How Do You Define Morality?
 

By common standards, I am not only going to Hell, but I'm making the journey at light speed. Yet...you all know me, in a sense. Somehow, I've been able to communicate effectively enough that I never get anyone spewing back anything worse than, "I couldn't live that way, but I am interested in hearing how it works out for you."

Morals are supposed to be invariable. Absolute. Inflexible. But clearly, they are not.

So, Cellarites...what are your moral bases? And what do you accept, tolerate, and support in others, even though you yourself prefer not to cross a line?

For me, its in the Wiccan Rede..."an it harm none, do as ye will shall be the whole of the Law". And even that is subject to endless interpretation.

What say you? What's by you? What's by others?

I dont know what my morals are. I think my problem is the lack of them.

Right and wrong for me is very subjective to the situation, but as a rule, I am a fairly non judgmental person.

Like, I see nothing morally wrong with what you and Selene do 'spode , and most would know I can fully justify being the bit on the side.

The law is my moral compass mostly.

I'm with you on this one: "And it harm no-one, do as you will."

Seriously, all morality is just a codification of the rule-sets that allow humanity to exist in communities. Morality is intensely dependent on time, place and circumstance.

What Pie said.

Ditto, morals are just arbitrary codes of conduct, I can't believe at all that there's some ultimate truth and consequences from ignoring it.

Of course it's arbitrary. Your morals are the limits of behavior that you set for yourself. What you feel is right and wrong, what you feel you should and shouldn't do. Everyone determines their own morals.

It's cost vs benefit, what you can do depends on your situation and that of the people around you. If you're among people who are easily manipulated, then you have lots of options. It's an especially useful tactic to hogtie others with their own platitudes when the situation suits you.

Well, that's what your morals are... There are millions of people out there who believe that there is a true moral code. That God sets out rules and we are to follow them. So, to them, it's not arbitrary, it's absolute.

I always think "Would I be happy about this if I were on the receiving end". If not, I think harder and find other reasons to do bad things :lol:

Oh ok THIS IS SRS THRED?

then next I consider whether my actions benefit more than they piss off.

If the answer is still no, then morally it's a bad thing. But occassionally I play the family joker card -yes I would hate it, yes it's pisses off more than it benefits, but.... my daughter will die without a heart transplant so it's OK to murder this 10yo girl I found in the park. Just as long as I do it quickly enough that the heart will be harvestable.....

(that example may have been a little extreme, but you get the picture...)

Morels are tasty. :yum:

For me, it's in the two Great Commandments of Christ: Love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength; and love your neighbor as yourself.

Of course I don't live up to this code; but the moral code is about what we ought to do, and strive for.

According to the Muslims, it's all written down in this one book, and you can kill people that disagree with you.

According to the Christians, it's all written down in this one book, and you can kill people that disagree with you.

I try pretty hard not to.

What Monster states here, whether in jest or not, is the core of the matter. Think about the oath that neurosurgeons take..."First, do no harm".

*Any* action based on a particular point of view has potential to be beneficial to one party, and the certainty of being detrimental to another. Think not? Next breath you take, try not to kill any microbes.

It's still up to you what your morals are. If you choose to copy someone else's morals that's your decision.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

That line sums up my basic philosphy of life and underpins my moral code.

Since you're neither Muslim nor Christian (safe to assume, since you've got both groups wrong), you are in no position to categorically state what they believe and on what they base those beliefs.

And in your infinite wisdom you are capable of actually knowing what those are?

I agree with the majority that morals are completely subjective. There is an illusion because our base morals come from society so there will be common morals between a group of people giving an illusion that it is universal and there will be a few morals that won't show up (killing all your offspring for example) since the society that makes that practice moral will die out in a few decades, making it seem like a universal immoral. I believe we shouldn't look for "universal morals" but the morality that helps our society and the world the best in whatever goal we pursue.

If you live in a society that is very production based, then worker rights will not seem like a big issue but if you live in a society that is more socialistic, worker rights will become a big moral issue. One is not more "barbaric" or "advanced" than the other, but just pursuing different goals.

I personally try to do what is best for the greatest number of people or society in general and with personal decisions I'll weigh that against my own personal want/freedom and make a decision.

Whats the point of saying this anyways? Besides trying to be an asshole? In terms of morality, no one knows what is best for the other person and have to make assumptions.

I'm still master of the uneducated multi-quote post. :( Can someone please help?

"Mirror neurons" (aka empathy) are what allow us to "know" what someone else wants/needs. If you can't make an educated guess at what is going on in someone else's head, you're probably autistic or have some other such disorder.

Is it because DanaC's philosophy crosses the line from personal to active imposition of her beliefs on others?

That's true in your book and mine, but it's something to keep in mind that for someone who DOES believe in a higher order, there is no choice. Or at least no real choice.

But more importantly because he doesn't agree with her beliefs. Unless you are a staunch libertarian, you believe in enforcing your views on others to some extent. And even then if there is someone who believes that the proper society is one that's controlling, by having a completely laissez faire society that's enforcing your will upon him.

Just look at what Elspode said, everything we do changes the world around us, so staying apart from it isn't really an option.

Oh and for the record, Dana, fuck yeah!

as are chocolate morsels :yum:

...but hold the chocolate morels..a'kay....yuk :greenface

What if each individual were honorable enough to judge his own possessions and needs, and deposit or withdrawl fairly?

I agree that morals change, and the golden rule is a good guide.

Not only do I reject the premise that I am incapable of having knowledge of clubs of which I am not explicitly a member, I submit that you haven't provided a substantiation for that premise; IE, by what mechanism is this knowledge restricted from entering my brain, and, were I to declare "I am a _______" by what mechanism would the information then be allowed? Your casual "you are in no position" claim will not be accepted at face value.

Justify your statement:

I didn't say you're incapable of having knowledge; I said you're in 'no position' to categorically state what they believe, i.e. no position of authority or integrity to speak for either group. Your lack of authority is self-evident. Your lack of integrity is reflected in the fact that you haven't informed yourself about either religion to the point where you can provide a short, 'public' summary of either faith's beliefs accurately. Either that, or your words are simply meant as an insult to both groups.

The question was: How Do You Define Morality? ... Not "provide a short, 'public' summary of either faith's beliefs accurately" ... The answer, for these religions (relevant as it applies to so much of the human population) is: they define morality as what is written in a book.
I'm curious, how do you know to what level I am informed? (Hint: saying it's "self-evident" isn't a real answer) ...

I knew you were a commie. ;)

That's doomed to failure, of course, because of the inevitable human confusion between "needs" and "wants."

conservative ;)

I can understand some people reacting strongly on reading this, either from emotional reaction or from frustration (or both). Those with family who survived (and didn't survive) the horrors of communism in Russia, which began with the philosophy stated above, will react as strongly as WWII holocaust survivors would to a statement of Nazi belief. (NB I am not directly comparing communism with Nazism here, just comparing survivor reaction.) Their families have lived that social construct and suffered under it.

The trouble is that someone does have to decide what each person shall contribute, and what each person shall 'need'. That's absolute power, something we've been trying to liberate ourselves from (as a system of government) for quite a while.

Nope.

I agree, the question was 'How Do You Define Morality'; not 'How Do You Think People of Religions Not Your Own Define Morality'. I'd have been interested to hear your thoughts on what defines morality for you, Flint.

As for the short, 'public' summary, you are the one who made a statement on behalf of two religious faiths. It was inaccurate and insulting. Your statement "They define morality as what is written in a book" doesn't even make sense. (I could assume that you're saying they take their moral principles from their sacred writings, and you still wouldn't have the entire concept, and that's not the point anyway.) My question is, why do this? Why attempt to state what someone else, whose beliefs you don't hold, believes, when the question is how do you define morality?


Finally, I didn't say it was self-evident that you are not informed; I said it was self-evident that you're not in a position to speak authoritatively on behalf of either Muslims or Christians ... given that you're not one (that was the self-evident part). I said that either you haven't informed yourself about these faiths, or you're choosing to be insulting.

Yeah, I'm being insulting. You are, I assume, "speaking from a position of authority" . . . ha ha ha

[*quote]I'm still master of the uneducated multi-quote post[/quote]
Then take out the *

I can not define best but there are common sense choices. Usually that is a mix of freedom and the voice of the people for big choices. I don't have the time to get into my personal choices and hypocriticalness right now but I can later if you want.

According to my personal morals and my society's morals, what Hitler did was bad. You can not be all accepting with morals, if there is direct confrontation with morals, you have to fight for one or the other, I have chosen my side. That also brings up another problem...I love subjective topics.

The way I see it, we live in a direct relation with society. If we help society, it will help us. If we work against society, it will work against us. Its gets a lot more complicated but most situations work out that way. I can go into my own personal theories when I have the time.

I like that.

Also, though, if you disagree with an aspect of that society, sometimes you have to swim upstream.

That's very true Flint.

I want to come back to this one: I've been thinking about this response, and I find it quite an interesting one. I said that the sentiment "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" underpins both my political philosophy and my personal moral code. I am not sure how that gives the impression that I am the one who decides what each person's needs and abilities are. I am not a revolutionary, I am a socialist who believes in the democratic process.

In a democratic system, citizens vote politicians in and out of power, they hold the final and most powerful card in the pack. Those politicians enact laws and control the tax system. If an individual or party believes in flat taxes they campaign for flat taxes, if they believe in prgressive taxation they campaign for progressive taxation and the electorate decide which of those individuals or parties they will vote for.

I personally believe in socialist values therefore I, along with many of my ilk, campaign for redistributive taxation. I say again, I am not in favour of revolution; it's about winning people to your point of view, persuading them of the benefits of the system you believe in and if you succeed with enough people, in that argument, it finds its expression in the ballot box.

Just as your country has come to certain shared conclusions so has ours. If a democratic country elects its politicians and agrees a set of codes on which to run their country (such as taxation levels and styles) there will be some individuals for whom that decision will not sit easily. Unless you remove government entirely and remove taxation entirely then someone, somewhere is making decisions about what other individuals can and should pay in tax, and about what they can and cannot do in law. That is no different to a country electing a government which believes in socialist values. If you don't like it, then get involved and campaign and make sure you cast your vote carefully.

Thanks, Dana, your post is very helpful. I misunderstood your earlier, shorter post; because it stated the Marxist view without comment I thought it implied that you are in favor of a communist system, not a democratic one. While I may not agree with your particular political views, I definitely agree on the importance of becoming active and informed within a democracy, and of working to further the values you hold.

I still contend that a government with the power to decide each person's appropriate contribution (which would cover education, activities, career choice, and offspring - number, sex, and parents thereof, along with finances) and needs (again, broad categories) would have far too much power and would stifle (at best), or kill (more likely) the population and economy. I would/will always work against that.

orthodoc, the thing about Marxist philosphy is that it takes as its basis a democratic process as the goal. Communism in theory is about as democratic as it's possible to be. The idea of Sovietsin every workplace, each sending representatives to a larger body who then send reprentatives to an even larger one until eventually every town, city and factory has a say, in theory is highly democratised. Now, obviously the way it was actually done in Russia didn't meet that model. But the theory had a lot of interesting possibilities.

It's also important to understand that Marx wasn't working towards a revolution, he was predicting the conditions that in his view would lead to one. Given the proximity of his writing to the 1840s revolutions and the earlier French Revolution, that wasn't entirely off base. Also, given the extremes that existed within the emerging industrial nations it was something that many people were talking about.

We all think of Marx as the one who came up with socialism, but actually he was merely one part (though a biggy I'll grant you) of a strand of political thinking that was around in much of Europe at the time. There were groups in England in the late 18th century who were experimenting with communal living long before Marx was writing.

And you'd find most socialists (and indeed most communists in my country) would also work against a government that sought to control "education, activities, career choice, and offspring - number, sex, and parents thereof, along with finances".

The history of leftwing activism in my country includes fights against laws which dictated who could do what trade or job, it includes the fight against overbearing employers who sought to dictate morality to their workforce. It's about increasing freedom, not curtailing it.

I'm pretty sure that in the grander sense, the universe doesn't give a sh*t if you are a hitler. However, your mother cares, your descendants may care, and therefore you may care if only by extension. It's all tied to time, place & circumstance.
The question of why one race might consider itself to be superior is merely an extension of why our species considers itself to be the culmination of creation -- IMHO, it ain't. There is no absolute.

The trouble arises in the gulf between theory and practice. In Russia there were Soviets in every workplace and town. My father-in-law had to watch pro-communist films at night after working all day, and if he nodded off in exhaustion he was woken up with the business end of an assault rifle. The kulaks in Ukraine didn't want their farms taken away and collectivized, so Stalin deliberately starved them to death. The democratic part broke down.


Some of them were the monasteries (I am familiar with Orthodox monasteries, rather than RC ones)! The communal model has always been the monastic standard. However, these are small communities whose main raison d'etre isn't to attempt an ideal economic or social system. Most small communes I've read about that are based primarily on a social model don't seem to have done well long-term. Still, I realize there was a great deal of legitimate unrest and frustration in Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries.

While the Soviets in Russia didn't dictate who should get married, they did control education, activities, and careers. China has dictated number of children per family. I admit that sex and parentage are an extrapolation, but one that isn't far-fetched if a very efficient government were in control. It would be the logical development of assessing each person's appropriate contribution to society.

In Canada the public schools promote socialist philosophy, and kids are taught that policies different from Canada's are 'bad' (my kids experienced this when we were back there for a couple of years). No discussion of alternate policies or politics was permitted. This, in my view, is one type of socialist control of education. Whereas in American schools my kids have been presented with and have discussed several models of government, politics, and issues such as health care.

I completely agree with the institution of labor laws that provided for safe working environments, reasonable work hours, and an end to child labor. Unfortunately, in Canada leftwing activism has led to unions that do curtail freedoms - that dictate who can do what trade or job, and who employers must or must not hire. The streets are monitored with video cameras and a pilot project is in place to try interactive video, i.e. allowing the 'watcher' to shout orders or warnings to people who are violating accepted behavior. In spite of the fact that the government constantly told me (through radio and TV commercials and broadcasts) what I should be doing to be a safe, healthy, good citizen, I did not feel protected. I felt spied on, helpless, and angry.

The Soviet Union was NOT communist. It was a totalitarian state that said it practiced communism while basically practicing state capitalism.

The best example of what communism is meant to be would what Venezuela is striving for by switching from Social Democracy to Democratic Socialism but it is still far from the communist idea.

Yes, but there is a main focus on capitalism and democracy. They may go over what they are but they don't actually dwell into the theories or how it works. No free thinking is involved.

This is such an old and nonsensical argument. If true, it means that communism can never be put into practice and is simply a theory to waste the time of social philosophers.

Again, if the 'communist idea' hasn't ever been properly done, could it be that the idea you refer to isn't possible, due to human nature if nothing else? I can imagine utopian societies that would never work because of human nature. Or could it be that communism has indeed been 'done' and we've seen the result in practical terms?


I disagree with your comment about no free thinking being involved. My (four) kids have had an enormous amount of opportunity and time to discuss and argue in class, and many teachers and students are very pro-socialist. The theories may not be developed at an advanced level (although they will be in whatever colleges the kids attend) but they are well covered. And I think it appropriate that capitalism and democracy are given time; our society and economy are based on them, after all. It's not indoctrination to teach the basis of our system. But the kids definitely do get to discuss and think for themselves. I haven't encountered a whole lot of conservative, capitalist teachers in the dozen places we've lived. Socialist thought is well presented.

My point was that, without an understanding of 'good' or 'best' as an objective thing to which we can compare other things, we can't talk about good or bad or choosing sides or common sense. We wouldn't have a concept of 'good', just of what we feel like doing at the moment. In order to choose what you think of as arbitrary, personal morals, you have to use concepts of good and bad that come from an objective definition of them. If everything was really arbitrary then morality, which addresses what we ought to do rather than what we like, wouldn't be a meaningful construct and we wouldn't be having a discussion about it.

How so? As I understand it, the Soviet Union never achieved communism as expressed in Dana's definition of morality, although that was its original aim. The early intentions of the mensheviks, and then Lenin and the bolsheviks was to work towards a withering away of the state, and then it all went awry in the hands of subsequent politicians/power-mongers.

In my view communism has never been successfully tried, probably because of the flaw in human nature which Wolf has cited, and to which you also refer. Doesn't mean to say that "to each according to his need, from each according to his ability" is not a nice ideal to strive to attain.
"If each man gives up a thread, you'll get a new shirt for someone who hasn't one".

Or, it could mean that Stalin wasn't shooting for a communist state...


If the idea of communism can work, it will not work in or even close to the first try. You can not expect a theory that needs a different personal philosophy to succeed in the first try, and communism isn't the only leftist socio-economic theory, there are many different variations. To say they will all fail because a variation that wasn't even close to it did is pretty flawed logic.

Personally, I do not think true communist like state can exist from a revolution since the way of living is directly contradicting the nature of how we were raised. A version of social democracy is needed to make a smooth conversion and that might not even be enough. To be successful in a leftist economy, you need to be raised in a leftist philosophy or it will fail.

What do you consider socialist? My teachers would have been on the same page as the democrats, which isn't really socialism. And just because there is discussion, it doesn't mean they are thinking about it. Most arguments in high school about politics are regurgitated opinions with little meaning to them.

Everyone raised in the same society will share the same moral base. If you take away that base, then your argument is fine but that is unrealistic because every society has a moral base that is roughly the same and you will not have an ethical system if you are not raised in a society. I made the assumption that everyone still had that basic moral base given by our society, then we do have a place to start when it comes to morals. If you use this moral base, not to hurt other people, 90% of moral decisions can be made that way.

Good point, eh? How long did simple democracy take? The magna carta is heralded as the first democratic contract (even if it was mostly lords getting more power for themselves), but what about the greek cities? How about Rome's attempts? It's been several hundred years by some guages, a couple thousand by others, and I would still argue that we haven't gotten simple democracy right. So the 2 or 3 major countries that tried communism didn't last really means nothing about it's 'plausibility.'

Ask a nobleman a few hundred years ago if the populace was up to ruling themselves, I bet he would have said something like "Oh, they can't be trusted to rule them selves, they can't ignore their simple nature." Socialism is just one more step in human evolution, if you ask me.

Also, ask yourself how much of the distaste you have for communism comes from it being the west's 'enemy' for so long...

Approximately 160,000,000 people were murdered by Communist governments in the 20th century.

That's a lot of distaste. And a lot of people to overlook in a thread about the definition of morality.

Communism? American Indians.

I would contend that they were not communist governments. There are plenty of pseudo-democracies in this world. I would suggest that thus far, we have only really had pseudo-communism.

How many did the pseudo-democracies kill?

Wanna go back through all time? Didn't a government calling itself democratic kill, um, Jesus? You can't say that because pseudo-communist countries killed more people, it's somehow more evil. It's not about the system of government they're mimicing, it's about how heinous the bastards in charge are.

...also, the pseudo-communist countries, two of them had quite a hell of a lot of people to work with, so it's a little easier to kill that many.

...also, this is all assuming that communism isn't democratic. In it's inteded form, it's pretty damned democratic.

It's about how much power the heinous bastards are allotted, and how they can maintain it.

It's about what is fair to human beings and what rights are maintained by the people.

You want to make some sort of Democratic government that is capable of central planning and total redistribution of wealth AND where the power remains in the hands of the people?

Well good luck with that.

Say again? Do we have the same understanding of the meaning of the word 'evil'? Evidently not. And enough already with the 'pseudo-communism' labels. Soviet Russia, China, and Cambodia all explicitly declared themselves communist. Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung and Pol Pot would all laugh at you for declaring them pseudo-communists ... and then kill you.

Of course, it's the easy but intellectually dishonest thing to say, once your pet project has failed miserably, that it wasn't an example of your pet project at all. How many millions more have to be slaughtered in additional 'tries' to get it right? No more of my family, thanks. Try it on yourself.

Sure, what's a few million here or there if you've got extra? Say again???

Nothing democratic about it. Or maybe the Nazis were the real communists. They were the National Socialist Party, after all.

I would say, quite simply, that might makes right.

If he does not give it, do you take it from him?