Abandoned Forum

[nil]

What do you think about moral? Is it absolute where there's only one standard for all beings, penguins, kangaroos and alike or is it relative where every being on this earth has their own moral?

[plato]

If moral is relative than everything should be tolerated? Like a stinky skunk? or a poisonous snake? or even a hungry bear? or perhaps a murderous crocodile? That's the ultimate pluralism. Respect everything and tolerate everything. Is that what you want as a relative moralist?

On the other hand if moral is subject than only one value can be right. Like in the forest, the lion king rule them all. Yet with all the conflicting values in the forest which value should be adapt. The bear will maintain the bear value, the tiger will maintain the tiger value... And the only solution is that each kill the other and the winner can have all the value they like. Is that what you want as an absolute moralist?

[mouse]

Hello
I'm not much of a thinker. But I think we should all respect each others' views. I am a mouse. I like cheese. I think cheese is good. But I won't think illy of a cat who like fish and who think fish is good. Now, if that particular cat thinks mouse is what it like to eat, then it got a problem with me because I don't want to be it's dinner...

I like dinner but I don't like to be the dinner of someone else, does it make sense to you?

[Mysti]

i think morals are relative because everyone has a defferent conscience.

i don't eat meat but some people think it is ok to.
i don't smoke but some people think it is ok to.
i drink when i am with friends but some people think this is wrong.
i am a pacifist but some people think war is ok sometimes.
i am a believer in non-violence but some people think violence is sometimes ok.
i don't think abortion is ok but others do
i think marijuana should be legalised but some people do not. (i don't smoke weed though)
i make sure i recycle and turn off electrics when i leave a room but some don't
i wouldn't go to Oxford or Cambridge universities becuase they have animal testing labs but some people would go there regardless

we may not all have the same views but i accept them.
i think everyone has to find their own morals and live by them.

[plato]

And if some people who think their values are more superior than your values and they force you to accept their values. How can you live with those people?

And if some people who think war is OK wage war on you and your family, what will you do?

And even if you don't eat meat, but if somebody think you are tasty and want to eat you, what will you do?

How would you tolerate people who don't tolerate you?

[Mysti]

And if some people who think their values are more superior than your values and they force you to accept their values. How can you live with those people?
I do unfortunately! It's murder.

And if some people who think war is OK wage war on you and your family, what will you do?
I'm not sure. I've never had to go through this.

And even if you don't eat meat, but if somebody think you are tasty and want to eat you, what will you do?
Hopefully that won't happen...

How would you tolerate people who don't tolerate you?
Unfortunately this is something I have to deal with. It's hard. Especially then they throw their toys out of the pram.

[mouse]

I totally agree with you. I think we have to tolerate with everyone with different opinions too.

And I think it's easier when the world is bigger. It's easier to ignore other mice when they have their own space and I have my own space. It won't be that easy if we all trapped in a little laboratory cage and we have to fight each other for a little piece of cheese.

And it would be easier in a world with a bigger piece of cheese and we can all eat our cheese in our own way and we don't have to stand those who chew too loudly, or those who throw their cheese at us. Am I making sense? I hope I am.

[Mysti]

I like your analogy about the mice and their cheese. I think everyone should eat their cheese how they want to. Some like cheddar, some mozzarella, some are lactose intollerant, and some (like me) choose not to eat cheese at all. None of these mice are better or worse than the other.

[plato]

Mankind have our little moral sphere. The boundary of the moral sphere is drawn with the motto of "no harm, no problem". Within the boundary of the moral sphere, everything is relative, everything is tolerable.

But as soon as people leave the moral sphere (i.e. doing harms), things become very messy. We try not to think about them, until they bother us too much. Those are the serial killers, the terrorists, the cheese burglars.

Sometimes we try to re-invite those outside of the moral sphere to rejoin our little shell. Shall that fail, violence, the Final Means, is the only way to resolve the problem.

And the problem for modern day is we use the Final Means much sooner than things get very final, and sometimes we use the Final Means at the very beginning. We are not much smarter than a laboratory mouse.

[Insanity test]

Morals are the codes we live by, crated as a result of how the people we grew up with respond to events. A moral person is someone who acts in accordance with the opinions of those they have come in contact with. As such, morals are relative, being drawn from the general consensus, but not from one all-powerful source. Religious morals fall into this category as well, because despite the belief that the religious teaching is absolute, there will still be disagreements with other religions, with followers who believe just as strongly in theirs.

There are even people who have killed, yet still adhere strongly to their own moral code. Most of the world believes that to kill to prevent further death is morally acceptable and hence we have armies. Some believe that to kill to save someone is acceptable. Some believe that to kill to save someone's soul is acceptable. People who do this are viewed as extremists by the world at large, because they are small in number and the majority do not share their morality. But are these people any less moral?

There are some morals which could be viewed as absolute, for example to intentionally kill for no reason is wrong. Although there are people who will do this, they are an extreme minority and might be mentally ill or drastically misguided. But this moral is still the agreement of most of the population. Whether it is ingrained in our psyche from our birth is impossible to prove or disprove, so we can only view it again as relative, a decision made by our consciousness and reaction to life around us.

[nil]

That sounds very true.

We all share a small number of core morals. Any action against the core morals, e.g. committing murders or cannibalism, the resulting harms are immediate and indisputable. But even the core morals are mildly relative in nature (some culture consider volunteer cannibalism acceptable). But it is close enough to absolute that we can simply call it absolute morals.

But a large number of morals are optional in nature. They are ambiguous and varies from culture to culture, time to time. Like the flag burning or the definition of obscenity. There's isn't any right or wrong for these morals. The harms, if any, are disputable and ambiguous. A lot of these should be considered with an open mind. Just because we think so doesn't mean it's right for everyone.

[BlackOpal]

Morality is somewhat archetypal.
We've got the basics: don't kill, don't steal, don't hurt anyone.
Animals even use them to a certain extent. You basically do what is good for your species and don't harm anyone further. There's only a few animals that kill for the sake of it.

Morality is absolute. Whether you believe in a certain religion or science or both, we either were created with a set of morals or we evolved with some that helped our species survive. There are things that all people consider right and all people consider wrong (with a few exceptions).
Morality is relative. Everything changes and every person has their own slightly different opinion. Do you consider a person who believes that you should never steal is evil when you believe that stealing is okay when a person is starving? No. Our morality has evolved throughout time.
Morality doesn't exist. Humans invented it, really. We made a code that we live by, while most of us are certain that it is right we can never truly know. We don't know where we came from or where we're going, so why should we know that what we are doing and what we believe is absolutely right? Our minds understand so little of the word. Maybe there's some sense of reasoning that escapes us for the moment, just as the idea that all races were equal didn't cross many people's minds for many years.
Morality is... I don't know.

That post was much to short to get my point across. But maybe somebody will understand.
Maybe. XD

[lifeis42]

i understand your point but personally i be lieve morals are from God not relgions

[Insanity test]

Morality doesn't exist. Humans invented it, really.

Yeah, that's kind of what I was getting at. They are a term we've pinned to a way of life we preffer. We act as we see best, believe others should as well, so teach them the codes we've created. Hence they are relative.

[TheCountess]

I am in agreement with BlackOpal and Insanity Test. As for nils original question, I really don't think morals can be applied to animals simply because I believe they are created by humans. Knowing how contrary humans can be, I imagine some morals are even against the natural order of things.

For example, nature dictates that men impregnate as many women as possible so as to spread their genes and ensure the survival of the species, while a womans role is to keep the man around as some form of protection from sabertooth tigers and the like. But in the world today most people support the idea of monogamy. It is generally considered wrong for a man or woman to cheat on their partner. I even agree with this moral. But it is a little unnatural.