Morality: Truth and False

Thoreau

Valued Senior Member
Non-existant Morality

I never quite understood the concept of debating morality between individuals. It's like trying to debate religion and prove who's right.

Morality is the concept of socially agree'd upon judgements of what is deemed as that which is acceptable and that which is not. And we determine these judgements based on what we, as a collective society, view as productive and destructive acts and behaviors in regards to our interactions and reactions with the people within our communities. WIth no other people around, who is to judge which is which?

Morality does not and cannot exist within the scope of pure individualism. It is the influence of others throughout our life which stamp and patent our judgements of morality, not hereditary predispositioned opinions. If one is never told what is right and wrong, then there is no true right or wrong and never will be. There is only what is productive and destructive to that human being.

We as a larger society have agree'd that murder is wrong/immoral. But what is murder to the uninfluenced human being that requires the killing of those around him for the goal of self-preservation? To him it is "right" because it is productive.


Ok, now do your thing.... I'm curious as to what this may turn into.
 
Last edited:
I agree.
You don't need a book, or a lecture to teach you morals.

You make them yourself.
 
there are ways to debate morality and ethics. we had a whole subject at uni on how to work out if something is ethical or not. in nursing and alied health the principle based ethics which relies on autonomy, benificence, non malficence and justice (as in social justice) are the 4 basic points which must be argued to prove that a course of action is ethical
 
I agree completely, but I'm not sure what you're asking of us...

All I'll say is that 100 years from now, all we hold as "moral" will be drastically different.
 
I think morals are based on individuality and society. Of course society has a great influence on all who live in it, but sometimes things just feel wrong personally, even if society has no problem with it, it just doesn't sit right with you individually. Even if it is condoned by society.
 
I never quite understood the concept of debating morality between individuals. It's like trying to debate religion and prove who's right.

Morality is the concept of socially agree'd upon judgements of what is deemed as that which is acceptable and that which is not. And we determine these judgements based on what we, as a collective society, view as productive and destructive acts and behaviors in regards to our interactions and reactions with the people within our communities. WIth no other people around, who is to judge which is which?

Morality does not and cannot exist within the scope of pure individualism. It is the influence of others throughout our life which stamp and patent our judgements of morality, not hereditary predispositioned opinions. If one is never told what is right and wrong, then there is no true right or wrong and never will be. There is only what is productive and destructive to that human being.

We as a larger society have agree'd that murder is wrong/immoral. But what is murder to the uninfluenced human being that requires the killing of those around him for the goal of self-preservation? To him it is "right" because it is productive.


Ok, now do your thing.... I'm curious as to what this may turn into.
I agree in part. But there are a couple of ways such discussions make sense. Once someone justifies their position you can 1) point out inconsistancies in their position 2) point out that the consquences of their positions don't match their justifications. 3) point out bad consequences that are not necessarily contradicting their position but which they may have a hard time approving ot
and so on.

Rarely to people simply have a moral position. They always have reasons. And that leaves a lot of swing room for discussion.
 
Back
Top