A Philosophic Debate-hopefully

Disclaimer: This is not a moral lesson. I do not neccessarily believe the arguments i may make, i would just like to hear some friendly philosphic debate; there is no right or wrong, and it's all abstract anyways.

What determines morality?

300 years ago in the U.S slavery was morally acceptable, as was almost inhuman torture 1000 years ago in Venice. 100 years ago pre-marital sex, masterbation, and bathing suits were considered immoral-today, all those things are part of most peoples lives. The lesson i believe is that morals are only moral so long as it is convenient for them to be so. Once it is no longer convenient or efficient to ban a behavoir, that behavoir is no longer banned.

A broader question can then be asked: if morality is inherently biased and wrong, what holds mens actions in check? Why does the man who will gain from shooting a business rival hesitate to pull the trigger?

I beleive the answer, for lack of a really correct term, is society. Men, unconciously of course, have come to realize that living together in relative peace and interdependance is superior to the natural animal state (just as some animals have). Society as a whole desires to maintain itself, which is not possible with anarchy, which is what we would call it if everyone who stood to gain by shooting someone, shot that someone. Therefore, the right of each human being to do what he wishes, free of any artificial restraints has not been elimnated, but just overawed by the collective will of society and the fear of that man to confront those collectives wills and their collective right to do what they wish to him (which would be to stop his anarchy and kill him)

So, my problem, my feeling that our natural human freedom has been crushed has been solved, at least in my mind.

Please, anyone, state your contrary view on any related issue, but dont try to "disprove" mine-it is opinion and really cannot be "disproved"--though it can be debated.

However, a person who does "free himself from all morals" in our society is still engrained to the core with the moralistic attitudes and psychological conditioning of the society in which he lives, and he cannot escape the social institutions like the legal system, public opinion, etc. that enforce morality on him.  The only true way to free one's self from morals is to be like an animal without the ability to think in such terms, and as we all know, animals show no hesitation to kill.  However, could man free himself and not revert to animalism?  No one has ever really done so, which either means that we can't tell, or it could imply that it would impossible for a human to do so.

morality is a fake imaginary concept used by people to play off the fears of the ignorant for their own gain.  Take senator Lieberman, gaining political clout by playing off the fears of idiots about something that shouldnt be a government issue, computer games.

The worst thing is people have moraility and ethics confused.  They think without morality people would go mad killing each other and whatnot.  Well first of all I bet more people have been killed by those preaching morailty than by any other group int he history of the world, even the killer that is communism is based on thier own moral philosophy.  Also universal human ethics like dont kill people are found everywhere and are a natural part of who we are, moraily is not this, morality is the unique (and always stupid) little things culture groups inject into their objectives.  Something preached by an elite to keep peopel in line while the elite themselves dont even follow it.

The most intelligent people I know are people who have no conventional morailty, these are also peopel who i would think are far less likely to break the law or kill than most.  I think if we all treated ourselves and our lives like an economist treats their portfolio we would be much better off.

Contrarily much of the killing in the world is done by people with a strong sense of morals. Whether it's a serial killer with a disturbed set of morals. Mass murderers from Pol Pot, Hitler, GWB or Begin, who all thought themselves moral people and acting for the greater good. To on a smaller scale a gangster killing another gangster who ripped him off or a cheated lover murdering the person they thought betrayed them.

Great thinking.  I see you are saying fanaticism has got to do with the issue.  I concur

 

Morality is set of values that the society appears to hold. Morality is determined by the society that one is in, and this set of values is something that most people seem to agree on. When someone is being immoral, that means that he is not comforming to those set of standards that are agreed upon by his society. Therefore, he will risk being criticized, to the extent that his morals do not comform to the society's values. However, the society that he is in is only relative to his position. There are many societies in the world, each with its own morals. Some societies think that other societies are immoral. When someone is considered immoral to one society, that does not necessarily mean he is immoral to another. Some socities emphasize different sets of beliefs. So in practical terms, what's considered immoral depends on how someone is dependent upon the societies that he is in. If he is dependent on no society, then that means the definiton of what's moral and immoral do not hold any meaning for him. If he is highly dependent on a society, then he must withhold the society's standards and morals. Because there are many different societies that operate under a single law of a nation, there are usually morals that transcend an individual society to a higher overarching society. These set of values that are most common have become law. However, since a nation does contain many different little socities, many of the sub-societis' values are not directly enforced by the law. So here, we turn back to the question of the significance of morality on a person: it depends on how dependent he is to a certain society, which has its own morals.

well, my favorite socieites in history are those most accpeting of differences and most open to all kinds of people and beleifs, and those socieites tend to be the less strickly moral ones, morality seems often just another brick int he road you pass to differentiate and alienate other people, and is often a sign of a society NOT in tits peak, and often the opposite.