Fluid Morality

[dB-Paradox]

We simply choose to take the easiest route, and if that includes not getting harassed, so be it. I personally don't think that's a bad thing. It's not lying that diminishes us. What diminishes us is when people get upset at us for telling the truth. Why do you think there are so many closet atheists...are they not also lying to spare the agony of family wrath or abandonment? My wife's cousin had every damn right lying if she knew my wife would probe and push had she known her cousin simply did not want to go to church. Best thing we can do do diminish lying is accept and respect people's own damn decisions. Just my two cents.

[OpheliaGinger]

I would refuse to have an employee who was a lier, and would be unlikely to work someplace for an extended period where a lier was given free rein. I would not stay in a relationship with someone I couldn't trust.

 

Not unless you owned a used car lot...or a church or a talk radio station. In that case, lies sell.

[viridia]

I'm not quite sure where I stand on morals. I am however leaning towards the fluidity side.

 

This was the subject of quite a lengthy debate at my school's philosophy club a few weeks back. Interesting stuff but, in my opinion, morals are pretty much different for everyone in one way or another...but the general consensus seems to be that if it hurts another person/people, it's immoral.

 

Eh.

[Thurisaz]

Faced with only the two choices given in this poll I have to answer "yes" to all if it... the real thing is of course much more complicated. My generic POV can best be summed up by "Act morally until and unless the other side has shown that it doesn't deserve being treated morally". That is, if I know I'm facing a habitual liar, you better not assume that I'll keep being truthful to that person

 

But why be a liar just because someone else is? Doesn't make sense to me.

 

Not "just because"... but if, say, someone gets an advantage over me by lying, I may well be tempted to get even with him by telling a lie or two of my own.

Not that (so far) I ever gave in to that temptation... I guess I'm simply too fucking honest for that. But I would not see much of an ethical problem in lying in that case.

[Galien]

Faced with only the two choices given in this poll I have to answer "yes" to all if it... the real thing is of course much more complicated. My generic POV can best be summed up by "Act morally until and unless the other side has shown that it doesn't deserve being treated morally". That is, if I know I'm facing a habitual liar, you better not assume that I'll keep being truthful to that person

 

But why be a liar just because someone else is? Doesn't make sense to me.

 

Not "just because"... but if, say, someone gets an advantage over me by lying, I may well be tempted to get even with him by telling a lie or two of my own.

Not that (so far) I ever gave in to that temptation... I guess I'm simply too fucking honest for that. But I would not see much of an ethical problem in lying in that case.

 

 

You gotta understand mate, I am not built like the average human unit and there are a few things I need explained point form, also many things most people take for granted that do not compute in my brain I have just turned 50 and only worked out about 4 years ago that most people tell lies, so, I'm a bit S L O W. In fact, I found this out by choosing to tell the truth, as I always do instead of lying over something that could have gotten me into some major trouble. Someone asked me why I didn't lie about it and make my life easier. The honest answer - never even occurred to me to do so. So yeah, I have a lot of catching up to do.

 

How is it "getting even" with someone by stooping to the same kind of behaviour that upset and disrespected you in the first place?

[SirPhoenix]

Morality isn't absolute, but there is a general consensus of morality that I believe to be part of the evolutionary process. In the same way that genetic beneficial traits tend to be kept, I believe that the beneficial morals tend to be passed on. When human society didn't have a good means to providing for unwed mothers, the morality of remaining a virgin until marriage was pragmatic. As our society has progressed to the point where women work and are more than capable of provding for themselves and children, this morality is being shed more and more. I think that superior morals can also be set back in the same way physical evolution can.

 

Imagine that a child was born 20 years ago who possessed the ability to communicate telepathically. Just last week she learns of her ability and is thrilled for what this might eventually mean for mankind. Today she steps in front of a bus by mistake, thus ensuring that it will be another 268 years until another such person comes along. Some of the xtian morals that are holding back the human race are the busses. Yes, I do believe that some better morals will be the victim of those busses, but in the end, it's a process.

 

Morality at its core is that which gives humanity the ability to live and live with the best quality of life overall. It is relative, both over time and circumstantially.

 

 

[foolish girl]

I want to be good for the people in my life.

I want to be treated with respect. I want to be trusted, therefore I act with integrity.

I have compassion for people (and all sentient life)- so I treat them well.

Not lying, not stealing, not killing, plundering, raping, etc...is the social glue that holds us together. As a species we have to cooperate to survive and share space.

 

The idea that a person would do whatever they want to do in the absence of god is exactly what scares the shit out of Christians.

 

Without god I still pay my bills, refrain from murder and treat my husband well. I will pay taxes, help old ladies, and pick up the stray dog off the highway.

 

Because that is the world that I want to live in.

 

What has changed for me is my outlook on sex and language. People should take care of themselves, and be responsible- but go ahead and shag. And Dammit, I enjoy swearing. It just tastes good

[oddbird1963]

What are morals? Are they fluid or fixed?

Both. They're sticky.

 

 

DANGIT, OB! You keep coming up with these neat zingers about morality! First the memetic evolution through social pressure thing. Now a great way to describe the way morality shifts in many ways over time yet many moral values persist through generations and cultures.

 

Hats off to you, sir!

[oddbird1963]

I think the poll offers an unhelpful dichotomy.

 

Are moral choices really between "X is wrong" and "If I don't feel guilty doing it, then it's fine?"

 

Could the choice not be between simple , dogmatic statements ("X is wrong") and "Even though under most circumstances X is considered wrong, given this unique situation, X is the best choice morally?"

 

It could be that even though the majority in a person's culture would detest "X," the most good for the most people could be accomplished by dong "X." Yet, because of cultural, religious and family conditioning you could very well feel guilty anyway.

 

Because reason leads one to conclude "X is fine, " that doesn't mean that emotionally one cannot feel guilty.

 

We are beings capable of being rational and irrational in the same mind at the same time. It's the darnedest thing.

 

So the contrast between feeling guilt-free and a choice being morally wrong seems inappropriately placed.

 

I think morality is as fixed as culture and as fluid as the boundaries that keep people from having dialog and interaction allow.

 

Many moral positions seem to be fixed across cultures and generations. yet others, while entrenched for millennia , have changed. The issue of slavery is one such position.

[dB-Paradox]

Yeah, the poll is kinda limited. Well, quite limited. Okay, extremely limited! I suppose I was thinking of certain situations in my own life when I came up with it. Example, I have stolen from the grocery store on more than one occasion. Always due to limited money. Not once did I feel guilty for doing it because I knew I couldn't afford what I needed. Hence, the need outweighed the socially programmed guilt which is supposed to be in all of us. Other examples include me leaving work during my shift to help resolve a personal crisis at home. I was afraid that a boss might walk in on my absence from the workplace, but did not feel guilt for what I was actually doing. Thus, I was creating a poll based on how we actually FEEL about a situation, rather than what CONSEQUENCE we might expect should we be caught. Even if I knew I wasn't going to get caught having killed another person, I believe I would FEEL immense guilt, thus equating the feeling of guilt to a moral wrong. No feeling of guilt, no moral wrong. In that sense, a cold-blooded murderer has different morals than a compassionate person, caring for life. I don't really know where that takes us, if that makes morals flexible or not, or if that makes the cold-blooded murderer without morals. Either without morals, or with different morals. It could open up new thought, or it could just be good for the garbage.

 

I think I mentioned this earlier in the thread, but many Christians would consider some things morally wrong which an atheist would not. Sex before marriage is a good example. Swinging is another. Swearing, drinking, smoking, and even having bad thoughts about another person are others. This implies that either atheists are without morals, or simply have different morals. So, that's where this all came from.

[Ouroboros]

DANGIT, OB! You keep coming up with these neat zingers about morality! First the memetic evolution through social pressure thing. Now a great way to describe the way morality shifts in many ways over time yet many moral values persist through generations and cultures.

 

Hats off to you, sir!

No, thank you for such nice words.

[Ouroboros]

I think the poll offers an unhelpful dichotomy.

Agree. That's why I couldn't answer any of the questions. It didn't give me the options that fit me.

[oddbird1963]

DB-Paradox,

 

I think the guilt is an emotional response mechanism that family, peers and the greater culture instill in us. I'm not saying there is no legitimate "guilt," I'm just saying that our consciences are not some component within us which is somehow wired to a universal, objective morality. We can actually shape our own sense of right and wrong and feel guilt where society has not used shaming mechanisms on us.

 

The problem is that different people have different capacities for guilt. Another person might have stolen from a store, totally convinced it was the right thing for them to do yet felt guilt nonetheless. Still another person might be convinced such an act is wrong, yet not feel a twinge of guilt.

 

Other factors such as stress and emotional trauma might cause a sense of disconnect from one's self, suppressing any or all emotions, including guilt.

 

Emotional responses to moral choices are often unreliable, sometimes good, but not perfect indicators of the moral nature of an act that was just committed. I think asking questions to explore the right or wrong nature of a choice is the best way to determine if something is morally wrong or not. Some examples I have in mind: "What if everybody did this? What would the result be?" and "Would an empathetic person really do this?" Or, "In what way does this promote my welfare or the greater good?" "How would I feel if someone did this to me?"

 

"Let your conscience be your guide," is an okay but incomplete way to approach moral issues. I'm not saying there is a sure fire, never fail, get it right every time approach to making moral decisions. Sometimes we find out only in retrospect whether we made the right decision or not. But emotions should only be a part of the equation because emotions are so unreliable.