Who is for and who is against morality?

On edit: I revised the title

Anyone elses morality is none of my business.

until someone starts trying to shove their morality down my throat.

I should add the universally-accepted corollary:

'My morality is none of others' business.'

Do you mean people who think there should be laws that protect people other than yourself?

That what it sounds like you're saying - to me. I don't see such laws as authoritarian.

There is a difference is laws to protect people, and laws that are meant to make consenting adults conform to your idea of "morality".

seems like you might just say what you're talking about.

Morality is a subject force, abused in many ways.

Ethics is somewhat different.

I think it's interesting that ethics is referred to as Moral Philosophy - so it doesn't seem so different.

Though maybe more intention is presumed.

However, the term 'Moral Philosophy' is pretty much different in regards of subjective 'morality' assigned by groups/religion/culture, since true philosophy should be totally free of the said biased 'morality.' If not, it's not better than any forced morality.

However, the definition of 'ethics' I refer to is more like 'moral absolutism', which should be true for anyone, despite the cultural group/religion beliefs.

Good poll! :hi:

I noticed your journal. It figures a Buddhist would have thought these things out.

But it's also good to have a philosophical background. ;)

(Pygmalion/My Fair Lady)

:evilgrin:

Because I think you would find that individuals conception of "morality" is quite diiferent that what would be "codified" by our culture.

I've seen a lot of people post that they are against morality - and I wanted to get a sense of it.

While there is the possibility that they are defining morality differently than I would (though I provided a definition) - there is the possibility that people who are against moral standards really are against moral standards. I have no reason to assume otherwise.

Rather than some generic group idea of what "morality" is?

I doubt many of DU'ers that are responding yes here, would like to see their view used to support outlawing homosexuality. Although an argument can be made that American "culture" sees it as "immoral".

that liberals would NOT see outlawing homosexuality as moral.


What I have noticed on threads is the sort of "anti-moral-standards" stance that some take where they say that while they themselves are against having laws in regards to adults having sex with minors, esp. teenagers (as young as 13 or less :shrug: ), because they don't believe that any moral standards should be imposed on others. (Apparently they are not concerned about the teenagers).

I frankly do not understand such a position. But it is certainly out there and people are not afraid to say that that is what they think.


There could certainly be many other moral standards on which people disagree. But as we discussed on the thread about legislating them - there will be laws about various things and people will disagree about what laws there should be. As you and I do.

but I wonder if people who don't want laws regulating adult behavior that might threaten others - because that would impose someone else's moral standard - do so out of a sense of morality (I don't think they would call it that) - or because they think that other's "morality" puts too much imposition on themselves and others. That's what I hear in many posts on the subject.

of everyone going around doing whatever they wanted to others - which could include rape, robbery, murder, whatever - strikes me as the opposite of having moral standards.

If people were only doing nice things to and for each other - that would seem to be because they had a sense of morality.


Does that make sense to you? Or do you have other ideas?

I also think we should be able to treat ourselves however we damn well please.

in particular that are preventing you from treating yourself however you damn well please?


Or any that are proposed?




I don't know where you are going with that.

Drug laws, sodomy laws, marriage laws, helmet/seat belt laws, etc., etc., etc.

Very generally (though I'm sure I could think of exceptions) if it's a so-called victimless crime, then IMO, it's not a crime at all.

things like drug (use - but not selling) laws and helmet/seat belt laws fall into that category.


Sodomy and marriage laws affect more than one person. Though if it's a question about who can marry whom - I am mainly concerned about minors in those instances.

It seems like polygamy could be debatable - about whether it is victimless for instance - even if it was just concerning adults - instead of minors who are married off. There is the angle where it becomes more difficult for some men in a community to find a spouse because other men have so many wives. And other concerns - for the women, for the children - the use of welfare to support such a system, etc.


I think there are some things that some people consider "victimless" where I would see a victim.

He is For and He is against morality.

He's going to have to get off the fence. Maybe this poll will help him! :freak:

none!




I do, however, have some porcinis.

finding morels, myself. I've found two, I think, in my entire life. One is on my mantle.



And I haven't found any porcinis, either. :hi:

Not sure I agree with that, but food for thought...

how religion is kind of set up as the base point. You accept it or you reject it. Why is religion put up as the null state?

relates to a different poll.

I'm not so much interested in how many people have religious backgrounds or not -as to how it might illuminate the other poll.

I don't really want to post that poll because it might affect how people answer this poll.

I became a deacon in a community church at the age of 18, and excercised a christian ministry for almost two years. In my early to mid 20s, I became a Wiccan, was initiated and served as both a high priest and an elder. In my late 20s, I returned to Christianity and began classes that would have led to becoming a licensed reader in the Episcopal Church, with an eye towards being ordained to the priesthood.

I would say that my religious background is exactly why I ended up as an atheist.

I figured people would just have to pick how they thought of themselves.

I consider myself an atheist with a religious background. I think my religious background affects how I think about morality.

I could also say that I reject religion.

So whichever seems like it makes more sense to you...

Every community has different standards; what might be banned in one community (say, public nudity) is often perfectly acceptable behavior, even the norm, in a different community. Things get even more complex when you start comparing communities that diverge widely on religion and politics: What is "moral" in a self-identified Christian community will be very different from what is "moral" in a self-identified Jewish community (Is it moral to work on Saturday?)

Having read some of your other posts, Bloom, I I can only assume you mean to say that your morality is the only morality that counts; everyone elses morality it totally immoral.

I would say that there should be laws that govern certain behavior and I am aware that others don't think that there should be such laws.

I'm not as much interested in whether someone is immoral - I'm not going around labeling people - as I am interested that there should be laws that protect people - sometimes from each other.

There seems to be a sentiment going around that "ohhh" it's bad to have laws that regulate adult behavior - that would impose someone else's "morality" on someone.

Maybe you think that. :shrug:

I believe there are certain rights and wrongs/goods and bads. Most of them turn on the principal of harming other people is bad. In fact, I think we should all strive not to hurt others. Even if there is no particular rule in place, I think we should avoid hurting others. I think the majority of this state follows a common morality. Some follow it for religious purposes, I follow it for self preservation. I am comforted by knowing there are rules to protect me from harm. I don;t like the idea of being harmed, and that is one reason I would not harm someone else. With certain exceptions, if I would rather not have something done to me, I should probably not do it to others. So, I am okay with compelled moral standards on living. Don;t steal, don't hurt, don't kill and so on. Regardless of these notions as religious laws, I think they are a good basis for a moral platform for society.

From the "definition" - "These concepts and beliefs about right and wrong are often generalized and codified by a culture or group"


Clearly some people do advocate for change - but I think it takes a lot more than one person who wants change before "the culture or group" is on board. (I realize you were probably being facetious - I'm just pointing that out ). Generally - I agree with you.


You wrote:

"With certain exceptions, if I would rather not have something done to me, I should probably not do it to others."

This actually got me to wondering if that is how some men (not you necessarily) rationalize degrading pornography. It couldn't be done to them if they are males (something might be done - but not that) - so they don't see the harm in it being done to others.

Of course that's probably the rational for a lot of crap that is done to others - like torture - people don't see themselves as being possible victims. Or the rich and their tax cuts - the people who pass them don't ever intend to not be rich. etc.

But only in a good way. I have morals. But in a world where having them becomes increasingly... detrimental... I feel, like everything else, outdated. Past my time.

backgound (ie: I got raised that way) I voted for the rejecting relegion and against moral standards because I feel that in order for absolute true freedom that is the only way. Anarchy allows for the seeking and manifesting of all destinies. It is painstakingly and achingly beautiful in it's absolute tolerance for all.

The lowest will of course sink but the highest among us will be free to soar...



It is a paradox.

is interesting - but it seems like maybe everyone would have to go around with a gun - ready to defend oneself.

There would be no basis for laws. So there would be no basis for policeman or anything else.

If everyone really tolerated and respected each other - there would be no need for laws - unfortunately that doesn't seem like it will ever be the case.

I can see people grouping into gangs to protect each other. Fighting over territory and whatnot.

danger of it all is appealing to me...I know I'm freakin' weird but somehow I find beauty in the ugliest places...:shrug:

Said girl's crime being holding a bag of chips that stuck to her hand when she got her hands up?

Probable cause being her friend was pulled over for DWB?

Under such circumstances, removing the basis for policemen could be seen as an improvement.

Policing only works when the police are on everyone's side.

I can totally see where at some point the policing breaks down to the point where it is better not to have it. Maybe some places it has already.


But it seems that a better understanding of a shared morality - with all members of a community considered equally - would improve instead of worsen the situation.

Here's a link so you can better understand where I'm coming from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

anarcha-feminism and primitivism are interesting. And I am attracted to a lot of what drives that thinking - anti-hierarchical ideas and all.

While I think that some of that would be ideal - I don't know if it could be put into practice. I guess if society collapses - it will it all be up for grabs.

I think there could be some sort of mix. More feminism, more economics with ecology in mind. But still with some way to maintain order - IOW - I wouldn't abandon the court system entirely.


I don't generally see libertarianism as a positive thing - I noticed that woven throughout the wikipedia piece.

I'm for personal responsibility, not government oversight.

esp. criminal laws - are based on what people consider to be a common morality.


Battery, etc. It's interesting, for instance, that men were allowed to beat their wives at one time - because that was the "common morality" of the day. I do think that laws can help with these things. While domestic violence may always exist - I think it says a lot to have it be illegal.

Well, I have a sense of right and wrong somewhat based on religion, but its not anyone's place to push their moral standard on aynones else.