Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login

Details

Closed to new replies
January 7, 2013
Link

Statistics

Replies: 111
:iconohno-moment:
Ohno-moment Featured By Owner Jan 7, 2013
So, what is moral authority? Are we not individually responsible for the setting our moral compass, or must we look to others?
Reply

You can no longer comment on this thread as it was closed due to no activity for a month.

Devious Comments

:iconaellawalker:
AellaWalker Featured By Owner Jan 9, 2013
Morality develops in social creatures. When we need each other, we come to the understanding that we shouldn't do wrong to others and in exchange they will not do wrong to us.
Reply
:iconhelge129:
Helge129 Featured By Owner Jan 9, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I see morality as society's way of controlling its members, and so, I don't follow morality. I follow basic human decency - treat others as you wish to be treated.
Reply
:icontdroid:
tdroid Featured By Owner Jan 9, 2013
Morals are a result of social interation between humans, which became much more complex around the time of the agricultural revolution. Humans became a stable species and could follow morals that wasn't directly a result of a need for survival, but for cooperation and unity.

As for morals today, I take secular morals over divine any day. Secular morality gives more equality and it doesn't discriminate against people who hold to another god than you, like so many "moral laws" handed down from gods have shown to do in human history. Even the Ten Commandmends are guilty of this, because they forbid other religions already in the first one listed. Make those law and you have a theocracy right away.

Where should we get our morals from? From a free marketplace of ideas, where everything can be scrutinized and questioned. If it is a good moral to have, like don't kill another human(with a few exceptions, like in self defense), it should, and in the case of my example have, easily stands the test if scrutiny.
Reply
:iconohno-moment:
Ohno-moment Featured By Owner Jan 9, 2013
Thank you. A thoughtful reply
Reply
:icontdroid:
tdroid Featured By Owner Jan 9, 2013
No problem, that is what I am here for.
Reply
:iconvaladix:
Valadix Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
My cat eats cat food
Reply
:iconmacker33:
macker33 Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2013  Student Traditional Artist
One thing is for sure, you cannot allow society be the moral authority, democracy does not make good moral choices.
Reply
:iconohno-moment:
Ohno-moment Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2013
I am with you on that. I don't think any organized society makes moral choices, they just make laws
Reply
:iconmacker33:
macker33 Featured By Owner Jan 9, 2013  Student Traditional Artist
Theyre too easily swayed, whats popular today will be unpopular tomorrow.
If you have the means they can be persuaded into believing anything,
Reply
:iconstoneman123:
stoneman123 Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I'll tell you what it is: a waste of time and brain-power. Why bother considering others when you can do as I do, and make all your decisions through the lens of personal gain? If an action is overall beneficial to you, you should not hesitate to do it. If that same action is harmful to someone else, why care? It shouldn't affect you at all. Making decisions with only economic considerations is a much more efficient way to secure personal gain.
Reply
:iconohno-moment:
Ohno-moment Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2013
You are a fan of Ayn Rand
Reply
:iconstoneman123:
stoneman123 Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I agree with some of her work, and disagree with some of it. I would not say I am a fan, and if someone accuses me of being an objectivist, I'll accuse them of jumping to conclusions.

I agree that it makes the most sense to pursue your own self interests above anything else, but I disagree with the idea that some people, by virtue of their superior intellect and capabilities, should be completely unrestrained by the fetters of society, so they can pursue their presumably much grander self interests with as little hindrance as possible. The problem is that people of superior intellect and capabilities are just assumed by Rand to be inherently nobler and more righteous than others, when that doesn't have to be the case at all. A person can be more intelligent than anyone else and still engage in antisocial behavior. Scientists, for example, have to follow the regulations of the FDA, lest they pursue their self interests at the expense of others. If there was no FDA, why bother testing drugs on rats, first?

So there's my thoughts on Ayn Rand's philosophy. Do you have any thoughts on mine?
Reply
:iconohno-moment:
Ohno-moment Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2013
I think you have sensible thoughts and i agree with many of them. I do not agree that it is always the best course of action to pursue one's own self interest. I get all mushy and spiritual along the lines of John Donne's "no man is an island". I believe that there is a divine in you that is one with the divine in me, in all.
Reply
:iconstoneman123:
stoneman123 Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Sure, no man is an island, but what does that matter? If a group of people can all profit from working together, then surely it is in their self interests to do so. That's what we call "civilization." A farmer doesn't grow crops out of concern for his fellow man, he does it for the money, or in other words, his own self interests.

Now what's this "divine" your talking about? In your context, it doesn't sound like a "deity," or anything else I've heard of.
Reply
:iconohno-moment:
Ohno-moment Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2013
Scientist will say that on a quantum level, everything is made out of the same stuff. The spiritual community takes that information and says that if that scientific fact is true (which I think it is although my quantum physics knowledge needs work)then everyone is also everyone else. Personally, I don't need quantum physics to support this idea, I go on what I feel which is put rather suciently by the expression, Namaste' "I honor the place within you where the entire Universe resides; I honor the place within you of love, of light, of truth, of peace; I honor the place within you, where, when you are in that place in you, and I am in that place in me, there is only one of us."
Reply
:iconstoneman123:
stoneman123 Featured By Owner Jan 9, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
When you say "everything at the quantum level is made of the same stuff," I'm not sure if you're referring to the fact that matter and energy are both composed of a finite selection of elementary particles, or some rendering of string theory. Either way, it's irrelevant, as the conclusion you draw from it is fallacious:

"everyone is also everyone else"

Nonsense. If you build a house out of bricks, and then build a library out of bricks, they are not the same thing, even if they use the same materials. If you were to build two identical houses from the same sort of materials, they would still be two distinct entities. Nor does that, in any way, warrant the sort of reverence you are applying to human beings. We do not contain the universe, or whatever that Namaste gibberish purports, and we are nothing more than matter and energy undergoing a series of highly complex reactions.

It is like dear old Democritus once said, "All that exists is atoms and empty space. Everything else is just opinion." The sentiment is correct, even though he failed to include energy as a thing that exists. To attribute any other qualities beyond those supported by physical science is not just unnecessary, it's outright absurd.
Reply
:iconohno-moment:
Ohno-moment Featured By Owner Jan 9, 2013
It is not my theory, just a theory that attempts to explain the scientifically rationalized way that we are all made of the same "stuff" so have connection on a quantum level.

Namaste _/\_
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconragerancher:
Ragerancher Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2013
Depends, you are responsible for your own views on morality and society as a whole is responsible for the views you are expected to conform to. Generally though the moral authority is the one who holds the most power in society. This is why religious institutions like to think of themselves as moral authorities, they've spent a long time having a lot of power.
Reply
:iconohno-moment:
Ohno-moment Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2013
So you are saying that the "moral authority" has not really been moral
Reply
:iconragerancher:
Ragerancher Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2013
What is considered moral is down to the individual. What society considers moral has been what the person at the top has said for a long time, mostly religious leaders. Killing is widely regarded as wrong yet people like the Aztecs would routinely slaughter people in the name of religion.
Reply
:iconohno-moment:
Ohno-moment Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2013
That is an interesting point
Reply
:iconnenril-tf:
Nenril-Tf Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2013  Student Traditional Artist
the staring sky on me, the moral law in me.

First of all moral is something individual, decided by the person, that represent his behaviour, not only with the others but also with himself, but onviously this is influenced by the social pact and the society.
Reply
:iconohno-moment:
Ohno-moment Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2013
I think you are correct and many sociologists will say morality is innate. Why it is innate is the debatable issue. Some would say survival of the group; others would attribute a more divine or spiritual origin.
Reply
:iconluxuryglasstinting:
luxuryglasstinting Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2013
Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior


__________________________
Car tint Los Angeles
Commercial tinting Los Angeles
Window tinting Los Angeles
Reply
:iconghostinthepines:
GhostInThePines Featured By Owner Jan 7, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
Well, even if you set your own morals, without having someone to hold you accountable to them, what's the point? Morals only work if there is such a thing as immorality.
Reply
:iconohno-moment:
Ohno-moment Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2013
Morality is more a personal code. Laws, enacted to force compliance with what is hopefully moral behavior (but not necessarily), are what has society holding individuals accountable.
Reply
:iconghostinthepines:
GhostInThePines Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
Laws still need to have people to enforce them.

Morals are worthless if there is no way for a person to choose between "right" and "wrong"... and without someone else whose opinion matters to you, what prevents you from choosing the "wrong" if it seems like the easier/more pleasureable route at a given moment?

People who live without morals tend to live in the moment. They don't care if they're behavior changes from one situation to the next, because they don't care what anyone else thinks.
Reply
:iconpippintookoftheshire:
PippinTookoftheShire Featured By Owner Jan 7, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
Morality is an instinct that evolved back when our ape-like ancestors began forming societies. The societies consisting of selfish people died out, leaving only the societies in which this selflessness, called 'morality' prevailed and immoral people were reprimanded. And so, morality.
Reply
:iconohno-moment:
Ohno-moment Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2013
So then morality is only a requirement of society's survival.
Reply
:iconpippintookoftheshire:
PippinTookoftheShire Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
Scientifically speaking, yes.
Reply
:iconohno-moment:
Ohno-moment Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2013
is there some other sort of speaking?
Reply
:iconpippintookoftheshire:
PippinTookoftheShire Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
Yes, albeit 'scientific speaking' being the most reliable in my opinion.
Reply
:iconohno-moment:
Ohno-moment Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2013
However, I am not sure how moral science is. Oppenheimer, after the development of the atomic bomb said he was brought to mind of a quote from the Bhagavad Gita, "Now I am Become Death, the Destroyer of Worlds". Sometimes important ideas get lost in the science.
Reply
:iconpippintookoftheshire:
PippinTookoftheShire Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
But morality is explained very well by the science, and the only 'important ideas' lost in it are the ones that are subjective and void of backing.
Reply
:iconblack-allison:
Black-Allison Featured By Owner Jan 7, 2013
Society. Once you do something that causes confusion or fear in society people will begin to point at you and say that you are a harmful person. Hence the most 'immoral' things in any society are always murder, rape, kidnappings, harming children, and robberies. They are things we do to other people. Comparatively ideas like suicide, promiscuity, drinking, drug use, wastefulness tend to be lesser sins in several societies around the world. I mean you ask "is sleeping around a bad thing?" you might get some nays and some yays, however if you asked "is cheating on my husband a bad thing" people will probably say it is, it's because it involves another party.
Reply
:iconohno-moment:
Ohno-moment Featured By Owner Jan 7, 2013
Are you then saying that society dictates our moral standards and an individual mostly goes along with those dictates?
Reply
:iconblack-allison:
Black-Allison Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2013
I'm saying the society we live in raises us to be aware of others and our laws are established mostly not to protect the rights of one man but to ensure the safety of many.
Reply
:iconohno-moment:
Ohno-moment Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2013
Societal laws are not necessarily moral. Laws are more for order in a society.
Reply
:iconwolfyspice:
WolfySpice Featured By Owner Jan 7, 2013  Hobbyist Artist
Self-aggrandisement.
Reply
:iconohno-moment:
Ohno-moment Featured By Owner Jan 7, 2013
And in your opinion, that is the only basis for morality?
Reply
:iconwolfyspice:
WolfySpice Featured By Owner Jan 7, 2013  Hobbyist Artist
Nope. I despise moral authority. ...Well, I despite arguments from authority in general, really.
Reply
:iconwolfyspice:
WolfySpice Featured By Owner Jan 7, 2013  Hobbyist Artist
Despise* What the hell is wrong with my brain today?
Reply
:iconder-freishutz:
der-freishutz Featured By Owner Jan 7, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
kantian ethics says that you find your morals through reason in finding your duty.
Reply
:iconohno-moment:
Ohno-moment Featured By Owner Jan 7, 2013
duty.
Isn't that what the nazis said when they built concentration camps?  Is morality that flexibly
Reply
:iconder-freishutz:
der-freishutz Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
Then their reason is flawed isnt it?
Reply
:iconohno-moment:
Ohno-moment Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2013
It was hate overpowering reason
Reply
:iconpearwood:
pearwood Featured By Owner Jan 7, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
I think that begs the question.
Reply
:iconder-freishutz:
der-freishutz Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
nah brah, its kant.
Reply
:iconcarusmm:
carusmm Featured By Owner Jan 7, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
I am responsible for who I am and no more.
Reply
:iconohno-moment:
Ohno-moment Featured By Owner Jan 7, 2013
I believe this is true, but somehow it doesn't quite seem enough in regard to one's responsibility to humanity.
Reply
Add a Comment: