Non-socially imposed morals

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by jps, Feb 5, 2003.

  1. jps Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,872
    I'd be interested to hear what some of the people who have been working to eliminate socially imposed morals from themselves have replaced them with(if anything).
    Which, if any of societys morals have you kept?
    How often do you examine your moral systems in light of new information?
    Do your systems change often, or are they as rigid as the socially-imposed morals they replaced?
    How much sucess have you had in following these morals?

    As for myself, my moral values change constantly, sometimes going back and forth between extremes.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. hazy Registered Member

    Messages:
    16
    I have kept some of the morals imposed by society. Some of them would be: helping others whenever the benefit to the others being helped outweighs the inconvenience helping them would be to me(utilitarianism, basically), not being greedy, and treating all people as initially equal upon meeting them.
    I generally try to follow morals such as those because I feel that they would help society that much more. I'm not saying my morals are correct - certainly others have their own opinions and ideas.

    Since I was a child, I have been told by parents, teachers, and peers on what's 'moral' and what's 'not moral.' The ones that made sense, I tried out - and those that brought me a sense of happiness, like I contributed to my society, I kept. Others that didn't make sense to me, I put aside, for the moment.

    My moral values change too, it depends on the situation I'm in and what I feel is the right thing to do at that moment. Things like the environment, the people, the consequences, etc. help me decide on what to do. But generally, I try to follow the above said morals.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. jps Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,872
    I'm glad to see someone responded to this.
    There's been a lot of talk here about "destroying" socially imposed morals, but I really haven't seen much mention of what people replace them with, which in my opinion is really more important. If you simply "destroy" socially imposed morals in yourself and do not replace them with a well thought out system of your own, then you would be, in my opinion better off sticking with the socially imposed morals.
    rebellion for the sake of rebellion is pointless.

    I've often thought that utilitarianism makes a lot of sense, but given the huge obligations that it entails it is a VERY hard philosophy to put into practice.
    I admit to weighing my own happiness and that of those close to me more than I weigh other peoples in the vast majority of cases. I believe that this is human nature.
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2003
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Xev Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,943
    Huh? I'm supposed to replace it with a system of my own devising?

    Fuck that. I'll not wear chains I made myself.
     
  8. jps Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,872
    If you create a moral system that makes sense to you, and change it when the need arises, how is that wearing chains?

    What is the alternative? A person with no morals, meaning no system of beliefs by which they live and no distinctions between right and wrong could either be a psychopath, the kind of person who would push people in front a subway when no one is looking, or they could simply live by following their instincts. In the second case they have essentially replaced the set of morals imposed on them by society with the set imposed on them by their genes.
     
  9. The Marquis Only want the best for Nigel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,562
    I've taken a while to answer this because it's not an easy question to answer. After thinking about it, I've come to the conclusion that I don't really operate under a moral system, but rather do what I believe is best for me at the time.

    You're assuming worst case. In some cases, that might indeed be true. But not in mine. This is a little difficult to explain, which as I said is why I've had some trouble replying.

    I would not kill, not because of some arbitrarily imposed moral system, either by myself or by society, simply because I would not think of doing so. I don't have a specific moral law unto myself which says "Thou shalt not kill". I would not kill because in most cases it is simply not worth my time to do so. There are some potential conflicts involved here, for example self defence (in which case my belief in myself as being the most imporant thing in my life would come into play, and therefore anyone who threatened anything I cared about and left me with no option but to kill would find himself dead) but in general I don't think about such things.

    When someone destroys their moral value system and finds that there is no reason at all not to kill (there are a lot of assumptions there, but the overriding one is that absolute morality does not exist), people then tend to ask "So why not kill?". My answer for them is "why would I?"

    The lack of moral belief against murder is not a statement that murder is a reasonable thing to do, regardless of the people who seem to think this is the case.

    That might be true... I'll have to think about that a little more. I'm still trying to figure out how much of my present situation is "me" and how much social conditioning so deeply ingrained I have yet to find it.
     
  10. atheroy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    383
    i'd have to say my morals don't change in extremes but evolve and become deeper as i gain a better understanding of myself. however, my main morals stem from a semi-christian school of thought, though i myself am not a christian, that is what society is based upon where i live.
     
  11. Xev Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,943
    jps:
    I'm sorry that you have the wish to throw innocent strangers before trains, but I do not. I can live without a moral system in part because I do not want to harm others.

    One would only be a "psychopath" if one truely desired to harm others.
     
  12. jps Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,872
    Marquis and Xev,

    You say that you would not throw someone in front of a train, not because it goes against your values, but because you simply would have no desire to. It seems to me that if your actions are based only on your desires then you have abandoned rational thinking and left yourself to follow the values that haved been programmed into you by your genes and by the society you come from.

    Pushing someone in front of a subway is a bad example as it would not benefit you. Here is a better example, say you are homeless, starving, have no money, and no way of making money. One thing you could do is go from trash can to trash can finding bits of discarded food for nourishment...this is time consuming and unhealthy...another thing you could do would be to kill another homeless person and eat them. This would provide you with nourishment and would take much less effort. As the police don't look for missing homeless people there is no danger in this. I'm sure you can think up other ways out of this situation, but for the sake of this discussion assume that there are none.
    It seems to me that if you'd truly destroyed all socially imposed moral values in yourself and replaced them with nothing then the second option would be far more appealing than the first.
    If you say that you wouldn't do that because you just wouldn't think of it or because you just don't want to harm others then you have to ask WHY you wouldn't think of it or WHY you don't want to harm others. Even if you don't define them as such these are moral values, most likely stemming either from your genes or your social background
     
  13. The Marquis Only want the best for Nigel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,562
    Originally posted by jps
    It seems to me that if your actions are based only on your desires then you have abandoned rational thinking and left yourself to follow the values that haved been programmed into you by your genes and by the society you come from.

    Not at all. Socially imposed morals allow one to blindly go through life without having to really think of a response to anything at all. You don't steal because it's bad. You don't kill because it's bad. No thought required.

    Rather than abandoning rational thinking, it's become more imperative than it was when following social mores blindly. Once the programmed responses have been eliminated, you'll find that much more thought is required before doing anything at all. The chief question that pops up is usually "Why?".

    say you are homeless, starving, have no money, and no way of making money. One thing you could do is go from trash can to trash can finding bits of discarded food for nourishment...this is time consuming and unhealthy...another thing you could do would be to kill another homeless person and eat them. This would provide you with nourishment and would take much less effort. As the police don't look for missing homeless people there is no danger in this. I'm sure you can think up other ways out of this situation, but for the sake of this discussion assume that there are none.

    Seems rather silly to assume that there are no other options. There almost always would be. We could try to simplify it and say that we're alone with one other person, there is no food, and I'll die if I don't kill him, as a pure exercise. This question has been asked before in other threads.

    Now, the main problem I have with this type of question is that it is asked under some sort of assumption that those who follow social morals blindly will know what to do in this situation. The fact is they won't. Nobody can say in all honesty what their reaction would be.

    In the 1840's, a wagon train was stranded in the mountains in America. You might have heard or read of the Donner expedition and what happened to it, but if not I urge you to do so.. What I find interesting about the story is the varied actions of the members who were stranded, and when studied closely we can see social morals breaking down prior to them actually being stranded, after regular "society" was left behind, such as when water began to run out while they were crossing a desert.

    Reading accounts of this expedition is always interesting, as there are so many human "types" represented. I pay particular attention to Willam Eddy and Lewis Keseberg (at least I find them two of the more interesting "characters"), and the story of the "Forlorn Hope" party which set out to find help. Both of these men survived, both were willing to kill to obtain what they needed, and yet were two completely different men by all accounts. Keseberg in particular might be more accurately described as representing all that is "animal" in man, and yet his actions allowed him to survive where many did not.
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2003
  14. jps Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,872
    I'm not debating that.

    If you are asking yourself why, then you are not acting only on your desires, as you are questioning the reasoning behind them. It is in answering this question and taking actions based on it that you create your own values

    As you stated, there is doubt about how anyone would react to a situation like this, where you literally must choose between killing and dieing, for this reason it is irrelevant here. In the situation I gave, you had a choice between killing a fellow human being for an easy meal or working hard for a meal scrounged from trash cans. You'll survive either way, so someone whose values included a respect for human life would always choose to go the trash can route.
     
  15. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,946
    In the general sense of the word, morals are considered to be absolute. If you can "change it when the need arises" it isn't a morality system. That's why I have 1 moral:
    "LIVE"
    I figure the moment that I break it, I'll be dead... so it won't have to be called a hypocrite

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. jps Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,872
    Moral
    Noun
    1. The lesson or principle contained in or taught by a fable, a story, or an event. 2. A concisely expressed precept or general truth; a maxim. 3. morals Rules or habits of conduct, especially of sexual conduct, with reference to standards of right and wrong: a person of loose morals; a decline in the public morals.

    Definition provided by The American HeritageÆ Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company

    While you believe a moral value to be true, it is absolute, in that there are no exceptions to it, but if you change your beliefs your morals cannot help but change with them.
     
  17. LaoTzu Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    160
    ehh

    The way I've always heard it, morals are subjective and personal, while ethics are either societal or absolute. Just semantics.
     
  18. ndrs The Anti-Cthulhu Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    397
    I would kill the other homeless person. Why not? Besides the social morals, I don't see any reason why I shouldn't.
    Of course, maybe I wouldn't either.. Since homeless people help each other to survive. And most probably it would help sticking together.
     
  19. jps Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,872
    ndrs,
    If you would kill someone simply because its more convenient to you than not, then I would argue that you fit the definition of a pscyhopath.
    Of course this leads to a whole nother discussion, whether people like ndrs, who normally would be considered criminally insane, are suffering from an illness or simply have a different and equally valid way of looking at the world.
     
  20. ndrs The Anti-Cthulhu Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    397
    psy·cho·path
    -A person with an antisocial personality disorder, manifested in aggressive, perverted, criminal, or amoral behavior without empathy or remorse.

    ----
    WTF.. The fact that I would kill another human being for decent food means I have a personality disorder?
    What about soldiers? They kill for even less.
     
  21. jps Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,872
    ok, psychopath is a specific psychological disorder, so that was the wrong word to use. Criminally insane still applies though, as you stated a willingness to kill someone not for survival, but for convenience.
     
  22. ndrs The Anti-Cthulhu Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    397
    Are assassins criminaly insane?
    They kill for money. Of course, they could just go and do a normal career. But instead for more money they kill people. Does that make them criminaly insane?
     
  23. jps Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,872
    If they make no distinction between right and wrong, yes. My guess would be that asassin's probably either consider themselves immoral people, or have moral values that justify what they do.
     

Share This Page