Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Where does your morality come from?
Do you mainly go on what feels right? A few underlying principles? God?
I do whatever the hell i want as long as it won't cause myself or others any permanent damage. That's my only rule, really.
AH DO WHAT AH WANT
thread title made me think of pressing issues with Maurice Chavez. I am now smiling, well done
gives the game away somewhat.
As does the luminous green cod-piece that looks like a sack of marbles.
in me by my Catholic upbringing.
and the vague thought that I might inflict the same thing on my own offspring is making me feel it even worse than ever.
it's a school thing to be honest. Plus i feel strange saying no to a christening...we haven't entirely decided..it's really a tricky subject
of a long drawn out thought process is it ... at least, not one that is taken part in by the individual usually.
I mean that morality isn't generally (especially on big issues like murder) a conclusion we come to in a rational, conscious way.
It is highly possible that a large part of it is a result of culture, upbringing etc. but there's so many factors acting upon the individual that I think it's impossible to break it down and say 'morality is a result of this, this and this' as it'll vary between each individual.
there surely has to be some sort of consensus on what is right and wrong.
And if there's no logical basis for morality then what argument can you use against people making laws that the majority of people agree with but maybe you don't?
For exmaple, murder shouldn't be illegal because it's morally wrong, it should rather be illegal in order to protect members of society.
But even when they are; firstly, just because morals are personal, doesn't mean that a majority might not subscribe to them; and in cases where law is drawn on moral lines, it should be in agreement with 'society' in general.
Then, as in your case, if I was to morally disagree with a law that strongly, that's what protest/civil disobedience etc. is for.
mainly used when people think the law should be changed?
eg. When they morally object to it.
See; America, Civil Rights Movement
that protest/civil disobedience should be used in order to draw attention to a cause so that the general public changes their moral stance so the law is changed?
Rather than their being a logical reason why the law is wrong in the first place?
Or rather, or drawing the attention of the state to the fact that the public opinion has changed.
Because largely, when morally based laws such as discriminative race laws, or rape laws, abortion laws, divorce laws etc. are made, they are acceptable to the public at that time. It is only through gradually changing moral values that they become invalidated.
we've evolved to behave that way.
If not, why not?
the central systems of tenets and values change over time (concerning slavery for example). If you agree with the values of this age then you'd think slavery was wrong, if you were alive a few hundred or thousand years ago then you'd think slavery was ok. Who's to say who's more right if you're going on what the societal norms are both times?
why trust it?
on some aspects of morality but it's usually the really hate-filled bits of it.
so i'm moral so that i can tell everyone else off
i havent been to sleeop in two dyas.
I've got to hand in alll my work by 2 today. And we just had a goddamn fire drill and they fine you if you dont come out the building
my fingers hurt i hate uni
Lame lame lame
morality is journalism.
morality IN journalism.
Morals can only be right for their particular location and time period.
I think the change of moral values across time and space proves that there is no such thing as an objective morality.
otherwise they're worthless.
My Christian housemate 'doesn't believe' in sex before marriage, but when she had a boyfriend, she clearly wanted to. Sticking to something you don't really believe in seems pointless.
I don't have many strongly held morals. Trying my best not to hurt anyone is all, I suppose.
where's the contradiction?
I wouldn't WANT to do something I didn't believe was right. It's not like "oh, I really want to mug this person, but I won't because I don't believe in it." If it's something I want to do, I'll do it.
but i see your point.
IF you're confident that you won't want to start mugging people.
guilt and thw witherring looks of my friends and those in atuhority keep me in check. That, and surpressing urges obviously
But I cannot listen to this morality, I basically do whatever I like. My mother is, it seems, not a strong force of influence these days.