...doing what you personaly believe is wrong, for the sake of satisfying your desires.

Does anyone agree?

No. All but about 40 people on Earth believe the wrong thing, or dont believe anything at all.

quote:Originally posted by Spirit of '22:

No. All but about 40 people on Earth believe the wrong thing, or dont believe anything at all.

So exactly what is the right thing to believe???

I would classify immorality as doing what *someone else* believes is wrong, to satisfy your own desires.

quote:Originally posted by RnNhyde:

I would classify immorality as doing what *someone else* believes is wrong, to satisfy your own desires.

So what you're saying is that you're own beliefs count for nothing?

Morality is completely subjective.

quote:Originally posted by Beany:

So what you're saying is that you're own beliefs count for nothing?

Yes and No?

If your belief was, murder = Immorality.

You would judge someone on that simple belief, but for someone else, murder might not = Immorality.

And so in whose eyes are they to be judged in?

Yours who would say that they have wronged, or theirs where there would be no wrong done.

Well surely if anything should be judged it should be the intent behind the action.

For instance, someone may steal some bread (which some would say way immoral), but that person truley believes he is doing good because he plans to give it to the starving.

As far as he is concerned, he is doing good.

It's the intentions of the individual that determines whether it's immoral or moral

molrality is arelitive term or it doesn't exist

I believe morallity was invented by society as another means of keeping control. By getting the majority to believe that this is bad, and this is good, this is "moral" and this is "Immoral" people developed an instinct to decide which was which thus keeping them from doing things that could cause troubles in society. But if you think about it, what's moral or not depends on the person and what they believe.

No, morals are eternal and unchangeable, that's what makes them morals.

quote:Originally posted by VeneFrigus:

No, morals are eternal and unchangeable, that's what makes them morals.

That would make sense if it weren't for what some cultures deem perfectly moral being completely immoral in others and vice versa.

i don't agree with that. morals are universal. some cultures, put simply, got it wrong. basically it all comes down to don't be a prick.

many of the 'morals' we live by now are basically creations by the church to keep us in line. that is slowly changing though.

if morals are universal, then why are they subject to change and why do some cultures morals contradict each other?

In feudal Japan, when you dishonored somebody, you were expected to commit Seppuku. Failing that, the person that you dishonored was obligated to slay you.

Why is this no longer a morally acceptable practice in many cultures? Ill tell you why. It's because morals are relative. Simple conclusion that explains everything and doesn't require special pleading.

Just because people no longer believe that doesnt mean its no longer right.

weren't we suppose to make a list:

Killing without intent to eat the thing killed

mating without intent to reproduce

wasting food/resources (eating without the intent of using the energy)



someone else give some more

The whole part about being "eternal and unchangeable" places them above human whims...

quote:Originally posted by dr_rock:



mating without intent to reproduce



Are you serious? That's the single dumbest thing I've ever heard. Reproduction is for physical enjoyment. Reading and other things like it are for the mind. And meditation, etc are for the soul.

no I wasn't serious actually! http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

I was also gonna add things like reading without the intent to learn...

I believe the statement at the top of this page, and that morals are determined by each individual person. Societies have been pressing people into set beliefs for too long. People need to break free.

What is immoral has generally been things that hinder the survival of our species. That is why murder, for instance, is usually considered immoral. Evolution at its finest. A society that works together and refrains from murdering their children are more likely to be fruitful.

There are of course exceptions, most of which are bullshit made up through organized religion.

quote:Originally posted by Dark_Magneto:

That would make sense if it weren't for what some cultures deem perfectly moral being completely immoral in others and vice versa.

That's not an accurate indicator.

I agree that morals are based upon culture, upbringing, and especially to the individual. Morals are developed individual by how you are raised, in which culture/society, what religion, and what you've been taught to believe. How can a set of morals be set in stone if, as said above, they are so subject to change?

Moral universalism is demonstrateably false.

just because people disagree does not mean there is more than one answer. take the whole god thing, people say he does exist, others disagree. there can only be one answer.

this is like morals, there are certain universal morals, (keep in mind that morals do not speicify punishment, so your japanese thing was more of a tradition) and there are made up ones.

universal ones are the ones that will still exist when the world ends, the rest will be fought and killed over. demonstrations do not matter, because alot of people are wrong, as i said, using their pseudo brand of behavioral guidlines for thier own personal gain.

Just a quick side question; why is the most common example in moral dilemmas bread?

Beany - "For instance, someone may steal some bread"

Anyone know...

Are you asking what the most universal taboo is?

Because I would guess women committing adultery and cowardice in battle are tied for first.

When speaking on morals I tend to hear about either murdering someone or cheating on someone as the prime examples. As far as bread? I've never really heard anything about bread except for on this forum.

you can justify anything with that type of logic. just because the effect of not doing it (starving) is larger than doing it (someone looses thier bread) does not make it right.

but, if you were to talk to the bread dude, and explain the situation, if he could spare the bread it would be morally right for him to give it to you.

elimination the middleman? who knows, although morals may be universal (as i claim) it does not mean that we know them.

quote:Originally posted by Gumbercules:

Just a quick side question; why is the most common example in moral dilemmas bread?

Beany - "For instance, someone may steal some bread"



Because it's easy to identify with and it doesn't take your mind away from the main point.

If I said something like 'Robbing a bank with a sawn off shotgun and using the money to pay for you daughters cancer treatment', it would take your mind too far off the subject.

quote:Originally posted by RAOVQ:

you can justify anything with that type of logic. just because the effect of not doing it (starving) is larger than doing it (someone looses thier bread) does not make it right.



The point I made was that the theif believed it is right. The theif believes that the end justifys the means and so to him, it is moral.

I respect anyone who stands up for what he believes in. It's a form of weakness to do otherwise.

Immorality is thinking you're right when you really do it for lust or cover.

You're all talking abour bread now.

quote:Originally posted by RAOVQ:

just because people disagree does not mean there is more than one answer. take the whole god thing, people say he does exist, others disagree. there can only be one answer.

There can very easily be more than one answer.

[This message has been edited by Schizophrenic Styrofoam (edited 06-01-2003).]

came accross this in my travels

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy,

education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man

would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of

punishment and hope of reward after death."

*

- Albert Einstein

gotta love that einstein.

ultimately, we could debate morals forever and would never get to a precise answer we all agreed upon. There would be things we agreed upon, but there would be little things we could get angery at each other about for a long time, and each side could make valid points. In the end, it's a matter of personal opinion, which is often formed by your conditioning, although some people will completely shed themselves of conditioning

quote:Originally posted by UrbnTbone:

Immorality is thinking you're right when you really do it for lust or cover.

...and sucking the cash cock.

The fact that people can't universally agree on a commonly accepted set of morals kind of does a number on the idea that any number of morals are intrinsic.

Bullshit Dark. Agreement is meaningless as a proof of origin. When agreement rules the day, then morals are meaningless.

I think morals are a way to keep society together to ensure survival.

Current western society has gone way past "survival". We sub-contract our survival now. We specialize in this-or-that (including the survival business itself), but I'll agree that this was once true.

Also, morals are compromised, to varying degrees, when societies are formed. The degree to which they have to be compromised - is determined by the range in the quality of the moral input that it's members provide. Basic civilization doesn't come without a price.