Morality and corruption

[Tim_Lou]

i think many people wanta start this topic..so

 

is morality and corruption linked?

 

does morality exist because of corruption?

or is corruption a result of morality??

 

???

[CD27]

thank you tim, for starting this topic

[geko]

I dont think it's clear where you're coming from (at least not to me im afraid).

 

For example, morality isnt a universal 'thing' or 'constant'. Morality that's made by humans changes from place to place and time to time. I dont see it existing in animals either (or not aware of evidence that points to the opposite whatever). Because of this i feel that it should be defined more (but maybe someone else has a better idea than me).

 

Also, in what context are you using the idea of corruption?

 

As and aside, in whatever context it was used i feel as though it would depend on a particular individuals point of view as to whether it was seen as 'corruption' or not. So i guess, in a way morality and corruption are linked, yes.

 

Geko

[Tim_Lou]

so.......

 

corruption doesnt not exist without morality.

since we need some standard opinions of what is good and what is bad....

 

something bad according to morality is consider corruption.

 

but!

if no "corruption" exist, whats the need of morality????

morality is simply something restrict us... and prevent us from being "corrupted"...

 

so....???????

[CD27]

well, i agree with both tim and geko. you are both right by some degree. yes, morality and coruption are both depended upon where, when, and how it is done. from one person's point of view to another's. but also, without corruption,t hre is no morality. mkorality isn't a "restriction", a retiction is somthing that makes you not do something, against your will. a moral beleif is something you want to do. it is no restriction.

 

personally, my moral beleifs, are no smoking, no premarital sex, no drinking alcohol, no harming others unless in self defence, no stealing. things of that nature, you get the picture. i'm a pretty clean slate person, but it doesn't matter what moral beleifs you have, you are but human, you will ALWAYS make mistakes. like it or not, we are ALL ALWAYS corrupted, and nothihng, no matter what we do, can change that. so, we make morals, an attempt to make out corruption low centered. yes, some peole go way too far with it, but sometimes, a certain morality, it is needed, it helps many others.

 

as freeT has told me, i "lie intentionally" and that "harms society"....first of all, society is junk, it's not worth anything nyways, i ahve MY society, you have yours, no one's "society" is the same as any other's. and, if someone tells me that sex can transmit STD's, whic i do belive, and FreeT wants to tell me it's a lie, i'd rather be safe than sorry, not until i see PERFECT evidence that points otherwise. so, how is my "lie" gonna hurt society? by not having sex until i'm married, i hurt society? bull. that's the stupidest thing i've ever heard in my life. if society thinks i should go out, have sex with ever whore i can find, have a bunch of little babies, and then not be able to suport them is gonna help society, they need to rethink their priorities. first of all, this world has enough people as it is, i only plan on having two kids, my mother had four. four is way to amny for me, i only want two, i'm getting fixed aftert that (not like you guys wanted to hear that, but oh well). i have yet to see how contributing to overpopulation is going to actually help society? also, drugs, they only kill, someone once told me that "pot doesn't hurt your body, it actuially helps it"...HAHAHAHA!!!!!!that is just so stupid!!

 

ANY smoke that enter's your lungs hurt it, it's not natural, and what NATURALLY happens when UN-NATURAL things are put into our body? mutations in cells, causing cancer. it's a proven fact. one time, i had an aunt, she worked in a mill, and she was always drythroated, so she kept a mint in her mouth the entire day. edventually, after doing it for three years strait, she got cancer in her mouth. for sucking on a mint!

 

for the sake of humanity's existence, i sure do hope everyone out there has good moral values, or we a re all doomed. i can already say that alot of people out there don't. they just sit around and suck up all the money from everyone, and don't give a rart's behind what happenes to them, so long as they get their money. it's jsut like one of metallica's songs. "you can do what you want, so long as you do it my way." and that's exactly how greed works. you can do what you want, so long as you do it my way. as long as i get the money, i could care less what happenes to you and your starving families. that's what alot of these rich people say, not all of them, but alot of them. i actually know some pretty decent rich folks, but a bunch of rich people are just out right greedy. they already own half the freakin country, what more do they want! money will NEVER solve your problems, only cause more. and even some people call money a morality. ha! i call it the biggest corruption ever!

 

Eric

[Uncle Martin]

Firstly, everything is corruptable. Find one example of something that cannot be corrupted and I'll consider its implications. Morality is corrupted whenever someone does something they know to be wrong. But, what is morality?

 

There are two major camps here, morality is either independent of human experience(subjective religious morality) or it is a human invention(objective secular morality). My personal view is that it (HUMAN MORALITY)is a human contrivance, as no evidence exists to point to morality having been handed down by some non existent entity.

 

Why would humans contrive such a concept? There must be an evolutionary advantage to an individual and society that adheres to some basic moral and ethical code. Anarchy and chaos lead to a very dangerous environment. Morality tells us it is not beneficial to kill your neighbor, for hopefully he has the same moral code and therefore won't kill you. Feeding the hungry in times of famine will help to ensure the survival of the society. Maintaining peaceful and cooperative behavior between group members benefits the individual and the society. There are many reasons to accept that morality and ethics provide an evolutionary advantage.

 

What of other life forms? Is morality restricted to homo sapiens? Social animals exhibit morality. Whales, primates, canines,...too many to list. I wonder if its considered immoral for a Killer Whale to eat red meat on Friday? (sorry I-E, I couldn't help that one)

 

So, what is moral and what is immoral? As Geko stated above that depends on a specific society and at what time in it's history we examine. Historically it was the moral duty of many religions to kill anyone and everyone that held differing religious beliefs. Look at some modern fundamentalists and that still holds true. It is considered moral to execute prisoners in Texas but not in North Dakota. Seems it should be either right or wrong doesn't it? Bullfighting is a popular spectator sport in some countries, I find it to be barbaric. I find nudity to be natural and benign, while others find it offensive and always sexual in nature. The only possible consensus is in the majority of a society.

 

Is morality declining? Not in my opinion. It is certainly changing. Women can vote, abortion is a choice, gays can live their lives without fear, segregation is illegal, we have child labor laws, etc.....etc... The information age makes it difficult to keep people in the naive bubble of the past. Many people confuse the knowledge of what has always been happening behind closed doors as a decline in morality, I think this is incorrect. Much of what happens now was going on in the past, it just wasn't openly talked about. Pretending something isn't happening is not a higher morality than allowing said behavior to be known.

 

Let's decriminalize marijuana and release non violent prisoners from our jails- that would be a step forward for morality and society.(no, I don't smoke the stuff) But that is a topic for another thread.

[geko]

I was going to leave this because i thought i may be seen as just trying to be difficult, but i still dont understand what is meant here by corruption.

 

CD used it in the context of capitalism/greed, but i feel as though this is a bit closed and that there must be a wider criteria for its usage before the argument can continue. UM i think used his own personal connotation of the word corruption as a reference to assume that 'everything is corruptable'. So basically i'm lost.

 

For example, in the Collins Concise the 2nd definition of the word corrupt is 'morally depraved', in which case no further discussion is necessary because the opposite is borderline circular i feel. Maybe i'm wrong, someone correct me please.

 

Other definitions of the word (which i feel are relevant here) are:

 

-: Open to or involving bribery or other dishonest practices.

 

What is immoral about bribery or lying i ask?

 

-: To become or cause to become dishonest or disloyal.

 

Again it has to be asked what is immoral about being dishonest? And under what system is loyality a sign of morality? This is highly subjective in my opinion and has no right to assume a consensus.

 

-: To deprave.

 

The definition of this word is ambiguous and the same discussion could be applied to it as is being applied here.

 

-: To infect or contaminate.

 

This definition just begs the question of 'in which context?'

 

 

Anyways, in my opinion, 'morality' was INVENTED [by humans] to live in what is assumed to be a fairer and more just society. But this also (shock of horrors) is ambiguous and subjective, so the argument continues.

 

An objective consensus on this issue i feel has to be that the 'system of morals' (where you're coming from) has to be defined before it can go any further.

[Uncle Martin]

Geko,

In my opinion Tim worded the question inappropriately so I chose not to address corruption. As you state, corruption in most contexts is the antithesis of morality. Pretend the word corrupt isn't there and then we can at least discuss morality. The opening of my above post was a poor attempt to dismiss corruption from the topic.

[geko]

...

 

If

 

Originally posted by: Uncle Martin

corruption in most contexts is the antithesis of morality.

 

..and

 

Originally posted by: geko

 

....'morality' was INVENTED [by humans] to live in what is assumed to be a fairer and more just society. But this also (shock of horrors) is ambiguous and subjective...

 

Then we know where we're coming from. In this case the [basic] system of Individuality. In which case this topic has reached its answer and conclusion i feel.

 

Unless of course we want to argue about people's differing definitions of right and wrong and the behaviour and actions that constitute to those titles and ideas.

 

Tim or CD might?

[Uncle Martin]

I would like to see the topic continue on morality alone. I'm sure that many other members have some very strong opinions on the subject. I'm betting that IrishEyes will refute some of my propositions.

[Tim_Lou]

hmm,

 

so, morality is generally for the "good", it is made to regulate our societies and an evolutionary advancedment.

 

and! most of the morality itself is based on religions,

such as christian.

 

so, christian --> morality --> goods (also an evolutionary advantage)

???

 

haha, freethinker is gonna step in.

[Uncle Martin]

Tim,

 

PLEASE read the posts again. I think the majority of them indicate that morality is a human invention. Religious morality is an oxymoron, how do you figure most morality is based on it?

[Tormod]

No, TORMOD is stepping in.

 

Uncle Martin's last point that religious morality is an oxymoron could require some elaboration. I know FT likes to say that but in this contect I would like to see what you mean by that.

 

Tim's christian -> morality -> goods is, sorry Tim, simply an impossible deduction. It means - NOTHING. You could as well have stated Christians -> war with the arabs -> immorality -> bad.

 

To judge someone else's morality is a double edged sword. One one side we judge people by defining them as belonging to this or that group/religios faction/political faction/other movement and so on, and then assume that because they have by default the same level of morality as the group.

 

On the other side, we assume that certain people have a high level of morality simply because they have some sort of position within our society. Remember Bill Clinton and his cigar incident with Monica Lewinsky. A lot of people would say this shows Clinton to be immoral. And since he was immoral in this particular case, he must by default be immoral in all cases. Yet this is simply a way of applying stereotypes to people's actions. I do not view Clinton as an immoral person, but I accept that he has weaknesses in his personality which has been exploited by the media and his political opponents. It is far too easy to observe one single act commited by a person which is considered immoral by one group, and then extend that to everything the person, his surroundings, his factions, are responsible for.

 

Most morality is NOT based on religion. If you ask every person in the world, "what is morality", you'd get 6 billion answers (although many of them would sound similar). Most morality is based on peoples life experience, their upbringing, their attitude, their friends and relations. Some people actually think it is morally right to steal things in a store simply because the store sells so much that they won't miss a single item. Others don't pay for public transport because they think it should be free. I would argue that from MY standpoint, they are both immoral.

 

Hm. I think I fell of track somewhere and I'm going to bed now. I'll see if I can clean my act up tomorrow.

 

But as a closing remark - Tim states above that "[morality] is made to regulate our societies and an evolutionary advancement".

 

1) Morality is not made. It is the sum of a person's behaviour. It is linked with our actions. Nobody creates "morality". However, society judges upon acts of (im)morality and decides that "this is immoral" (for example, in some countries kissing in public is immoral) and "this is okay" (some countries allow public, state-sanctioned executions).

 

2) Evolutionary advantage - Tim, what do you mean by this? Nature cannot decide what is good or bad morality. Humans do. We do not "inherit" morality (as far as I know). I would attribute a lot of it to our upbringing, our schooling, and our experiences. But our children do not inherit it, we have to teach them.

 

Tormod

[Uncle Martin]

Originally posted by: Tormod

No, TORMOD is stepping in.

 

 

By TORMOD,

"Uncle Martin's last point that religious morality is an oxymoron could require some elaboration. I know FT likes to say that but in this contect I would like to see what you mean by that."

 

 

 

I really shouldn't throw hyperbole around like that. In my opinion religion is false and has an overall negative effect on society- to simplify I'll call it "bad". Morality is true and has a positive effect- to simplify I'll call it "good"..... Bad-Good= oxymoron. The religious convolute morality to fit their agenda, not the good of society or in search of truth. This is all stated in a macro scale. No two individual moralities are identicle, not all religions are without some redeeming qualities.

[Uncle Martin]

Originally posted by: Tormod

 

 

 

By Tormod,

 

"2) Evolutionary advantage - Tim, what do you mean by this? Nature cannot decide what is good or bad morality. Humans do. We do not "inherit" morality (as far as I know). I would attribute a lot of it to our upbringing, our schooling, and our experiences. But our children do not inherit it, we have to teach them."

 

 

 

I originally introduced this aspect to the discussion so I feel it is only fair that I defend it.

 

I don't assert that nature decides between good and bad morality. I do claim that a moral code is a requirement of social animals, and this moral code evolved with our social behavior which is an evolutionary advantage. "In order that primeval men, or the ape like progenators of man, should have become social, they must have acquired the same instinctive feelings which impel other animals to live in a body. As with all animal instincts, the social instincts of man were the result of variations bringing some benefit for survival." Darwin, Descent of Man.

 

Here is a link that I find satisfying- http://www.alabamaatheist.org/awareness/questions/immoral.htm

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: Uncle Martin

I really shouldn't throw hyperbole around like that. In my opinion religion is false and has an overall negative effect on society- to simplify I'll call it "bad". Morality is true and has a positive effect- to simplify I'll call it "good"..... Bad-Good= oxymoron. The religious convolute morality to fit their agenda, not the good of society or in search of truth. This is all stated in a macro scale. No two individual moralities are identicle, not all religions are without some redeeming qualities.

 

I think I get your point, and I think we agree (your post is a bit convoluted but it might be because it's monday morning... )

 

Tormod

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: Uncle Martin

Originally posted by: Tormod

2) Evolutionary advantage - Tim, what do you mean by this? Nature cannot decide what is good or bad morality. Humans do. We do not "inherit" morality (as far as I know). I would attribute a lot of it to our upbringing, our schooling, and our experiences. But our children do not inherit it, we have to teach them.

 

I originally introduced this aspect to the discussion so I feel it is only fair that I defend it.

 

I don't assert that nature decides between good and bad morality. I do claim that a moral code is a requirement of social animals, and this moral code evolved with our social behavior which is an evolutionary advantage. "In order that primeval men, or the ape like progenators of man, should have become social, they must have acquired the same instinctive feelings which impel other animals to live in a body. As with all animal instincts, the social instincts of man were the result of variations bringing some benefit for survival." Darwin, Descent of Man.

 

I agree with your perspective that animals have social codes too.

 

But you claim that the moral code evolved with our social behavior. I am not saying I disagree, but I am not sure I quote understand.

 

Would these statements fit what you are saying?

 

1) Morality is not in our genes, but the ability to discern between "good" and "wrong/bad/evil" in a social setting is.

 

2) "Morality" and "moral code" are two different things. "Morality" is a general term used to describe whether something is right or wrong. "Moral code" is any person, group, or society's interpretation of what is right and what is wrong.

 

Or?

 

If 1) is correct, it implies that free will is an innate ability in animals and humans. Does that mean that we by nature are responsible for our actions? Because that WOULD imply that nature discerns between good and bad. Or are we not part of nature? (leading question, sorry). Am I out on a limb here?

 

Darwin's statement that instinctive feelings "impel other animals to live in a body" is disturbing to me. I don't believe in a soul or a being that is separate from the physical body, so I don't think there is a choice. But I think that would be a good topic for another discussion.

 

Tormod