Morality

A General discussion about everything other than South Park

Moderator: Big-Will

plk12345
Posts: 736
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 8:16 pm

Morality

Postby plk12345 » Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:57 pm

Hello, southparkstudios, I once read a quote which intrigued me. Here goes:
It doesn't harm anyone, therefore it's not an issue of morals.


I found this very interesting. This seems to presuppose an idea of morality that I think is problematic. :? The idea is that actions can be immoral if and only if they harm people. If I were to ask, for instance, "why is it wrong to torture someone?" and I was given this answer, I could then ask, "How do we determine whether hurting someone is wrong?". When we postulate a world with morality, we attach a certain oughtness to it. so my question for all who prescribe to this idea of morality is this:

"Can you provide me with a good reason I ought not harm someone?" :|

Thoughts please, thanks :wink:
Big-Will
Board Moderator
Posts: 18809
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2003 8:57 am

Re: Morality

Postby Big-Will » Wed Jan 09, 2008 7:33 pm

You'd have to be absolutely sure that an action won't hurt someone somewhere before using that quote, because there may be someone you know absolutely nothing about who might get hurt. Morality exists to address that possibility.
The South Park Scriptorium
The South Park Scriptorium on Facebook

Favorite Character: Butters
Need to look for something on the board? Use the search links below: US version
plk12345
Posts: 736
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 8:16 pm

Re: Morality

Postby plk12345 » Wed Jan 09, 2008 8:41 pm

yea, big will, you are right. But let's just say for the sake of argument that we can be absolutely sure that the action will not hurt anyone.
Big-Will
Board Moderator
Posts: 18809
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2003 8:57 am

Re: Morality

Postby Big-Will » Wed Jan 09, 2008 9:18 pm

plk12345 wrote:yea, big will, you are right. But let's just say for the sake of argument that we can be absolutely sure that the action will not hurt anyone.

Then there's nothing to punish. Doesn't mean morality doesn't apply.

Okay, the posts relating to homosexuality have been removed. This thread isn't about that, so leave it out.
The South Park Scriptorium
The South Park Scriptorium on Facebook

Favorite Character: Butters
Need to look for something on the board? Use the search links below: US version
M00ndragon69
Posts: 9593
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2003 4:32 am

Re: Morality

Postby M00ndragon69 » Thu Jan 10, 2008 8:14 am

Well, then Will, when this debate eventually gets to homosexuality, as knowing PLK ( or should I say Kyle) we all know it will, I hope you will erase that post like you erased my earlier post. Come on, anyone with a brain who has seen alot of PLK's posts relating to HIS beliefs about morality knows where this thread is going.
Image
Big-Will
Board Moderator
Posts: 18809
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2003 8:57 am

Re: Morality

Postby Big-Will » Thu Jan 10, 2008 8:46 am

If that time comes, he'll be permabanned and this thread will go into our graveyard of threads. Beating him to the punch is going to cost you: if YOU bring it up again like you did before, you'll be permabanned first. Let's stop the derail here.
The South Park Scriptorium
The South Park Scriptorium on Facebook

Favorite Character: Butters
Need to look for something on the board? Use the search links below: US version
shamernick
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 5:31 am

Re: Morality

Postby shamernick » Thu Jan 10, 2008 9:13 am

I think that what is or isn't moral in general is determined by society's concensus on right and wrong.

If you don't particularly care to be an accepted member of a given society and have no personal qualms about causing harm to another individual I'd say there is no good reason not to hurt someone.
plk12345
Posts: 736
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 8:16 pm

Re: Morality

Postby plk12345 » Thu Jan 10, 2008 1:40 pm

shamernick wrote:I think that what is or isn't moral in general is determined by society's concensus on right and wrong..


The problem here is that social reformers (such as MLK, Bartolomé de las Casas, etc) are immediately condemned by this logic, because they went against the cultural consensus of this time period. But we tend to view these people as morally virtuous.

shamernick wrote:If you don't particularly care to be an accepted member of a given society and have no personal qualms about causing harm to another individual I'd say there is no good reason not to hurt someone.

alright, you're being logically consistent, but you also just justified Hitler.
teh-lolrus
Posts: 593
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2007 7:22 am

Re: Morality

Postby teh-lolrus » Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:32 am

I'm rather slow and naive with this kind of deep discussion, but I guess I could throw in my two cents.

Morality to me is a blend of all the things you see positive in social values (what is 'right' by society) and your own personal beliefs. This is why topics such as the death penalty are always controversial. People's opinions and values vary, sometimes greatly from one person to another. I believe that people should do what they believe to be moral, so long as they're not breaking any major, undebatable laws such as murder.

:oops:

I dunno, that's just me, though.
._.
shamernick
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 5:31 am

Re: Morality

Postby shamernick » Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:57 am

plk12345 wrote:The problem here is that social reformers (such as MLK, Bartolomé de las Casas, etc) are immediately condemned by this logic, because they went against the cultural consensus of this time period. But we tend to view these people as morally virtuous.

I think this is because our society has been and well often is morally conflicted and/or confused.

plk12345 wrote:alright, you're being logically consistent, but you also just justified Hitler.


heh...I don't know that I justified Hitler's actions...I was simply trying to say that one looking for a good reason to refrain from hurting people would need to determine this from within the parameters of their own convictions and if none is to be found then what is determined to be moral really would have no bearing anyway.

I'm new at this and don't really know how to work all this quoting buisness...sorry
plk12345
Posts: 736
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 8:16 pm

Re: Morality

Postby plk12345 » Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:00 pm

teh-lolrus wrote:I believe that people should do what they believe to be moral, so long as they're not breaking any major, undebatable laws such as murder.

but, the problem then becomes, "how do we determine whether murder is an 'undebatable' law?"
shamernick wrote:heh...I don't know that I justified Hitler's actions...I was simply trying to say that one looking for a good reason to refrain from hurting people would need to determine this from within the parameters of their own convictions and if none is to be found then what is determined to be moral really would have no bearing anyway.


then there is no real moral absolute, and Hitler, Ted Budcy, or anybody else, cannot be condemned.
vexille
Posts: 641
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 11:23 pm

Re: Morality

Postby vexille » Fri Jan 11, 2008 7:19 pm

plk12345 wrote:Hello, southparkstudios, I once read a quote which intrigued me. Here goes:
It doesn't harm anyone, therefore it's not an issue of morals.


I found this very interesting. This seems to presuppose an idea of morality that I think is problematic. :? The idea is that actions can be immoral if and only if they harm people. If I were to ask, for instance, "why is it wrong to torture someone?" and I was given this answer, I could then ask, "How do we determine whether hurting someone is wrong?". When we postulate a world with morality, we attach a certain oughtness to it. so my question for all who prescribe to this idea of morality is this:

"Can you provide me with a good reason I ought not harm someone?" :|

Thoughts please, thanks :wink:




I hate to use cliches, but you really need to get laid, PLK. Big time.
Image
Calix Meus Enebriens "My Cup Makes Me Drunk"
Big-Will
Board Moderator
Posts: 18809
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2003 8:57 am

Re: Morality

Postby Big-Will » Fri Jan 11, 2008 7:46 pm

Heh, he probably does.

There's a thread on another board I visit that asks "Convince me morality exists." I see this thread going in that direction.
The South Park Scriptorium
The South Park Scriptorium on Facebook

Favorite Character: Butters
Need to look for something on the board? Use the search links below: US version
teh-lolrus
Posts: 593
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2007 7:22 am

Re: Morality

Postby teh-lolrus » Fri Jan 11, 2008 9:22 pm

plk12345 wrote:
teh-lolrus wrote:I believe that people should do what they believe to be moral, so long as they're not breaking any major, undebatable laws such as murder.

but, the problem then becomes, "how do we determine whether murder is an 'undebatable' law?"


I think things like that are generally seen as common sense, it seems paradoxial but some things just can't be denied, like stealing and killing in general is bad.

I'll be going now, before this thread potentially explodes into a fight. In a nutshell, this is what I think-

Morality= Your values + Social Values you believe to be right.

On the issue of what is moral= it's alright to do what you believe is moral, so long as you don't break any major laws like murdering someone.

:wink:
._.
Pip Tweek
Posts: 5101
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 1:15 am

Re: Morality

Postby Pip Tweek » Sat Jan 12, 2008 1:26 am

plk12345 wrote:
"Can you provide me with a good reason I ought not harm someone?"



This is the original question and therefore should be addressed as such.

The reason one should not harm another boils down to the "golden rule" : do unto others what you would have them do unto you.

If everyone followed that one simple rule, this world would be utopia.

Unfortunately, that will NEVER happen because human beings are not inherently moral.

Return to “Off Topic Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests