Morals (belyefs)

[Sophya]

'Thought of makyng a thread about morals and belyefs, not only because of 'nterest'n the communytyes opynyons, but because am currently confused myself.

When do you know that you 'cross' a boundary? How can we defyne what a boundary really's? There's just so much 'space' to experyment on 'deas and belyefs that't tends to confuse. What'f some of us are born wyth a desyre that gyves us the only pleasure we've felt'n lyfe; a desyre that keeps us sane; would breakyng the 'threshold' of maynstream belyef mean we're 'bad'?

Thyng's, as a struggler of bypolar, 'have come to look at thyngs from both sydes, but they styll don't make sense to me. What 'have learned from my experyences relate to my own percepshuns and belyefs, but who's to say anyone's 'wrong' or 'ryght'?

What 'mean by 'both sydes' - we can look at our fetyshysm as somethyng 'mmoral/wrong based on a certayn number of belyefs generated by culture, but how do we judge these belyefs'f we can't prove them? An atheyst may look at necrophylya dyfferently than a theyst (dependyng on belyef), but how can one be so sure of theyr belyefs? Makyng sense?

Thys has been plaguyng my mynd for so many years and to thys date't styll does. A part of me wants to not gyve an ass and seek for pleasure (afterall, pleasure equates to a posytyve myndset whych'n turn creates a posytyve vybe'n my opynyon), and yet another part of me wants to 'do the ryght thyng'. Thyng's, the 'ryght' thyng causes nothyng but gryef and angst.

F'am not makyng too much sense, let me know and 'can elaborate.

Thanks for readyng -


Nykk aka Sophya

 

[ArrowMan]

Hey Soph,

Significant issues you raise in your above post. I enjoyed reading it. Unique writing style, too. Actually, most remarkable.

 

[verlup1]

Interesting,
I can relate to your dilemma. I do believe it's wrong to take pleasure from the suffering of others, but it's there and existing so hard to ignore. I guess I justify myself by thinking they suffered but it's over now and they're dead but still so attractive. Maybe I'm delusional I don't know.

 

[Snerdguy]

Morals are philisophical rules base on public expectations of fairness. They are important to understand so you can function in society and not be an outcast. That doen't mean you have to agree or live that way. Religious groups often set the morality bar very high so people will always be inferior to whatever diety the group chooses as their focal point. That way, religious leaders can always make you feel like you aren't giving enough of yourself and your finances to support your diety and the high salaries of the clergy.

Most people who tell you that something is immoral probably don't know what morality is. (Chances are, they're less moral than they want you to be.) A good rule of thumb when trying to decide if you are acting in an immoral way is to ask who suffers because of your actions. If you and a friend want to go into a private room and screw your brains out, choke each other until you turn blue and shove unusual things into peculiar places, is that immoral? Was it not consensual? Did you cause harm to someone? If not, why would that be immoral? But, if you and your friend made a public spectacle of yourselves doing it, you could expose immature minds to information and suggestions that are damaging. That is immoral.

If you use your resources to take unwelcomed advantage of someone less priledged or less intelligent, that is immoral. If you understand moral standards while having your own value system, you're fine. Everyone has a different value system no matter what they may say. It's like a group of people saying they all worship the same God even though none of them have truly identical beliefs.

Things can get a little sticky when comparing morality and law. Moral standards may inspire some laws. But, many laws are not moral. They actually treat people unfairly and benefit a few at the cost of many.

A fetish is just an strong emotional focus on a particular behavior or thing. Fetishes are harmless. Obsessions can be harmful because they blind people to safe and rational behavior.

 

[Jdosh]

Interesting discussion. I think I can reduce morality further by bringing it down to three moral systems: Universals, Utility, and Golden rule. These are reductions because they can be devoid of cultural, religious, or historical backgrounds but can still be applied across any society combining knowledge and action.

Universals are simple morals one feels are timeless such as if I know fire always hurts and i dont like pain then its always immoral to put ones hand in it. Religions of course apply this the most to its convenience while laws are ideally primarily derived and executed from this concept. Although exceptions exist in the law, these exceptions are normally written into the law. Example murdering is always wrong because unjust/unauthorized killing of innocents is always seen as wrong in every civilization.

Utility is "The greatest good for the greatest number" if what you do would hurt most people then it is immoral. For instance murdering someone good would be wrong because of the loss of life plus the pain and suffering inflicted on the community. But lets say killing baby Hitler may be justified under this moral system since it spares the world of his horror thus saving millions.

The third is the most interesting because while it was developed by most mainstream religions it is ironically the least of the three ever used or preached by them. Its the golden rule and argueably the most difficult yet flexible. Treat others the way you would want to be treated. So murdering is off the table simply because few want to be killed (at least unjustly so for the most part) therefore if you think its bad then you shouldnt pass it on to others.

Now these more systems are ancient and can be traced to many different civilizations across thousands of years and I think if you do something that violates all three its pretty clear your being immoral. I agree with Snerdguy, if two consenting adult go into a room and do what they agreed upon (within the law of course, no beastiality or watching CP etc...) then it can positively pass all three systems.

You can dig a bit deeper into this by looking at ethics or moral dilemmas (when morals conflict) to reduce it to more practical everyday terms but that may be more than what people are interested in reading so I will hold it here.

 

[Sophya]

Came across some answers to the ?s. For now, at least.

Most people who tell you that something is immoral probably don't know what morality is. (Chances are, they're less moral than they want you to be.)

But, if you and your friend made a public spectacle of yourselves doing it, you could expose immature minds to information and suggestions that are damaging. That is immoral.

If you use your resources to take unwelcomed advantage of someone less priledged or less intelligent, that is immoral.



Things can get a little sticky when comparing morality and law. Moral standards may inspire some laws. But, many laws are not moral. They actually treat people unfairly and benefit a few at the cost of many.

Exactly. Man-made laws are not always 'ryght'. Laws of nature, on the other hand always stay theyr ground: Free Wyll; respect for others pryvacy and belyefs (so long as they cause no harm); drynk too much and you get drunk wyth a hangover.. etc...

On the other hand we have laws that make lyttle sense, and'f anythyng, cause confusyon and dystress. There was an example of such small myndedness at a communyty 'used to post not long ago. Asked for Fetyshyst blood donors, but was confronted wyth a 55 year 'aged' chrystyan lady tellyng me to kyll myself and burn'n hell.

Came to the conclusyon of free choyce, as nothyng else seems to make any sense to me (for now).

A fetish is just an strong emotional focus on a particular behavior or thing. Fetishes are harmless. Obsessions can be harmful because they blind people to safe and rational behavior.

Agreed! Thynk that fetyshes are a helpless romantyk's way of stayyng sane'n an 'nsane world haha. Gyvyng't a lot of thought, 'came to the conclusyon that Fetyshes act as 'brydges' to Love, especyally'n those that fynd't hard to express Love or receyve Love. That's been the case wyth me anyway. Fetyshes are kynd of lyke rytuals; sublymynal programs that affect how we express Large amounts of Love/Romance; they're art; they're subconshus tools used to understand heyghtened feelyngs.

There seems to be mass confusyon vs. fetyshysm, causyng nothyng but negatyvyty'n peoples' mynds. People get beat up and kylled for theyr fetyshes because of cultural 'gnorance; or rather, cultural ethycs/laws whych are merely human and far from 'dyvyne' or kosmyk.



Runnyng out of tyme so wyll have to return for the rest (Jdosh). Thank you for sharyng your opynyons. Some very 'nterestyng 'nsyghts here! Keep't open!


Nykk

 

[Andrew1999]

Great thread. Good thought provoking. Am trying to post, nothing seems to-this is attempt

 

[Andrew1999]

Con't Everyone has done impressive job focusing on most important-wow! Would like to point out Jesus' response to LAW & OBSERVATION: He said the highest law was to love God completely. Then one MUST follow "Golden Rule". All other law descended from these, and that w/out following the 1st 2, you still sinner, etc.

 

[Andrew1999]

Con't: Therefore, valuing nit picky laws is as bad as sin in Gods eyes, if they have not fully embraced and lived the first two laws. For me, that says that those who build up whole "cults/sects" based on narrow, selective reading of Bible are full of B.S. & not to taken seriously. At best they are manipulative; at minimum liars w/ hidden agendas. Jesus was way more radical than most think.

 

[Andrew1999]

Con't: I hope this points to the hypocracy inherent in leaders & thoughtless, unreflective followers of all groups, religious or secular. Sorry for being dis-jointed-going fast so can post before each shut down.

 

[Bernkastel]

Even though I like morals and believe I have strong ones - I think such a thing is an illusion.

Everyone has a dark-side and there is usually some situation which cause that side to rise and hurt someone.

As I said, I believe I have strong morals and wouldn't do anything wrong. However, there have been times when my cold side appears - then I just don't give a damn: someone could be hurt or worse in front of me and if I'm in my cold mode I wouldn't bat an eyelid. During the time I'm like this, I could be extremely nasty and cruel as pointed out when my sister and I were having an argument. Fortunately though, I'm not in my cold mode often.

My point is, for everyone there is a trigger into that side of them that "doesn't give a crap about anyone else". When that trigger occurs, moral, reason and empathy disappear. We like to believe that we would stick with out principles and obey the law and whatever; but when that trigger occurs, we change our tune.

Conclusion - morals are just illusions.