Is Morality Subjective? What exactly is "Wrong"?

D

Dove

Registered Senior Member
I have been thinking about this for years....through my life experience of witnessing the victory of evil over good.......


(1)Is morality subjective? Some things you do may not be "bad" depending on the context? Eg: If you a victim of injustice, and nobody is helping you.

(2)Do you feel if you do bad things....bad things will happen to you? Bad Karma?

(3) After all, God helps those who help themselves, may be God is giving you the message: help yourself by fighting back ….that is the reason he leave you so alone and lonely so that you pull up your socks and fight back?


Please refer to my other post I posted in Easter Philosophy for those of you who have read any Hindu Scriptures/Bible-titled 'Bhagawada Gita nd Morals-for those who are sufferng: My post is also pasted below:

"Good people like us have grown up with the belief system which includes things like lying is bad, one must always speak the truth etc etc. I want to know what exactly the is the "right" thing to do when one is suffering? Just because we have grown up with this belief that 'truth is good and lying is bad', may not necessarily mean that it is correct. May be it is wrong! Shouldn’t we all as intelligent human beings, question our beliefs if they simply don’t work? I write this as I am going through a bad phase right now: of being victimized and bullied at work by 4 co-workers…so much so that I have been in pain and depression for over two years and am being forced to leave my job just like scores of other victims of irrational, unfair bullying at workplace. The victims will be fired or they will quit, we all know that. I think I have suffered: as I refused to lie and because I was honest. I would like to know what would God want me to do in a situation like this. Imagine a scenarios, for example, where a morally right ‘victim’ lies….cooks up stories about these 4 psychopaths….complains to her useless manager that these 2 psychopaths were ill mouthing “her”…..and every time they abuse the victim..she abuses them BACK!….? And don’t get me wrong here…..and don’t give the reasoning “why should we stoop to their level….” They are stepping all over the victim remember? The victim will do this just ‘once’….and not to ‘everyone’ but JUST to these bullies who are harassing her….not out of vengance but only to save her self from this unfair intolerable humiliation the victim has been facing. By doing this the victim will not turn into a devil overnight…..he will still continue to be the nice person he is….its just that he will take the power in her hands…the power to “not be humiliated”.
Is there anyone around here who has read any religious scripture like the Bible of the Bahgavad Gita? What is the right thing to do? We are not dealing with normal people here, we are dealing with evil psychopaths at work… no different than rapists….its just that they rape our minds….of peace and dignity.

Even in Mahabharata and Ramayana…. God “faught” the battle! They did not take it lying down…..Draupadi was avenged….and so was Sita."
 
1) I have always been one to feel that all ethics and morality are dictated my man and society, not a god or gods.

2) The only karma out there is whatever is enforced by other men. Do something people don't like and they may imprison, kick the crap out of, or kill you. By the same lights, they may hail you as a hero. But you can't blame your car not starting up on bad karma accumulated by cheating on your girlfriend... unless she decided to put sugar in your gastank.

3) Being agnostic, I make no assumptions that god is there or not there or whatever he may be thinking. You just have to do whatever feels right or necessary at the time. Other people may have a problem with it but screw them. Your way may be less popular, but it is by no means 'wrong'.
 
And I only now notice that the bastard double posted.... once here in Ethics and again in Religion.
 
Thanks clockwood for your post.

Also I am not a bastard, I really need help from any sourse, That is the reason why I posted it in two forums. Sorry about that.
 
Clockwood said:
And I only now notice that the bastard double posted.... once here in Ethics and again in Religion.
Click to expand...
U r President of Bush for sure.

U always rant about 911 but hav no mental capacity to understand why WTC was attacked, until people like U exist there will be increasingly more holocaust.

Just the same way U didnt think why poor dove fled in both the subforums. Hell with amerricans, Long live Osama.

I would love to explode 5 trucks full of gas cylinders near your home.
 
Dove said:
I have been thinking about this for years....through my life experience of witnessing the victory of evil over good.......


(1)Is morality subjective? Some things you do may not be "bad" depending on the context? Eg: If you a victim of injustice, and nobody is helping you.

(2)Do you feel if you do bad things....bad things will happen to you? Bad Karma?

(3) After all, God helps those who help themselves, may be God is giving you the message: help yourself by fighting back ….that is the reason he leave you so alone and lonely so that you pull up your socks and fight back?


Please refer to my other post I posted in Easter Philosophy for those of you who have read any Hindu Scriptures/Bible-titled 'Bhagawada Gita nd Morals-for those who are sufferng: My post is also pasted below:

"Good people like us have grown up with the belief system which includes things like lying is bad, one must always speak the truth etc etc. I want to know what exactly the is the "right" thing to do when one is suffering? Just because we have grown up with this belief that 'truth is good and lying is bad', may not necessarily mean that it is correct. May be it is wrong! Shouldn’t we all as intelligent human beings, question our beliefs if they simply don’t work? I write this as I am going through a bad phase right now: of being victimized and bullied at work by 4 co-workers…so much so that I have been in pain and depression for over two years and am being forced to leave my job just like scores of other victims of irrational, unfair bullying at workplace. The victims will be fired or they will quit, we all know that. I think I have suffered: as I refused to lie and because I was honest. I would like to know what would God want me to do in a situation like this. Imagine a scenarios, for example, where a morally right ‘victim’ lies….cooks up stories about these 4 psychopaths….complains to her useless manager that these 2 psychopaths were ill mouthing “her”…..and every time they abuse the victim..she abuses them BACK!….? And don’t get me wrong here…..and don’t give the reasoning “why should we stoop to their level….” They are stepping all over the victim remember? The victim will do this just ‘once’….and not to ‘everyone’ but JUST to these bullies who are harassing her….not out of vengance but only to save her self from this unfair intolerable humiliation the victim has been facing. By doing this the victim will not turn into a devil overnight…..he will still continue to be the nice person he is….its just that he will take the power in her hands…the power to “not be humiliated”.
Is there anyone around here who has read any religious scripture like the Bible of the Bahgavad Gita? What is the right thing to do? We are not dealing with normal people here, we are dealing with evil psychopaths at work… no different than rapists….its just that they rape our minds….of peace and dignity.

Even in Mahabharata and Ramayana…. God “faught” the battle! They did not take it lying down…..Draupadi was avenged….and so was Sita."
Click to expand...
To force people to do things against their nature, whether in the name of morality, god or science is truly 'immoral' and 'wrong' in the real sense. Everything else is subjective.
 
It's a simple question to answer, the best example for this is war. Let's use the Civil War example, for lack of a better one.


Before the Civil War a couple breaks up, the man leaves with the older son and the mother remains behind with the younger one. They live in bordering states now, and the civil war breaks out, the man has retreated into Union Territory, the woman stayed behind in Confederate territory.

Both children are sent to war and see each other in the battlefield.

What is the right thing to do? Both have the issue of fighting for their country (The confederate states were considered a country) or give mercy to their family members. The older brother who left decides not to shoot his younger brother, but continue to fight for his country. The younger brother shoots his older brother in defense of the Confederacy.

Who was right?

A good example to think about when examining morality. There is no right answer, you weigh your choices in your mind and come up with what makes sense to you. The older brother felt guilty for abandoning his younger brother and took mercy on him, the younger brother defends his country and shoots his older brother, the abandoner. However, the older brother didn't choose to leave, he was taken by his father.
 
Kalypso said:
...when examining morality. There is no right answer, you weigh your choices in your mind and come up with what makes sense to you.
Click to expand...

Well, I have to disagree. For one thing, unless one is totally isolated from any contact with any other human, your statement might be taken as more or less accurate.

However, in human society, one is NOT an isolated individual, nor do his decisions affect ONLY him ...they often, if not always, have some effect on the entire society. And as such, the society should, and must, be considered before making such a monumentous decision ...because it's not yours alone to make.

I think that's where we (modern western civilizations) have erred with regard to morality and such issues. We're much more apt to take the individualistic approach, as you've suggested, but that often as not leads to conflict of opinions, if not outright conflicts. And our world is now living proof of the problems with regard to differences of opinions ...we're a world full of conflict because we're a world that does NOT take into account the effects that our decisions have on others.

Baron Max

PS - the younger brother was right when he shot his brother. He was fighting a war, and had he not killed his brother, that brother might well have killed many of the younger brother's friends and comrades.
 
The point of the story is that neither action were right, to adress your PS, starting from where the brothers see each other:

Morality is not simply whether or not something his right or wrong. Those two words are arbitrary, the reasons behind them is what matters. You say the younger brother was right because the older brother may have killed his comrads if he hadn't shot him. It's a war after all.

However, that is not absolute. It's a weighing of choices. There is no Right or Wrong answer.

If you believe he was "right" for the reasons you say then it was in your mind a correct decision weighing the factors. From someone elses point of view, the action of killing ones own brother could set a bad precident for the future. It could alienate the one way the younger brother were to meet his father again. It could do any number of things, I'm sure everyone can come up with their own.

It's not as simple as the one issue you are talking about, the lives of his comrads. That is not an absolute reason to form a decision. There are no absolute reasons to form a decision, not even one involving your own life. It's ALWAYS a weighing of options, of opinions, a choice.

Right and Wrong are arbitrary words.
 
Kalypso said:
Right and Wrong are arbitrary words.
Click to expand...

No, they are not arbitrary. Right and wrong are concepts set by society for which its members must/should act. People who like to think of themselves as "individuals", as not part of a society, always try to show that right and wrong are either arbitrary or are not absolute rules or such. But in truth, those rules/laws are SET, are DETERMINED, by the members of each society. There is nothing arbitrary about making those decisions for the good of the society.

However, before you begin to respond, try to remember that within any society, there can be and are other "societies/groups" who have their own agenda ...even if it's a dependent offshoot of the main society. Thus, a "rogue" society might actually be a part of the society, using all of the society's services, yet make claims of being independent (which they aren't!).

It's easy to say, to claim, that right and wrong are not rignt and wrong, but that doesn't make it true.

Baron Max
 
Baron Max said:
No, they are not arbitrary. Right and wrong are concepts set by society for which its members must/should act. People who like to think of themselves as "individuals", as not part of a society, always try to show that right and wrong are either arbitrary or are not absolute rules or such. But in truth, those rules/laws are SET, are DETERMINED, by the members of each society. There is nothing arbitrary about making those decisions for the good of the society.

However, before you begin to respond, try to remember that within any society, there can be and are other "societies/groups" who have their own agenda ...even if it's a dependent offshoot of the main society. Thus, a "rogue" society might actually be a part of the society, using all of the society's services, yet make claims of being independent (which they aren't!).

It's easy to say, to claim, that right and wrong are not rignt and wrong, but that doesn't make it true.

Baron Max
Click to expand...
Do you mean to say societies standards determine what's right and wrong?
 
Kalypso said:
Do you mean to say societies standards determine what's right and wrong?
Click to expand...

Huh? What the hell is "society's standards"?

But, no, ye're taking this to far ....keep it simple, then you'll understand. Society (a group of people) decide/determine what is right and wrong for the group ...it's that simple. Don't go into the bullshit of psycho-babble and useless philosophical crap ...you can do that later!

It's nothing more than, when two people become roommates in an apartment, they set up rules ...like "No shitting in the liviing room!" or "Don't piss in the stewpot!" Those rules, those laws, are simply methods by which the two people can live togehter somewhat peacefully. See? Those are the "right n' wrong" in that "society" of two. And it ain't no different when the number of individual members is ten or ten thousand.

Okay. If you now have a good grasp of that ...you can begin the psycho-babble bullshit and the useless philosophical crap. Someone else might answer those useless questions for you, but probably not me.

Baron Max
 
Baron Max said:
Huh? What the hell is "society's standards"?

But, no, ye're taking this to far ....keep it simple, then you'll understand. Society (a group of people) decide/determine what is right and wrong for the group ...it's that simple. Don't go into the bullshit of psycho-babble and useless philosophical crap ...you can do that later!

It's nothing more than, when two people become roommates in an apartment, they set up rules ...like "No shitting in the liviing room!" or "Don't piss in the stewpot!" Those rules, those laws, are simply methods by which the two people can live togehter somewhat peacefully. See? Those are the "right n' wrong" in that "society" of two. And it ain't no different when the number of individual members is ten or ten thousand.

Okay. If you now have a good grasp of that ...you can begin the psycho-babble bullshit and the useless philosophical crap. Someone else might answer those useless questions for you, but probably not me.

Baron Max
Click to expand...
Those aren't so much right and wrong as just plain stupidity, don't shit in the living room?

I'm talking about real decisions, not pointless stupid actions.
 
Kalypso said:
I'm talking about real decisions, not pointless stupid actions.
Click to expand...

They're all the same ...little decisions, big decisions. They're all made with the same basic ideals of morality. You just don't like to view it that way because you don't get to do any high-sounding, highclass psycho-babbling so as to confuse the entire issue and make for more useless words and sentences.

Baron Max
 
Please link me something in my posts you don't understand so I can explain it. I don't use psycho babble, I re-read all my posts in this thread and I can't find anything even close to psycho-babble... it's pretty straightforward.

Also, you have not dealt with my original example, a good demonstration of where there is absolutely no right or wrong. You simply present a much simpler argument, trying to avoid my post, dismissing it as "Psycho-babble," if you can't understand it take an english class.

Little decisions and big decisions are the same, as you said, except for one major aspect: the magnitude of the decision. Your example (Not shitting on the couch) is a decision so miniscule it does not belong in the conversation. In order for me to form a counter-point for this, I would need to go in the oposite direction of the simplicity of the decision, to an over-complicated explination of why that decision would not always be right or wrong. For example, someone breaks into your house, holds your girlfriend at gunpoint and tells you to shit on the couch and he'll leave, otherwise he'll kill your girlfriend in front of you.

If you simply can't understand either my basic writing (Anyone who listened in high school english should be able to read this with no problem) or my argument (Simply being able to see an issue from more than one point of view) it's you with the flawed argument. Not me.

Put it like this:

You claim there is an absolute right or wrong decision given the circumstances for any given situation.
This means that under no circumstances would that decision be overrulled, unless of course, it's not absolute.
Your example was not shitting on a couch. I gave you a situation where shitting on a couch is perfectly acceptable. Therefore, the "wrong" decision to shit on the couch is not absolute, and therefore your argument is void.

Care to continue? Or can you understand my psychobabble...
 
Kalypso said:
You claim there is an absolute right or wrong decision given the circumstances for any given situation.
Click to expand...

Where did I ever make such a claim???

As to psycho-babble, that also refers to the amount of text that you type ...just garbage and lots and lots of words that have little or no meaning that you could say in one or two small, uncomplex sentences. Try simplifying your responses ...you'll have better luck getting people to respond.

Baron Max
 
I like to completely explain myself to avoid confusion. You should try it, as you just caused some.

Thanks for ignoring my posts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top