Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 4:12 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Let's talk about morality
#1
Let's talk about morality
So, I made a very general and broad title for this thread, because I didn't want one of those situations to arise where I get bottle necked by the title of the thread when trying to describe the things I describe in the OP. Because this is a very broad topic, which I know at this very moment will probably incite a lot of rage in a lot of people. My very purpose of making the thread though, is to try to take what it is that makes people angry about this particular topic and examine it. Ultimately I think real question is, can we determine whether or not what it is that invokes that rage is actually justifiable or even necessary?

So, what I have is a very controversial opinion on the Brock Turner case, we'll just use that as an example. It applies to everyone though. I look at people like brock turner, and I look also simultaneously at the justice system. To be frank, I think that we mix justice with our emotions, we add our malice towards a person in our verdict to their punishment and ultimately demonize that person for their actions. What I have a problem with is the demonization of people for their actions. I think that adding your own emotions to the way that you feel about someone based on their actions is superfluous though. I think that's unfair.

Now, I know that what I just said probably makes it look like I don't really understand the brock turner case. This is where I hope to convince you that I actually do. I realize that the reason people are upset about the brock turner case, is because ultimately it shows imbalance in our justice system. It shows that people like brock turner get away with so much, while some black person who got arrested for smoking pot basically goes to prison and gets a shit deal. That's absolutely true, but the point that I am trying to get to, is that I wonder at what point we stop looking at it as a matter of whether or not a person is worthy of punishment, to a point where we ask whether or not punishment is really fair in the first place.

Now, of course I'm not a nihilist. I realize that there has to be some form of control in our society otherwise it would basically collapse. In that sense, I don't necessarily support the status quo, I'm saying that what we have does do some good in a sense, but in another sense it basically needs to be thought of in a different way. This is one of the major points that I would like to get to. We can also look at something like slavery, and say that slavery is something which could benefit a lot of people, but at the same time people are enslaved and that's inhumane. What I think the ultimate thing I want to try to argue is, is if we can get past all of these arbitrary moral rules of society, which essentially are just there to help society function, can we have sympathy for a horrible psychotic criminal.

I would say absolutely yes, we can have sympathy for this sort of person. Now, I'm not a scholar on religion at all, but I know that even in religion, for hundreds of years the idea with sympathy for the devil has been tossed around. The dogma of religion obviously is put there because fundamentally, there is nothing which tells people objectively that they have to do something, whether it's right or wrong. This obviously puts people into categories of 'good' and 'evil'. Evil person do good, bad person do bad. I don't mean to patronize you with these details, but I want to point out that this sort of thinking is what operates with the whole "no sympathy for people who do evil deeds" thing.

Now that I've got past a lot of the explaining, I would just like to speak directly from the heart. I think that it's a shame that people can't sympathize with all sorts of people. I don't hate brock turner, I don't hate isis, I don't hate hitler. I think it's basically the same thing as getting into fights with your parents. Ultimately, you can believe you hate them, but you can just as arbitrarily turn around and say that you love them just as much. You forgive these people regardless of anything, really. And I've been scrutinized for having this belief, so many times. I want to go beyond the good and bad dichotomy, and beyond the question of whether or not forgiveness is a virtue, and say that there really is no good or bad person. Every person is simply a result of their upbringing, the affairs that surround them, and their inherent biological makeup. 

I think that brings us, finally, to the question of whether or not free will exists. The argument, I suppose, would be that if a person is responsible for their actions, then they should be somehow condemned to punishment. I don't even see how this makes sense, I don't see what punishment necessarily accomplishes. I think that punishment itself is just sort of a feel good defense mechanism, for people who want to self righteously see other people suffer for the bad deeds that they've committed. I think ultimately, having any sort of moral opinion over another person at all, is pompous. I think not being humble, and not reserving judgment on other people, is not only distasteful in terms of character, I think that objectively it's irrelevant to the moral landscape which the people making the judgment inhabit. Meaning, that point of view is immaterial to the world surrounding you.

Now, if by this point I have riled you up, then I have probably failed to make a point in my argument. I have probably enraged some of you to the point where there is no arguing with you anymore, and no one's points of views will ever be changed, and the whole thread has become a miserable failure. However, I don't really care, I have beliefs which I believe in, and I like having my beliefs challenged with unemotional, cold hard factual logic. I want to summarize what I said again, but I am going to avoid doing so that people can't just skim to this very last paragraph to try to get a sense of what I'm saying instead of actually reading what I say. I hope this discussion on morality is fruitful, and leads to some enlightening discussions.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Beauty, Morality, God, and a Table FrustratedFool 23 1756 October 8, 2023 at 1:35 pm
Last Post: LinuxGal
  Is Moral Nihilism a Morality? vulcanlogician 140 10153 July 17, 2019 at 11:50 am
Last Post: DLJ
  Subjective Morality? mfigurski80 450 34894 January 13, 2019 at 8:40 am
Last Post: Acrobat
  Law versus morality robvalue 16 1327 September 2, 2018 at 7:39 am
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Banned TED Talk: The Science Delusion - Rupert Sheldrake Angrboda 78 8441 July 27, 2018 at 1:47 pm
Last Post: Angrboda
  Let's talk about bias!!! Quick 51 5764 May 14, 2018 at 9:54 pm
Last Post: chimp3
  Objective morality: how would it affect your judgement/actions? robvalue 42 8219 May 5, 2018 at 5:07 pm
Last Post: SaStrike
  dynamic morality vs static morality or universal morality Mystic 18 3501 May 3, 2018 at 10:28 am
Last Post: LastPoet
  Can somebody give me a good argument in favor of objective morality? Aegon 19 4409 March 14, 2018 at 6:42 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Let us go back to "cold" hard logic."Time" Mystic 75 11176 November 10, 2017 at 6:29 pm
Last Post: bennyboy



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)