Every time there is a situation or argument about human endeavours, morals come to the scene. Thing is, morals, much like religion are subject to interpretation. Everyone has their own version and understanding of the term and everyone applies them differently. Any person that acts immoral from our point of view, feels they are very much moral considering their own narrative.
Human societies flourished because they managed to set some ground rules about how people should behave. Sometimes those rules were written down in stones much like it was in the case of Hammurabi in Middle East. Other times those rules were written down by old men that acted as priests. Eventually those agreed rules created a basis so that people could live. Generation after generation those rules became morals and for the newcomers it seemed like they had always been there.
Much like the "5 Monkey Experiment", people will believe and adopt to whatever is in front of them. Children for example believe in the morals and narrative of the Santa Claus universe. Santa works with the naughty or nice narrative. Adults know that these rules/morals do not apply, yet, the children are baited to act nicer if they want gifts. Thing is, the parents that control this narrative, brake their own rules and allow the children to get a present anyways. Nobody considers this immoral. What is more ironic is that the poor kids around the world don't get any presents and they do appear to be the immoral ones.
It is clear that the metric in the Santa case is money and privilege of birth, not morals. Yet, the narrative that is widely believe from the kids of that age is very different. It is so different that no revolution or mass uprising from the children can change it back. It is what it is because succeeding generations decided it would be so.
Moving the same story about morals into our own "grown up world" we see humans believing in their own version of the Santa Universe. Even though the stories about religion and politics are much the same as in the Santa case, most people choose to believe that those morals given out by the state and the church are sacred and owed to be respected. The religious heroes are as awesome as Santa. The state heroes are as brave as cartoon heroes.
Even if we see on a daily basis that those on top of those institutions do not follow the same morals as they preach, most people bow down and live by them anyways, believing the absurd stories as if they were real. Much like the Santa narrative, instead of parents dictating morality we have politicians and priests. Much like the Santa narrative the masses get fooled while the puppet masters roam freely.
Thing is, anyone can escape from this moral prison others have set for them. If one chooses to do so though they will be scolded from the rest of the crowd, not directly by the puppet masters. The herd will take care of itself with minimal effort once the morals are in place. They won't even needed to be repeated or reminded. They become the de-facto truth. Denying their existence would be ludicrous. This is also why atheist and anarchism are feared. They both imply luck of religious and state morals which makes one immoral. You can try convince others that this is not the case but you are going to have a hard time. They will keep their distance just to be on the "safe side".
Ascribing to moral truths is nothing more but giving out to fear. Anything we know to be true or real was created from people that lived before us. As we grew up those morals were fitted in our brains and became our reality. We do see the moral glitches from the masters but most are afraid to act. We learned to fasten the chains in our feet.
So morality is all arbitrary and subjective? I just hope you are consistent in that stance meaning that you don't have any grounds on which to criticize any action as "unjust". Child rape? Nah it's not bad because morality is subjective and to the rapist, there is no issue with morality. The Holocaust? Nothing to see there either. Again, Hitler was doing what he believed to be right, so where is the problem?
the problem is that in both examples you have stated someone is using force against someone else against their will...It is violation of someones rights...that is not a matter of what is moral and what is not...
Morality has everything to do with imposing itself on other's rights. Is murder not a moral issue? Or stealing property from someone else? It is a form of morality to even suppose that people have "rights" as you say. What gives them these "rights"? There are cultures that exist with different moral codes where these same rights do not exist.
@kyriacos is simply putting out the information. Of course morality is simply an abstract concept synthesized from humans. It is nothing, just as good and bad are nothing. You don't look into nature and see remorse from the wolves who eat the sheep. You don't see the bear feeling bad for eating the fish. Of course here are things we would consider "unjust" if it were happening all our lives, it would be normal.
The Aztecs would tear peoples' hearts out for their god. Was that wrong? Not for them, it was the best they could give. You mention the Holocaust, there are many worst events than the holocaust; I'm white and my ancestors infested Northern America and wiped out an entire race almost. Over land.
Animals do the same. We are animals. We are not above the others.
That is not a fact, but a reflection of your own belief system. I, for instance, see such force being used in moral terms, and not in terms of rights-as-defined-in-some-theory.
I never said it is a fact...it clearly is just my opinion...and the very same can be said about your "definition".
I defined nothing, and most certainly not for others.
It is not "just your opinion", as your statement derives straight from an economical and societal theory other people came up with, yet is stated as fact. Don't you get you are making his point for him?
I don’t get what you’re trying to accomplish here...he said that in order for the author to be consistent he has to find holocaust ok...that is completely invalid...
What if I had that opinion even prior finding out about libertarianism? Is it still not just my opinion (the fact that some others share doesn’t make it “not just my opinion”? I don’t care what others think about it or if there is any movement that shares the point of view that I reached by my own conclusions...Nothing like purely new thought exists...Every opinion is based on what other people came up with...
You defined this for yourself (I never said you defined it for someone else...why are you defending yourself against something i never said? I defined what I said for myself and i shared my point of view the same way you have shared yours...i did not force my opinion onto anyone and i was interested what he will say about it yet you step in with your blame that what I said is not a fact - I never claimed it to be one.
With what I said i think I refuted his statement that
This is how discussion are held. People exchange their opinions. What is the aim of your intervention kind sir? If it was an effort of showing me that I am making his points for him then you certainly are not correct...so either explain yourself and discuss with me correctly or just stop wasting my time:)
Most, if not al, of it is. How could it not be? That doesn't mean one shouldn't have morals, or accept any and all behaviour "because subjective". I don't think that is what is being said above. All I read there is that you perhaps should roll your own morals, and not automatically give in to, or take over, the morals of others, be they individuals or institutions or cultures.
We just have a fundamental disagreement regarding the nature of truth and how that relates to morality. I believe in absolute objective truth, although I don't believe that someone can ever have full knowledge of that absolute truth. My only point is that if morality really is subjective, and there is no objective way of arguing for the superiority of one moral code versus another one, then there are no grounds in which one could ever say something is "evil" or unjust. How could they? It's just a different set of moral values.
I get your point, I think we have a different approach to the subject.
I don't think it is a matter of superiority or being right, or closest to the truth, or finding a set of universals that apply everywhere. A subjective set of morals is still a set of moral values that can be applied by individuals to specific cases. Such sets of moral values will overlap among individuals, so and there can be agreement in specific cases (or disagreement, as the case may be). If there is sufficient overlap, such people can function together in a group and judge behaviour within that group in a fairly consistent manner, though not necessarily outside that group.
I don't think the superiority of a set of moral values needs to be somehow proven first before moral judgments can be made; no universality of codes is necessary for that. Even when subjective, judgements can be made, the only problem being, that other groups may disagree, and there not being a "universal judge" to tell who is "right". I don't think there can be, and I don't think there need be.
You never fail to amuse an audience while making a point lol:
“the children are baited to act nicer if they want gifts. Thing is, the parents that control this narrative, break their own rules and allow the children to get a present anyways. Nobody considers this immoral.”
👌👌👌
My theory is that there are several people writing under the "@kyriacos" name as the quality and depth of the posting varies surprisingly. This post is not only shallow but the language used is less sophisticated and includes more errors than other posts signed @kyriacos that I've read.
The @kyriacos I prefer would have probably noted that "morals" have a social function. Yes, in any human society there is a trade-off between individual freedom and the common best interest. "Morals" represent the boundary, the set of rules that are used as "signaling" of your degree of attachment to the society that set out those rules.
In Germany, it might be seen as immoral to cross the street when the traffic light is red even if the street is empty. Not so in other places.
Atheism and anarchism are both feared and loathed because they threaten the social fabric. In truth, both are social ills.
Ascribing to moral laws is giving out to a reasonable fear - an individual has a lot more objective reasons to fear when alone in a hostile world than when protected by a group of kin. Ascribing to moral laws is most of the time simply the smart thing to do: giving up some individual freedom in exchange for predictability.
Because this is what the others in the group are asking of any individual: to behave predictably, at least in certain situations
Is just me pal. Thing is, I don't spend much time editing and my thoughts are on the fly.
I never try to sound sophisticated. Sometimes I am vulgar. I don't have a style.
Morals do have a social function. That doesn't need to be mentioned. It is self evident.
How are atheism and anarchism social ills? They are ills to those who don't embrace the ideas. They are a blessing for those who do (and vice versa).
Ascribing to moral laws when you are in need means that everyone is an opportunist. As simple as that. This is also why politics are all about taking power from one party and giving it to another and religion is all about making heresies of the same idea.
I don't get what your objection is.
My objection is based on identifying two distinct entities: individuals and the social body. The two are linked and interdependent but each has a degree of autonomy. When I say "atheism and anarchism (of the individuals) are social ills" - I mean "they are bad for the social body" - a bit like a viral infection. A cell infected with a virus might think she's doing perfectly fine but she harms the body as a whole.
People are chemical machines programmed to survive and reproduce so of course we are to a large extent opportunists, what would you expect ?
If you accept morals do have a social function then I say "first point: check!" Second point that I propose is: individual freedom and social harmony are balanced against one another: the more of the one, the less of the other. Morals are a tool to shift the balance toward social harmony. And necessarily (if you accept the second point) away from individual freedom. Thus "enslavement" you are lamenting.
Yet if you agree that society has something good going for it when compared with anarchy, then consented enslavement (even when done opportunistically and not out of in-depth reflection and conviction) is good, valuable, desirable.
Wow
I enjoy reading this article
We came into this world and met some moral or rules and believe in it even if they are not true cause it has already been there before us.
part I of this text characterizes moral reasoning extra absolutely, situates it in relation both to first-order money owed of what morality calls for folks and to philosophical money owed of the metaphysics of morality, and explains the hobby of the subject. part II then takes up a series of philosophical questions about ethical reasoning, so understood and so situated, god bless you @kyriacos
@kyriacos ....i can call its title the perfect one...because we often ignore reading the long stories but some titles are so amazing and motivative that we are being forced to read it...same is the case with your post....your title forced me to read the post from top to bottom and what i found at the end is...JUST AMAZING... ... These are the posts which actually brings a change in ones life..... And the most common line at the end..."Thanks for sharing"
Conventional morals are really just politically acceptable ways to bribe and coerce other people to obey. Reward is bribery. Punishment is coercion.
Problem is, morals arise and are preserved by child rearing practices that rely upon reward and punishment. They are codified in things like the Ten Commandments and songs like "Santa Claus is Coming To Town". Ask any uninformed adult and they will tell you that we're not talking about bribery and coercion. They'd tell us that reward and punishment are what make civilization possible.
But what they won't tell you is that reward and punishment don't teach any skills. All they do is reinforce behavior. Neither will actually inhibit challenging behavior.
Until we learn to teach the skills required to deal with challenging behavior exhibited by kids and adults, we'll rely upon reward an punishment to justify the morals we impose on others through government or religion.
True morality doesn't come from a book. It comes from the chest and the stomach. If the thought of doing something to someone else makes your stomach burn, don't do it. If you feel pangs in your chest after you do something to someone else, don't do that again. Adrenaline and guilt are the moral guideposts that inform of of our compassion for other human beings.
Perhaps when we become willing to acknowledge our feelings about what was done to us in childhood and what we have done to others, as a society, we will know peace.
Violence is actually merely the result of all the "No's" and "Dont's" imposed over us by society. Violence is the outlet of frustration or anger which has accumulated over many years due to the lack of Love we experience in the world.
Whenever we follow our Heart we will get back a reflection of "yes, it is possible". I lies WITHIN. The moment we realize this we have anchored the inner Faith and we can always resort to it. Any "no" is not ours but comes from external negative manipulation of "not being enough".
"The only Truth lies within yourself".
So we better throw away what we think we are.
When we stop thinking we won't stop being, but we will stop being and identifying with our thought-made Self, assume the position of neutrally observing our thoughts instead of judging them and consequently judging ourselves...
And I also agree with finding out for ourselves instead of following somebody else's "Truth". When we follow somebody else's Truth there is always a higher chance of playing victim sooner or later since we "didn't want that in the first place". This is the source of blame...
Thanks for casting Light on Truth!
There is nothing impossible for humans to do...
People have many energies that they can win everything..
People can do whatever they want.
If we have to survive, we will have to survive with our efforts.
Καλημέρα αρχικά! Η ηθική όντως εξαρτάται πάντοτε από την εκόστοτε κοινωνία, συνδέεται με το περιβάλλον της κάθε κοινωνίας και τα πολιτιστικά της στοίχεια. Πράγματι μεταβάλλεται ανάλογα με τις μεταβολές της κοινωνίας. Δεν μπορώ όμως να τη δω ακριβώς με την έννοια που της έχεις δώσει στο τίτλο. Εάν η ηθική συνδεθεί με τη γνώση, εδώ μπορεί να δει κανείς και το έργο του Καντ για τον ορθό λόγο, πιστεύω πως μπορεί να συμβεί το αντίθετο, το ίδιο το ον να απελευθερωθεί διότι η σύνδεση της γνώσης με την ηθική, μέσα από τη δημιουργία νορμών, θα οδηγήσει τον άνθρωπο στο να πράττει "ορθά" χωρίς να χρειάζονται οι κανόνες.
Dogma's would be a better word to use (instead of "morals"), in the last half of your story i.m.h.o.
What you are told by the church and in politics has nothing what so ever to do with morals.
The "morals" are used as a control mechanism by the (leaders/gurus/politicians of the) religion. The people in political religions and religions are not moral at all, by using these methods.
It's a very Orwellian world we live in, where the worst people, tell the people they control and that follow them, that they are bad (born in sin) and that they must do this or that, to make themselves, and even worse, others, good, all the while doing all kinds of bad stuff, for the rulers/priests after which the priest/rulers say; see... people are bad... and listen to me because I know how you can be good....etc. etc.
Ironically, atheist and anarchist groups and movements do exactly the same thing to their followers, or their followers apply the movement's rules voluntarily to themselves, which boils down to the same thing.
That is why many on Steemit quote their favourite belief system's websites in moral discussions rather than think for themselves. New priests, same shit. Only very few "roll their own" morals as they go along in life.
Atheist/anarchist movement is a very strange thing indeed. Some call it that.....but it doesn't make sense.
And even then, you wouldn't know if they are living, their own morals ;)
No you wouldn't; even they themselves would have to be extremely introspective and very aware of external influences to know what came from within, what came from without, and what was faked just to get along with others.
Yes and you would also need to notice, that you're not doing thing's as rebelling, cause then you are just doing the opposite, and still not your own thingy
You are then lived by the idea of fighting the existing moral or model, and you make a moral or model out of the anti moral or model, which isn't your own either.
Spending your live proving that god does not exist and holding "crusades" so to speak...is not living your own live..... I think......complicated complicated lol
I have argued in the past that atheists who actively fight religion are actually also religious people, at least in their way of thinking. BTW the religious way of thinking is also found among fanatical adherents of economic and societal belief systems; they are believers rather than thinkers or scientists; not a critical or original thought about their creed among them, as they have found The One True Way.
The science is settled is such a sentence.
Hey thanks for the conversation. :)
Very nice post and great article..