The problem of morality - Page 2

On March 25 2016 13:30 TwoTrickPony wrote:
I don't really have any answers to this but I did get a question when reading what you wrote.

My question was what does moral mean? I looked it up in a dictionary but to be frank, the definition I got didn't clear anything up for me.

Also from Djzapz comments it came to mind that maybe objective and subjective are not so mutually exclusive? (people do live in reality after all, so even if we all experience it differently it is still within a shared whole).

I do agree that very often problems get "solved" in a way that doesn't solve them for very long. Pretty disturbing to think about sometimes.

Have you been struggling with this at all lately firehand101? I often think about this stuff when I have to go through it so mostly just wondering.

On March 25 2016 14:41 imgbaby wrote:


Great question. I think the moral decision is the one that brings joy and fairness, equality and freedom to all. Though each culture has its own ideas, and these are often subjective. This is cultural relativism

On March 25 2016 17:39 firehand101 wrote:


To answer DualTrickPony's question through imgbaby; morality is exactly the opposite of how he defined it.

A moral enforcement stems from immorality. There has to be a supreme power (The State/King/Ruler) that makes a rule which benefits them. To say 'Don't kill' is a moral rule, which can only be enforced by a ruling power which USED killing to gain the power they have, and now wish to protect themselves from violence USING violence (police etc). Killing itself is neither good or bad. Morality is just a tool for higher powers to enforce discipline and control over lower ones

Nietzsche's answer I think is to find your own morality, your own good and bad. Morality is neither good nor bad, it just IS. Morality is making a distinction between good and bad, and we ALL do this to some extent (ie moving your hand away from a hot stove, moving away from pain and into pleasure is your own morality)

I think the human race is at the stage now where they should not condemn morality (which I sort of did in the title, a mistake of mine I'll admit ) nor embrace and follow it completely, but UNDERSTAND what morality is and what it means. The state enforces 'don't kill each other' laws and 'don't rape each other laws'. It's time not to abandon these rules nor follow them completely, but to understand them. I have a very strong suspicion that once we start understanding morality, punishment etc, we will no longer HAVE THE NEED to kill and rape each other, because we understand ourselves. We are all one species, one race, one team, and it's high time we started acting like one.

In the same way rape is neither good nor bad, it just exists and we have to understand it, we have to understand morality also

On March 26 2016 00:06 TwoTrickPony wrote:


Wow, thanks for the answers.

Hmm, imgbaby's answer sounds more like where it begins and firehand101's answer is more about where it ended up.

Interestingly neither answer seems to indicate that morals are personal but instead are collective. That does seem like how it's most often talked about.

I agree very strongly that moral enforcement tends to end up becoming very abusive and exploited by the powerful.