mf - story #1266 - Morality

Morality
posted by pasofol on June 8th, 2008 at 7:42PM

"Morality is precisely the social institution that inhibits and distorts individual human well-being for the sake of civilization."

How correct or how much you agree with the quote is up to discussion. I just like how it tries to explain social morality.

Link

posted by dsk on June 9th, 2008 at 12:52AM

I disagree completely.

A proper moral outlook does not inhibit an individual human's well-being nor is it something that's "for the sake of civilization". For example, my belief in the right to life for every individual comes partly from my ethical intuition, and partly because if other people share my view, my life is protected as well.

Link

posted by dennisn on June 9th, 2008 at 11:34AM

The quote was pretty bad. Nevertheless, you're putting your own incorrect spin on it. Nobody said anything about "proper" morals. By introducing that qualifier, you automatically assume the opposite -- that they promote individual well-being. The quote clearly refers to social codes that are *enforced* on others, *unwillingly*. Why? Because if they agreed with the codes, or if the codes weren't enforced, it'd have no affect on a disagreeing individual.

Link

posted by dennisn on June 8th, 2008 at 8:53PM

Well, it can be stated more clearly as: Social morality inhibits individual morality. (And invdividual freedom, usually.) The way moral disagreements *should* be handled is, so long as my morals don't interfere with your life, I can believe whatever I want. The only way others' morality can inhibit my well-being is if that golden rule is disobeyed -- if people are allowed to control other people (like forcing people to pay for armies -- others' morality is being imposed on mine, and thus inhibits my well-being).

Who said it?

Link

posted by dsk on June 9th, 2008 at 12:43PM

>The way moral disagreements should be handled is, so long as my morals don't interfere with your life, I can believe whatever I want.

You're trying to have it both ways. The golden rule is a moral principle in itself. Is following your version of golden rule something that's done for civilization? Is it something "that inhibits and distorts individual human well-being"?

Link

posted by dennisn on June 9th, 2008 at 1:26PM

I never meant to suggest that /all/ social morals inhibit individual well-being. And I can see how that can be easily interpreted from the quote -- it doesn't specify anything.

Paso -- this really is a useless quote!

I imagined something like the US Evangelical Debacle on the issue of abortion -- whereby a particular (fucked up) social morality is inhibiting an individual's (unwilling mother) well-being.

But it can just as well apply to the morality of my golden rule, and thus be false. (Unless you believe that individual freedom is not important, in which case it's simply ridiculous. (I realize this pre-supposes my own biased morality, but I don't want to nest any more parentheses)).

Link

k
posted by pasofol on June 10th, 2008 at 10:13AM

What does morality come from for the first place, from parent/schools/social/religious/government teachings which from a young age you accept without question? If later in life your developed morality differs from the social norm and its preconceived notions of right/wrong would you be prosecuted for it for the overall goodness of the civilization to keep the norm? Depending on your believes you would especially in say Muslim countries where religious figures control the rule of the land.

Now I think the morality stated in the quote isn't an individual one but one from say the church or other body. It was a quote from a chapter about how morality is developed in a person.

And no the quote isn't meant to specify anything. Not everything is right or wrong (black&white). Just like your believes might be different then mine but I accept you have the right to them, until you start stating stuff which is obviously historically wrong and go against logic. Now that I think of it for someone who claims logic to be the rule of the land you don't follow the simplistic logic of events and their meaning.

Link

Firstly, individual "morality" by dennisn on June 10th, 2008 at 12:05PM.

fadsf; by pasofol on June 10th, 2008 at 2:48PM.

I didn't say they welcomed the by dennisn on June 10th, 2008 at 3:43PM.

>Abolishing the state and mili by dsk on June 11th, 2008 at 1:07AM.

It's a logical deduction. Wars by dennisn on June 11th, 2008 at 11:08AM.

>It's a logical deduction. De by dsk on June 11th, 2008 at 12:16PM.

Wars are heavily organized sta by dennisn on June 11th, 2008 at 1:58PM.

I know conflict is pretty comm by dennisn on June 11th, 2008 at 3:35PM.

>I know conflict is pretty com by dsk on June 12th, 2008 at 1:07AM.

Firstly -- I never once mentio by dennisn on June 12th, 2008 at 10:11PM.

>This includes countless milit by dsk on June 13th, 2008 at 12:37AM.

Why didn't Al Qaeda blow up Ca by dennisn on June 13th, 2008 at 8:50AM.

>Also, I realize there is prob by dsk on June 13th, 2008 at 3:20PM.

What a surprise. You couldn't by dennisn on June 13th, 2008 at 7:41PM.

>Somalia never did and never w by dsk on June 13th, 2008 at 9:17PM.

It wouldn't kill you to think by dennisn on June 13th, 2008 at 9:31PM.

>There's no way local communit by dsk on June 11th, 2008 at 2:11PM.

fa;sdjf by pasofol on June 10th, 2008 at 4:52PM.

We clearly have to agree to di by dennisn on June 10th, 2008 at 10:11PM.