Stepping outside morality

oneeyedsnake

Attractive Nun wrote:

However, I don't think it changes the fact that - whatever 'moral code' any of us might uphold - morality in reality is untangible and worthless. Did Hitler have a worse life or death than any of the Jews he killed? Does Idi Amin care that he's universally despised? Which is worse, to be brutally murdered by a serial killer or to be that serial killer, humanely killed on death row? Sure, stepping outside morality might marr our reputation and create hatred for us. But, if we can ignore the psychological effects as many of us can, what does all this matter as long as it increases our creature comforts? At the end of the day, we'll all end up as nothing. It's a frank and sobering thought, but as far as I can see it's the reality of an atheistic universe.

That, as far as I can see, sums up the original point quite nicely. In the universe which we inhabit, surely it is better to realise the reality of the situation, ie the above, and to live life accordingly, rahter than following some sort of moral code, and go unrewarded.

Zillah

Attractive Nun wrote:

Which is worse, to be brutally murdered by a serial killer or to be that serial killer, humanely killed on death row?

Thats kind of a fallacious argument. Sure you can point out plenty of people who weren't worse off because of their immorality, in the same way you can point out plenty of people who didn't get cancer after smoking heavily for fifty years. You can still say "Smoking will probably kill you" in the same way you can say "Being immoral will probably ruin your life".

Hudson4ever

-

Hudson4ever

-

Zombrex

Some ones account has been hacked

Zillah

Deadly.

5uspect

Where's the fun in hacking a 24 post account? Now to try and guess Ruu's password...

Hudson4ever

-

Dave!

I'm gonna try to hack Hudson4ever's account and then pretend to be the current hacker I'll post all manner of embaressing things! He'll have to register a new account just to post in this thread, telling everybody that someone's hacked the account he hacked! :eek:

You've met your match, buddy :cool:

Hudson4ever

-

Dave!

Good call! I hear this is a good place to act the b*llocks!

Zillah

Deadly.

karen3212

Zillah wrote: »

Deadly.

+1

Hudson4ever

I have now finished being a tool.
Back to your business...

Scofflaw

It's too small, people. Throw it back.

cordially,
Scofflaw

TheThing!

I have often stepped outside morality, and I can tell you that if you are able to get over any sense of guilt you may feel then the answer to the question "can acting immorally benefit your life" is a definite yes. So there you go

Scofflaw

TheThing! wrote: »

I have often stepped outside morality, and I can tell you that if you are able to get over any sense of guilt you may feel then the answer to the question "can acting immorally benefit your life" is a definite yes. So there you go

Ew...an FF voter.

repelled,
Scofflaw

stereoroid

Questions like this are why I try and emphasise the difference between Morals and Ethics, though some dictionaries may not agree with the lines I draw between them:

• Morals: codes of behaviour handed down to you from a superior of some sort, which you are expected to obey without questioning them. Examples: scripture, religious authority, parent/child, master/slave or teacher/pupil relationships.
• Ethics: the code of behaviour you are expected to conform to, as the price of membership in that community. You have a choice: accept the rules first, or leave the society - but you may (eventually) have a say in making those rules.

Key differentiator: the way Ethics are decided by your peers, and you (potentially) have a say in them. By "peer" I mean someone in your field, but not necessarily your equal in that field at all times. Factors such as experience and seniority can drive the consensus in a certain direction. Examples include medicine, engineering, this forum & the golf club, and I think this is a good model for society too.

In an ethical model, you are not in a position of submission to authority, without choice in the matter. If you don't want to play by the ethics of your chosen society, you may be able to leave (hand in your stethoscope), or go somewhere where the ethics are different. Gary Glitter's Thai excursions spring to mind. :mad:

Ethics are not foolproof, of course: look at the history of medical research on people and animals, for example, but you have to ask: why are some behaviours frowned on now, but were OK in the past? It's because Ethics are evolving, just as society is evolving, and it's sad to see some cultures (e.g. Islam) stuck with their 12th century Morals, refusing to evolve with the rest of the world.

As a side-point, I conclude that Morals can be a way to get children to behave... but they should naturally grow out of them, as part of the process of joining an Ethical adult society. So, teach your children carefully, or else they will remain children for ever!

TheThing!

Scofflaw wrote: »

Ew...an FF voter.

repelled,
Scofflaw

No, just a good old fashioned Nazi

Scofflaw

TheThing! wrote: »

No, just a good old fashioned Nazi

Phew.

relieved,
Scofflaw

TheThing!

Hudson4ever wrote: »

When I made this statement I was refering to the idea that seemingly altruistic actions are actually motivated by a selfish desire to experience the positive emotions associated with this. Take for example a person who devotes their life to charity work. People who do this often speak of the great sense of fulfillment they gain from their work. I believe that it is a desire to experience these sort of positive feelings, rather than a sense of altruism, which is the real motivation behind their actions.

Now there's a mindfvck

Dades

TheThing! wrote: »

Now there's a mindfvck

Only insofar as there is definite truth to it...
Which is worse - non-believers doing charitable things to make themselves feel better, or believers doing it to get into heaven?!

TheThing!

Dades wrote: »

Only insofar as there is definite truth to it...
Which is worse - non-believers doing charitable things to make themselves feel better, or believers doing it to get into heaven?!

No, you're right there, I cannot really flaw it as a position, its just a bit of a reversal of normal beliefs

PDN

Dades wrote: »

Only insofar as there is definite truth to it...
Which is worse - non-believers doing charitable things to make themselves feel better, or believers doing it to get into heaven?!

From the recipient's point of view I doubt that either is particularly bad.

Splendour

Hudson4ever wrote: »

I am in my late teens and I have recently made some serious decisions regarding my outlook on life. Firstly, I have decided that there is no god, and that religious belief is as dangerous as it is irrational. Secondly I have come to realise that all actions are ulitimately self serving and that there is no such thing as a completely unselfish action.

With these new ideas still fresh in my mind, I have found another interesting question raising itself more and more often. Most people derive positive feelings when they act in a moral manner, they feel good about themselves. Furthermore, people experience negative emotions when they act in an immoral manner. These people would be highly unlikely to sieze a chance to improve their position in life if it meant they had to act in an immoral manner to do so. This is my question: Is it better to live a moral life in order to avoid the negative emotions associated with immorality, or do the benefits of acting in an immoral manner when it would be advantageous to do so outweigh any possible negatives???

I would like to ask the question here as to how do you define morality? Who decides what is moral and what isn't.For example, I might decide that euthanasia is quite acceptable, wheras my neighbour might be horrified at the thought of it.


(Possibly taking things off track here, but it just sprang to mind)