Moral Values
Posted 9/10/08
- Are people inherently good?
- Doesn’t everyone know the difference between right and wrong?
- Why or why not?
- Do you think it is possible to have no moral values at all?
- What defines something as right or wrong?
Etc.

Feel free to discuss, debate, argue, w/e but avoid narrow minded blabbering, I mean, be better than me!

Definitions:
http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/morality.htm
Morality speaks of a system of behavior in regards to standards of right or wrong behavior. The word carries the concepts of: (1) moral standards, with regard to behavior; (2) moral responsibility, referring to our conscience; and (3) a moral identity, or one who is capable of right or wrong action. Common synonyms include ethics, principles, virtue, and goodness. Morality has become a complicated issue in the multi-cultural world we live in today. Let's explore what morality is, how it affects our behavior, our conscience, our society, and our ultimate destiny.

http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/moral-values-faq.htm
Moral values are the standards of good and evil, which govern an individual’s behavior and choices.

Floetry~

PS: I swear...I searched and searched..didn't find another thread about it..omg don't tell me that there is The only one I found was "Moral values and anime" lol...
9784 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Bored out of my m...
Offline
Posted 9/10/08
well to be honest i dont believe in right and wrong, or good and evil. i believe that thereis only intention, action, and reaction. although not ever right or wrong, the intentions and actions are either acceptable or unacceptable, which is where we get laws and the teachings of EVERY single religion about being good and loving everyone. i just used this in argument in a debate i was having by using the (rather extreme) example that Hitler and the Nazi regime were not evil. their intentions were good ie. make germany and ultimately the human race great and unite every nation, but their actions ie. invasion and attempted genocide, were unacceptable. now you could callme a Neo-Nazi like the cock i was arguing with, or you could think about it and either agree with me or try and prove me wrong in a sensible, intellectual way (like your supposed to do in debates and extended discussions)
2633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / New York City, NY
Offline
Posted 9/10/08
No.
No.
Will return with answers.
Theoretically, anything is possible. This calls for anecdotal evidence!
There are hundreds of different criteria for 'right' and 'wrong'.

Don't blame me. I have college to worry about
34511 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/10/08 , edited 9/10/08

Are people inherently good?


inheretently good?well i think most, or perhaps i should say all people are born pure without sins plus sins cant be inheretent from the parents to their child. so, throught the life they will learn about the world from the poeple all around him/her and thats the factor that shape his/her value of morality. it also depends most on the religion. the parents also, the main characters that shape their child, ie we can say shape all the new generation. but just still have more other factors which contribute to this.
inheretant...nope.


Doesn’t everyone know the difference between right and wrong?


well...basically they know, but due to certain factors most people just ignore them. many people just do what thy think suit and best for them (and ofcourse beneficial to them) neglecting others people around them. just being what they want to be without taking consideration on their actions' effect to the surrounding and to the social. its the world where right and wrong is forgotten and all people now tend to do thing that they found most favourable to them.so, better to say that they keep doing things that they think is good, even other people think thats bad.
just take examples of national view of terrorism, where you may see many contradicton and issues discussed all over the world till we get confuse who's the good one and who's the bad one



Do you think it is possible to have no moral values at all?


no moral values? though i say before that people now neglecting the right and the wrong but moral values still important. people depend on it, after religion ofcourse to know what they should behave towards each other mainly. without it im sure the society will loss its balance and many social related issues will come our one after another.


What defines something as right or wrong?


for me, religion. it told us what to do and what to dont do.thats final, and ust follow it. its the guidance for all people who have their own believes, to have a better life and solved problem arounds without considering their own benefits.
but sometimes i like a phase from rurouni kenshin by nobuhiro watsuki, where he says that no one is good or bad, only history told who's the good and who's the bad one. so he telling that poeple actually dont know if they are right or wrong but onlt time will tell them, as they grows and learn from the effect of what they had did before which shape their life that time.


Posted 9/10/08
Morals are defined by society.
33522 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
ಠ_ಠ
Offline
Posted 9/10/08
I'll just answer the questions you threw out. I dont' feel like answering the first three right now.



- Do you think it is possible to have no moral values at all?
Depending on the environment you grew up in, and how your mind is set. Such as, if you grew up in a nasty neighborhood with irresponsible parents, depending on how your mind is set I believe you could either easily adapt to this neighborhood and act the same as them and your parents, rejecting your moral values, OR you could have the opposite mind set and reject how everyone acts and use what they do to better yourself and improve your moral standard.

- What defines something as right or wrong?
Right or wrong, was created by "us" in a sense, and is purely opinion and facts that we know. "Right" is what they accept, and "wrong" is what they reject, where as another person's opinion against another person's opinion, some things could be "right" and some things could be "wrong" causing differences. Such as if person A says person B is wrong for, let's say not believing in religion. Person A believes that he is "right" and that person B is "wrong" for not believing in god and says they will go to hell, where as person B states that Person A is "wrong" and that he does not believe in god, and not believing in god means he will not go to hell and is saying he is "right". You could also throw in some math and science theories. Saying 2+2=5 instead of 4. Or even some Science theories you can claim they are wrong. But Math values are recognized and their values have meaning, such as 2 is equal to 1+1 and etc. Also these values are accepted by the world. Most Science theories are proven with facts and experiementations, causing them to be right.

I could keep continuing with examples, but what i'm saying is different opinions make different right and wrongs, it's all opinion on what you believe is right and wrong.

Fuck, I have no idea what I just typed. And I don't feel like proofreading because I have homework
Posted 9/11/08
- Are people inherently good?
Yes.

- Doesn’t everyone know the difference between right and wrong?
I guess not.

- Why or why not?
Lack of education or life experience, perhaps.

- Do you think it is possible to have no moral values at all?
No, it is not possible. However you may see a person, there is still something good about him.

- What defines something as right or wrong?
God
Posted 9/11/08

RaikuRoak wrote:

I'll just answer the questions you threw out. I dont' feel like answering the first three right now.



- Do you think it is possible to have no moral values at all?
Depending on the environment you grew up in, and how your mind is set. Such as, if you grew up in a nasty neighborhood with irresponsible parents, depending on how your mind is set I believe you could either easily adapt to this neighborhood and act the same as them and your parents, rejecting your moral values, OR you could have the opposite mind set and reject how everyone acts and use what they do to better yourself and improve your moral standard.


- What defines something as right or wrong?
Right or wrong, was created by "us" in a sense, and is purely opinion and facts that we know. "Right" is what they accept, and "wrong" is what they reject, where as another person's opinion against another person's opinion, some things could be "right" and some things could be "wrong" causing differences. Such as if person A says person B is wrong for, let's say not believing in religion. Person A believes that he is "right" and that person B is "wrong" for not believing in god and says they will go to hell, where as person B states that Person A is "wrong" and that he does not believe in god, and not believing in god means he will not go to hell and is saying he is "right". You could also throw in some math and science theories. Saying 2+2=5 instead of 4. Or even some Science theories you can claim they are wrong. But Math values are recognized and their values have meaning, such as 2 is equal to 1+1 and etc. Also these values are accepted by the world. Most Science theories are proven with facts and experiementations, causing them to be right.

I could keep continuing with examples, but what i'm saying is different opinions make different right and wrongs, it's all opinion on what you believe is right and wrong.

Fuck, I have no idea what I just typed. And I don't feel like proofreading because I have homework

This concludes that the individual has no moral feelings from beginning, they are made throughout life.
Don't you think that it might as well be in you, whether you do bad or not? Some people can kill without feeling bad about it, and some just can't, even if they didn't get in contact with moral values. Some people were simply born that way, to feel the way they do. Some were born in a society where it is fully acceptable to kill, and even though it is widely accepted in the given culture, the children differ among themselves, some feel strange, uncomfortable when seeing how their father or village kills an animal for a feast, while another child finds this rather exciting and cool. And that's not because the child is trying to reject how everyone acts, or trying to differ itself from the others, it's just it feels some sort of compassion for the animal, as the child realises that the animal feels the pain, it is trying to understand the feelings of the animal, even if it is just an animal. It just doesn't feel comfortable with the idea of hurting someone else.

While I do agree that morality is mostly set up by the given societies, there is still a source for all this moral codex, and that is ourselves. We are the creators of this moral values, thus we are the ones who have this moral feelings in ourselves, otherwise why would there be any morality at all if we didn't have this inborn?

Some children, as you might have noticed, who are under the age of being able to fully comprehend their surrounding and the actions of the older ones, do things, instinctual things, some child kills the bug because it finds it funny, and it doesn't feel the right or wrong, as it is too young for having ever been confronted with the rights and wrongs, while another child would never harm a fly. The question is, why is that so? Wouldn't that mean that we have this morality inborn? Of course society forces the people to act after a given law, morality, while some can do this easily, some can't, some outcasts are just too scared to take the consequences of doing bad, that's the survival instinct, and knowing that the consequences would harm themselves, they avoid doing things that would not conform with the morality of the majority, either they will do it secretly, or avoid this matter in general. But some do lack the strength of this instinct, and do bad anyway.

Floetry~
657 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Silverspring Mary...
Offline
Posted 9/11/08
-FUCK NO is anyone inherently good. When your born, you are evil. Then when you grow up you learn more things and you stay evil or become good. Do you know why your evil? Because you don't know anything yet. You wouldn't be able to tell if shooting someone is a bad thing right? And you'd have no reason to do something good for someone without any knowledge. You'd act more like an animal than do something "human." Of course I'm not 100% correct though.
-No.
-Because everyone has thier own point of view and that goes for whats good and bad too.
-Yea it's possible to have no moral values because then some people might just plainly not give a shit for anything in their life and not be able to explain it.
-People with different personalities will have different answers to whats right and wrong. Like me. If you watched Death Note, then I agree with Light's actions ( untill he started killing a massive amount of people for no reason.) I find nothing wrong with someone wanting to rid the world of criminals. And why can't he desire to become a "god of the new world?".

But that discussion is for another time >_>.
1433 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / New York
Offline
Posted 9/12/08
1.) Ignoring my rejection of the good/bad system, I'd say that it would be ignorant to make a statement one way or the other regardinng "human nature," not only because such generalizations are often wrong, but because it is clear that our nature is at least somewhat fluid.

2&3.) If that were true, there would be no need to teach it. Kant thought we could come to morality through reason alone, but that's only true in one sense. When you define morality as maxims that treat men as ends rather than means, can be universalized, and can be actualized, you are setting up your own system. Thus, I agree with him to some extent (universalization has problems) in the sphere of his own system, but not my own, which resembles Hume's. More on that later.

4.) I believe it is possible in theory if "moral values" are systems of thought that hold one back from action that affirms his needs and/or desires, barring self-utilitarian systems, i.e. I will do this because it brings me pleasure, but I will not do that because it brings me pain; it is, after all, only natural to seek pleasure and avoid pain. This possibility calls to mind an image of an animal, perhaps specifically low-order, though I am not associating that with "bad." Humans like to think of themselves as superior to animals for a number of reasons, one of which being the capacity for moral reasoning--but I don't think this makes us any better. Besides, who are we to say whether other animals can have morality when we can't even understand their language?

Anyway, I emphasized "in theory" to make the point that, while possible, it is highly unlikely, given the difficulty, if not impossibility, of growing up without any form of socialization. Even then, it would not be guaranteed that the individual would not feel some sort of kinship to his fellow man. Thus it would be necessary to have a specific genetic code and to grow without any socializing agents.

5.) As the terms have no objective value, we can say that either everyone does or no one does. Still, there seem to be certain rules common to moralities across the world, which poses the question: how did they come to be? Here is where I hold with Hume. Surely it would be obvious to any group that wants to survive that rules--or, at least at first, natural consequences--need to be in place to prevent the group's collapse. If a group were to allow its members to kill at random, for example, there would be widespread unhappiness and inefficiency. Over time, people began to build on these rules, first with consequentialist intent (again, to affirm rules that bring more pleasure than pain), then with bastardized and corrupt forms of the originals. Institutions were created for the purpose of socializing members of the group to follow these rules (whether they were really created or simply arose naturally at this point is up for debate), but then these institutions gained power and began to affirm themselves over the people. I could go on, but the point is made: rules emerged as they either proved to or were concluded through reason to be effective, which was, at least at first, a matter of producing the most pleasure with the least amount of pain. Throw in different geography and external events, and you have widespread systems with a number of similarities but many differences as well.
Posted 1/3/10
User has nuked, but anyone is welcomed to recreate.
You must be logged in to post.