Submitted For Your Consideration, JU

Discuss

So I thought it might be interesting and fun to put forward the following two questions for discussion:

Is morality the same in all times and places, or does it vary from time to time and place to place?

And

Is your moral code the one true moral code, and all others are wrong; or is your moral code one of many, all more or less equally true?


To get the ball rolling, here's my answers:

Morality is the same in all times and all places. It does not vary.

There is one true moral code, and all others are wrong. I seek this code, and try to live by it to the best of my understanding. I try to learn more about this code and understand it better.


If you're interested in discussing this topic, please comment on this article with your thoughts and feelings.

Thanks!

~fish
15,148 views 31 replies
Reply #1 Top
Hmmmmm I would agree with you. There is nothing new under the sun. As bad as we see our world getting morality speaking....it's not as bad as it was during the times of Sodom and Gommorah but I'm thinking we're getting close.

I also agree there is one true moral code although many would say our moral codes are subjective, to each his own. I also try to live to the best of my ability in following this code but fall woefully short at times in doing so. But we need to realize defeat is not falling down but in the staying down so I keep on trying to live up to it.



Reply #2 Top

Is morality the same in all times and places, or does it vary from time to time and place to place?

No it changes with the times, it use to be considered "moral" for your lord and master in feudal times to boink your wife before you did.

 

Is your moral code the one true moral code, and all others are wrong; or is your moral code one of many, all more or less equally true?

My moral code is one of many, what is right and moral for me, might not be for you.

Reply #3 Top
I would agree with you.  I would also agree that we are still seeking that one true moral code.
Reply #4 Top
Moderateman,

I don't think that "legal" automatically means "moral". It's entirely possible that nobody thought the law of "your lord and master in feudal times to boink your wife before you did" was moral, but rather either suffered under it because they had no choice, or brazenly implemented it because they had no accountability.

It's also important not to confuse the fundamental principles of morality with the customs which different societies evolve to uphold those moral principles.

If one of the principles of morality is "loyalty and devotion to a proper authority", then perhaps this law was a good custom evolved to promote this moral value.

Since then many customs have changed, and we would probably not consider such a custom to be proper expression of the unchanging moral principle.
Reply #5 Top
Guy's observation about seeking the one true moral code is dead on.

It reminds me of why I became a Mason.
Reply #6 Top
So... why did you become a Mason, thatoneguyinslc? I assume the gist of it is "to seek the one true moral code". Would you be willing to share some of the details of your choice?
Reply #7 Top
I agree with Stute. I believe that certain elements in life, such as morality, are universal concepts. Love, good, evil, sadism, authority, etc. are all constants that don't change over time. They are not subjective. For example, if there was a culture that believed that unprovoked murder was acceptable, the problem is not that we have different views on morality. The problem would be that they are wrong.

Of course, some of these concepts are less understood than others. Our interpretation of some may be open to debate (i.e. what is evil?). But I strongly believe that the concepts are constants and not subjective.
Reply #8 Top
I think there's lots of different moral codes. A couple are a waste of time but most have some value in them. It depends entirely on what you intend to achieve whether one is appropriate or not.

Mine is suitable to me at the moment, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to add or subtract tenets as time goes on. There should always be room in a moral code to learn something new.
Reply #9 Top
Cacto, when you say

It depends entirely on what you intend to achieve whether [a particular moral code] is appropriate or not.

It seems like you mean that a moral code is justified by the goal of the one who adopts it. Is my understanding correct?

I mean, if my goal were world domination, would it be morally correct of me to adopt a code that allowed for the assassination of rivals and the imprisonment or execution of dissidents?

Also, do you think there is a difference between a moral principle and a particular culture's customs around that principle?

I mean, a maiden of the south sea islands, bare-breasted and grass-skirted, may be every bit as true to the moral principle of modesty, according to the customs of her culture, as a Victorian matron buttoned up from ankle to throat and wearing a veil over her face. It seems to me that the underlying principle is the same in both cultures, even if the customs for expressing it are very different.

Reply #10 Top
thatoneguyinslc:

Just out of curiosity, can Mormons be Masons?
Reply #11 Top
I'm split on this one... In the eyes of God there is only one moral code and it hasn't changed since "In the Beginning..." On the other hand, there are God's laws and there are the laws and customs of man. If you are in a society where it is ok to steal, as long as you don't steal from members of your own clan, then your moral code will allow you to steal... but will God deem you innocent in the judgement. I know a lot of people who do things that I think are against the laws of God, yet what they are doing is completely acceptable in the eyes of society. So, I guess I'm saying that the morals set down by Our Father in Heaven don't change generation to generation, but the morals of Man do. Some might just brush that aside because they put one above the other, however, if you are obeying one but not the other, can you expect it to be ignored by the other?
Reply #12 Top
I think there is one, and only one true core moral code. I think if you look at all the major ones across all cultures and boundaries, you will find a core set of similarities. These are rules and morals that are almost bred into us (almost I say because people do deviate from time to time). The core of it all being "Be Nice" From that flows a lot of the more specific rules of human culture, such as don't kill, don't steal, give to those in need etc.

They get muddied, they get over complicated, they have meaning and mysticism wrapped around them to lend them more weight, but in the end I think the truth is much more simple than most of us are willing to give it credit for. These are morals and concepts that do not morph with current sensibilities or levels of tolerance. Those that are so maliable are obviously not strong enough to be core cultural values. Just look at the morphing attitudes on sex throughout all of human history. It comes and goes. It changes degrees depending on prevailing political and religious winds.

Murder though... that one stays pretty consistent.
Reply #13 Top
One true moral code?...Nah, don't believe it...my code is one of several...it is outdated, but I stick with it.

Morality is always changing....with the times and with different cultures.

Those are my answers...

~Zoo
Reply #14 Top
Is morality the same in all times and places, or does it vary from time to time and place to place?

An interesting question, and I'm sure after our other discussion my answer won't surprise you.

Morality is unique to each person. Even if a person subscribes to some "group think" morality (based on church, synagogue, mosque, whatever) they still have their own interpretation of just what that morality is. I think Plato (or was it Socrates?) would argue that MORALITY just is, and we couldn't describe it correctly if we tried.

Is your moral code the one true moral code, and all others are wrong; or is your moral code one of many, all more or less equally true?

My moral code works for me. I'd like to live up to it but, alas, there are times that I don't for whatever reasons and I have to deal with that. I think my moral code would be one of many and I'll stop there before writing a book
Reply #15 Top
www.buzzflash.com/farrell/04/05/far04017.html

... When you peek beneath the Manchurian Candidate’s fascinating plotline, however, you learn that it is not \"just a movie,\" but is based upon actual cases of government-sponsored brainwashing, torture, Nazi collaboration, bizarre interrogation tactics, biological warfare and cover-ups. And though such an assessment sounds like paranoid lunacy, a quick study of CIA operations like MK-ULTRA (mind control), Operation ARTICHOKE (extreme interrogation) and Operation Paperclip (the Nazis’ role in exporting both), along with their connection to the murder of Dr. Frank Olson, reveals otherwise.

In 1950, the U.S. government established the first program to develop human mind control techniques. Known under a variety of codenames (most notably MK-ULTRA) throughout its 23 year history, this program was designed to exert such control, according to declassified documents, that an individual would do another\'s bidding, \"against his will and even against such fundamental laws of nature such as self-preservation.\" 25 years later, the Rockefeller Commission uncovered CIA plans for \"programmed assassins\" and said that MK-ULTRA led to American citizens being drugged, kidnapped and tortured on American soil...



video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8243793086044653903
Reply #16 Top
.. When you peek beneath the Manchurian Candidate’s fascinating plotline, however, you learn that it is not \"just a movie,\" but is based upon actual cases of government-sponsored brainwashing, torture, Nazi collaboration, bizarre interrogation tactics, biological warfare and cover-ups. And though such an assessment sounds like paranoid lunacy, a quick study of CIA operations like MK-ULTRA (mind control), Operation ARTICHOKE (extreme interrogation) and Operation Paperclip (the Nazis’ role in exporting both), along with their connection to the murder of Dr. Frank Olson, reveals otherwise.


Of course, that is what THEY preprogrammed you to say, so you wouldn't remember what they REALLY did to you. ;~D
Reply #17 Top
Morality I believe varies from people to people.

For me morality would be what I feel is right and wrong,true and false, though theres no absolute truth, but what might be immoral for me might be moral for many and vice versa. So really cant say.
Reply #18 Top

www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer144.html


I have lost my sense of humor to indulge those who reflexively deny the role of conspiracies in human affairs. In the months following 9/11 – and most strenuously in the days leading up to the fifth anniversary of this event – conventional thinking has dictated that commentaries on that atrocity carry the disclaimer “I am not suggesting a conspiracy.” It seems to be understood that entrance to the temples of respectable journalism, academic scholarship, or polite society would be denied anyone who transgressed this canon.

It is not that a speaker must refrain from expressing any particular conspiracy theory to explain troublesome occurrences: one must avoid the implication that any form of human behavior might be directed or influenced by conspiratorial forces. To even consider the possibility that a given event might have been produced by a conspiracy, is to run the risk of being labeled a “paranoid” or a “wacko.” As we have no desire to appear foolish in the eyes of others, we give in to such intimidation and preface
our opinions with the aforesaid mantra.

How easily most of us sell out our intellectual integrity, and at distress-sale prices. Even men and women with excellent minds who should know better have collapsed in the face of such a charge. Do we have such a fear of our own minds that we can no longer stand up to the epistemological inquiry that is at the base of our character and intelligence: how do we know what we know? Upon what basis do we form our opinions about the world: the consensus of our neighbors, or our independent judgments?

Any intellectually respectable opinion must be well-grounded in empirical fact and rational analysis. I have no use for those who spin conspiratorial theories out of little more than fantasy, wishful thinking, or the failure to distinguish a temporal relationship from a causal one. The assumption that because event “X” occurred, and was followed by event “Y,” a causal connection has been established, is among the shabbiest forms of reasoning. One might just as well argue for the proposition that wet sidewalks cause rain. In fact, I have no use for conspiracy theories at all, preferring – as my late friend, Chris Tame, so well stated it – to focus attention on the facts of conspiracies! As annoying as those are who offer lazy, simple-minded explanations for complex events, I am far more aggravated by those otherwise intelligent souls who help to man the barricades of ignorance against honest and empirically-based inquiries into topics they have been told are beyond rightful questioning...


... What forces were responsible for the crimes of 9/11? Admittedly, I do not know, nor am I prepared to transform my skepticisms into accusations. Perhaps it is the lawyer in me that has this strange attraction to evidence as the basis for my empirical judgments. In employing the “cui bono?” test as a point of departure, I find only two groups which, in Inspector Morse’s question, seem to have benefited from these attacks: (1) Al Qaeda, and (2) the United States government. Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden have become a major political force in the world, in large part due to the Bush administration’s violent reaction to 9/11. But the American government – with its expanded police and military powers, increased military spending and the creation of new weapons, and the popular acceptance of the idea that people can be held, indefinitely, without trial – has benefited from this event by greatly expanding its powers. 9/11 was the product of a conspiracy, the only question being: who were the conspirators?

... But there is another factor – what I call “existential courage” – that must remain at the forefront of our efforts to live as human beings, rather than as servo-mechanisms to the institutional order. What kind of people are we that we should lay our liberties, property, and lives – including the lives of our children – at the feet of rulers, to be disposed of in any manner that suits their momentary temperaments? What have we become that we regard any questioning of this arrangement as the products of “irresponsible” or “paranoid” minds? Why should free and energized minds be fearful of asking any questions, particularly those we have been told it is improper to ask?


www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5pXSWcULbI&eurl=

Reply #19 Top
It seems like you mean that a moral code is justified by the goal of the one who adopts it. Is my understanding correct?


Pretty much. I believe that murder is wrong in all circumstances; others that it is okay in certain limited circumstances. Both can be argued as moral stances. Our goals define the extent to which our respective codes are justified. In that particular example limited murder is acceptable to the ideal of Justice whilst no murder appeals to the ideal of "Do not kill".

I don't consider either ideal to be more legitimate than the other. Both have their place in different people.

I mean, a maiden of the south sea islands, bare-breasted and grass-skirted, may be every bit as true to the moral principle of modesty, according to the customs of her culture, as a Victorian matron buttoned up from ankle to throat and wearing a veil over her face. It seems to me that the underlying principle is the same in both cultures, even if the customs for expressing it are very different.


Modesty was never really a factor of morality in Pacific island states until the coming of the Catholic Church. It never figured in their moral code, so I'm not really sure how there could be an identical underlying principle to Victorian London.

As another example Anglo culture values honesty in interpersonal relationships; Javanese culture values kindness. A Javanese person will lie blatantly rather than cause another offence. I don't see either moral code as being particularly wrong. They both work in different contexts for different people.
Reply #20 Top

Is morality the same in all times and places, or does it vary from time to time and place to place?


I don't know. I believe it is, but the source I base my belief on claims that morality did indeed vary from time to time.



Is your moral code the one true moral code, and all others are wrong; or is your moral code one of many, all more or less equally true?


I believe that the moral code I try to follow is the one true moral code for me. I also believe that there is one basic moral code for everybody (which is less strict).

But following logic all moral code are equally true.

(That does not mean that they all work equally well or that one cannot with good conscience choose one among them which is BETTER than the others.)

Reply #21 Top
Largest US Church says Bush behind 9/11


when did butler shaffer become the largest church in america? is he now tax exempt too?
Reply #22 Top

Anglo culture values honesty in interpersonal relationships; Javanese culture values kindness. A Javanese person will lie blatantly rather than cause another offence. I don't see either moral code as being particularly wrong. They both work in different contexts for different people.


That is a good point. On the other hand, I have always considered that this particular question falls under "politeness" not "morality".

I think it is impolite to lie rather than be kind or to be kind rather than lie (depending on one's view). I don't see how either would be immoral.

Reply #23 Top
i'm not sure the orig. poster actually believes as they preach...for example...

Morality is the same in all times and all places. It does not vary.There is one true moral code, and all others are wrong. I seek this code, and try to live by it to the best of my understanding. I try to learn more about this code and understand it better.

but in 2005, the poster saw putting up with greed and ignorance in Iraq as OK.

Even if you believe that the Bush Administration is acting out of greed and ignorance, it's clear that their greed and ignorance is having a significant positive side effect in Iraq.

greed and ignorance are having a positive effect? isn't greed at least considered amoral? is greed sometimes moral, and sometimes not?

i found a few other inconsistancies in reading some of your old blogs, but the point here is not to try to use your words against you, i am just looking for some clarification i guess.

as far as my own answer goes...i believe moralities in everyone's life are prioritized. one moral issue can be trumped by another that we hold as a higher priority. in the poster's discussion of the shaivo case, i believe he contended that where he found euthenasia to be amoral, he a) could see exceptions to that. and b) thought the morality of respecting the law and the judge's decision as a higher morality than imposing his personal beliefs.

i do believe these things can change for the individual over time, and as mentioned earlier, we are all (either conciously or unconciously) pursuing our own true "one moral code" throughout life.

just some thoughts....
Reply #24 Top
August 11, 2006

As the current Middle Eastern war threatens to engulf the entire World in Total War an escalating series of events in the United States are threatening to bring about the downfall of their Military Leaders.

In this past week, the Commissioner, Former Governor Tom Kean, tasked by the American President with heading the panel to investigate the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks upon the United States admitted that the investigation was a ‘whitewash’ in the release of his book titled \"Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission\".

This stunning revelation about 9/11 by Governor Kean was quickly followed by the largest Presbyterian Church organization in the United States placing direct blame for these attacks upon the American President, and as we can read as reported by the Malaysia Sun News Service, and as we can read:

\"The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)\'s publishing arm has released a book that says President Bush organized New York\'s Sept. 11 attacks. The decision by the 160-year-old Westminster John Knox Press, the trade and academic publishing imprint of the Presbyterian Publishing Corp., to attribute the attacks on the World Trade Center brings into the U.S. religious mainstream a conspiracy theory long held by the world\'s jihadists.

In \'Christian Faith and the Truth behind 9/11: A Call to Reflection and Action,\' author David Ray Griffin calls the United States the world\'s \'chief embodiment of demonic power, says he initially scoffed at 9/11 conspiracy theories. But after investigating he concluded that the Twin Towers were brought down by controlled demolition, military personnel were given stand-down orders not to intercept hijacked flights and the 9/11 Commission, ostensibly created to uncover the truth behind the events of 9/11, \'simply ignored evidence\' that the administration was involved in the attacks.

Griffin further asserts that such events such as that of 9/11 are part of a long history of \'false-flag attacks,\' attacks orchestrated by governments against their own people to garner popular support for military action.\"

In response to the increasing pressure being exerted upon them the Military Leaders of the United States are now engaged in a feverish effort to gain ‘retroactive’ protection from the US Congress against the war crimes they would be charged with should they lose power, and as we can read as reported the San Diego Union Tribune News Service in their article titled \"Proposed War Crimes Act protection for Bush administration would apply retroactively\", and which says:

\"The Bush administration drafted amendments to the War Crimes Act that would retroactively protect policymakers from possible criminal charges for authorizing any humiliating and degrading treatment of detainees, according to lawyers who have seen the proposal.\"

As we have also seen, and all too frequently, the news of these events and charges are being kept from the American people themselves by yet another of their self designed ‘terror alerts’, and which are thrown against these peoples for no other purpose than to keep them living in states of continued fear.

To the success of the Military Propagandists, currently in control of the United States media organs, in the deception of their own citizens it can be evidenced in a new poll just released that shows fully 30 percent of Americans don’t even remember the year that the September 11th attacks happened in.

It is no surprise therefore when we hear that the Western mindset that has so destroyed the great American peoples has now caused widespread mental illness in Japan, and as we can read as reported Britain’s Times Online News Service in their article titled \"Western values \'are causing mental illness\", and which says:

\"The rapid spread of Western business practices in Japan has caused widespread mental illness and is responsible for a deepening demographic crisis, government officials say. Statistics indicate that 60 per cent of workers suffer from “high anxiety” and that 65 per cent of companies report soaring levels of mental illness.\"

One can fully understand the words we had recently received from an American citizen living under that brutal regime, and who said, “Here in America we are Nation of idiots led by monsters”.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=reQZT9Hzvt8&eurl=
Reply #25 Top
Is morality the same in all times and places, or does it vary from time to time and place to place?


Actually I believe it varies depending upon the situation. Well, that is to say that we as rational human beings must make moral decisions. Killing another human being is pretty much accepted as being morally wrong, but to do so in defense of a helpless victim or in self defense is a moral decision that would be considered by most to be morally correct.

To stand by and do nothing while a helpless victim would be far more morally wrong in my opinion.

Is your moral code the one true moral code, and all others are wrong; or is your moral code one of many, all more or less equally true?


Yes, my moral code is the one true moral code and everyone who doesn't follow it is immoral. My moral code also states that everyone should be paying me tribute and failure to do so is a mortal sin. So pay up already!