Who are more moral? Men or women?

[Balerion]

Really? Do you really need it spelled out for you? Here's the one literal enough that even you should be able to get it.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/morality

And in case you don't understand what virtue is, from the same source:


Thus morality is inclusive of honesty in sexual matters. Can't get any more clear than that.

But they all say something similar to this:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/morality


So as I already asked you, care to provide any references which explicitly exclude these (fidelity and honesty) from morality? Or in light of ANY definition you can find, how can infidelity and dishonesty be a standard of right human conduct? Or do you consider these to be completely appropriate when done against you?

The third definition of the third definition of morality according to Dictionary.com makes mention of honesty? Compelling argument.

Meanwhile, none of the other sources you provide make any mention of honesty or fidelity. It seems the burden is still on you to present an actual argument as to why (or indeed how) honest and fidelity are inexorably tied to morality as you claim.

But before we get to that, are you really telling me that it's always moral to be honest? That infidelity is always immoral?

 

[Syne]

The third definition of the third definition of morality according to Dictionary.com makes mention of honesty? Compelling argument.

Meanwhile, none of the other sources you provide make any mention of honesty or fidelity. It seems the burden is still on you to present an actual argument as to why (or indeed how) honest and fidelity are inexorably tied to morality as you claim.

But before we get to that, are you really telling me that it's always moral to be honest? That infidelity is always immoral?

Yeah, I get it. You either don't understand anything that isn't terribly literal or you're just a troll.

"Right conduct" is common to all definitions of morality, whether you can find those specific, literal words or not. Any rational adult should be able to realize that. Honesty an fidelity are ideals of right conduct.

It is generally more right to be honest and faithful than not. There are no absolutes such as "always". And any claims to the contrary would only indicate a justification of one's own immoral behavior, since you don't seem willing or capable of providing any reference that explicitly excludes these.


My guess is all of this is just because you're fuming over my trouncing your nonsense about matriarchies and oppression, and thus only trolling at this point.

 

[Balerion]

Yeah, I get it. You either don't understand anything that isn't terribly literal or you're just a troll.

"Right conduct" is common to all definitions of morality, whether you can find those specific, literal words or not. Any rational adult should be able to realize that. Honesty an fidelity are ideals of right conduct.

It is generally more right to be honest and faithful than not. There are no absolutes such as "always". And any claims to the contrary would only indicate a justification of one's own immoral behavior, since you don't seem willing or capable of providing any reference that explicitly excludes these.


My guess is all of this is just because you're fuming over my trouncing your nonsense about matriarchies and oppression, and thus only trolling at this point.

So let me get this straight...you say that honesty and fidelity are included in morality; I ask on what authority you make this claim (aka: "Says who?"); you respond by posting four links under the guise of showing me exactly who says; I point out that none of these sources actually mention honesty and fidelity as aspects of morality; now you say that there is no one who defines it that way, it just is that way?

Looks like a tantrum to me. And I know you don't think you "trounced" any argument I've put forth yet. I didn't even see your reply to me until just now (I was busy battling your intellectual twin, billvon), but just as billvon's posts, all of your points are based on sexism and a fundamental misunderstanding of just what exactly "evolution" is. You're one of those forum trolls who will hiss and claw until the person you're debating (I use the term loosely in your case, since you're really just arguing, rather than debating) tires and walks away. How many times do I have to shut down your point before you concede?

 

[Syne]

So let me get this straight...you say that honesty and fidelity are included in morality; I ask on what authority you make this claim (aka: "Says who?"); you respond by posting four links under the guise of showing me exactly who says; I point out that none of these sources actually mention honesty and fidelity as aspects of morality; now you say that there is no one who defines it that way, it just is that way?

Looks like a tantrum to me. And I know you don't think you "trounced" any argument I've put forth yet. I didn't even see your reply to me until just now (I was busy battling your intellectual twin, billvon), but just as billvon's posts, all of your points are based on sexism and a fundamental misunderstanding of just what exactly "evolution" is. You're one of those forum trolls who will hiss and claw until the person you're debating (I use the term loosely in your case, since you're really just arguing, rather than debating) tires and walks away. How many times do I have to shut down your point before you concede?

Yep, you're just a troll, as you have yet to provide ANY references while I have provided them for each of my points. And you already admitted that one mentioned honesty and fidelity, only you had to have simple words explained to you first.

 

[Balerion]

Yep, you're just a troll, as you have yet to provide ANY references while I have provided them for each of my points. And you already admitted that one mentioned honesty and fidelity, only you had to have simple words explained to you first.

Welcome to the ignore list, troll.

 

[Syne]

Projection. Classic of trolls who want to mince about literal, pedantic definitions rather than address the actual points made.

 

[Pandaemoni]

There's a difference between poor impulse control and irrationality. One is about mental maturity while the other is about cognitive reasoning.

Granted, cognitive reasoning will often be compromised in post hoc justifications for poor impulse control. So even though a criminal would have thought they could "get away with it" beforehand (which may be reasonable considering some actually do), they may justify it as "being right" afterward.

Where crime is concerned, we must also distinguish between irrational and unethical behavioral causes. It is possible to be the latter without necessitating the former.

There is a criminal gender gap even for white collar crimes (see, e.g., https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=120604), so you cannot simply assume that men's crimes are mostly about poor impulse control.

(An aside, is there any evidence men have worse impulse control than women?)

Criminal activity, as I said, has a moral dimension. as This thread is about the moral of men and women, that men are far more likely to be criminals is a salient point no matter what the underlying cause. The point is, men are more likely to kill you, rape you, steal from you, commit fraud, trade on inside information, commit acts of vandalism, cheat on their taxes, lie on credit applications, etc.

On the other hand, women generally lie more frequently in conversation (see, e.g., http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb01994.x/abstract).

I see no basis to call it anything other than a draw.

 

[Syne]

There is a criminal gender gap even for white collar crimes (see, e.g., https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=120604), so you cannot simply assume that men's crimes are mostly about poor impulse control.

(An aside, is there any evidence men have worse impulse control than women?)

Criminal activity, as I said, has a moral dimension. as This thread is about the moral of men and women, that men are far more likely to be criminals is a salient point no matter what the underlying cause. The point is, men are more likely to kill you, rape you, steal from you, commit fraud, trade on inside information, commit acts of vandalism, cheat on their taxes, lie on credit applications, etc.

On the other hand, women generally lie more frequently in conversation (see, e.g., http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb01994.x/abstract).

I see no basis to call it anything other than a draw.

I didn't say anything about a relationship between crime and poor impulse control. I even mentioned crimes people thought they "could get away with", which expressly precludes impulsiveness.

My point is that irrationality allows more possibility for erroneous justification of behavior.

Take this description of the difference between male and female ethics for example. http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/FemEth.htm Which description is more capable of forming a normative morality?

 

[michael_taylor]

Both of the "sides" which have developed sound insane to me.

How can the answer be anything other than "neither" ?

Bring them up properly, set a good example, they'll be moral. Don't, they won't. Gender is irrelevant to that.

 

[Arioch]

The answer to the OP is easy, it depends on what one considers to be moral. And given that morality is subjective to both circumstance and worldview the true answer is both and neither.

 

[Greatest I am]

No, it has to do with morality, which includes fidelity and honesty.

Then women are ahead of men hands down.
There are way more male whores than female whores.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

There is a criminal gender gap even for white collar crimes (see, e.g., https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=120604), so you cannot simply assume that men's crimes are mostly about poor impulse control.

(An aside, is there any evidence men have worse impulse control than women?)

Criminal activity, as I said, has a moral dimension. as This thread is about the moral of men and women, that men are far more likely to be criminals is a salient point no matter what the underlying cause. The point is, men are more likely to kill you, rape you, steal from you, commit fraud, trade on inside information, commit acts of vandalism, cheat on their taxes, lie on credit applications, etc.

On the other hand, women generally lie more frequently in conversation (see, e.g., http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb01994.x/abstract).

I see no basis to call it anything other than a draw.

A draw, no.
Not if you look at men as a group.

If men of today were moral, they would be pushing for equality of the sexes and the fact that they have the power and do so and do not shows beyond a doubt that the present morality of men suck and by men holding this ground, whatever improvements women can do will never be known. Men in wasting this resource show just how foolish and immoral we are.

 

[Greatest I am]

The answer to the OP is easy, it depends on what one considers to be moral. And given that morality is subjective to both circumstance and worldview the true answer is both and neither.

Yet women are and have been oppressed by man forever.

If men of today were moral, they would be pushing for equality of the sexes and the fact that they have the power and do so and do not shows beyond a doubt that the present morality of men suck and by men holding this ground, whatever improvements women can do will never be known. Men in wasting this resource show just how foolish and immoral we are.

Regards
DL

 

[Syne]

Then women are ahead of men hands down.
There are way more male whores than female whores.

First, I think you mean "slut" as "whore" denotes a prostitute, of which women compose a vast majority. Second, I said fidelity, not promiscuity. A person can be promiscuous when not in a committed relationship without violating any implicit trust.

But since you bring it up, why are women more likely to sell themselves for money, whether in a lucrative marriage or just sex? Is it all just supply and demand, or are women just more likely to devalue themselves to the extent that they see their bodies as their only valuable asset? The latter would imply that they rely more on others to determine their value judgments, a sort of social status morality.

 

[Greatest I am]

First, I think you mean "slut" as "whore" denotes a prostitute, of which women compose a vast majority. Second, I said fidelity, not promiscuity. A person can be promiscuous when not in a committed relationship without violating any implicit trust.

But since you bring it up, why are women more likely to sell themselves for money, whether in a lucrative marriage or just sex? Is it all just supply and demand, or are women just more likely to devalue themselves to the extent that they see their bodies as their only valuable asset? The latter would imply that they rely more on others to determine their value judgments, a sort of social status morality.

Women are placed in male brains alongside of tools.
Women have thus learned to use sex as a tool to gain some control of men.
Who is using who?

Regards
DL

 

[Syne]

First, I think you mean "slut" as "whore" denotes a prostitute, of which women compose a vast majority. Second, I said fidelity, not promiscuity. A person can be promiscuous when not in a committed relationship without violating any implicit trust.

But since you bring it up, why are women more likely to sell themselves for money, whether in a lucrative marriage or just sex? Is it all just supply and demand, or are women just more likely to devalue themselves to the extent that they see their bodies as their only valuable asset? The latter would imply that they rely more on others to determine their value judgments, a sort of social status morality.

Women are placed in male brains alongside of tools.
Women have thus learned to use sex as a tool to gain some control of men.
Who is using who?

Exactly, women have learned their moral values from men rather than being able to form a normative morality of their own.

 

[Greatest I am]

Exactly, women have learned their moral values from men rather than being able to form a normative morality of their own.

Hogwash.

Men, by their attitude, forced woman to evolve as she is.
It is not woman's fault that men are so sexually gullible.

Regards
DL

 

[Syne]

Hogwash.

Men, by their attitude, forced woman to evolve as she is.
It is not woman's fault that men are so sexually gullible.

Self-contradictory. If men are "gullible" (easily persuaded to believe something) then why is it women have adopted the attitude of men? You seem to make less sense as you carry on.

 

[birch]

And therein lies the genesis of this crackpot theory.

To begin, oppression does not equate to protection. In societies where women are and have been viewed as lesser beings, they are always subject to greater restrictions and punishments than men, not fewer. Women in Afghanistan under Taliban rule were forbade from going to school or getting a job, even from leaving the house without a male companion. And what do you suppose the penalties were for breaking these rules, or attempting to break these rules, or talking about breaking these rules? I can smell your brain burning, so I'll answer it for you: Beatings. Rape. Death.

And you say oppressed women are held less accountable for their actions?

Secondly, not all societies have mistreated their women, or given them less importance than men in society. There have been queens and empresses for thousands of years, and plenty of matriarchal societies throughout history in which women are the ones who dictate ethics and morality.

Women are now and always have been held responsible for their actions. Some societies have imposed greater limitations on their roles, but women have never been immune to punishment or retribution, so this idea that women are somehow less moral because they've never been held accountable is complete bunk. As is the misogynistic notion that we are predisposed to give women a pass for their behavior.

Now, to your last "point" about pregnant women requiring protection, you're talking about physical protection from outside threats, not immunity for their actions.



They're not helpless. If they were, we wouldn't be here now. And think about how ridiculous that idea is, bilvon. You're essentially saying that fat people are helpless.

Anyway, you're talking about physical protection. Like that buffoon quoted above, you've somehow confused this with protection from all consequences, which he cites as the reason for his absurd theory that women are less moral than men. This has nothing to do with morality.

great post.

 

[birch]

Self-contradictory. If men are "gullible" (easily persuaded to believe something) then why is it women have adopted the attitude of men? You seem to make less sense as you carry on.

they haven't adopted the 'attitude' of men, they are just fighting for their 'human' rights. you are inanely assuming that is just a male characteristic. that being said, of course, women aren't perfect either.

btw, the points you made do not make sense and are incredulously dull and that's a huge understatement.