How We Should Define Morality

Discussion in 'Philosophy' started by NuTone, Aug 8, 2011.

  1. #1 NuTone, Aug 8, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 8, 2011
    The man of knowledge must be able not only to love his enemies but also to hate his friends.

    I think I see where people try to go with a word such as Moral -what acts of human nature are to be considered 'right' or 'wrong', 'good' or 'bad',- but I think we should be refraining from using such standard, and weak definitions of these words. If anything, in an attempt to create a celestial framework for humanity, why not 'smart' and 'dumb', 'wise' and 'foolish'? Only then should we practice associating the definitions of these words to keep our most complex issues (poverty, unnecessary war, education, etc.) to a minimum.

    Words like 'right' and 'wrong' can usually lack a universal meaning when it comes to trying to reason with people. You may think abortions are ‘wrong’ because it involves killing a living, breathing organism; the unwilling, to-be-mother might think you’re ‘wrong’ to protest this because you’ve disregarded the possibility of her dying while delivering a baby. This is all perspective, not compromise; we could both be 'right' or 'wrong' about things like this.

    You might think it’s ‘wrong’ that I want to abolish government entities like the Social Security Administration or S.N.A.P. (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program). I don’t think it is, but what we think shouldn’t mean anything. Can we both agree that we see the wisdom in making a habit out of helping those in need by ourselves? So that it’s easier to weed out abusers of a failing welfare system and make more room for the truly impoverished, who would then become less likely to resort to acts of violence, or pirating, just to survive?

    We need to learn when to put our emotions in the closet. There will always be a time and place for us to exercise our emotional health, but when it comes to making decisions that could possibly affect us all, they only create the kind of bias that then creates potential atrocities like neglected services, fights, and most worrisome, wars. That’s usually where ‘good’, ‘bad’, etc. derive, and whether it be the collective or individual, it's just an illusion.

    So what do you say? Can we put more focus on what we need to work, instead of what we want to work?
  2. #2 DBV, Aug 8, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 8, 2011
    I agree with you my friend, but I just want to say I don't believe people are dumb (unless they have a genetic mutation).. some people just play dumb. Who am I to judge others choice in happiness though? They say ignorance is bliss..
  3. #3 NuTone, Aug 8, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 8, 2011
    There are some actors out there, but there are some who truly have the misfortune of remaining ignorant and not by choice. I think certain cultures have a lot to do with it, and we all become a product of our cultures.

    At adolescence, our brains are still in a... sponge like mechanism, and we've yet to learn how to ring out the chemicals most hazardous to our well-being.

    Hopefully, people don't think I'm trying to speak for the entire human race; I just trying to work with what I'm given.
  4. #4 DBV, Aug 8, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 8, 2011
    That's a good point... I didn't really think of third world countries. I was mainly talking about USA. lol. I have a bad habit of only considering my own culture sometimes.

    Anyways, back to OP. I think people just need to be more open to others choices and opinions. If you think something is "wrong", don't do it. But we shouldn't judge others choices of "right" just because we don't agree. We shouldn't announce the judgement to the public anyways.. ignorance is fine, but why tell the whole world you are, ya know?

    I'm a firm believer that judgement is necessary to remember who we are sometimes, but I don't think others need to hear our judgements.
  5. I think judgement is very important, the problem is that people can differ vastly in their own views on morality. My personal view is that some things are never alright (rape is one that comes to mind) but many things also change from situation to situation.

    I think some religions, companies, and our own laws need to make their judgements on a situational basis as opposed to saying a law/regulation is set in stone.
  6. I agree man.. the problem is the people were allowing to make these laws/regulations IMO. They aren't doing what the people want usually, but what they themselves think is right.

  7. philosophers should take over the govt. The old people are just making sure they have enough money to survive until they kick the bucket and they're overly cautious because all they care about is being re-elected.
  8. Haha. True again! There too stuck in the past, and not realising the times change. It just sucks that these same people have mastered the average human mindset, and used it for their own advantage. I agree philosophers should take over.. the world would be a more peaceful, efficient place.

Share This Page