[onlooker]

Just curious as to the thoughts and perspectives of others on this question. I would say that it is impossible to objectively define what is moral or immoral. Nevertheless, the defining of morality plays a very important role in attempting to define what is right and wrong with regard to the actions on the part of individuals and society at large.

[Ibon]

Just curious as to the thoughts and perspectives of others on this question. I would say that it is impossible to objectively define what is moral or immoral. Nevertheless, the defining of morality plays a very important role in attempting to define what is right and wrong with regard to the actions on the part of individuals and society at large.

Morality drifts and is not an absolute.

[asg70]

The pursuit of morality is ultimately about power/influence. It's the exertion of the will onto greater society. In other words, politics. It's fine to do this, but know how exhausting it is and how poor the ROI.

Extremism on the left and right are both intended to sort of drag society kicking and screaming in a certain direction. Bill O'Reilly style "culture wars" tries to drag people to the right by decrying the loss of "family values". SJWs engage in slut-walks and want bathrooms for transexuals and shame men for "manspreading".

I think part and parcel of the global village is this constant clash of values and it tends to play out in the arena of the internet.

You have someone like Cog who is sort of a proud bigot in the mode of Archie Bunker. Then you, Onlooker, seem to have the markings of a 60s style hippie. PStarr I think fashions himself as sort of a poor man's George Carlin.

But so much of the way people communicate these days is the constant projection of shame/guilt/judgment on others. I see it here and I see it in the blogosphere like the writings of Kunstler, Orlov, and Greer. Everyone seems to know better how other people should think, feel, and act. We're very fixated on OTHERS and very poor at true self-reflection and humility.

I think the reason why eastern religions became popular in the late 60s was sort of as an escape for the counter-culture movement. So much of society was tearing itself apart in riots that people rightfully saw how conflict itself, even when motivated by a striving for a sense of right over wrong, could become self-defeating.

The polarization surrounding the last election cycle was the worst since the Civil War and produced the worst electoral result. So from a pragmatic standpoint, conducting ourselves in an us vs. them mentality does not yield a better society.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Just curious as to the thoughts and perspectives of others on this question. I would say that it is impossible to objectively define what is moral or immoral. Nevertheless, the defining of morality plays a very important role in attempting to define what is right and wrong with regard to the actions on the part of individuals and society at large.

Morality drifts and is not an absolute.

Yes. And there are lots of ways for people (individuals, groups, countries) to go astray, as history and philosophy have shown.

Examples:

1). Not defining things (including the current idea or aspect of "morality") adequately.

2). Assuming morality IS an absolute.

3). Assuming that current morality is "the good" and therefore must not be changed (even at the cost of war, murder, etc).

...

Just look at the shift in values that first world society has undergone over a couple of centuries in regards to morality as far as personal behavior.

Race. Gender. Sex. Human rights. The change in attitudes about morality is constant, and IMO like technology, the pace of that change is accelerating (perhaps because of the technology and its impact on information sharing).

[Cog]

Does it break my leg or pick my pocket is my definition of whether it is immoral or not.

[Plantagenet]

Most religions contains systems of morality that supposedly are ordained by god or in some way are designed to meet the approval of god or Allah or whoever. For instance, for hard core Islamists it is immoral for women to show their hair, legs, etc. Women who cover up by wearing a full burqa are considered moral, while women who do not are considered immoral.


I see by your burqa that you adhere to a very strict system of Islamic morality

[Ibon]

Just look at the shift in values that first world society has undergone over a couple of centuries in regards to morality as far as personal behavior.

Race. Gender. Sex. Human rights. The change in attitudes about morality is constant, and IMO like technology, the pace of that change is accelerating (perhaps because of the technology and its impact on information sharing).

Yes. That is a good example. And Plantagent's post that followed yours was a perfect illustration. Less than a hundred years ago a woman in America could not go to the beach without a bathing suit that extended down to their ankles.

I was thinking about this in terms of ecology and human overshoot. Morality for an individual can be a very different issue than morality for the species of that individual. For example, the morality of extending life by extra ordinary measures to an aging individual or committing resources to fight poverty to starving individuals 4000 miles away takes on a different meaning during times of resource abundance vs when resources start to constrain.

Humans do not apply morality to systemic issues and yet this can have consequences far more severe than an immoral individual who commits murder. There is not even a term for it. We could simply call it systems morality. Again, we can feed and cure disease for all 7.5 billion humans and provide the resources for all to have an abundant life which on the individual level would seem like the utopian moral ideal....... until we consider the systemic consequence of the impact this would have on our planet, the exponential growth this would cause and the eventual exponential suffering to an inflated population of billions that would result once collapse happens when the resource base declines. It is immoral on a systemic level. Since we only apply morality to individual behavior this "systemic immorality" is hidden. This might become exposed this century as a moral issue and we could even see this codified into laws. Depleting a non renewable fresh water aquifer in order to support a population beyond carrying capacity would therefore be illegal. Systemic morality turned into laws requires a society living under intense regulation. before submitting to systemic morality it is often assumed a society would revolt and breakdown rather than agree to live under such regulations. This touches of course on the freedom to breed. Here again we see the conundrum when considering the individual vs species. Restricting breeding is often seen as immoral but under systems morality could be moral.

Morality will drift in the 21st century because of growing environmental constraints and the balance between the individual vs the collective.

In real time I have witnessed in developing countries where aging parents will refuse life extending surgical procedures in order not to burden the finances of their children. With stoic humility they grin and bear their disabilities and often pass away far sooner than their counterparts in richer countries and yet when we dig into the morality of this it isn't black and white. I have seen several stroke patients in developing countries get sent home from the hospital where they pass away within a week. The family grieves, buries their loved one and in a short time life continues unconstrained as before. Their counterparts in developing countries will receive extra ordinary procedures to extend life often with permanent disabilities creating a great physical hardship and financial burden on their families. This is not exactly a moral question but does point out the unintended consequences of carrying the entitlement of morality to what may be called "un natural" extremes.

Will humans ever be able to regulate and codify into their religious beliefs, economy and governance the systemic morality that is currently lacking which will eventually cause countless individuals to suffer?

Another question. In a world experiencing the correction of human overshoot and a die-off, if an individual robs his neighbors corn to feed his family is this immoral? If his neighbor shoots hims for stealing his corn is this immoral?
In times of abundance the crime is clear. But when systemic immorality allowed us to breed beyond carrying capacity can you really fault the individual as being immoral when he shoots or steals from his neighbor to feed his family? Certainly in this example we at least have to recognize that morality drifts depending on the external. The internal moral compass of the individual starts gyrating off of true north when confronted with survival questions of this nature. paradoxical as well since the lack of systems morality can cause the individual to morally drift.

Hypothetical conjectures that one day not too far off may become very real considerations. These conjectures probably give most people a headache to even read and consider.

[onlooker]

Absolutely. In that sense our advances, complexity, growth and technology have paved the way for the degradation and overshoot of a planetary environment. So one must ask is our zeal for advancement and accomplishment moral as a species? It seems counter intuitive given that we see achievement in general as something good. But in our restless pursuits and striving are we forsaking the calming tonic of a simple peaceful existence? And if we are, is this not affecting negatively the equilibrium and harmony of us as individuals and collectively? I submit that perhaps so.

[onlooker]

Well, P, it seems to come from something Ibon has speculated. paraphrasing that we are going to be leaving hell behind. It just seems that beyond our practical overshoot of our environment and resource base, is the sense of how many people seem unhappy and stressed in their lives. In turn that can become a morality question as I explained in my previous post. Again did we strive for achievement and forget that it is really about happiness? Some philosophy never hurt anyone. You should frequent some of these other threads more frequently P, as your cutting edge wit and humor would liven them up

[ROCKMAN]

Morality = opinion. Morals are just like assholes: everyone has 'em. LOL. As I've aged I came to understand that judgements based upon what is "moral" is nothing more the someone agreeing with your opinion. Just as immoral simply means they don't agree with you.

And if you disagree then you're just one more immoral ass. LOL.

[Plantagenet]

Great thread Onlooker.

Ibon is 100% right most traditional religions define morality in ways that don't include any moral instructions on how to deal with the environment and other systemic issues.

I would go even farther and say that traditional religions are often HARMFUL to the environment. For instance, the Judea-Christian-Islamic tradition has god telling humans to "GO FORTH AND MULTIPLY".

Thats the last thing we need today in our world overpopulated with nine billion people. We need God to come back and tell people to stop multiplying.

[Ibon]

That's my belly laugh for the day. Thank You!

[Ibon]

In light of Plant's entertaining cartoon I present in bold text a single word loaded with moral confusion

ABORTION

[dissident]

Morality is a political tool to justify heinous crimes.

[AdamB]

Just curious as to the thoughts and perspectives of others on this question.

Who's morality?

I would say that it is impossible to objectively define what is moral or immoral. Nevertheless, the defining of morality plays a very important role in attempting to define what is right and wrong with regard to the actions on the part of individuals and society at large.

Everything outside of mathematics is relative. Morality would seem to qualify as such.

[AdamB]

Thou shall not kill . . . members of ones tribe.

But celebrating it when it's another species, THAT is perfectly wonderful!!!

For some people anyway.