Login

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

March 29, 2024, 04:34:59 am

Author Topic: Morality  (Read 11354 times)  Share 

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

grannysmith

  • Victorian
  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1303
  • Crisp and juicy.
  • Respect: +66
Re: Morality
« Reply #15 on: June 14, 2013, 10:49:01 pm »
0
To the Mowman

Furbob

  • Victorian
  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1002
  • diagnosed with poo brain
  • Respect: +184
Re: Morality
« Reply #16 on: June 14, 2013, 10:49:21 pm »
0
is it bad to feed roast chicken to pigeons?
2011 : English | Accounting | MM CAS | Further | Japanese | MUEP Japanese
2012 : BA(Japanese&Chinese)/BComm @ Monash Clayton

brenden

  • Honorary Moderator
  • Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
  • *******
  • Posts: 7185
  • Respect: +2593
Re: Morality
« Reply #17 on: June 14, 2013, 10:50:16 pm »
0
is it bad to feed roast chicken to pigeons?
Bad but so, so good.


ok but lezbe real here dats messed bro
✌️just do what makes you happy ✌️

grannysmith

  • Victorian
  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1303
  • Crisp and juicy.
  • Respect: +66
Re: Morality
« Reply #18 on: June 14, 2013, 10:54:51 pm »
0
Um... I'd rather eat it.

availn

  • Victorian
  • Forum Obsessive
  • ***
  • Posts: 250
  • Respect: +13
  • School Grad Year: 2013
Re: Morality
« Reply #19 on: June 14, 2013, 10:57:58 pm »
0
Or you could use it as feed, and then eat the pigeons. Best of both worlds.
2011: Software Development (43)
2012: Methods (41), Physics (45)
2013: Literature (38), German (35), Specialist (39), Accounting (40), UMEP Physics (4.5)
ATAR: 98.65

spectroscopy

  • Honorary Moderator
  • Part of the furniture
  • *******
  • Posts: 1966
  • Respect: +373
Re: Morality
« Reply #20 on: June 14, 2013, 11:00:29 pm »
0
Well, if we take the Bible as true, blasphemy and suicide are two things you can't repent from.
Also - when do we repent? Do we get the chance to repent once we're dead, or do we have to do it before we die?

blasphemy is unrepentable, because if you a blasphemer, and actively argue against god, odds are you wont want his sympathies, hence you cant repent, blasphemy and swearing are two different things, contrary to popular belief
and suicide is unrepentable because (and this will answer your other question), to repent, the steps sort of go somethinglike: you do something, realise its bad, feel genuinely sorry for it, and ask for forgiveness, and understand why it was bad and how, if its a bad habit you try to curb it as best you can and pray for strength to help you, and if its a one off thing you dont let it happen again.
 suicide is unrepentable because a) youre sort of throwing away the gift of life youve been given and its really disrespectful, like if you blow up somebodies car, you are probably the worlds biggest dog and just did a really fucked up thing yeah, but eventually you could pay it back, and you might not even fully comprehend the feelings of others if youre young and dumb, but if someone else saves up for ages, and buys you a car, and then you say "lol fuck you" and blow it up, its on like an entirely different level of cold heartedness if you get what i mean?

but that first point is arguable, the main reason is b) in order to be forgiven, you must repent whilst alive, and realise the badness of your actions, so lets put in a big example here and say murder, the steps go something like this
get really angry -> kill somebody -> be really sad and think oh fuck oh fuck -> realise what youve done, probably cry about it, say how sorry you are, show remorse -> pray for forgiveness, talk to a priest and let him know how bad you feel, -> reform -> the sin has been forgiven provided you are being sincere about it all -> youve grown as a person
whereas if you commit suicide its more like
kill somebody -> its you -> go straight to after life-> no chance to repent
see, there was no time to repent in there, everyone would repent in the afterlife because they would see the folly of their actions in their human life, therefor everyone would be forgiven, and that wouldnt work because then people who are really mean would just want to escape so they would repent too, so it is up to you to ask for forgiveness now whilst alive to show that youre sincere


sorry, i have nothing to add to the morality argument, i was just answering brendens question

brenden

  • Honorary Moderator
  • Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
  • *******
  • Posts: 7185
  • Respect: +2593
Re: Morality
« Reply #21 on: June 14, 2013, 11:12:50 pm »
0
But then Alex, don't you just disagree with that on a moral level? (and no need to apologise for the post, I kept the religious talk in this split thread because I saw it as a prelude to the morality discussion)

I mean, if Heaven and Hell exist, aren't they some sort of representation of what you deserve on a moral level?
And so, if someone lives their life on Christian principles quite well, eg. they give basically everything away and keep just enough for themselves to survive, they forgive, they love, etc etc etc, and essentially just live in the way that Jesus did - you could hardly say they deserved to go to Hell. But if they blasphemised - does that make someone an entirely immoral agent? I mean, going by your definition, Hitler could theoretically be in Heaven right now. It seems incongruent to me to disallow an almost perfect moral agent entrance to Heaven but allow it to Hitler or very immoral agents who repented.
✌️just do what makes you happy ✌️

jazza97

  • Victorian
  • Trendsetter
  • **
  • Posts: 111
  • Respect: +6
Re: Morality
« Reply #22 on: June 14, 2013, 11:16:11 pm »
0

Alex, you should follow the New Testament, if you are Judeo-Christian-to my knowledge, no where in the New Testament does it say those who commit suicide or are blasphemous cannot repent.

Technically, if you have ever exclaimed 'Jesus Christ' in anger, that is blasphemy.
TUTORING ENGLISH IN 2013-UniMelb, State Library and Doncaster Library
Study Score of 49
Language Analysis~~Encountering Conflict~~Text Response (will read all texts that i haven't studied)
PM me to register interest!

AbominableMowman

  • Victorian
  • Forum Leader
  • ****
  • Posts: 589
  • Respect: +29
Re: Morality
« Reply #23 on: June 14, 2013, 11:27:30 pm »
0
Well, aren't you just advocating that consistency of action is a worthy moral principle?
Consistency of action is not necessarily a moral principle (although it could be).
Consistency of action = integrity
The difference between integrity and morality would be that integrity means a person is consistent with his actions and accountable to himself, while moral values are thrust upon people by society.
btw im talking about personal integrity here (integrity can often be confused with morality, though philosophically they can mean different things)
I think i've been reading too much camus

So... we should follow our desires regardless?
regardless of what?

Or you could use it as feed, and then eat the pigeons. Best of both worlds.
Or you could use it as pigeon, and then eat the feed.
2014 - VCE

2015 - 2017

brenden

  • Honorary Moderator
  • Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
  • *******
  • Posts: 7185
  • Respect: +2593
Re: Morality
« Reply #24 on: June 14, 2013, 11:33:05 pm »
0
But moral values aren't necessarily thrust upon people by society. I mean. You and I live in the same society and would surely differ in our moral reasoning. I mean, I have a friend who grew up in the same postcode, society, school as me, and she says abortion is immoral and I disagree.
And consistency of action = integrity I think just makes it closer to a moral principle.  I don't see how someone believing in morality means they're not accountable to themselves, whereas if they were amoral and had integrity they would be accountable to themselves instead.
I think you're actually making an argument for virtue ethics here lol.
✌️just do what makes you happy ✌️

brenden

  • Honorary Moderator
  • Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
  • *******
  • Posts: 7185
  • Respect: +2593
Re: Morality
« Reply #25 on: June 14, 2013, 11:45:37 pm »
0
Moreover, FYeti, if you think morality doesn't exist you lose the privilege of saying things are wrong on a moral level. Eg. If someone stones a woman to death over showing skin in a country where that is legally okay, would you disagree in saying that's morally wrong?
✌️just do what makes you happy ✌️

EvangelionZeta

  • Quintessence of Dust
  • Honorary Moderator
  • ATAR Notes Superstar
  • *******
  • Posts: 2435
  • Respect: +288
Re: Morality
« Reply #26 on: June 15, 2013, 12:13:42 am »
0
Re: Lolly, okay, so what if moral progress isn't a thing either?

But moral values aren't necessarily thrust upon people by society. I mean. You and I live in the same society and would surely differ in our moral reasoning. I mean, I have a friend who grew up in the same postcode, society, school as me, and she says abortion is immoral and I disagree.
And consistency of action = integrity I think just makes it closer to a moral principle.  I don't see how someone believing in morality means they're not accountable to themselves, whereas if they were amoral and had integrity they would be accountable to themselves instead.
I think you're actually making an argument for virtue ethics here lol.

I think the issue here is that nobody has really defined what morality actually is.  What are we actually talking about here? What IS this morality that is under scrutiny?

Moreover, FYeti, if you think morality doesn't exist you lose the privilege of saying things are wrong on a moral level. Eg. If someone stones a woman to death over showing skin in a country where that is legally okay, would you disagree in saying that's morally wrong?

That's kind of tautological - "if morality doesn't exist then you can't invoke morals". More broadly though, depending on what you're defining as moral I think we can still reasonably condemn that law without saying that it's "morally wrong". A political theorist could, for instance, just say that it's a bad policy because it isn't in people's interests in that society (or that the calculus of valuing outdated laws over individual freedoms doesn't add up on the utility scale), which is illegitimate in turn because governments are generally designed to maximize interest-fulfillment.
---

Finished VCE in 2010 and now teaching professionally. For any inquiries, email me at [email protected].

EvangelionZeta

  • Quintessence of Dust
  • Honorary Moderator
  • ATAR Notes Superstar
  • *******
  • Posts: 2435
  • Respect: +288
Re: Morality
« Reply #27 on: June 15, 2013, 12:16:41 am »
0
Yeah having reread this thread, I really do want to emphasise this discussion makes no sense unless people can actually define what morals really are. Not necessarily what is good and what is evil (or whatever binary labels you want to use), but more like, what IS this whole morality thing are trying to discuss?
---

Finished VCE in 2010 and now teaching professionally. For any inquiries, email me at [email protected].

brenden

  • Honorary Moderator
  • Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
  • *******
  • Posts: 7185
  • Respect: +2593
Re: Morality
« Reply #28 on: June 15, 2013, 12:38:58 am »
0
Okay I see the confusion. I am refuting A.Snow's assertion that we should be amoral in saying that there is some moral standard without offering what the standard should be. In re: Alex and Heaven/Hell, I flip to using moral and immoral as synonyms for good and evil.
In saying 
Quote
You and I live in the same society and would surely differ in our moral reasoning
I should have said we differ in our moral standards. Here, I am saying that we are free to choose our own (edit: perception of) moral standards, whatever they may be.
I'm struggling to define morality just as a concept all by itself (so I guess I see the need to define it). Can we just say standards that guide behaviour? (or even thought if you swing that way) - but I'm not sure you're looking for such an open definition.

A political theorist could say that, but what if in this scenario it is in people's interests? Say, utility is maxmised by adhering to the "don't show skin or die" rule, even among the females of that society (that other females not show skin or be killed) and the only time there is low utility is the low utility of an isolated individual that accidentally shows skin and knows they're about to die.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2013, 12:43:41 am by Bendren εϊз »
✌️just do what makes you happy ✌️

EvangelionZeta

  • Quintessence of Dust
  • Honorary Moderator
  • ATAR Notes Superstar
  • *******
  • Posts: 2435
  • Respect: +288
Re: Morality
« Reply #29 on: June 15, 2013, 12:47:22 am »
0
Okay I see the confusion. I am refuting A.Snow's assertion that we should be amoral in saying that there is some moral standard without offering what the standard should be. In re: Alex and Heaven/Hell, I flip to using moral and immoral as synonyms for good and evil.
In saying   I should have said we differ in our moral standards. Here, I am saying that we are free to choose our own moral standards, whatever they may be.
I'm struggling to define morality just as a concept all by itself (so I guess I see the need to define it). Can we just say standards that guide behaviour? (or even thought if you swing that way) - but I'm not sure you're looking for such an open definition.

A political theorist could say that, but what if in this scenario it is in people's interests? Say, utility is maxmised by adhering to the "don't show skin or die" rule, even among the females of that society (that other females not show skin or be killed) and the only time there is low utility is the low utility of an isolated individual that accidentally shows skin and knows they're about to die.

Yep, that's way too open. What is the purpose of these standards? Do they guide individual action or collective action? If we don't fulfill morals, does society need to punish us, or is there some sort of intrinsic value to them that will just affect our lives without external influence? And are morals things that are inflexible - ie. is it ALWAYS acceptable or unacceptable to abort a fetus, or does it just vary on a case by case basis? If so, how do we prioritise certain values - what are the first principles? Does morality have hierarchical values or do you just do cost benefit analysis?

And sure, if that was the case then maybe that's the conclusion they would have to accept. I think the obvious response though is that that is extremely unlikely,and unlike with abstract philosophers, political theorists are justified in grounding their theories of how governments operate in reality in, well, reality. (you could also just do some different political theory analysis, eg. Look at something more like Rawls in terms of how social justice is best served with reference to a veil of ignorance etc)
---

Finished VCE in 2010 and now teaching professionally. For any inquiries, email me at [email protected].