morality is defined by normality which is undefined in the first place, or is defined by made up rules, even though all rules are made up except the physical rules of course.
 
Superluminal said:

PS, say the word "moral" over and over a dozen times or so. What a silly word.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Try "cow".

Or "Monday". That one always screws with me.

Dragon said:

morality is immoral, because morality is defined by normality which is undefined in the first place, or is defined by made up rules, even though all rules are made up except the physical rules of course.
Click to expand...

Hence, for instance, my demand for an objective foundation, functional result, and fundamental simplicity. If normalcy is irrational, such a condition speaks most loudly against the irrational, and not normalcy. Normalcy is an inevitability among a species endowed with the power of subjective discrimination. Consider the word "deviant". Most people would be offended if called a deviant.

But you're a deviant. Don't let that bother you. So am I. So is everyone. It's just a matter of what filters we choose to apply to determine the relevance of deviancy. Eye color is a deviancy. Sometimes I wonder if sobriety or uncomplicated missionary sex are deviancies. Sobriety, assuredly, if we consider alcohol, illicit drugs, and psychotherapeutic alterations of raw perception. And how many guys don't like blowjobs? And what's wrong with them?

See? Twisting the definition of "deviancy" between the statistical (e.g. objective) and moral (e.g. subjective) creates all sorts of gray zones that aren't really relevant.

So says me.

The concept of morality, in and of itself, is not immoral. For the most part, however, human methods of determining morality are.
 
EmptyForceOfChi said:
well?


is having morals morally right?


peace.
Click to expand...
Having them? Perhaps.
Forcing them on others (*cough*JamesR*cough*)? Absolutely not.
 
How does one go about forcing your morals on others? Unless you're in politics and can make laws, it's quite difficult, and even if you are in politics there are usually obstacles to overcome.

And on the internet, all you can really do is talk, and try to convince.
 
James R said:
How does one go about forcing your morals on others?
Click to expand...
Sticks and stones to break thier bones...

And on the internet, all you can really do is talk, and try to convince.
Click to expand...
Or whine, which is what you seem to do most often.
 
You just think it's whining about something unimportant because of your stunted sense of morality, Hapsburg. There's really not much point trying to get through to you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top