Poll: Do you believe in morality?

[Terminal Blue]

[HEADING=2]Wave of smug nihilistic jerks incoming in 3... 2... 1...[/HEADING]

Woah.. slow down. So not believing in absolute moral truths makes you a nihilist? When did this happen?

Moral relativism allows you to view and consider all moral positions as social creations which have their own context rather than just dogmatic truths, but that doesn't make everything unimportant. Quite the opposite in fact.

For example, as a moral relativist I fully accept that if God were to exist it would be 'good' to do what God says, because He would have the power to enforce that moral judgement. Thus, morality on religious grounds is not 'wrong', it's just predicated on a very big 'if'.

Likewise, I'm not going to go out and shoot random people to take their stuff because social power has been put in place to make that action wrong. I don't want to, and not because it's a moral absolute, it's just that I'm part of this society and it has the power to reward me if I follow the rules and punish me if I don't. Sometimes the punishment might be worth it, but usually it's not.

Just because something isn't magically universal and self-evident doesn't mean it doesn't exist or is just a lie. The power which creates and enforces it is very real and very hard to ignore.

Smug.. maybe, nihilistic.. no.

 

[lacktheknack]

If an action negatively effects you or those around you, it's morally wrong.

I believe it's universal.

Don't bother asking me how to "do right" in "someone must get hurt" dilemmas, I don't think you can in most cases.

 

[dragonslayer32]

although i tend not to conform to social desireability, my morality is pretty much the same as everyone elses.

 

[Not-here-anymore]

Yes, i believe that there are universally good things (such as helping those in need) and universally bad things (such as torturing people for fun). What a shocking, profound revelation.

But... i think i have voted wrong in the poll. On one hand i believe that some things are universally good or bad. On the other hand, i agree that there may and should be differences (stance on official law, for example). There are certainly some gray areas in which everybody decides for themselves.

***

[HEADING=2]Wave of smug nihilistic jerks incoming in 3... 2... 1...[/HEADING]

I agree - some actions are inherently good or bad, others can only be assigned such qualities depending on the perspective of the individual. Example: Man A goes back in time, shoots Hitler, claims it's a good act because a lot of deaths were prevented. Man B objects, stating that the wilful taking of human life is wrong, and that shooting Hitler was therefore an evil act. Person C objects, as A and B are clearly male, and thus I've been excessively sexist, which is morally bad.

However, even if a universal belief in morality is assumed, it could be observed that such a code isn't followed. Example: Helping someone with a heavy object, such as moving a sofa. Morally right, yes? But if you saw someone struggling to get a sofa through their front door, would you offer to help? The problem here is that 1) Most people don't care, it's not their sofa, and 2) it's not exactly an immoral act to ignore the sofa-owners plight.
There is a big difference between having a moral code and acting upon said code.

 

[Vorlayn]

I don't think anything's universally right or universally wrong, it's all about the context.

 

[Kimarous]

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

How's that for universal morality? I think we can all agree on these decided articles.

 

[Gigano]

I believe that everyone have their own choosen "external" set of ethical standards to guide them.

I also believe it does not matter whether there's any universal definition of right or wrong: Even if there is, it would still all be about whether you choose to adhear to it or not, making it's "universality" as an external norm a completely irrelevant factor.

 

[CK76]

I think there is some ingrained morality such as not killing everyone, because if we didn't have that in us, well, we wouldn't be here.

Many other aspects have been developed after civilization and have shifted as the zeitgeist of a given people changes.

So, a mix, some things are locked in more, most are flexible in nature.

 

[ElTigreSantiago]

I live by my own morals, based on what I would feel guilty about, not what the churches say I should. Because I can think for myself.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

It's subjective and transient, so the idea that absolute "right" and "wrong" exists is silly. What we have come to agree upon to a certain extent, is the distinction between clearly social and anti-social behaviour.

 

[Riobux]

I do believe that morality is a social construct which as we develop, we construct mentally. Usually it's through primary and secondary socialisation, but it's also got a twist of personal experience to it.

 

[Kollega]

Either way, and regardless of how sound their reasoning may be, there is such a diverse range of ethics all over the world, I guarantee that at least 1 person, at some stage, will have gone against anything ethical system that you can think to universalise.

Regarding those who commit horrific atrocities (or just crimes), here's an amusing fact: i'm the kind of person who understands - yes, the serial killer may have some sort of twisted moral judgement - but still thinks there are universal right and wrong, and serial murderers are wrong in that system. I'm pretty sure that rapists or lawyers (heh, unlucky lawyers... such a juicy acceptable target) don't have any morals whatsoever, though - why would anyone with any kind of morals support a rapist? It seems to be one of those things that are wrong from the perspective of everyone except for the rapist himself... not that big of a stretch to call it "universally wrong".

Another fun fact: i consider opportunism to be the greatest evil of all, while selflesness is, in my eyes, is a greatest virtue. That's the explanation for why i see selflessness as universally good.

You know... it's actually pretty damn ironic that my so-called "absolute" moral beliefs are clashing with those of, say, objectivists. Guess it shows i'm wrong after all. But then again - in my world, there are some absolute morals, even though they may not exist for someone else. The world is a very subjective place in and on itself. [small]Deep, isn't it? Also i have just deconstructed my own arguments... even deeper![/small]

But killing or torturing people and somesuch are still wrong.

There is a big difference between having a moral code and acting upon said code.

You're telling me. I know that... and i still try to actively use that code. I tend to consider the dilemma of "reality versus morality" (whether i should be pragmatic or not) a lot more than most people.

 

[CognitiveDissonance]

Regarding those who commit horrific atrocities (or just crimes), here's an amusing fact: i'm the kind of person who understands - yes, the serial killer may have some sort of twisted moral judgement - but still thinks there are universal right and wrong, and serial murderers are wrong in that system. I'm pretty sure that rapists or lawyers (heh, unlucky lawyers... such a juicy acceptable target) don't have any morals whatsoever, though - why would anyone with any kind of morals support a rapist? It seems to be one of those things that are wrong from the perspective of everyone except for the rapist himself... not that big of a stretch to call it "universally wrong".

While you're right in that very few people disagree with these widely held notions, the fact that even one person does not means that there is no such thing as universal morals. While semantically it is only a short stretch, philosophically there is an enormous difference. If one person disagrees, then there can be no objective, metaphysical morals. Thus we enter the realm of moral relativism.

Also, many lawyers defend rapists either due to an innate belief in the goodness of mankind. While that may be naive, is it really that bad? Also, a greater portion defend even rapists because such a defence is called for in our justice system. Isn't the upholding of our effective and moral justice system worth the defence of a few less savoury individuals?

Another fun fact: i consider opportunism to be the greatest evil of all, while selflesness is, in my eyes, is a greatest virtue. That's the explanation for why i see selflessness as universally good.

I'm interested, what exactly is it that makes selflessness so much more virtuous than opportunism? How is say, giving my 1 pen to another penless person, more moral than keeping it for myself?

 

[Kollega]

While you're right in that very few people disagree with these widely held notions, the fact that even one person does not means that there is no such thing as universal morals. While semantically it is only a short stretch, philosophically there is an enormous difference. If one person disagrees, then there can be no objective, metaphysical morals. Thus we enter the realm of moral relativism.

Hey, i've already admitted that this argument is completely lost for me. But i still believe in some universal rights and wrongs - at least in my own system of beliefs.

Isn't the upholding of our effective and moral justice system worth the defence of a few less savoury individuals?

I admit there are grey areas. This is one of them. It's sort of light-grey, which means - yes, it is worth it. As long as the system is good, that is.

I'm interested, what exactly is it that makes selflessness so much more virtuous than opportunism? How is say, giving my 1 pen to another penless person, more moral than keeping it for myself?

Opportunism = actively hurting others to further your (and only your) ends, especially if you already have something and just want to have more. That would be more like finding someone else with one pen, and stealing it from him so you have two "just in case". I consider this wrong.

 

[CognitiveDissonance]

Excellent, then we're in agreement on all points.

 

[tzimize]

I voted the second, but with modifications.

Since morality is just an idea it cant exist as such, and anyone can have their own definition of it. I do not believe that there is a universal right and a universal wrong. It all depends.

 

[Scobie]

DELETED