What is Morality? Anyone...?

Discussing all things political in NW Arkansas and beyond.
Joeknows
Posts: 52
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 6:19 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50

What is Morality? Anyone...?

Postby Joeknows » Wed Nov 12, 2014 11:43 pm

I forget which of you said it, but you mentioned using some situation as a moral thought experiment. That's when I realized, you probably don't have any idea what morality is, aside from a memorized definition that Webster gave to you. But the definition can only tell us HOW to recognize the meaning of the word. It doesn't bestow magical understanding of its usage. So as fallible human beings, we have to PRACTICE it in order to get it right. But what IS Right? How do we know if something is immoral or wrong? Why should we care about the effects of it?

So how often have you "practiced" gaining understanding of morality? Other than when you accidentally hurt somebody and are seeking amends? We rarely practice or give any time to understanding the objective difference between right and wrong.

Now here is the really big kicker: IF you do not understand morality. IF you can't tell right from wrong well enough to explain it clearly to somebody who doesn't. WHAT makes you think that you have a Right to vote anything into law? If you are trying to vote without knowing right from wrong, isn't that extremely dangerous? And if morality isn't the motivation for your decision, the only reason left is for your own personal gain. And therefore, IF a majority of the voters are choosing what they want instead of what is right, is that a legitimate system to support? IS that even an intelligent system that will last?

If you say that morality doesn't exist, or that it is subjective(different for everyone), then you are saying there is no "right answer." (Or that every answer is right, either way gives the same result.) And if there are no right answers, then you are trying to argue that reality is completely relative. Then if you put one apple together with another apple, it wouldn't be "two apples." It could be 5, or -7, or whatever we want to "call" it, despite there still only being two objects in the same reality that we all share. Trying to say there is no answer is only an attempt to justify ignorance and apathy. Reality exists. What happens in it may be argued by varying opinions, but feelings and arguments won't change reality.

So how do we know the difference between right and wrong actions in our daily lives? Step up to the plate and prove that you have the ABILITY to tell the difference, and the RIGHT to vote on issues of election. Because without this important key, you are trying to open a door that you shouldn't!
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." -George Washington

User avatar
Savonarola
Mod@Large
Posts: 1474
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:11 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50
Location: NW Arkansas

Re: What is Morality? Anyone...?

Postby Savonarola » Thu Nov 13, 2014 7:31 am

I think that we have an ethical obligation to not spread misinformation; this includes a responsibility not to present oneself as having specialized knowledge about a subject when, really, that person is just making shit up.

You fail spectacularly at this obligation.

Joeknows
Posts: 52
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 6:19 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50

Re: What is Morality? Anyone...?

Postby Joeknows » Sat Jan 31, 2015 8:18 pm

@savonarola
You just said a whole lot of nothing. But what you probably meant to say is that it is immoral (which you confuse with popular) to claim to know anything without being certified to a business standard. Mostly because you are so fearful of the lack of integrity within your own credentials, and in your fight for survival you perceive anything outside the box as an attack on your own idea of order. For the hundredth time, is that not the opposite of what a free thinker is supposed to be? [The only 2 polarities in this dynamic are narrow consideration such as analytical science, and broad consideration like philosophy and wisdom/common sense.] Your entire group favors the analytical side of it, so the name must be a gimmick to get people in the door, or maybe a move to subconsciously balance out the information you try so hard to avoid.

Either way it's sad. Get off your high horse. Stop hiding behind credentials and ego trips. Because you are just avoiding the question by being critical of the proper description of it.

In a discussion with Doug a while back, I made a comment that "Nobody can be right, unless everyone is right." He immediately saw this as grounds for me being insane, for reasons that he couldn't explain but rather just felt. He had to make an assumption to put what I said into a recognizable order, and the easiest and quickest way to categorize it was as "foreign" to his understanding of reality. He assumed that I was trying to justify relativism, by saying that everyone has as much understanding regardless of their effort put forth; therefore, an ignorant person could have as much or more credibility than someone recognized as an expert. Obviously an incorrect statement, but also an incorrect attempt at understanding it.

The statement was meant to convey that "right" isn't something that can be contained. If you looked at my 7 dimensions post way back, you would understand how all information describes the difference between form and function. Form is the first or base level, and function is the highest level, attained by a form or forms. (Basic trivium/quadrivium in case you don't like my personal work, no offense taken.)

Right isn't in form: the initial properties that any whole object is endowed with or uniquely began as. Right is an expression, a function, an action like a wave. To assume that it could be contained to just understanding of forms would be to ignore half the information available to consider. Although this matter of narrowly representing statistics is a popular business technique to justify continuing to spend effort down a specific path, it never aids one in getting to a complete and fully recognizable answer. It only muddies the water for others, to act so confident in something you can't even explain fully to yourself. Cruelly tricking others into believing as you did, just because you have the proper credentials to accept a paycheck for it. Popularity is no measure of integrity, and your beliefs are supporting the furtherance of ignorance, not education.

So what is right, cannot be isolated to a single perspective. It can only be achieved through unison of knowledge and vision. To assume you can create "rightness" or morality just within one person, or just within one family, or just within one country (or affiliation); is akin to reaching the mythical Absolute Zero point where matter stops vibrating and no longer effects other matter next to it. There is no place where matter becomes still and stops reacting to things around it, so to assume your very narrow and unconnected fields of expertise give you a good enough view of reality, is just a completely erroneous opinion of yourselves. And it severely conflicts with logic and common sense, if you would only spend enough time to see why. [But your inclination to see your own limitations directly conflicts with your desire to feel good about what you know, so I doubt you will be able to fix it without first doing some self-work and contemplation.]

I am still fully under the opinion that nobody in this group can explain how we know if an action is moral or not, in EVERY situation. And why, if it changes for every situation (ie is completely relative), then it is not something that can be defined as real, nor ever attained in reality. Which then puts our relentless pursuit of it into question. (Were you just chasing after a feeling, instead of following what you actually know and can see?)

This is one of the few times I agree with savonarola, though let me turn it back on you.
I think that we have an ethical obligation to not spread misinformation; this includes a responsibility not to present oneself as having specialized knowledge about a subject when, really, that person is just making shit up.

Since you only care about specialized knowledge, namely YOUR knowledge. And since you are not an expert, nor even an apprentice to recognizing human morality: the highest system of function that all other actions can and will fit best into. This means that you can make no rightful claim over owning your actions, and by the standards of your own system would be considered inept. A ward to be ordered around by its master. Like a person who has lost his sanity, just an animal beast that no longer has the capability to achieve what distinguishes our human form and function from other animals. This would be okay if you just wanted to be a zombie, but you're also still trying to claim the benefits of your human liberties. This creates a situation where the status quo and popular social strata is maintained not by common sense, but rather just by animals fighting each other to stay above the rest.

This is why I say that you claim to be a teacher, but are just an animal that is officially certified. And teaching humans to just be animals, is probably the main reason for people becoming unhappy and wishing to commit horrible acts of physical terror and violence against other humans. Yes, I am claiming that you don't just support terror, you're the cause of it. So if things get worse instead of better, remember that you were given the option of learning how to fix things, and you were too busy and too frantic to consider it. Get upset and attack me for making this claim as you have so continuously done, it is just another check mark on a long list of things you've ignored.

Now in light of this...how spectacularly do you think you are failing at what you are trying to do? I'd argue it is so spectacular that it blinded you and then you gave up even trying to see it.
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." -George Washington

User avatar
Savonarola
Mod@Large
Posts: 1474
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:11 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50
Location: NW Arkansas

Re: What is Morality? Anyone...?

Postby Savonarola » Mon Feb 02, 2015 12:20 am

Joeknows wrote:You just said a whole lot of nothing. But what you probably meant to say is that it is immoral (which you confuse with popular) to claim to know anything without being certified to a business standard.
Nope, that's not what I meant to say. Thanks for proving that you can't read plain English.

Indium Flappers
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 6:42 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50

Re: What is Morality? Anyone...?

Postby Indium Flappers » Mon Feb 02, 2015 2:25 pm

Joeknows, did you intend only to solicit answers from others, or did you intend to present an answer yourself as to what morality is?

I just wondered because your opening post doesn't seem to put forth much of an answer. I wondered why not.
"We may become the makers of our fate when we have ceased to pose as its prophets."
~ The Open Society and Its Enemies by Karl Popper


Return to “Politics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 1 guest