Regarding Morality

[ayoub]

One of the thoughts that have been invading my mind of late has been about morality. It's been distracting me enough that I can't even write much for NaNo! So I figured I should try to work on it with a little help... Cuz, y'know I'll get by with a little help from my friends!

Morality is subjective. While one person may believe monogamy is morally right, another may not, as an example. Of course, there are people for whom morality is not important, but I'm not thinking of extremes or criminal behaviour in this case.

What I'm trying to understand, and I hope I can with a little bit of good natured discussion, flame and drama free, is why it does not seem morally questionable for some people to impose their morals on others.

I have my morals, and I live by them. Some things I do, others would not agree with, of this I am positive. Others also do things that I don't agree with, but I can't seem to connect in my own head, a reasonable and moral train of thought that will allow me to tell them that they shouldn't do the things I don't agree with, unless there is a law against it, and that too, it has to be a law I agree with... Yes, I'm quite nuts, sometimes...

So, I open the floor to you, my wise and educated friends, to help me with this particular quandary :D

Comments

[figmentj.livejournal.com]

I think some people do not view morality as subjective, for one thing. They see it as absolute edict from God, which all humans should follow. They don't see that people just believe different things, they see that others believe wrong things, and they also have a moral imperative from God that says that if they see someone else doing wrong things, it is their job to try to steer them back on the path of righteousness. So they are simply behaving within their moral code, which they view as absolute.

[ayoub.livejournal.com]

That just seems wrong to me... :(

[padiwack.livejournal.com]

Follow your inner voice. Those that love you must love you for who you are and who you are becoming, otherwise they are only worried about their own agenda, and how you fit into it.

(Just my $000.02.)

Happy Friday, you Delicious Brit!

[ayoub.livejournal.com]

Happy Friday, delicious lady! :D

And that's good advice :D

[glowy-lovers.livejournal.com]

Moral codes can be changed in the blink of an eye if a situation arises where you have to make a choice. Double standards is a trait that I know I have and unfortunately so do many others :(

[ayoub.livejournal.com]

Very true!

[jovi-diva.livejournal.com]

When you figure out the answer to this question...I'd really like to know it. I have morals I try my best to stand by. There are others I wish I was better at. I would never want to impose my morals on others. My morals are WAY far away from say, My mother-in-laws, but hers are screwed up too. This is ok, but this isn't. There are so many lines. We have to draw and stick to what we find works best for us.

I feel as if I've rambled and not said anything at all! *facepalm*

[ayoub.livejournal.com]

You've said a lot :D

Ah – the dangerous slippery slope of Moral Relativism ;)

[eithnepdb.livejournal.com]

Two questions that are key I think. What society do you live in? Do you belong to a religious organization? These two are, more or less, legislative bodies in terms of moral absolutes.

In American society morality is legislated on a lot of different levels; marriage, gay rights, civil disobedience (what is acceptable and what isn’t) and or course, murder, abortion, stealing etc.

There is a distinctive line drawn in the sand.

From a religious point of view, if you happen to belong to an organized Christian religion, the church generally dictates from the Judeo Christian view of the Bible. It’s a lot more detailed than the Ten Commandments and each sect interprets Biblical law and there for e morality on it’s own ground. For Muslims it is the Koran, for Mormons the The Book of Mormon and so on. The common theme is that each religious tradition does have its morality based in a common set of rules.

I do think there is a common moral compass for most societies. We each of course can interpret what “morality” means to us, with the danger being how radically different that is from the status quo, but I think too there is a definitive list of those things most humans can agree on. I don't think this is bad. It is a natural and pivotal underpining of any successful, civilized society.

Re: Ah – the dangerous slippery slope of Moral Relativism ;)

[ayoub.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure how I'd describe my society... If anything, I think I live in multiple societies... And I'm not a member of any religious organisation...

All good information, but what makes others feel they can impose their morals on me, when I feel I can't do the same?

[mysticpickle.livejournal.com]

I too have asked that same question. I however, have not found an answer that I think "covers" it. I have found good points but nothing that I feel truly explains and defines it. If it is alright with you, I think I will read along with what others think in my own small quest for a good answer to a difficult question. :)

[ayoub.livejournal.com]

:D

Cool!

[the-ravyn.livejournal.com]

Old quote, and I'm not sure who said it:

"One man's morals are another man's shackles."

Now, I don't think this quote was speaking about what I call basic morals, which are those that fall in line with man's inherent knowledge of right and wrong. Some examples of this are "do no harm", "treat others as you would have them treat you", etc.  While those two examples may have been quoted in some religious tenets in one form or another, they have basic roots in humanity and are agreed upon by just about everyone.

The morals in which the quote above refers to are certain morals that have sprung from the religious tenets of one group or another or even several groups combined that could "do harm" or "not treat others as one would like to be treated".  These are morals that would deny one group from having the right to marry because of who they love or deny another group housing in certain areas because of the colour of their skin or deny another group the right to choose their country's next leader because of their gender.

In my opinion, morals that would cause exclusion instead of inclusion aren't really morals at all, but are bigoted, hate-filled opinions of certain individuals that have been written into religious tenets in order to disquise themselves as morals.  These, of course, have brought about chaos, confusion, war and even death.

True morals should not do this.  Morals should be basic human beliefs that bring us together (do no harm, treat others as you wish to be treated), not tear us apart.

[ayoub.livejournal.com]

I love you... Just sayin'...

And yes, I share that opinion, regarding morals that would cause exclusions... I still can't see why some people find it easy to justify telling me what my morals should be out of the ones that are divisionary...

[uawildcatgrl.livejournal.com]

It took me a minute to wrap my head around what you were asking (I think you are asking why some people feel it's ok to impose their morals on others? If that's incorrect tell me!)

I think some people have a need to "save" the world and an if I, with all of my heart, feel this is the right path and will make all the world a better place then I must impose it...kind of pattern of thought.

Personally I think morals and values are ingrained by our parents and our social circle and our faith...which makes them by nature personal. My morals and values are mine and I don't expect anyone else to follow my personal code. Yours are yours and unless they lead you to do something illegal (murder, rape whatnot) more power to you.

::shrug::

[ayoub.livejournal.com]

That's correct! :D

That pattern of thought makes sense, in a way... But what if someone doesn't want to be saved?

And see, you're awesome :D

[kelly-pink.livejournal.com]

if a person is content, confident and sure of their own morals they see no need to question others about their morals. That has been my experience. I feel no need to voice my opinion to people unless asked. "live and let live" is my motto.

[ayoub.livejournal.com]

I like your motto! :D

[popfiend.livejournal.com]

I start from here (http://popfiend.livejournal.com/1205434.html) and work my way outward.

It's that journey that defines where my moral compass lies.

In addition, my interactions with people of all stripes helps me find myself as well.

So in the end, "it depends."

Context matters.

Just sayin'.

[ayoub.livejournal.com]

Context definitely matters... And I remember that post :D

[rosered3017.livejournal.com]

Life is short. Do what thou wilt, but try not to harm others. The operative is "try".

[ayoub.livejournal.com]

Well said :D

[donnickcottage.livejournal.com]

Most of our laws and practices are based on morality. Fraud for example. Why should it matter if someone is stupid enough to fall for someone else's scam? Liar liar pants on fire, so what. People should really be living on less anyway.

Why shouldn't we all walk around naked? You could claim health reasons, but it would be far cheaper to provide removable seat covers than to buy a new outfit for the next executive meting. Why no sex on the street? Why shouldn't you be able to bend your loved one over a bus bench while you're waiting for public transit to take you to work?

You answered your own question really unless there is a law against it, and that too, it has to be a law I agree with

Everyone has an opinion on what is a "right" law and "wrong" one. One man's con is another's entrepreneurial spirit. Even murder is a questionable "crime" to some; why shouldn't it be just fine for someone to put a bullet in the head of Josef Fritzl? After all, some people just shouldn't be allowed to live. Of course then who gets to decided who is who? Ahh, a moral dilemma.

[ayoub.livejournal.com]

:D

I dunno... Sex on the street would be fun... :D

Well said :D

[isis-lives.livejournal.com]

While we're crossing the proverbial mote, we can't always see the land.

There are many different perspectives and ways of looking at the world. It is impossible to ever really get inside another person's perspective. I cite the work of Douglas Harding and his concept of headlessness. If you were asked to draw a self-portrait, most likely you would draw what you believe you look like from a 3 foot distance, what you look like in the mirror, what you believe others think you look like. But if you really drew a self portrait on how you look out on the world, it would be headless. It would be as though there was a camera behind your eyes looking down at your body. Your nose shows up and your body follows. No one else can have this perspective. No one else can see the world from this place that you see the world. capiche?

And, once that is really drunken in, take it the next step. No one person can ever see the world from another's perspective, either. Their life choices and what they believe is completely unique to their experience and their essence just like your experience is unique. What is common in all of us is way underneath the physical, and way underneath how we behave.

There are some experiential exercises and some good writing on this if you want to know more. http://www.headless.org. It is based in England actually. I've had the pleasure of meeting Richard Lang on this side of the pond.

If this doesn't resonate, let me know. I'll give you some enneagram speak. (just kidding.) But, there are many structures that are out there that are built to understanding the exact question that you are asking. It is a large metaphysical question. And, there are many ways to get to the same answer.

Sorry to take up so much room on your journal, my friend. I can't seem to make an lj cut work in a comment.

*hugs*

Understanding is not necessary for Acceptance, but often follows it.

[ayoub.livejournal.com]

LJ cuts don't work in comments... And you can take up as much space as you want to!

I'm going to check out that site... Thank you!

[miriyasterling.livejournal.com]

My belief is that morality is a huge factor in religion and I am speaking of a variety or religions not just one in particular. In my theological classes at college we studied a lot of religions and while it is not true of a lot of religion most religions believe in "missionary" work or recruitment and salvation of outsiders. The belief that you need to save people and teach them the right way. This is as you said in basic terms forcing your morals upon another individual. From the religious viewpoint however they are doing their duty to save someone.

Now most people and religions are not so extreme but I do believe that a bit of those tendencies still leak out into a person's character. The desire to correct someone and guide them to the right.

After saying that I would like to add a disclaimer. There are quite a few other religions that do not have forms of missionary work, there are also religions that are not even open to the idea of outsiders converting. It is like anything humans do, we tend to have a completely opposite example for everything we do...

[ayoub.livejournal.com]

Yes... Even at the height of my religious belief, I never had missionary fervour... I could never understand it.

The desire to be right is something I understand...

[4kudzu.livejournal.com]

It's a personality related trait. Some people are just too stubborn to accept others' POV or beliefs, morals, etc. Some are more open to it. And some are gullible to believe everything w/o even questioning it. Guess it depends on the person. I, myself, flaunt between gullible/easily convinced - to more open to accepting and understanding, to some issues where I am so stubborn in my own ways, that other peoples' morals have no room to change my own. So, you get a little bit of everything -- depends on what people feel strongly about. Some things I care more for than others. I think that goes for everyone.

[ayoub.livejournal.com]

Of course, I'm trying to spread my own POV by telling people not to spread their morals :P

[bia22.livejournal.com]

Lj has taught me that I am a conservative thinker. Again I hate "labeling" myself this way, and also its relative, as amoung conservative friends I am usually alot more liberal than most:P


But I think It is pivotal for any successful, civilized society to have a "status quo" for morals.

Morals may originate from religious tradition but i think it protects us from other peoples warped realities.

Some societies think canibalism is ok and normal. Morality protects you from being eaten by your neighbour - in simple terms:)

Morality (semi) assures me that I can take my (future) child to the grocery store without the possibility of exposing him or her to people having sex in the fresh produce aisle.

In my opinion having a general set of morals followed and inforced by the masses is a security that would not want to live without.

[ayoub.livejournal.com]

A very good point :D

I just think that any changes to the "status quo" should not be determined by a simple majority...

[miintikwa.livejournal.com]

What I have found is that the majority of people who are trying to impose their morals on other people are doing so from a religious standpoint-- and religions do not have moral relatavism as an option.

[ayoub.livejournal.com]

A very good point!

[amante-donne.livejournal.com]

wow heavy subject, one ill not delve into lol

[ayoub.livejournal.com]

LOL! :D

[castlelady.livejournal.com]

Live and let live. As long as the things your friends do, and which you're morally not agreeing on, doesn't put your friendship in jeopardy, don't worry about it ;)

[ayoub.livejournal.com]

Good thinking :D

[atomb0mb.livejournal.com]

The morality legislation problem happens when governing bodies stray away from their purpose of securing liberty for the individual and start getting tangled up in other responsibilities for which they have no business, including benevolence and religion, or even science. This always grows, bringing them to the point of working against the liberty they're supposed to be protecting.

I noted that you said morality is subjective and I'm not talking about extremes in the same paragraph. lol. Subjective indeed.

In answer to your question why it does not seem questionable to have morals imposed. It's more than questionable, it's what we need to prevent.

[ayoub.livejournal.com]

Indeed, we do need to prevent it, but how can we prevent an action that is not logically explainable?

[lipzofs0rr0w.livejournal.com]

I believe that most people are morally conditioned. I think a lot has to do with their generation and up bringing. A lot of moral comes from religion as well. As years have gone on, the generations are exposed to *more*. Religion isn't a main part of the *traditional* lifestyle anymore, and the things that are shown in the media nowadays aren't as shocking, because through past generations we have seen/heard/done most everything. Gay couples are embraced more so than ever (excuse prop 8 though out there in cali) sexuality in general is embraced more than ever. I think people have come to terms with the fact that you cannot hold everyone down with your moral hand. Marriages fall apart more now than ever, whereas before those *small bump in the roads* were tolerated and people stayed married for 50 some odd years.

Not everyone thinks the same, and i feel as generations have gone on and by that people are seeing this and rather than fighting it, they just embrace it. I think people have stopped turning their heads and have learned to find a voice. Even a passive one.

[ayoub.livejournal.com]

:D

I'm so glad you joined in to this discussion...

And I think a lot of people in power are fearing the move away from religion in many places...