Morals: Where do you stand on them?

[Kolby Jack]

I see a lot of cynical internet nerds, when presented with a question on morality, say that morals are nothing but a social construct and often get in the way of otherwise practical solutions to everyday problems. To them, morality is often irrational.

As an optimistic internet nerd, I disagree with that. Morals are quite rational to me (at least most of them) because I see that (most) morals aren't driven by society, but by empathy. It's all in the "Golden Rule:" Treat others the way you want to be treated. I don't steal because I would not want my things to be stolen. I don't harm because I would not want to be harmed. I try not to lie (I'm not perfect) because I don't like to be lied to. It may seem like this ideology would be easy to take advantage of, but it works both ways. Wrongdoers forfeit their right to be treated as equals to everyone else, and while I myself am not the revenge-seeking sort (I try to forgive because I know I would want to be forgiven), I don't see appropriate revenge as a bad thing and wouldn't stop someone from going that route if they were dead-set on it.

Regardless of your beliefs, empathy is ever-present in all our minds unless you are a psychopath (literally). But that's just how I feel about it. Would anyone care to offer their own opinions on the subject?

 

[Crazy]

Depends on how severe things really are.

 

[Captain_Fantastic]

be kind to people if they return the favor then keep them around
if they show you kindness you return the favor 10x

but as for stealing and petty crime im ok with it so long as its for justified reasons if you beat up a guy for being an ass then thats ok .. depending on the ammount he fights back if its just a brutal beating for looking at "your girl" wrong then thats just wrong.

stealing is the same way nobody is going to miss a 2 dollar pepsi and if you really really need something then if people dont give it to you then they should have it stolen

as for empathy i think people should come first good people dont deserve bad things but unfortunately thats the way it is for some. so i may as well turn into the bad guy once in a while to help the good guys out of a rut

 

[Saelune]

We can be without morals and act solely based on reason and productivity...or we can not be robots. While some misguided or misplaced morals can hinder progress, sometimes it is better to be moral than productive.

 

[Kasawd]

Social contract exists for a reason.

Break it at your own risk.

 

[Lightning Delight]

When shit gets serious (and I mean really, really serious) then there are times when you need to Vulcan up and make the logical choice, regardless of how you feel. Most of the time, though, morality important to keep us functioning as a society. It keeps people from stealing and murdering whenever they please, and allows us to work towards our own endeavors without compromising those of everyone else.

"Without morality, we are either robots or barbarians. Take your pick."

 

[Trippy Turtle]

Morality holds back progress. Simple as that. It is immoral to test stuff on humans even though it would speed up medication development by a lot. Some morals just don't work. It is Immoral to steal right? How about someone stealing a singe slice of bread from the richest man in the world to feed his family? Fable 3's moral thing is a good example. Make everyone suffer but live or kill everyone but let them have a nice live.

I took an alignment test and came up with Chaotic neutral. Take that morality!

 

[gostchiken]

They're a luxury, when the shit hits the fan people's morality becomes real flexible real quick.

 

[ultrachicken]

I see a lot of cynical internet nerds, when presented with a question on morality, say that morals are nothing but a social construct and often get in the way of otherwise practical solutions to everyday problems. To them, morality is often irrational.

I've never understood this approach to life, because practicality is also inherently moral. It is the moral code of "do whatever it takes because I don't want [person(s)] to die, and because I want [person(s)] to prosper." There is no inherently greater value in life as opposed to death, or wealth as opposed to poverty, everyone must choose where their values lie. And choosing what you value counts as a moral decision.

Morality holds back progress. Simple as that. It is immoral to test stuff on humans even though it would speed up medication development by a lot. Some morals just don't work. It is Immoral to steal right? How about someone stealing a singe slice of bread from the richest man in the world to feed his family? Fable 3's moral thing is a good example. Make everyone suffer but live or kill everyone but let them have a nice live.

I took an alignment test and came up with Chaotic neutral. Take that morality!

This is a perfect example. You don't lack morals, you simply hold progress above that of more common values.

 

[Draconalis]

I like using them to stand on solid ground... keeps my feet from touching the dirt.

 

[Hamish Durie]

Social contract exists for a reason.

Break it at your own risk.

wasn't this one of the points of bioshock

 

[the spud]

Morals are there for a reason and overall they make our society a much better place to live, but I can definitely see where these cynical nerds you were speaking of are coming from. It is easier and more productive for me to just ignore morality and do whatever benefits me the most, but if the entire society started doing it, everything would go to hell. Although it is very tempting just to say "fuck morals", because people like that are much more likely to succeed. Did you know that the rate of sociopathy is 4 times higher in rich CEO's than in normal people?

 

[nukethetuna]

Long story short, I believe morals are up to the individual, and everyone has them. Some people might think it's moral to sacrifice the few for the well-being of the many, while others may think that's a gross violation of individual rights.

Personally, I can't advocate doing something to someone against their will that I wouldn't want done to myself. Testing drugs on humans forcibly I would disagree with, but if people volunteer or are payed for it, and acknowledge the risks as individuals, then I won't care.

So I GUESS I'm of the "treat others as you'd like to be treated" type, but not really out of any empathy for other people, more so for the selfish reason of being able to carry on with my own stance.

 

[Kasawd]

Social contract exists for a reason.

Break it at your own risk.

wasn't this one of the points of bioshock

It wouldn't surprise me, though, their social contracts were particularly loose, in comparison to our own. It made it a lovely setting.

Social contract exists for a reason.

Break it at your own risk.

Social contract doesn't actually exist. It's a convenient way to explain things, but really people don't actually consent in any meanginful way to it.

Actually, it does. There are two meanings to social contract.

One of these is not particularly set in stone but relates to a set of moral or ethical points a community has in common, or as a whole. Socially, it very much does exist and, really, from that particular viewpoint, it's hard to argue.

Simple example: A lot of folk pick their nose, but, it's part of social contract to not do so, in public.

Then, we get the social contract which is a fancy way of saying that a government has a responsibility for the well-being of its people. Socialism has the strongest taste of potent, governmental social contract.

So, even if you think the first example is hooey, the seconds is just political theory. XD

 

[Indeterminacy]

Actually, it does. There are two meanings to social contract.

One of these is not particularly set in stone but relates to a set of moral or ethical points a community has in common, or as a whole. Socially, it very much does exist and, really, from that particular viewpoint, it's hard to argue.

Simple example: A lot of folk pick their nose, but, it's part of social contract to not do so, in public.

Then, we get the social contract which is a fancy way of saying that a government has a responsibility for the well-being of its people. Socialism has the strongest taste of potent, governmental social contract.

So, even if you think the first example is hooey, the seconds is just political theory. XD

I think the first example is a misrepresentation, while the second definition is a bit oversimplified.

It's important to realise that the social contract in the moral sense isn't just about interactive protocol or common convention. You don't break the social contract by picking your nose in public, by spitting into an open sewer, by not leaving tips and what have you. These things are norms that govern "Good" behaviour; not that govern "permissable" behaviour.

The social contract specifically deals with situations in which intervention is accepted and the limits of liberty for individual autonomy are drawn. I may not like you picking your nose but I have absolutely no right to stop you. By contrast, good examples of where implicit social contracts might be relied upon are when you're trying to stop someone drawing graffiti, preaching loudly in public areas, barging through queues, riding dangerously on their bike or wearing offensive t-shirts.

Not all of these are necessarily illegal or even wrong, either, but they're areas in which some level of intervention are generally accepted as not infringing upon innate liberties of the individual.

With respect to governments and social contracts, there's more to it than just "governments have to do what's best for who they represent". As with the individual case, the implicit social contract also outlines the relationships between the collective body and the individual. It's typical to accept that even if the government genuinely has the interests of its people wholly and uniquely in mind, this is a contingent matter, such that the social contract not only outlines responsibilities but also constraints.

For instance, there is a general social contract between a government and its people that it respect the right for individuals to own and protect property, at least up to some limit of what is needed for independent existence from state support. Governments should not structure their approach to providing that well-being by insisting that everyone become dependent on the state or government for that well-being.

 

[tomtom94]

I swing between being the sort of guy who cares because he genuinely wants to be altruistic and the cynic who says that we as a species only ever do anything for selfish reasons. There are arguments on both sides - hell, even I sometimes reckon I'm a self-serving bastard.

I do, as a rule, though, attempt to stick to a moral code, which includes beating myself up a lot should I inadvertently break it. Am I always going to stick to "render unto no-one evil for evil"? No, of course not, I'm only human. Am I never going to think about or participate in activity that is considered socially unacceptable or "creepy" (my new most hated word? Of course not. Anyone who claims to do so is lying.