Morality... is it black and white or by degrees? (self, society)

[cb2008]

Originally Posted by BigCityDreamer

It is very difficult for a man to not be attracted to beautiful women.

I don’t care what any philosopher says.

That is where I think morality falls apart for most.

Morality does not fall apart, YOU fall apart We are always in control of right action, and we know what right action is. It is not the woman who cause the failure, it is the ego, the small self.

[king john IV]

"Are you nonsensically suggesting it’s immoral to be attracted to a beautiful woman?"

let me get my wife's opinion on that.

[CorporateCowboy]

Originally Posted by BigCityDreamer

It is very difficult for a man to not be attracted to beautiful women.

Originally Posted by BigCityDreamer

That is where I think morality falls apart for most.

Originally Posted by CorporateCowboy

Huh? Are you nonsensically suggesting it’s immoral to be attracted to a beautiful woman?

Originally Posted by king john IV

let me get my wife's opinion on that.

Immorality is a state of being relative to behavior; physical attraction is a natural process. In other words, cheating on your wife relative to such would certainly be considered immoral by most. However, it’s nonsensical to assume ‘morality falls apart’ relative to an attractive woman, as if we have no control over our thoughts or actions.

[Sonic_Spork]

I believe that what we think of as "right and wrong" is built and based on a few different factors.

To me, the best and most meaningful one is simply, "pro social behavior." If you want a stable society in which people can thrive, specialize, share resources and ideas and innovations for the good of all, compete in ways that promote the common good rather than in ways that are destructive... You've got to have a system of rules that we all agree to live by. And some means to deal with the outliers who refuse to follow them.

Then there are systems simply based on power and control hierarchies. Someone manages to convince the other humans that he's a Very Big Man who should be in power. And in order for him to maintain and grow his power, he must have the cooperation of his society. Usually the requirement is that the individuals labor and breed on his behalf, enforce his supremacy and give the products of their labor to him, in exchange usually for protection from the Other Big Men who are bad. This is typically run by fear and threat of violent force. Often supplemented with a heavy dose of rationale about why Our Society is better than the Other Societies, with a saturation of lore and mythos and superstition to fall back on, lest anybody question it. Examples of the Big Men could be the richest capitalists, the dictators and authoritarians, the heads of religion, or even military generals or warlords who seize power in some places. Unfortunately I have yet to see a single society of any meaningful size that has not wound up working this way, with Big Men who fancy themselves ranchers managing the human herd. Some are just more overt about it than others.

Having never respected figures who claim authority and power very much, I tend to rebel against and question rules that don't have a lot to do with pro-social motives, and are more about sustaining power structures. "Because I said so" has never carried weight with me. Not as a kid, not now. At best I will play along while thinking that such a thing is stupid, because I know I stand to gain from humoring someone and cooperating (such as when my boss at work wants to rearrange the cubicle assignments for the office, for no good reason that I can see, or make us do "mandatory fun" or something. Sure...whatever.)

At the individual level, my ethics aren't based on an arbitrary question of black & white, right & wrong. I accept no religion or moral system that demands that kind of blind obedience. I need to understand the "why" of it. If the "why" is to set aside my own immediate gratification or personal self interest for a greater good that effects us all, or the sake of an orderly society, I'm on board. No problem. If it's just a "because I said so" from some authority past or present with no better rationale than that? Forget it.

It's pretty easy to obey traffic signals so that we can all be safe on the road. Not as easy for me to strictly adhere to the speed limit on a highway with perfect conditions, zero traffic (I mean completely clear for many miles with excellent visibility and flat terrain) and confidence in my vehicle and driving abilities...when I know that if something did go wrong, the difference between 70 mph and 75 is going to be negligible and I'll be the only one who suffers the consequences. It ends up discarded as a "because I said so" arbitrary number. If other drivers are around me on the road though? I will drive more safely, because "pro social behavior."

Where I really see a problem is where societal power and privilege grants greater immunity to break pro social ethics without consequence. I believe that the employer who commits wage theft...someone, whoever was responsible, should be punished more harshly for that, than the homeless man who steals a can of SPAM. Or the judge who takes bribes, or the politician who steals campaign funds for his own personal lifestyle spending, or the head of a charity who lies about the use of donations and grifts philanthropists for his own gain. Mostly though I believe in prison for violent crime more as a means to remove threats from society so that they cannot continue to harm society or to separate them out for rehabilitation if possible. I don't believe in a great sanctity or sacredness to life for life's sake. I think that if a violent criminal (murderer, rapist, molester) is definitely and certainly guilty and can't be rehabilitated then we'd be better off finding a humane way to end them, than warehousing them or exploiting them for labor in a prison. Not as punishment. We're all going to die one day. But just as a simple solution.

Actually I'm not that into concepts of punishment, retribution, or deserved suffering at all. I'm more just about practical handling of matters...those who misuse power should not be permitted to keep it. Those who misuse their lives to harm other human lives with violence, in the most egregious of ways, if it can be most solidly proven that they are guilty...well, I see no reason to leave the rest of their years in their own hands, but also no reason for them to be ended in a painful way. No more suffering. Just lights out.

[BigCityDreamer]

Originally Posted by CorporateCowboy

Immorality is a state of being relative to behavior; physical attraction is a natural process. In other words, cheating on your wife relative to such would certainly be considered immoral by most. However, it’s nonsensical to assume ‘morality falls apart’ relative to an attractive woman, as if we have no control over our thoughts or actions.

It is hard to control. I’m approaching my mid-50s and I haven’t lost any drive at all.

I’m starting to wonder if this is even normal. Maybe it’s genetic or something.

[CorporateCowboy]

Originally Posted by BigCityDreamer

It is very difficult for a man to not be attracted to beautiful women.

Originally Posted by BigCityDreamer

That is where I think morality falls apart for most.

Originally Posted by CorporateCowboy

Huh? Are you nonsensically suggesting it’s immoral to be attracted to a beautiful woman?

Originally Posted by CorporateCowboy

Immorality is a state of being relative to behavior; physical attraction is a natural process. In other words, cheating on your wife relative to such would certainly be considered immoral by most. However, it’s nonsensical to assume ‘morality falls apart’ relative to an attractive woman, as if we have no control over our thoughts or actions.

Originally Posted by BigCityDreamer

It is hard to control. I’m approaching my mid-50s and I haven’t lost any drive at all.

I’m starting to wonder if this is even normal.

If you’re stating your morality ‘falls apart’ because you can’t control your behavior, it would suggest impulsivity i.e. sensation-seeking (and, correct, it isn’t ‘normal’). It’s a matter of mental health at that point, not morality or philosophy.

[thriftylefty]

Morality is based on an individual's knowledge of right and wrong. Society can’t function if we have too much discretion in this area. That’s where the rule of law comes into play. The rule of law establishes mitigating factors IMO because humans are inherently aggressive and self serving.

Around the 1970’s in Kansas City Kansas there was a man in my neighborhood who was shot and killed for trying to sneak out of a corner store without paying for a can of tuna. The hungry man paid the price for too many people shoplifting in this establishment.

[ClaraC]

Originally Posted by CorporateCowboy

Huh? Are you nonsensically suggesting it’s immoral to be attracted to a beautiful woman?

I think we've all heard people say it's a sin to feel lust for a woman who's not your wife. Jimmy Carter, for example, made a statement on that.

Other people believe that thoughts aren't "immoral", but it's the behaviors are, which I agree with.

[ClaraC]

Originally Posted by BigCityDreamer

It is hard to control. I’m approaching my mid-50s and I haven’t lost any drive at all.

I’m starting to wonder if this is even normal. Maybe it’s genetic or something.

I'm curious by what you mean by "it's hard to control". If you're concerned that you may not be able to control your behavior, that's certainly a concern.

If you're wondering if lustful thoughts are "even normal", um, yes, they are. Way way into old age. That's where the cliche "dirty old man" comes from.

[CorporateCowboy]

Originally Posted by ClaraC

I think we've all heard people say it's a sin to feel lust for a woman who's not your wife. Jimmy Carter, for example, made a statement on that.

Other people believe that thoughts aren't "immoral", but it's the behaviors are, which I agree with.

I was speaking in response to BigCityDreamer re: physical attraction vs. acting on such, as below. Point being, we have control over our actions whereas he is speaking to impulsivity. That said, noticing an attractive woman does not translate to lust, lol.

Originally Posted by CorporateCowboy

Immorality is a state of being relative to behavior; physical attraction is a natural process. In other words, cheating on your wife relative to such would certainly be considered immoral by most. However, it’s nonsensical to assume ‘morality falls apart’ relative to an attractive woman, as if we have no control over our thoughts or actions.