I was reading this thread, and i more or less agree with Darth Wong. But what exactly makes some thing "Immoral"? I always imagined it being an emotional or religious concept.
repares for the fierce verbal beating that will soon commence:
Domesticus
How would you define "Immoral"?
I was reading this thread, and i more or less agree with Darth Wong. But what exactly makes some thing "Immoral"? I always imagined it being an emotional or religious concept.
Since universal morality is merely a fictional concept, and morals are personal, immoral is something that contradicts one's feeling of what is moral.
If Bob thinks it is immoral to gamble on sports, and gambles on sports, the act is immoral.
If Bob does not think it immoral to gamble on sports, and then gambles on sports, the act is not immoral because it does not contradict his sense of morality.
Vicarius Provinciae
Moral actions are based soley on the opinions of people. I might not think it is immoral to drink a case of beer but Rev. Joe Bob might think that my actions are highly immoral.
Basically don't let other peoples opinions effect you. They are their opinions and not your own. Do everything delbrativly and within what you deem to be good judgement and tell the naysayers to feck off.
Pit Bull
Morality isn't totally random or subjective, but it isn't "universal" either. It's a complicated question that doesn't get the treatment it deserves from 99.9% of the population. Most people don't really think about what's right and wrong; they just go with their gut instinct and then pick and choose from whatever nice-sounding reason they can come up with. The same is true for Christians; they claim to have a "universal moral code" but all Christians decide for themselves which part of the Bible's morality are really important and which parts are obsolete or silly.
Ultimately, each person does have his own moral compass, but society is not obligated to respect each person's moral compass because a society is composed of large numbers of people who need to work together in something resembling harmony, and that won't happen if there are no overarching rules. I would like to quote from a post I made here quite a while ago, at http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=38397
Numbers 11 and 12 are somewhat facetious, but #1-10 are actually fairly accurate descriptions of the various ethical philosophies. Now what's interesting about this list is that you will hear people (Christians, Muslims, and atheists alike) using many of these reasons at one time or another. Who hasn't used the "if everyone did that" argument, or the "because it's against the law" argument, or the "because it's socially unacceptable" argument at one time or another? I have never met anyone who faithfully restricts himself to just one of those philosophies. I have certainly never met a Christian who never uses philosophies #3 to #10 at any time.Originally Posted by Darth Wong
So does this mean that ethical philosophies are just pointless window-dressing that you use to justify whatever you want to believe anyway? I would argue that perhaps it's not so much a matter of picking which one to use, or lambasting others for flip-flopping from one to another, but rather, it's a matter of using them all at once, in a sort of "majority rules" approach (obviously, people who don't believe in the Bible or Hinduism would skip #1 and #2).
Yes, I have a life outside the Internet and Rome Total War
"Oedipus ruined a great sex life by asking too many questions" - Stephen Colbert
Under the kind patronage of Seleukos
Mr Common Sense
Immorality is something against one's personal moral code, similar to what AP said but a little different; if Bob believes gambling is immoral and anyone gambles then for Bob that is an immoral act, although others may believe it is moral; morality is a personal belief applied universally.
primus pater cunobelin erat; sum in patronicium imb39, domi wilpuri; Saint-Germain, MasterAdnin, Pnutmaster, Scorch, Blau&Gruen,
Ferrets54, Honeohvovohaestse, et Pallida Mors in patronicum meum sunt
Comes Rei Militaris
There are of course different moralities for different people, and I don't think it is possible to clearly define "moral" and "immorral" but one thing that I think is a definate immorral is knowingly and actively putting your own wants before other people's needs. By actively I mean that it is not neccisarrily immoral to not give the money you were going to use to buy the new game to the starving bum on the street, but it would be immoral to take from someone else if you have enough to support yourself. This is just one example of what I would refer to as "universal morality." There are other examples such as not harming people and always helping people when it is of no harm to you. (ie. if you see some one fall, and you have the ability and opportunity to help them up, it is immoral not to.)
ttt
Adopted son of Lord Sephiroth, Youngest sibling of Pent uP Rage, Prarara the Great, Nerwen Carnesîr, TB666 and, Boudicca. In the great Family of the Black Prince
Vicarius Provinciae
There is no question that morality is relative to time and place. I don't think that fact is really arguable when one looks at history and other cultures.
However moral relativism is a problematic concept. How can we speak of ideas like justice, equality and progress unless we preceive morality as fixed.
Here is an relatively recent example. Martin Luther King Jr. and his croonies acted against the social norm and common sense morality of segregation of the USA circa 1950. If we view take for granted that morality is relative, MLK was a bad man, and if are even more faithful to that concept, he should still be a bad man.
Now lets see a show of hands how many moral relativist here are willing to denounce MLK for both his time and ours?
As a teenager, I was taken to various houses and flats above takeaways in the north of England, to be beaten, tortured and raped over 100 times. I was called a “white slag” and “white ****” as they beat me.
-Ella Hill
Campidoctor
since humans being the social animals that we are, morality is something inherent in society. any action that is considered "immoral" is an action that has potential negative reprecussions and social consequences from your peers. if you had no peers (e.g. a hermit) nothing would be immoral because you are your own society, and nothing you do will result in negative social consequences (unless you have multiple personalitiesbut then each personality would be a peer)
Vicarius
Lol,its funny how you hit a brick wall when trying too find a reason not too kill someone outside of the reasons dw gave.For me it is simply because killing a fellow man would be against my morals and simply not right.BUt when i look back on that reason there seems too be something missing.
mind you morales sometimes must be bent.
If someone is threatenign you and the people you live with is it wronjg too kill that person for your freedom?
Let's just hope they were fascist communist kittens who were on their way to international fascist communist fair.
Pit Bull
It is worth remembering that "what would you do" and "what is moral" are not necessarily the same thing. I don't know anyone who hasn't violated his own moral code at one time or another. A moral code represents an ideal for its follower, not necessarily a reality.
Yes, I have a life outside the Internet and Rome Total War
"Oedipus ruined a great sex life by asking too many questions" - Stephen Colbert
Under the kind patronage of Seleukos
Yes, but surely all should strive to make this ideal into a reality, no?
Pit Bull
Of course. I'm just pointing out that you can't necessarily determine someone's ethical principles by asking him what he would personally do in a hypothetical scenario. A better question would be: "what is the ethical course of action in this hypothetical scenario".
Yes, I have a life outside the Internet and Rome Total War
"Oedipus ruined a great sex life by asking too many questions" - Stephen Colbert
Under the kind patronage of Seleukos
Indefinitely Banned
The definition of morals is "customs agreed upon by society". The word mos, moris in latin means just that, customs, way of life. The mos maiorum was the source of all morality in Rome, literally, the "way of life of our predecessors/ancestors".
The definition of ethics is: personal code of conduct.
Mr Common Sense
But etymology does not give us the current meaning of a word (eg, the aristocracy aren't the best rulers...); morality is now a personal code, really, and even within societies there is great variance among the moral codes of individuals.
primus pater cunobelin erat; sum in patronicium imb39, domi wilpuri; Saint-Germain, MasterAdnin, Pnutmaster, Scorch, Blau&Gruen,
Ferrets54, Honeohvovohaestse, et Pallida Mors in patronicum meum sunt
It may not be the current meaning, but that is because our definitions are wrong. By Ummon's definition, what you call a personal moral code would be ethics, just being called something else.
Mr Common Sense
OUr definitions are not wrong, they have just evolved from the original!
Yup... which is what we generally use morality to mean anyway.By Ummon's definition, what you call a personal moral code would be ethics, just being called something else.
primus pater cunobelin erat; sum in patronicium imb39, domi wilpuri; Saint-Germain, MasterAdnin, Pnutmaster, Scorch, Blau&Gruen,
Ferrets54, Honeohvovohaestse, et Pallida Mors in patronicum meum sunt
Social immorality is whatever makes the people feel discontent with. Immorality is whatever goes against your personal set of morals.
Indefinitely Banned
Not really. Aristocracy: rule of the best
But aristos means: best, most beautiful, strongest, noblest, richest.
Which were infact the perceived qualities of nobility in greek society. Infact, etimology gives us the modern meaning, one only has to know it well.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
