Jump to content

Morality


TheComposer

Recommended Posts

Morality has been more more used in the world as time has passed. But if weren't involved, would we be able to move further as a whole? Morality keeps us from doing certain things, but it can also cause even worse things to happen. Take torturing for instance. If we were to take morality out of the picture, we could use harsher torture and possibly get information that could help save hundreds if not thousands of lives. Is it worth it to use morality in instances like this? Or is it properly used?

In my opinion, if there was less morality involved, we could move much further as a whole. We cater to the sick and injured. When we allow people with genetic illnesses to live, we allow that gene to stay alive. The reason the number of people with these illnesses is increasing is because we are allowing those who have it to pass it on. If the money used to help them survive and pass it on elsewhere, I believe we would solve 2 major problems. One is over population. We allow them to live, and there are more mouths to feed, the more jobs that are needed. And two, we solve the money problems, if even a little. All the money used to look for cures could be used elsewhere, where it is really needed. And this is only one instance where I think we could do better without morality. What do you think?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, a world run by morality where all humans cared about each other and simply tried to progress as an understanding society would be awful.

Lord of the Flies society, that's where your view would land people. Try getting a grasp on compassion and stop preaching eugenics; that stuff went out of favor awhile ago.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Lance Corporal Atlas' timestamp='1309114079' post='5312297']
Yeah, [b]a world run by morality where all humans cared about each other and simply tried to progress as an understanding society[/b] would be awful.

Lord of the Flies society, that's where your view would land people. Try getting a grasp on compassion and stop preaching eugenics; that stuff went out of favor awhile ago.
[/quote]

That would be the best world, except it is only an idealistic dream. I'm dealing with the facts, and that is that there is no way all humans will work together, and you can't show morality to the ones who are hampening progress. Take torture for example. Why would we care if we torture someone, who has probably caused the deaths of many people, when the info gained can save many more lives. Is the well being of one person who has existed to deter society worth the lives of many innocent people? This is where there is too much morality involved.

But I also understand that people cannot just through away their morality. I believe that there should be morality, but only to a certain extent.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but that would be obtainable under a world of true morality. It's your rational and your beliefs that make it unobtainable.

On the torture issue, a moral decision would only torture when it was deemed an effective tool. Modern use of torture involves waterboarding and torturing whoever you suspect of crimes, getting little results, belittling people, and fueling any motivations against your cause. Perfect morality utilizes logic, so your definition of it is skewed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Lance Corporal Atlas' timestamp='1309302403' post='5318070']
Sorry, but that would be obtainable under a world of true morality. It's your rational and your beliefs that make it unobtainable.

On the torture issue, a moral decision would only torture when it was deemed an effective tool. Modern use of torture involves waterboarding and torturing whoever you suspect of crimes, getting little results, belittling people, and fueling any motivations against your cause. Perfect morality utilizes logic, so your definition of it is skewed.
[/quote]
But we never go over that. Most people that we try to get info out of from torturing won't crack to just waterboarding, so I believe more severe torture should be used in those case, but only when necessary. It's as case where we try to be moral by limiting how we torture, but I believe it's just too much in cases like that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Identity Unknown' timestamp='1309312707' post='5318539']
Morality is an illusion in my view the world is meant to fall in extreme chaos sooner or later... Morality holds us back... In the end it is all about survival...
[/quote]
See, I don't go to that extreme. I believe there shouldn't be too much morality, but too little morality is also a bad thing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='TheComposer' timestamp='1309309519' post='5318429']
But we never go over that. Most people that we try to get info out of from torturing won't crack to just waterboarding, so I believe more severe torture should be used in those case, but only when necessary. It's as case where we try to be moral by limiting how we torture, but I believe it's just too much in cases like that.
[/quote]
Trying to get information through torture is unreliable anyways.

And what is this information for? Something immoral. Something that's killed innocents and devastated an economy for the sake of greed and ignorance. Look at the root of your argument rather than details.

[quote name='Identity Unknown' timestamp='1309312707' post='5318539']
Morality is an illusion in my view the world is meant to fall in extreme chaos sooner or later... Morality holds us back... In the end it is all about survival...
[/quote]
Please note that this member has talked about how logic is bullshit before. Just saying.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

[quote name='TheComposer' timestamp='1309090264' post='5311606']
In my opinion, if there was less morality involved, we could move much further as a whole.
[/quote]

No movements "a whole" makes can "further" it unless filtered through the "whole"'s morality. You don't know what morality is. A given person's or group's morality is their set of principles from which they define what is good, and people will always act based on what they think is best as per their principles' definitions/morality. You can't make decisions in spite of your morality as your morality has complete influence over the thoughts from which you make decisions.

What you're doing in the first post isn't offering an alternative to morality, but offering your own morality. Don't use words that you don't know the meaning of. Pretense is bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Morality is a token word lazy politicians use when they see something could be construed as unpopular and decide to throw a nasty sounding word on it. When the policy suddenly becomes efficient for the politician, they take the word off. Then when it becomes unpopular again, it becomes "immoral" again. It's such an easy word to use as people generally have different views on the subject, so just about anything can be called "moral" or "immoral".

And further, Coolio is right. Even some of the stuff that we all agree is immoral are things we can't do without. You said torture, so let's go bigger. We're talking about war, people. While just about everyone agrees that taking another human's life is immoral, without war and standing armies, we would easily fall into tyrannic, despotic anarchies without armies to come in from other countries when a particular despot's behavior interferes with those countries' economic prosperity from trade.

And as a last note, morality is an excuse not to fix problems that need to be solved. The tender field of psychiatry in particular tends to stumble because of morality. People are good at heart, but the differing opinions of morality can create communication barriers that prevent people from seeing eye-to-eye with each other. Thus good people do bad things. If the morality barrier can't be overcome, the patient will never be able to recover.

In general, morality is more of a hinderance than an aid when it comes to policy making.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...

[quote name='NumberCruncher' timestamp='1315297450' post='5495878']
Morality is a token word lazy politicians use when they see something could be construed as unpopular and decide to throw a nasty sounding word on it. When the policy suddenly becomes efficient for the politician, they take the word off. Then when it becomes unpopular again, it becomes "immoral" again. It's such an easy word to use as people generally have different views on the subject, so just about anything can be called "moral" or "immoral".
[/quote]

I agree with what you just said here, but you make it sound like that is all morality is. Morality isn't only a token word lazy politicians use, but rather is something that should be debated in the public square with evidence and logic and reasoning. Use of the word in which you describe should be discourage, yes, but the word altogether is by no means negative.

EDIT: Didn't notice this was necrobumped until a minute after I posted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...