Morality is in the eye of the beholder.
True
Side Score: 3
|
 |
False
Side Score: 2
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
What are morals? How can one possibly define a concept which is loosely interpreted over nearly every society in the world. Take, for instance, the Sambia people. They believed that, for the purpose of reproduction, children must ingest semen. They had a rather intriguing ritual in which a boy of about 6-10 would fellate older boys to cleanse themselves of females' pernicious influences. That, to modern society, would be repulsive. We even have a term for it, 'pedophilia'. But, to them, that was survival. Everybody has their own set of morals. While many are based on religion, they can be accepted by nonreligious people. Morals differ from one person to another - what I consider moral you may consider outright immoral. I'll give you an example: Flight of the Phoenix 2004 remake had a scene where a man had been shot. They had two options: 1. Give him water at the expense of everybody else, even though he probably won't live. 2. Kill him, either by letting him slowly exsanguinate or by shooting him dead. I would choose number 2. To me, morality is to let the greatest number of people live, even at the expense of others. In a phrase, I believe in the saying 'The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few'. You, on the other hand, may believe the exact opposite. Does that make you immoral? No - it just means that your morals differ from mine. That does not make them any less valid. 1121 days ago | Side: True
"That, to modern society, would be repulsive. " At the cost of seeming pedantic I would just like to point out that the Samba are modern. That is they exist at the present time and are thus our contemporaries. To use the term 'modern' in any other context (i.e. t imply that they are in some way backward/primitive) is to merely engage in ethnocentrism. 1061 days ago | Side: False
1
point
|
1
point
I disagree. Humans are born hardcoded with a conscience. The perceived lack of morals arises from damage. There is no emotionally healthy individual that would respond differently than with disgust if they witnessed a murder. The idea of morals is loosely based on a divine set of rules (all religions and spiritualities attempt to share). The situation you described isn't a moral dilemma, but a logical one. Were the choices help someone or help yourself, you would have a moral dilemma. Either of these choices excercise upstanding morals as they both rely on helping, hence one must excercise logic to differentiate the alternatives. Your other example of the pedophilia has little to do with morals as the base moral code is bypassed in favor of survival beliefs cemented through tradition. Had the alternatives been get sucked off at the expence of the little boy or get yourself off at the expence of energy, you would again have a moral dilemma. Culture, religion, belief, memes and societal norms stifle base morals and ethics through normalization and "education", it doesn't mean that one can't arrive at a moral code, it means the world is replete with hurt and misinformed individuals. 1119 days ago | Side: False
|
