Morality - Is it all just relative?

Palomar · 2003-10-08 11:51:32

*Just looking for comments, not necessarily debate.

I can't help noticing that morality sure seems very relative (and subjective) to many people. The old: "It's wrong when you do it, but okay when I do it" mentality. I think Solomon was onto something when he said, "The ways of each man is right in his own eyes," but some people are so OBVIOUS.

What do you think? I don't want to be cynical, and yes there are many people who are ethical, try to play fair, are consistent and have some backbone...but of course that's not everyone.

--Cindy

Byron · 2003-10-08 14:20:37

Looking at it another way, what's the morality of law, even if the law doesn't make "sense"? Case in point, prescription drugs from Canada...technically it's illegal, but there's hardly a soul in America that would argue that violating this law is in any way immoral.

Same thing with other behaviors such as marijuana smoking...sure, it's illegal, but are you committing an immoral act if you do so? (As long as you don't drive or work while stoned...lol). How about trading of music? Clearly, the universal message about downloading of music on Kazaa is that it's wrong and immoral, but how about buying a hardcover book and letting 3 or 4 other people read it? (My mother does this all the time.) Technically, it's the same thing, right?...you have several people reading a published work without the author getting paid for it. (Actually, this is perfectly legal under the "fair use" doctrine...it's okay to share work in this manner as long as its not being used for commercial use, in other works, etc.) Just trying to make a point here...

Or how about Clark's favorite of the starving family stealing for food...is this immoral or not? Pretty relative, isn't it? Or how about the extremely common practice of "fudging" during job interviews? Who among us out there has not done this sort of thing? If everyone does it, you'd be doing yourself an injustice if you didn't do the same.

Looking at it the other way, what's the morality of a group of people going out to a restuarant and when the bill comes, the "leader" insists on splitting it evenly, even though they, along with perhaps a few others, get "subsidized" by the poor saps that ordered on the cheap? To me, this is highly immoral and unfair, yet this is considered an "O.K." practice in this country. (Not me...I insist on paying my fair share and no more...they can just deal...lol....but they look at me as if *I'm* the immoral one...let's just say I don't go out in groups very often...lol ??? ) Or how about the person at a workplace who gets sick all the time because they smoke, drink, don't exercise, etc...and then you have a paragon of perfect health who never gets sick, but wants to use sick days as personal days, but gets busted for it, as he/she wasn't actually sick...is this immoral?? I think so...as you're rewarding the person who gets sick a lot (and therefore costs the co. lots of $$) as opposed to the healthy person getting slammed because they chose to use a benefit they would otherwise not get to use. Same thing with smokers who step outside to huff and puff 5-7 minutes each and every hour, while the poor non-smoker doesn't get the benefit of an "excusable" stretch break...again, one would think this is immoral, but according to "common practice," it's perfectly acceptable.

I could go on and on here, but you should get the drift by now lol...

In short, morality is something that requires a great deal of attention and thought...certainly a lot more than it gets now, that's for sure...

B

Palomar · 2003-10-08 15:09:46

*Well, I'm referring more to the hypocrites who (at the very least) criticize or (at the worst) condemn someone for (allegedly or otherwise) engaging in a certain behavior...but when a similar situation presents itself to the criticizer/condemnator, it's "suddenly okay".

Like the former coworker (Gacy) who ranted and fumed about another gal taking up all the vacation time around major holidays...but when the other gal retired, suddenly Gacy was taking all that vacation time and this was "okay."

I mean, are some people really that self-deceitful? Give me a break. Her motive wasn't fairness for the office staff (which she claimed was her motive); rather, it was jealousy that she couldn't get away with doing it.

--Cindy

Byron · 2003-10-08 17:07:53

*Well, I'm referring more to the hypocrites who (at the very least) criticize or (at the worst) condemn someone for (allegedly or otherwise) engaging in a certain behavior...but when a similar situation presents itself to the criticizer/condemnator, it's "suddenly okay".
Like the former coworker (Gacy) who ranted and fumed about another gal taking up all the vacation time around major holidays...but when the other gal retired, suddenly Gacy was taking all that vacation time and this was "okay."
I mean, are some people really that self-deceitful? Give me a break. Her motive wasn't fairness for the office staff (which she claimed was her motive); rather, it was jealousy that she couldn't get away with doing it.
--Cindy

I see exactly what you mean now...you've described an obvious case of jealously. That person tried to justify her complaints that the other person was being unfair, etc. But as they say, the squeaky wheel gets the grease...lol. The real problem in this situation, in my opinon, is that not enough people were allowed off for the holidays in that office. There's no reason why a majority of the people can't take off around Christmas, for example, especially those who have to travel, and the people that volunteer to stay behind should be rewarded by having comp time off, etc.

That's why I'm so much in favor of unionization...not only are the rules crystal-clear (no room for complaints...it is what it is, rather than the boss handing out favors to people he/she likes, etc.) the workers often have extra days off, 3X pay for working the holidays if needed and so forth.

But getting back to the person that was being hypocritical in her "complaints," there's really only one solution...complain louder then they do...lol...believe me, I have plenty of expertise in this field...

B

Palomar · 2003-10-09 09:31:23

Despicable

*And it's not just Canada, as we know. In fact, I'm surprised this article comes out of Canada.

This is a big problem in the U.S.; in fact, it seems in most of the West.

What is going on??? Why the escalation?? Prior to 1995 (when I began working at a psychiatric and rehabilitation hospital), I thought abuse of this sort was relatively RARE.

I wonder if most Romans were turning to this sort of perversion before the fall of Rome. If lots of people are going for this sort of thing, then we as a society deserve the culling that's coming to us.

--Cindy

Byron · 2003-10-09 12:51:30

This is a big problem in the U.S.; in fact, it seems in most of the West.
What is going on??? Why the escalation?? Prior to 1995 (when I began working at a psychiatric and rehabilitation hospital), I thought abuse of this sort was relatively RARE.
I wonder if most Romans were turning to this sort of perversion before the fall of Rome. If lots of people are going for this sort of thing, then we as a society deserve the culling that's coming to us.
--Cindy

Unfortunately, I think this stems from the mass "O.K." principle....when the Internet became widely available, millions of people who may have harbored these deviant urges in secret but never got around to acting upon them started seeing all these pictures....well, it's logical to see how this would result in a massive increase in child abuse, sexual abuse, etc...

About ancient Rome...I think there is a very strong correlation between 21st century America and latter-day Rome...more so than most people care to admit. It's not just sexual predators I'm talking about here...just think of the meteoric rise in cheating in the schools, cheating in the workplace, the boorish, uncaring behavior of people in public (like with cell phones...lol), along with the lack of respect that people have for their own health and so on. The number of obese people has *exploded* over the past 20 years, and there's no end in sight, and yet most people don't seem to care. Just look at the rates of depression in the past 20 years...huge increase...the vast increase of mindless materialism and personal debt...and on and on...clearly, something has to give.

The United States today can (and should be) compared to an airplane about to stall...and when that happens, down it goes. One day, when people are lamenting about the "good old days" gone by, I really hope they realize why and how it all came about... ???

B

clark · 2003-10-09 13:06:01

America, a modern day Rome?

Since when.

What was the literacy rate for Romans?
What was the life expectancy of Romans?
What was the role of merit based success in Roman society?
What was the foundation for government rule in the Roman Empire?
What was the role of religion in the Roman Empire?

Some people think that we have more natural disasters in the later half of the twentieth century compared to any previous time. Hardly anyone though stops to think that maybe we Humans have just gotten better at communicating when natural disasters occur.

We are getting better and better at seeing the 'bigger picture' becuase information is more readily available. Yet we continually try to make sense of all this new data by comparing to our previously held expectations... which were based on less readily available data.

We have more people, in higher and higer urban densities. The result is greater instances of deviant behaviour being reported (becuase there is someone somewhere who is seeing it becuase there is less individual privacy). There is also a greater instance of deviant behaviour occuring due to the stress of higher urban density and from continual refinements of accepted norms.

It used to be okay, and encouraged, to marry 12 year olds. In some parts of the world, it's still encouraged. Our changing views are the result of education and increased life spans. Yet not everywhere enjoys, or agrees with the conclusions a larger segment of our society has decided upon.

Where exactly do you draw the moral justification for acceptable sexual intercourse between two individuals? I don't believe in God, so how do you justify '18' as acceptable? On what basis?

You'll go around in circles becuase there is no secular justification for limiting the age of sexual relationships. So, we fall back on the old tried and true morality based on some interpretation of God. Perhaps you base it on current laws (which is actually based on some interpretation of religious doctrine), but that is hardly objective, and is subject to the whims of fate and time.

Of course I don't think sex with children is right, or even tolerable. But I also realize that I don't have an objective argument that proves my point. All i have is a belief. Which sums up 'morality', a belief in what is right and what is wrong. But it's still just a belief.

Palomar · 2003-10-09 13:33:55

You'll go around in circles becuase there is no secular justification for limiting the age of sexual relationships. So, we fall back on the old tried and true morality based on some interpretation of God. Perhaps you base it on current laws (which is actually based on some interpretation of religious doctrine), but that is hardly objective, and is subject to the whims of fate and time.
Of course I don't think sex with children is right, or even tolerable. But I also realize that I don't have an objective argument that proves my point. All i have is a belief. Which sums up 'morality', a belief in what is right and what is wrong. But it's still just a belief.

*I'm not interested in debating you, Clark -- mostly because there's no end to the debate.

I do have an objective argument against child pornography and sex with children which has nothing to do with God, religion, or "beliefs."

We don't allow 5 year olds to drive automobiles.

We don't allow 7 year olds to vote for President.

We don't allow 6 year olds to take flying lessons.

We don't allow 11 year olds to enlist in the Army.

Why? Because they're only just -beginning- to develop the ability of perceiving consequences to their actions, much less perceiving and understanding inherent risks and dangers in these activities.

Same for sex. Sex has consequences and risks; no, an 8-year-old girl cannot get pregnant like I can, but we both can contract sexually transmitted diseases.

An 18-year-old male or female can, generally speaking, understand that posing nude or in provocative sexual positions or in sexually explicit acts for a camera -- whether still photos or movie camera -- will have an impact on their lives; others will see these images, become aroused, react to them, etc. Some adults regret having done these things, who made the decisions while an adult.

I didn't understand adult emotions, drives, ambitions, desires, and etc., when I was a kid. I doubt most other children do either.

Also, the adults involved in the creation and distribution of these images are predators. They use these children to enrich themselves, then toss them away like orange rinds. And the kids don't understand what has happened or why, and have to come to terms with it later...and while it happened, they were clueless and confused.

This is no different than animal abuse.

This is why they require protection.

That "aside," it just makes me sick. If adults can't "get off" with other adults, I think they are pathetic perverts...based on my own system of values and ethics.

--Cindy

dicktice · 2003-10-09 18:42:43

Cindy: You are so right--there are absolutes when it comes to human behaviour, quite aside from religion, traditions, self-expression, warfare even. And you've stated them. Clark, shame on you for not drawing the line re. child protection from ignorant and/or predatory adults. And Byron, I think your comparisons with (Imperial) Rome need explaining. They used lead for piping drinking water, were entirely dependent upon slavery for their daily existence, had free entertainment in the form of production involving violence and casual death, paid lip service to religion . . . hm-mm . . . well, we use soap at least--from what I've read, they didn't have any!

clark · 2003-10-09 19:04:34

You see what you want. You hear what you want. Every once in a while, we meet.

Till then.

sethmckiness · 2003-10-09 23:42:32

I do agree that the 'morals' in general of the United States and to generalize to a lesser extant, the rest of the developed world seems to be turning a bit for the worse, I don't see us as being as bad as some say.

But, I do believe that we could be a bit more respectful, and people could think a bit more about other people then themselves.

Ironically Buddhism belief among whites is surging. Maybe that what we need. But In general, our Society seems to feed itself into promoting selfishness and materialism. I have become much more aware of that.

Byron · 2003-10-10 06:02:30

comparisons with (Emperial) Rome need explaining. They used lead for piping drinking water, were entirely depended upon slavery for their daily existence, had free entertainment in the form of production involving violence and casual death, paid lip service to religion . . . hm-mm . . . well, we use soap at least--from what I've read, they didn't have any!

First of all, I do realize that there are huge differences between today's modern world and Imperial Rome...after all, we're talking about a span of 2000 years and vastly different societies. But I do think there are a number of eerie simularities that are worth noting:

Entertainment...we don't "do" death in person, but we sure portray it a great deal in cinema and TV...and there is a direct correlation between the level of violence seen on television seen by children and their actual behavior...take a look at some of the Inuit tribes in the Artic who were exposed to TV several decades after the rest of the world, and how the level of crime, violence, etc soared in the years after their kids started watching TV.

Food...maybe it's a popular misconception, but I do believe the Romans had some serious issues with food, like eating to beat the band, and purging themselves to eat some more. While we haven't gone that far into the abyss, anorexia and bulima are both eating disorders that have sprung up in the 20th century...and with the ever-increasing pressure put on today's youth to look pretty and thin, combined with Super-Size this and Super Gulp that, I would say that food is a major problem today...and as I stated before, obesity has literally skyrocketed over the past 20 years with no end in sight, along with chronic diseases like diabetes, heart disease, etc. Our medical care system may be keeping up for the time being, but with health care about to reach crisis proportions in the States, perhaps even worldwide, our poor health habits will come back to haunt us in a very big way, probably sooner rather than later. I've even heard reports that this may be the first generation in modern history to have their life expectancies go *down* instead of up. Also, while we've managed to lick the problem of lead contamination for the most part, other human-related problems are taking its place, such as the huge increase in asthma in most Western countries, which the vast majority of scientists attribute to pollution, mostly from automobile use.

Labor...while the United States doesn't depend on slaves for its existence, it does depend on the wide availability of low-wage labor...and if you are aware what goes on in the agricultural fields of Florida and California...that comes pretty damn close to slavery. Also, America really does depend on the poor for its vaunted way of life...I, for one, would love to see every single person making less than $10 an hour go on strike for a full month, just to see what would happen. I can assure you, however, that it wouldn't be a pretty picture. Not the same as Rome, but I would say it's similar.

Religion...I don't mean to be acting like a Bible-thumper here, but if it wasn't for the strong tradition of religion in this country, I think we would have gone extinct a long time ago..lol....so, I guess that's one major difference between the U.S. and ancient Rome. But religion has its own problems as well...lol... (widespread sexual abuse by Catholic priests comes to mind here.)

In light of everything I've just mentioned, I'm not saying that our fate is the same as ancient Rome, as we have an incredible amount of knowledge and technology that they couldn't even dream of having, not to mention our collective wealth which makes Imperial Rome look like a 2-bit banana republic in comparision. In spite of all our *tremendous* advantages that we have over this long-dead society, why do we have a similar set of problems?? That's the one thing I cant figure out...I mean, we do have the means to enable every single person in the US to have a middle class standard of living, with things such as reliable health care and universal education of equally high standard...but we don't. We have the power...right here and now...to expand out into space, but we're not doing it. We even have the ability to take care of the great demographic bulge that's surging towards us like a tidal wave, but we're throwing that away too, on rampant budget deficits, caused in part by our "imperialistic" missions around the globe (not to mention the coddling of the rich)...again, sounds a bit like ancient Rome, huh? The point of all of this is that we can and should do better - much better - but considering that too many people would rather watch mindless shows like "Survivor" as opposed to actually caring about their kids, elderly parents, their community, et al...I just do not see how American society can sustain itself over the long term.

B

Pat Galea · 2003-10-10 08:13:21

I think clark's comments have been grossly misinterpreted. I agree with him. But he's quite capable of defending himself, if he sees fit.

Anyway...

The whole adult/child question hinges on what you define an adult to be. If we think that an adult is someone who understands the consequences of his own actions, then do we have to make everyone undergo an enquiry every year to test whether we think they're ready to be an adult? By this criteria, you could easily end up with 40 year olds who are legally children, and 10 year olds who are legally adults.

Instead, we come to some sort of collective judgement about an appropriate age at which we expect someone to be an adult. Maybe a specific individual is ready sooner, maybe not 'til later. But whatever, he knows in advance that this date is coming, so he'd better get ready for it.

The specific age we choose is arbitrary, but it's a 'bounded' arbitraryness. 5 is clearly too young, 35 is clearly too old. Different societies and cultures at various times have used different definitions for this age. It's far from a perfect system; it's grossly unfair to both early and late maturers. But it beats the crap out of any other system I can think of which leaves the judgement of an individual's adulthood in the hands of 'authorities'.

Palomar · 2003-10-10 08:32:51

I think clark's comments have been grossly misinterpreted. I agree with him. But he's quite capable of defending himself, if he sees fit.
Anyway...
The whole adult/child question hinges on what you define an adult to be. If we think that an adult is someone who understands the consequences of his own actions, then do we have to make everyone undergo an enquiry every year to test whether we think they're ready to be an adult? By this criteria, you could easily end up with 40 year olds who are legally children, and 10 year olds who are legally adults.
Instead, we come to some sort of collective judgement about an appropriate age at which we expect someone to be an adult. Maybe a specific individual is ready sooner, maybe not 'til later. But whatever, he knows in advance that this date is coming, so he'd better get ready for it.
The specific age we choose is arbitrary, but it's a 'bounded' arbitraryness. 5 is clearly too young, 35 is clearly too old. Different societies and cultures at various times have used different definitions for this age. It's far from a perfect system; it's grossly unfair to both early and late maturers. But it beats the crap out of any other system I can think of which leaves the judgement of an individual's adulthood in the hands of 'authorities'.

*I don't believe I've misinterpreted Clark's statements.

First of all, he interjected religion into the discussion. Where did that come from?

He states he doesn't believe sexual abuse of children is right, or even tolerable.

Apparently he does not base that statement on religious codes/morality, and says he cannot find an objective or secular basis for his disapproval.

What then IS the basis of his disapproval? The only other option I can think of is CONSENSUS, i.e.: If the majority of people think kiddie porn and having sex with kids is bad, it's bad. If the majority of people think kiddie porn and having sex with kids is okay or who cares, it's okay and who cares.

Whichever way the wind blows, huh? Sorry, that's not my idea of a good way to build and sustain a civilization.

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but this is my impression of Clark's statements and where he's coming from.

I don't like "authority" either, and the less of it the better. But some "rules" are made because irresponsible people act, consequences result, and the burden of responsibility for the ensuing consequences are usually put onto someone else to deal with. My ex-brother-in-law believes he shouldn't have to pay child support for my nephew: My sister is assuming a lot of the burden and responsibility of caring for and providing for a son who was conceived and born in wedlock. I'm glad for the "deadbeat dad" law which tells Oscar to pay up or face garnishing of wages, etc. He could unzip his pants and beget a child with my sister; he can pay his fair share of caring for the child.

--Cindy

clark · 2003-10-10 09:40:24

Let me just say, even suggesting that I in some way condone child abuse is a gross misrepresentation of my character, and I find it personally offensive that I might be characterized as someone who condones, or believes that child abuse is somehow acceptable. It is not. And I certainly do not condone such behavior. I state as much in my previous post.

. Clark, shame on you for not drawing the line re. child protection from ignorant and/or predatory adults.

Now, to the meat of this discussion (not a debate, believe me, there is nothing to debate here)

Why? Because they're only just -beginning- to develop the ability of perceiving consequences to their actions, much less perceiving and understanding inherent risks and dangers in these activities.

Yet I ask you to think about this situation WE have created. Is it that children are unable to perceive consequences to their actions, or is it more likely we shelter children from having to deal with the consequences of their actions?

Children used to, in this country, start work at a factory as early as 4. Small hands, great for getting into hard to reach cogs. Many generations fo farmers attest to children being 'responsible' at the age of 5 on up. They learn things like using the family tractor as soon as their feet can reach the pedals. Motorized vehicles come to mind.

Why can't a child learn to fly at twelve? I did. Is it that they can't perceive consequences, or that they are sheltered from having to deal with 'adult' situations? Or that we, adults, don't feel confident in their abilities, and would prefer them to do 'other' things.

The reality is we allow children to be children. We try and protect them from what is to be an adult. You know, things like mortgage, jobs to pay for food, health care, etc.

But you can go to any third world country, or any inner-city ghetto and find numerous children who must, by necessity, grow up. Children having to raise their siblings as a parent because their own parents are gone, or lost to some drug.

In many countries, children as young as seven or eight join the rebel groups and fight along side the men. Children, like people, act as they are expected, and allowed to.

If all of this is true, or even slightly true, then the secular argument for age determining adult hood is false. It is arbitrary and subjective. No objective morality there, which is my point.

I interjected a reference to religion because it is a rather relevant point. All current laws are derived from religious doctrine.

He states he doesn't believe sexual abuse of children is right, or even tolerable.
Apparently he does not base that statement on religious codes/morality, and says he cannot find an objective or secular basis for his disapproval.

I can't find an objective or secular basis for my disapproval because there is no objective means to determine when a person is an adult. Jewish, it's 13. In Japan, 20. US, 18. Britain, 16. But no where is there an objective criteria to say, yes, you are an adult. Pat points it out rather well.

What then IS the basis of his disapproval?

What's your basis for disapproving cannibalism? I think child abuse is wrong because it is taking advantage of someone who cannot consent to certain behavior. Yet the basis for me thinking it is wrong is determined by a subjective system that determines when someone is an adult, and when they are a child. We can look upon someone taking advantage of a 4 year old, and clearly say, this is wrong. Yet what happens at 15? 16? 17?

The only other option I can think of is CONSENSUS, i.e.: If the majority of people think kiddy porn and having sex with kids is bad, it's bad. If the majority of people think kiddy porn and having sex with kids is okay or who cares, it's okay and who cares.
Whichever way the wind blows, huh? Sorry, that's not my idea of a good way to build and sustain a civilization.

How is reality determined? By consensus. If a majority of people wore socks to bed, and you didn't, then you would be the odd bird. Majority determines the norm, those who do not exhibit the same behavior are considered 'deviant'. Now, put aside all of the linguistic connections you have with that word and just look at what I am saying.

Consensus determines what is acceptable, and what isn't.

"We don't do things like that in these parts" comes to mind. "When in Rome," is yet another.

If a majority of people thought kiddy porn was okay, then kiddy porn would be okay. Sorry for the way the world works.

A case in point, in relation to morality, is a majority of peer-to-peer users feel it is justifiable, or okay, to steal/share digital copies of intellectually copyrighted works. This makes the behavior acceptable. But we can say stealing is wrong- these same people would never steal from a brick and mortar store.

But enough, I await the next installment of the malignant of my character.

Palomar · 2003-10-10 10:24:25

Clark: "Let me just say, even suggesting that I in some way condone child abuse is a gross misrepresentation of my character, and I find it personally offensive that I might be characterized as someone who condones, or believes that child abuse is somehow acceptable. It is not. And I certainly do not condone such behavior. I state as much in my previous post."

*Holding you to your words and asking you questions about them isn't maligning or attacking your character. Quit your grandstanding already.

Me: "Why? Because they're only just -beginning- to develop the ability of perceiving consequences to their actions, much less perceiving and understanding inherent risks and dangers in these activities."

Clark: "Yet I ask you to think about this situation WE have created. Is it that children are unable to perceive consequences to their actions, or is it more likely we shelter children from having to deal with the consequences of their actions?"

*Do most 7-year-olds understand AIDS? How it is transmitted, etc.? Do most 7-year-olds know the words "syphilis," "Chlamydia," "gonorrhea" -- much less how those diseases are contracted and what the consequences of contracting them are? I doubt it. So what, do we just toss children out into the cold, cruel world and let adults just do to them whatever they like? Especially if we can make the world less cold and cruel by giving them a bit of protection and guidance?

Clark: "Children used to, in this country, start work at a factory as early as 4. Small hands, great for getting into hard to reach cogs."

*Oh sure. And those same children were deprived of an education. Up to 10 to 12 hours a day in a factory, plus 8 hours of sleep, didn't leave much time for school, now did it? And most of those children grew into poorly-educated adults...who are just that much more vulnerable and ignorant about predatory authority figures who can manipulate and exploit them.

Clark: "Many generations fo farmers attest to children being 'responsible' at the age of 5 on up. They learn things like using the family tractor as soon as their feet can reach the pedals. Motorized vehicles come to mind."

*I grew up in farm country. I've never heard of children as young as 5 operating such heavy, dangerous machinery.

Clark: "Why can't a child learn to fly at twelve? I did."

*Can you prove you learned to fly at 12? How do we know you're not making that up for the sake of argument?

Clark: "Is it that they can't perceive consequences, or that they are sheltered from having to deal with 'adult' situations? Or that we, adults, don't feel confident in their abilities, and would prefer them to do 'other' things."

*Most children, based on clinical studies I've been privy to, don't handle adult situations very well.

Clark: "If all of this is true, or even slightly true, then the secular argument for age determining adult hood is false. It is arbitrary and subjective. No objective morality there, which is my point."

*So, by this rationale, child pornography is okay? And having sex with children? And arming children with guns and ammunition in Israel and Palestine? The objective morality is "Your life is yours, and the good is to live it." That moral value is taken away from children by predatory adults with an agenda of manipulation and exploitation. Get it? Your viewpoint seeks to enable and empower the manipulators and exploiters at the expense of the weak and innocent. Your viewpoint enables tyranny. There are no victims -- yeah, predators just LOVE that mentality.

Me: "He states he doesn't believe sexual abuse of children is right, or even tolerable.

Apparently he does not base that statement on religious codes/morality, and says he cannot find an objective or secular basis for his disapproval."

Clark: "I can't find an objective or secular basis for my disapproval because there is no objective means to determine when a person is an adult. Jewish, it's 13. In Japan, 20. US, 18. Britain, 16. But no where is there an objective criteria to say, yes, you are an adult. Pat points it out rather well."

*Perhaps the trouble is how you define "objective." And notice also that in all examples you give, the considered-adult age is at least in the teen years.

Me: "What then IS the basis of his disapproval?"

Clark: "What's your basis for disapproving cannibalism?
I think child abuse is wrong because it is taking advantage of someone who cannot consent to certain behavior."

*Same answer for cannibalism. Or forcible rape.

Clark: "Yet the basis for me thinking it is wrong is determined by a subjective system that determines when someone is an adult, and when they are a child. We can look upon someone taking advantage of a 4 year old, and clearly say, this is wrong. Yet what happens at 15? 16? 17?"

*Well, you've already pointed out that in some societies people are considered adults in these teen years. I admit that values, mores, and etc. can change; being married at age 13 was rather common in the 19th centuries and back...because life expectancies were so short. But not everything is subjective. The 5-month-old baby in my county who was raped and beaten to death was WRONG. But according to your viewpoint, if consensus (i.e. "reality") were that raping and beating 5-month-olds to death is okay, it'd be okay. You've affirmed this viewpoint.

Me: "The only other option I can think of is CONSENSUS, i.e.: If the majority of people think kiddy porn and having sex with kids is bad, it's bad. If the majority of people think kiddy porn and having sex with kids is okay or who cares, it's okay and who cares.

Whichever way the wind blows, huh? Sorry, that's not my idea of a good way to build and sustain a civilization."

Clark: "How is reality determined? By consensus. If a majority of people wore socks to bed, and you didn't, then you would be the odd bird. Majority determines the norm, those who do not exhibit the same behavior are considered 'deviant'. Now, put aside all of the linguistic connections you have with that word and just look at what I am saying. Consensus determines what is acceptable, and what isn't. "We don't do things like that in these parts" comes to mind. "When in Rome," is yet another. If a majority of people thought kiddy porn was okay, then kiddy porn would be okay. Sorry for the way the world works."

*So then your previous comment 'I think child abuse is wrong because it is taking advantage of someone who cannot consent to certain behavior' is now null and void, in the face of consensus. And are you "sorry"? Your sarcasm would indicate otherwise. Frankly, I don't think you understand the concept of reality. Turning off your mind and going along with the herd isn't reality. Hitler had his Storm Troopers convinced that enemy bullets would never touch them; that bullets would be be magically deflected from doing bodily harm to them. Their bullet-ridden corpses proved otherwise. No amount of consensus thinking in the Storm Trooper ranks or belief in Hitler protected them from bullets. Reality is such a bitch.

Clark: "But enough, I await the next installment of the malignant of my character."

*Oh please.

--Cindy

::enough::

clark · 2003-10-10 10:53:17

*Holding you to your words and asking you questions about them isn't maligning or attacking your character.

It is when you twist my words into supporting behaviors I expressly state that I do not support. Which part of "I do not condone this behavior" don't you understand? Where is there room for interpretation? I am merely being honest when I say that I can't find an objective set of reasons for what I believe, yet somehow this uncertainty is construed as support for the very behavior I despise. Grand.

*Do most 7-year-olds understand AIDS? How it is transmitted, etc.? Do most 7-year-olds know the words "syphilis," "Chlamydia," "gonorrhea" -- much less how those diseases are contracted and what the consequences of contracting them are? I doubt it.

Is a seven year old incapable of understanding these issues? Yes or no. By and large they don't think about these issues becuase theya re shielded from them. Yet, if it WAS neccessary, I for one certainly think they could comprehend the issues.

So what, do we just toss children out into the cold, cruel world and let adults just do to them whatever they like? Especially if we can make the world less cold and cruel by giving them a bit of protection and guidance?

No, and no where have I called for that. No where have I suggested that. I merely point out the situation. We protect children so they can BE children, but that dosen't mean that a child is incapable of dealing with adult situations. It merely means that we try to prevent them from having to deal with adult situations.

*Oh sure. And those same children were deprived of an education. Up to 10 to 12 hours a day in a factory, plus 8 hours of sleep, didn't leave much time for school, now did it? And most of those children grew into poorly-educated adults...who are just that much more vulnerable and ignorant about predatory authority figures who can manipulate and exploit them.

All true. I am not condoning the behaviour, or the acts. I think letting children be children is a good thing. But I also believe children are given their childhood by adults.

*I grew up in farm country. I've never heard of children as young as 5 operating such heavy, dangerous machinery.

Well then, it must be so.

Can you prove you learned to fly at 12? How do we know you're not making that up for the sake of argument?

Do you want to see my merit badge? Don't believe me, what do I care?

*Most children, based on clinical studies I've been privy to, don't handle adult situations very well.

Compared to what? An adult? LOL. Children at different stages of cognitive development (just like adults at different cognitive levels) handle situations differently, some better, some worse.

So, by this rationale, child pornography is okay? And having sex with children? And arming children with guns and ammunition in Israel and Palestine?

No, did I say that it was? I merely point out that I believe something without objective, concrete reasons for the belief. It just 'feels' right. Why do you have such a problem understanding this?

Your viewpoint seeks to enable and empower the manipulators and exploiters at the expense of the weak and innocent.

Yes, yes, I've heard it before. Clark, the Tyrant. Clark, the Oppresor. Clark, the fashist. My viewpoint is lost on most people because they are to busy believing I am a monster to try and understand what I am saying.

You're stuck on a conclusion, I'm stuck on how one gets to the conclusion.

*Perhaps the trouble is how you define "objective." And notice also that in all examples you give, the considered-adult age is at least in the teen years.

So a teen is an adult? 13 then? I am fairly certain that falls into the kiddy porn criteria. The 'teen' years as adult is a historical legacy from short brutish life spans, which is the case in many parts of the world, and which was the case for America 100 some odd years ago. Women died in child birth- they were married at 12, often younger.

. The 5-month-old baby in my county who was raped and beaten to death was WRONG. But according to your viewpoint, if consensus (i.e. "reality") were that raping and beating 5-month-olds to death is okay, it'd be okay. You've affirmed this viewpoint.

Why do you fault me for pointing out the obvious? Sweet holy jeebus. Yeah, what happened to that baby is terrible, I hope they kill the SOB. However, I have enough sense to realize how the world works Cindy. t dosen't work like you and I might hope. It does work on consensus. Look at slavery, there was a consensus that held it to be okay. So it was. Don't fault me for being observant, okay. The world works that way, and I am sorry, but it's not my fault that it does work that way.

Turning off your mind and going along with the herd isn't reality.

Did I say that? No, I merely pointed out that the majority determines what is, and is not acceptable. That is reality. People thought slavery was okay (some didn't), yet the majority had their way. When did it change in america? When the majority said it was no longer okay to have slaves (populous North, vs south).

Enough?

Palomar · 2003-10-10 11:13:41

Me: "So, by this rationale, child pornography is okay? And having sex with children? And arming children with guns and ammunition in Israel and Palestine?"

Clark: "No, did I say that it was?"

*You said reality is merely consensus. If the consensus says it's okay, it's okay: Anything and everything is OKAY, so long as most people think (do most people "think"? Hmmm, I wonder) it's "okay"...so, according to that "logic," it's okay for adults in Israel and Palestine to push loaded semi-automatic weapons in the hands of 6-year-old boys, to go and get shot to death and help them fight their dirty little war. I mean, god forbid the adults over there stop for a moment and try to THINK their way to peace.

Clark: "I merely point out that I believe something without objective, concrete reasons for the belief. It just 'feels' right. Why do you have such a problem understanding this?"

*Your "belief" is based on consensus. You said so. That's what I understand you are saying: "Let's go along with the herd (consensus/groupthink)."

Me: "Your viewpoint seeks to enable and empower the manipulators and exploiters at the expense of the weak and innocent."

Clark: "Yes, yes, I've heard it before. Clark, the Tyrant. Clark, the Oppresor. Clark, the fashist. My viewpoint is lost on most people because they are to busy believing I am a monster to try and understand what I am saying."

*I didn't call you any names. I don't think you're a monster: I just think you are terribly misguided. I think you cannot see where your arguments would lead. If you, me, or anyone else is not opposed to whatever, then we ENABLE that whatever. In my view, saying that "consensus IS reality" has the potential to unleash all sorts of terrible situations, and enables predators, tyrannts, etc. You don't have to agree with me. But this IS how I see it. There is consensus, and there is reality: They are NOT synonymous. The example of Hitler and his "bullet-proof" Storm Troopers again.

Clark: "You're stuck on a conclusion, I'm stuck on how one gets to the conclusion."

*I'm stuck on reality, Clark. Reality isn't always nice or wonderful or unicorns puking up rainbows in green meadows; but it's there. I've suggested you read the section of John Galt's speech in Ayn Rand's _Atlas Shrugged_. Please do this. You don't have to agree with what you read, but please just read it. Maybe you'll get a better idea of where I and others like me are coming from. BTW, I don't agree with Rand on political issues especially; but her thoughts on the nature of reality, morals, etc. are, IMO, worthwhile.

Unless, of course, you don't want to challenge yourself. I've read Derrida!

--Cindy

Now I've -got- to get back to work.

clark · 2003-10-10 11:40:22

You said reality is merely consensus.

What color is the sky? Blue, right? 'Blue' is the linguistic representation for the color of sky most people see when they look at it. If most people were color blind, and they saw a 'green' sky, the sky would be green. Yet would it actually be green, or blue?

You hold a belief that men are equal. How is this derived? Do you think that if you grew up in a time and place that taught you otherwise, that you would still come to the same conclusion? On what basis? Does that outside world, from
which we all take our cues, have no effect on you?

Let's take an example of a riot. Imagine a city full of sensible individuals, law abiding, who find themselves in a large group, and then suddenly start breaking and stealing becuase a few others start it. Then more people do it. Then suddenly, everyone is saying, well, everyone was doing it.

Or how about the freeway. Take law abiding people, put them in a car, next to other cars, and then each individual begins to race one another. They speed, breaking the law, often with the rationale that those around them are speeding too.

What you point out Cindy are the dangers inherent in 'group think'. The dangers inherent in indivudals or small groups developing a consensus that isn't practical, or fair to all members of the group. Injustice in a word.

Just because a bunch of people think something is okay, dosen't make it okay. The death penalty is an example. However, consensus DOES determine what is and is not acceptable. The death penalty is acceptable, but that dosen't make it right. Do you understand yet?

Kiddy porn, if a consensus agreed that it was okay still wouldn't be 'okay', but it would be acceptable. Why? Becuase like it or not, the majority determines acceptable behavior.

. If the consensus says it's okay, it's okay: Anything and everything is OKAY, so long as most people think (do most people "think"? Hmmm, I wonder) it's "okay"...so, according to that "logic," it's okay for adults in Israel and Palestine to push loaded semi-automatic weapons in the hands of 6-year-old boys, to go and get shot to death and help them fight their dirty little war.

You and I can say this isn't okay. But the majority of the people (the group, however defined) determine if it is acceptable. Is abortion okay? I don't know the answer, but in our society, it is acceptable.

I didn't call you any names. I don't think you're a monster: I just think you are terribly misguided.

To each their own opinion. However, i think I can see a bit farther than my own nose. Thanks for the concern.

I think you cannot see where your arguments would lead.

I think you misunderstand what i am trying to discuss.

In my view, saying that "consensus IS reality" has the potential to unleash all sorts of terrible situations, and enables predators, tyrannts, etc. You don't have to agree with me. But this IS how I see it.

So you're getting tripped up by the literal interpretation of what I say? You realize that this reduces our conversation to one of semantics. I would prefer to discuss the ideas.

Maybe you'll get a better idea of where I and others like me are coming from.

I think I already do. To bad you don't see where I'm coming from. But, whatever. :laugh:

dicktice · 2003-10-10 16:50:28

Byron, my attempt at irony regarding Imperial Rome was a flop if you took it any other way. I was trying to hint at the similarities between the way we are going (by not becoming space travelers when it space-traveling time, I suggest). But your enlargement on my points was worth it. Your conclusion:

Quote: The point of all of this is that we can and should do better - much better - but considering that too many people would rather watch mindless shows like "Survivor" as opposed to actually caring about their kids, elderly parents, their community, et al...I just do not see how American society can sustain itself over the long term: Unquote.

I think you're too pessimistic. Who watches these mindless shows--regularly--except by accident or relaxation or to see what the current state of mindless entertainment is. No-one who would contribute to (say) the Mars Society, surely? So where's the loss, unless you want to depend on their financial support (let's say) by promising to broadcast sitcoms taking place in microgravity--damn, that sounds like it might be fun to watch--to hell with irony.

dicktice · 2003-10-10 17:03:15

And, Clark: Nothing personnal, I hope. If one can guarantee that kids from birth be themselves to the greatest extent possible, while protecting them from injurious behavior, that's about as "absolute" a doctrine as I would insist upon as the member of a hypothetical jury of one's peers. Historically, what you've pointed out was then, this is now . . . where do we go from here?

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-03-15 14:12:17

Political critics

'The billionaire space race reflects a colonial mindset that fails to imagine a different world'

https://theconversation.com/the-billion … rld-165235

Elon Musk and his memes

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1635885881633431552

Adult smut material or Hardcore pornography it seems to have become an addiction and vice like gambling, alcohol, drugs. Now illegal across much of Africa and Asia but also partially legal, under some broad restrictions, or ambiguous status, currently legal in most of the West. Human guidelines for living, sometimes coming from religion teachings a Moses or Jesus or Buddha the concept of decency and 'proper behavior'? Maybe some teachings can even be classed as 'Evil' the Aztec culture of human sacrifice, destroyed when Native Mesoamerica tribes helped the Spanish conquer and there are some I do not yet understand Yazidism pre-Zoroastrian religion. Morality today perhaps a combination of philosophy, active citizenship , ethics, good conduct. Russian law, consumption of pornography is allowed though the production of it is not Pornographic production, distribution, broadcasting (both audio and video), transportation, import and advertisement is forbidden by law in Ukraine, with a war ongoing and hundreds of thousands dying they might have more things to worry about than erotic photos or explicit Dvds.

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2023-03-15 16:42:34)

Calliban · 2023-03-15 16:36:50

Morality arises because human beings are intelligent creatures, with personal wants and goals, but also a need to live in communities. Morality is all about the way we treat each other. Without morality, it would be difficult for humans to live in groups. Living in groups requires that humans respect a code of conduct. Morality is therefore an evolutionary construct, that we all have an ingrained sense of. Our sense of justice exists because without it humans would be too mercenary to build complex societies. But it follows that there is no inherent, universal right and wrong. The ideas of right and wrong, good and evil, are purely human concepts.

Good and evil are not properties of matter in the way that mass, gravity, temperature and hardness are properties. A rock cannot be evil. Nor does evil apply to a cat, a dog or a mouse. Good and evil exist only when more than one intelligence is present in a situation and are relevant to the way one intelligent being interacts with another. If humans were different creatures to what they are, our sense of morality may also be different. If we ever meet intelligent aliens, we may find that their morality is very different to ours.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-10-08 11:51:32

Re: Morality - Is it all just relative?

#2 2003-10-08 14:20:37

Re: Morality - Is it all just relative?

#3 2003-10-08 15:09:46

Re: Morality - Is it all just relative?

#4 2003-10-08 17:07:53

Re: Morality - Is it all just relative?

#5 2003-10-09 09:31:23

Re: Morality - Is it all just relative?

#6 2003-10-09 12:51:30

Re: Morality - Is it all just relative?

#7 2003-10-09 13:06:01

Re: Morality - Is it all just relative?

#8 2003-10-09 13:33:55

Re: Morality - Is it all just relative?

#9 2003-10-09 18:42:43

Re: Morality - Is it all just relative?

#10 2003-10-09 19:04:34

Re: Morality - Is it all just relative?

#11 2003-10-09 23:42:32

Re: Morality - Is it all just relative?

#12 2003-10-10 06:02:30

Re: Morality - Is it all just relative?

#13 2003-10-10 08:13:21

Re: Morality - Is it all just relative?

#14 2003-10-10 08:32:51

Re: Morality - Is it all just relative?

#15 2003-10-10 09:40:24

Re: Morality - Is it all just relative?

#16 2003-10-10 10:24:25

Re: Morality - Is it all just relative?

#17 2003-10-10 10:53:17

Re: Morality - Is it all just relative?

#18 2003-10-10 11:13:41

Re: Morality - Is it all just relative?

#19 2003-10-10 11:40:22

Re: Morality - Is it all just relative?

#20 2003-10-10 16:50:28

Re: Morality - Is it all just relative?

#21 2003-10-10 17:03:15

Re: Morality - Is it all just relative?

#22 2023-03-15 14:12:17

Re: Morality - Is it all just relative?

#23 2023-03-15 16:36:50

Re: Morality - Is it all just relative?

Board footer