- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Is modern morality simply a popularity contest?
Posted on 4/10/14 at 11:37 am
Posted on 4/10/14 at 11:37 am
The arguments for and against certain moral positions in our society very often seem to spring from the idea that there are no real moral absolutes. In other words, once I decide my own morality is right then no one has any real authority to tell me that I am wrong.
An example just for conversation: We have a moral obligation to provide X to our citizens. Supporters would argue in favor because their morals support the view while opponents would take the opposite approach. How could one say that a supporter's moral view is any more valid than the opponents based simply on beliefs?
It seems to me that much of the 'modern' view of morality springs from the popularity of the idea and not the absolute righteousness of the cause. In other words, the only way to really affect society in this age of moral relativism is to garner popular support, as no argument can honestly be made that one system of morals is superior to the other.
Thoughts from the board?
An example just for conversation: We have a moral obligation to provide X to our citizens. Supporters would argue in favor because their morals support the view while opponents would take the opposite approach. How could one say that a supporter's moral view is any more valid than the opponents based simply on beliefs?
It seems to me that much of the 'modern' view of morality springs from the popularity of the idea and not the absolute righteousness of the cause. In other words, the only way to really affect society in this age of moral relativism is to garner popular support, as no argument can honestly be made that one system of morals is superior to the other.
Thoughts from the board?
12
Posted on 4/10/14 at 11:40 am to weagle99
Isn't this how its always been?
Posted on 4/10/14 at 11:42 am to Teddy Ruxpin
quote:
how its always been
Posted on 4/10/14 at 11:42 am to Teddy Ruxpin
quote:
Isn't this how its always been?
Maybe. Seems like in the past, even the distant past, there were absolutes that were inviolate. I might just be observing my time.
Posted on 4/10/14 at 11:43 am to weagle99
Kind of like the governmental view that anything I can get 51% of the vote for is legal.
Posted on 4/10/14 at 11:44 am to weagle99
POLITICAL contest. Pure and simple.
Posted on 4/10/14 at 11:46 am to weagle99
quote:
It seems to me that much of the 'modern' view of morality springs from the popularity of the idea and not the absolute righteousness of the cause.
There is nothing "modern" about this. I'm not trying to derail this thread or bark up the wrong tree, but slavery in this country is a perfect example of popularity trumping "absolute righteousness."
Posted on 4/10/14 at 11:50 am to weagle99
Of course. All morality is subjective based on the whims of the populace.
It just so happens that some remain popular throughout time.
It just so happens that some remain popular throughout time.
Posted on 4/10/14 at 11:52 am to weagle99
It seems to me that any "moral code" should be rational and respect the rights of everyone.
It seems to me that "moral codes" from the distant past were probably based on what was rational for the time, survival of the group being of paramount importance. Rights, particular rights of others, were probably not as important in the distant past.
Thus, the question one might consider in attempting to apply "moral codes" from the distant past is whether they are rational for today and whether they consider the rights of everyone.
Some of the "absolutes that were inviolate" might also be considered today as rights, but I'm not sure that all of the "absolutes" would be.
It seems to me that "moral codes" from the distant past were probably based on what was rational for the time, survival of the group being of paramount importance. Rights, particular rights of others, were probably not as important in the distant past.
Thus, the question one might consider in attempting to apply "moral codes" from the distant past is whether they are rational for today and whether they consider the rights of everyone.
Some of the "absolutes that were inviolate" might also be considered today as rights, but I'm not sure that all of the "absolutes" would be.
Posted on 4/10/14 at 11:54 am to weagle99
I feel an analogy coming on.
1. Weagle comes to my door and begs for food because he is starving to death. My reply: Should have made better decisions with your life. Go die somewhere else so I don't have to clean up the mess.
Zach says ... Totally moral.
2. Weagle comes to my house selling girl scout cookies because his daughter is too lazy. Zach takes out a chain saw and murders Weagle. Making a mess.
Zach says... Totally immoral.
1. Weagle comes to my door and begs for food because he is starving to death. My reply: Should have made better decisions with your life. Go die somewhere else so I don't have to clean up the mess.
Zach says ... Totally moral.
2. Weagle comes to my house selling girl scout cookies because his daughter is too lazy. Zach takes out a chain saw and murders Weagle. Making a mess.
Zach says... Totally immoral.
Posted on 4/10/14 at 11:59 am to weagle99
A lot of basis for Morality stems from religious beliefs...even those not religious were taught right from wrong by parents in most cases, which at some point reverted back to religious beliefs.
Regardless, Humans have a natural tendency to feel remorse or guilt for doing immoral things. You can argue for abortion...and the idea that you have a "right" to get one is the debate. There isn't much debate that the act itself is immoral and I bet there are very few girls who have an abortion and feel happy and satisfied that what they did was right.
This applies to many things...I just used abortion as one example because it is a heated moral topic.
Deep down, we know what is right and wrong no matter how we try to justify it.
Regardless, Humans have a natural tendency to feel remorse or guilt for doing immoral things. You can argue for abortion...and the idea that you have a "right" to get one is the debate. There isn't much debate that the act itself is immoral and I bet there are very few girls who have an abortion and feel happy and satisfied that what they did was right.
This applies to many things...I just used abortion as one example because it is a heated moral topic.
Deep down, we know what is right and wrong no matter how we try to justify it.
Posted on 4/10/14 at 12:00 pm to Zach
quote:
Zach says ... Totally moral.
I hope you're not religious
Posted on 4/10/14 at 12:05 pm to weagle99
quote:It appears so.
Is modern morality simply a popularity contest?
While in the past, our ideas of morality were popular, they weren't based on popularity. They were concepts that not only predated the time period, they predated the formation of the US.
Now "morality" is based on facebook likes. And we are far worse off for it.
Posted on 4/10/14 at 12:13 pm to Salviati
quote:
It seems to me that any "moral code" should be rational and respect the rights of everyone.
One can respect another persons right to chose his own morality, but obviously, everyone's morality can't be correct because much of it contradicts the other. There is certainly a wrong and right way to do almost everything.
This post was edited on 4/10/14 at 12:35 pm
Posted on 4/10/14 at 12:29 pm to Revelator
quote:No one has a right to act by their own "moral code." That should be obvious to anyone.
One can respect another persons right to chose his own morality, but obviously, everyone's morality can't be correct because much of it contradicts the other.
quote:Certainly a wrong and right way to do almost everything? I disagree. To the contrary, I think most situations permit myriad choices. I believe there are few absolutes.
There is certainly and wrong and right way to do almost everything.
Posted on 4/10/14 at 12:43 pm to Salviati
quote:
Certainly a wrong and right way to do almost everything? I disagree. To the contrary, I think most situations permit myriad choices. I believe there are few absolutes
To me this is the very attitude that is at the core of our progressive downfall.
This post was edited on 4/10/14 at 12:51 pm
Posted on 4/10/14 at 12:52 pm to Revelator
quote:I'm going to define the phrase "moral decision" to mean that the decision requires reference to a simple moral code that will provide a simple answer.
To me this is the very attitude that is at the core of our progressive downfall.
I can provide countless choices that are not moral decisions.
How many choices can you provide that are moral decisions?
Posted on 4/10/14 at 1:00 pm to Salviati
quote:
I can provide countless choices that are not moral decisions.
Well you already stated that to you, there aren't any moral absolutes so this point is a given.
Posted on 4/10/14 at 1:03 pm to weagle99
Perhaps we only get absolutes from religious based morality. Otherwise I imagine it's always been a fluid thing based on what best serves the society.
Posted on 4/10/14 at 1:05 pm to Revelator
quote:
I believe there are few absolutes
quote:
To me this is the very attitude that is at the core of our progressive downfall.
That's because culture is turning away from your set of absolutes.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News