High morals and no morals. I don't buy into it.

Post Reply New Topic

Morality is just an idea, but that doesn't mean it's not important. I think it's something that most people lack...I'm not saying I don't lack it sometimes, though.

Most people are concerned with self-preservation above all else, even if it means the deaths of their loved ones. Most people don't care if someone else is in pain; most even laugh at it. People at my school have laughed at the beach landing scene in "Saving Private Ryan," laughed at the way people have their guts blown out, and most of all from their pain from this. Whenever someone in class got upset or overwhelmed, (s)he would be laughed at. This is how it has been in every year of schooling in my life. To the people I've known, the pain of others has always been seen as something humorous, because it's happening to someone else and not you. And they think that this is all fine. To me, it is immoral, because it is the complete opposite of compassion and empathy, and my opinion of morality is based primarily on compassion and empathy. But I'm sure others would disagree.

The moral thing to do is the right thing to do. That's not always the nice thing to do--sometimes it's better for people to know a shocking truth than for them to live in ignorance, only for that truth to come out in the open after it's too late to do anything about it. The kind thing to do is to let everyone live in blissful ignorance even as they are in danger, but is it moral to happily let them be victim to that danger without realizing it?

To apply this to a personal issue...people oftentimes act all nice and friendly in person. They say that they'll call you, but they never actually do or attempt to contact you in any way. They simply don't care. Basically, they act kind, but at the same time they act immoral by raising your hopes and making you think that they'll talk to you when they know they won't. They're setting you up for disappointment.

As I see it, there is nothing amoral about laughing at violence in movies, because it is not real violence. Generally people aren't really getting hurt.

I'd like to say that I don't laugh when real bad things happen to other people, but sometimes I do. I feel really bad about it though.

Not only that, but I can laugh at something and be horrified by it at the same time. Like I keep seeming to bring up, the Klu Klutz Klan is absolutely hilarious, even if they are disgusting horrible people.

The KKK is realy pathedic. That's what makes them hilarious!!

Your classmates' emotional responses to others' distress make them sound like outright psychopaths. You probably just notice the more heinous reactions and don't observe the quiet unsettlement in your more mature peers.

This has the feel of pseudoscience and some shady "entrepreneur" trying to sell something with hype.

It certianly does. But many of eipsa's post seem to be short on facts!

haha, turn on your frontal lobes, and while you're at it, buy some of my inkjet cartridges!!

That's a good point, but these people also run to form a HUGE circle around any fight, and start jeering and laughing there as well. It wouldn't be so bad if their attitude about it wasn't so malicious and mindless. It's like, they don't care at all about the feelings of others and they consider this a good thing.



Yeah, well I don't have as much of a problem if people feel bad about it. I mean, you can't always help laughing, you know? And I can understand some of it--I mean I found "Evil Dead II" kinda hilarious, and that had a guy cutting his own hand off with a chainsaw. (Well, I didn't find that particular bit funny so much as the squirrly noises the evil hand made as it tried to scamper away after.)



Damn right they sound like psychopaths, and that behavior was the norm at my old high and middle schools. You see why I'm so cynical about humanity?

Yeah, not all behaved this way, but it was enough, you know? And then you have classes where multiple people say that they consider it a good thing to be spoiled, and that sort of thing. I mean, in my old schools the immorality and downright disrespect was so constant and so sickening that I don't know how anyone who has seen today's youth can get a good picture of humanity. Then again, I went to a school with where half the people conformed to this degrading culture of disrespect and sloth, where they fail all their classes and just act horrible to each other all the time.

I think we should be careful when we say that it's OK to laugh at things in movies like violence, on account of it not being real. It's not real, but the characters in films represent real people.

I personally was disgusted by a movie I saw recently called Napoleon Dynamite, which was something my sister recommended. It was this horrible film about these geeks who weren't really geeks at all but caricatures of geeks. The whole film was about getting people to laugh at the characters, and at no point was there any attempt to empathise with them. It was a truly hateful movie, and I'm thinking there are many people out there who think it's hilarious and as a result have had the idea that they can look down upon people they perceive to be geeks reinforced.

On the other hand, I've laughed in films at times which could be considered inappropriate. Like when I went to see The Butterfly Effect, I burst out laughing when I saw the main character had lost his limbs. But that part was really silly, so I can be excused. :p

Personally, I'd like to see more movies that show how cool geeks really can be.
Hackers was kind of like of that. But then a lot of people would say that was a pretty terrible movie.
Being a geek at times can be very counter culture.


As far getting back on topic.

If you have the idea that morality isn't an absolute, then you might actually have to think when you talk to other people. And as we can see from the media, thinking isn't cool.

1) It's Ashton Kutcher. Who DOESN'T find the idea of him losing his limbs amusing? (Kidding--I know he has some fans.)

2) His reaction was what made it amusing more than anything. It could have actually been a very powerful moment (and I found several scenes after to be such), but just the way he went, "Dude, what the f**k is this s**t?" or something like that, in this silly voice...heh. >.<

It was actually the only movie in which I could take him seriously, because the tone (apart from that one moment) was so dark and severe.

I don't get the 'do unto others as you would like do unto you" thing.
Should I give everybody a handjob in a spa bath because its what I like?

LMAOROTF!!

Yes you should!! And I'll give one right back to you baby!! You see how much happier the world is when we drop christian sexual "morality" and live off the principles of mutual consent and reciprocal conduct!!

Oh, you definately have a point here. I run into this all the time--well, not that, but a lot of times when I want from others what they don't want, and vice versa. For instance, I want the brutal honest truth from people, but most people would prefer comforting insincerity because that's what they're used to from society. "How are you doing?" they ask, then get all ticked when you're honest about the fact that you're not in a good mood.

I say, screw treating others how you'd want to be treated. Instead, how about actually paying attention to how THEY want you to act and act accordingly?

Is morality completely subjective? I, perhaps, may be the odd man out, but I believe in some form of the "natural law". I'm not here to preach ethics or to encourage a particular set of ethics. Other threads are for that. I'm just wanting to explain the reasons for my beliefs.

If morality is completely subjective, then it is determined largely by what society says is right. This leads to somewhat of a conundrum when we consider several "moral reformers". For example, people such as Martin Luther King Jr. went against the dominant society and pushed often unpopular ideas. Yet today we look back and declare them reformers. If morality is determined by society, then we should unconditionally condemn them for going against the dominant society.

Some have said that morality is based what promotes a stable society. (This is essentially a ulititarian argument.) To an extent I see this as true; without some societal rules, no society would last very long. However, what is best for society is not always what many would consider moral. For example, slavery can be seen as an efficient way to provide cheap labor and manpower, while a strict caste system can clearly demarcate roles in society. Furthermore, infantcide and euthansia of the unfit can benifit society, even as we seen them as abhorrent.

Others have argued that morality is based on a concept of "reciprocal altruism" - treating others with kindness because you expect such in return. (A more complex version of this scenario is found in the form of the so-called prisoner's dilemma See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoners_dilemma) Besides the fact that I am somewhat uncomfortable with the inherent reductionism that treats all acts of kindness as some type of tit-for-tat game, this scenario fails to take into account genuine selflessness and empathy. We are all moved by stories of people such as Mother Teresa who make great sacrifices for those unable to return the favor. In a sense, love, kindness, and empathy are real forces, not just some strategy for self preservation and passing on our genes.

Finally, without some type of objective ethics, the we can see the concepts of "right" and "wrong" become completely illusory. Why should anyone be obliged to follow any type of ethical behavior if such a thing is merely subjective? One can argue that we "ought" to care about others and be altruistic, but one can simply respond, "Why should I care about others?" Why should we care about society if society has not been kind to us? Afterall, many of the school shooters felt justified in their actions since others kids had relentlessly tormented them. (As one who has been in such a situation I can understand the feeling of wanting to get revenge on others and wanting to end it all.) On what ground do we condemn such actions without invoking a "higher law"? Subjectivism, taken to its logical extreme, results in nihilism.

Anyway, I know this post was rather long, but I just wanted to add my two cents.

To me, morality is no more subjective than what it is based upon.

If your moral scheme is based on religion, the odds are excellent that it is subjective... religious experiences and interpretations are often deeply subjective. Even if your religion has a holy book and you're going by it, there's no proof that the writers of the book weren't being subjective.

If your moral scheme is largely based on social trends (ie whatever is popular now), it is apt to be extremely subjective also. There's no lasting truth there, just nebulous, shifting ideas of what's ok and what's not ok.

If, by contrast, your moral scheme is based strictly on cause and effect in the real world, it is no more subjective than chemistry or biology is.

I'll give an example. Consider promiscuity.

"I can't do that... I believe that God frowns on that." (based on religious views)

"Why not? I mean, come on... who doesn't do that these days? (based on social trends)

"I'd sooner not come down with some sort of STD, and promiscuity vastly raises my chances. So no, I'll pass." (based on logical cause and effect)