Code of Ethics and Morality Bullsh*t

I was thinking about the concept of right and wrong, and what is "morally" accepted in the public. As each new generation arrives, more and more things are becoming acceptable to the general public. Like being more sexual and what not. What a person believes to be right might be wrong to another, and what you think of is right and wrong is usually derived from your parents correct? So when a person thinks of wrong and right, they're just basically thinking of what feels comfortable for them. If they feel that this or that is unfair or unreasonable, they would find that to be "bad". If the person believes that something makes them feel comfortable, they would believe that is good. So basically what a human believes is morally correct is derived from their own selfishness. In the end, it's for their own convience. I'd like someone to counter my new perspective.

I apologize(that's the only thing I seem to be doing) if the topic is not up to class to Fakku Standards and if the topic is not easily understood.

I disagree, as many morals and ethics have some sort of basis in reality.

Example: Fucking everything that moves isn't good for one if he wants to maintain his healthy, STD-free state. Sure, he may have done so up until now and been fine, but the longer the continues the further his chances of getting infected shoot up. On top of that, many aren't responsible with their wanton sex, which leads to unwanted children and can break relationships, friendships, and families, and cause hard feels between people for the rest of their lives.

When you look at it that way, you can see why "unrestricted" sex has been and in some cultures is still looked down upon.

It largely depends on if you want to be optimistic or pessimistic.

If you want to be pessimistic, you can say that individual morality is defined by a person's wants and nothing else and is completely selfish. But if you want to be optimistic, you can say that a person's moral code is defined by what a person wants, and often, a person wants things that will benefit more than just himself, and thus, his morality is not purely selfish.

Let's use stealing as an example:

Pessimistic - You say that stealing is wrong because you don't want people to steal from you. Selfish.
Optimistic - You say that stealing is wrong because you don't want to see people get their stuff stolen. Loving.

It is important to remember that just because something benefits you, that does not make it selfish. If I help my friend move because I don't want to feel guilty about not helping a friend, then I'm not being selfish, am I? If I save someone's life simply because I don't want to see people die, is that selfish?

@kisuke: hmm...and how's that being based in reality? Imo even the issues of responsibility etc is ultimately an issue of convenience. The society as a whole proceeds more smoothly with certain traits, and so favors those traits. It's all in the end just a more "balanced" way of seeking pleasure and avoiding pain. In what way that is based on reality? Or a better question imo would be...what is the reality you claim you're basing your morals on?

I agree with elder that this issue is hardly debatable...but I do think that deriving morals from past experience and our surrounding is selfish. To me it's an inevitable selfishness, done so that we at least have our selves.

The thing is, though, if things get fucked up while this person is out having sex with someone, there can be nasty consequences. Let's say that our hypothetical goes and sleeps with this new girl he ran into. Unknown to her, she has an STD. He catches said STD, and through the next weeks during his usual rounds of sex with various partners, he spreads it all over the place. There are now 4+ people that now have that STD that wouldn't have if the guy could have kept his dick in his pants or stuck to a single partner.

THAT is why at least that moral has some sort of base in reality. Spreading STDs all over the place is something that society and the human race as a whole would want to avoid, no?

Of course, that doesn't even touch on the issue of fidelity in marriage and the like.

I'm not thinking very well, damn insomnia. Anyway, I'm a very cynical person so I suppose I was thinking pessimistically . About the second paragraph in quotation, heres what a prick would view it as. "Helping my friend does not benefit me. It just makes me waste my energy." Of course helping your friend is not selfish. But in no way does that seem to benefit a person other than "not feeling guilty".

It is possible to feel happiness simply from seeing your friends and loved ones happy. Many times, I have done something that did not benefit me in any way, but I was happy to do so because it made a person I cared about happy. This is going to sound corny as hell, but I can't find a better way of saying it right now - sometimes, seeing another person's smile is enough to make you feel good about doing something.

Too often, I think, people view morality and selfishness as a black and white issue, when it's really more of a yin and yang thing. There's selfishness with a bit of altruism and altruism with a bit of selfishness.

I happen to agree with zero,I believe it is more of a matter of opinion their is no such thing as right and there is no such thing as wrong. It all comes down to a matter of perspective.

@kisuke: from how I read it...all you're saying is that it is inconvenient for a society with STDs everywhere...not to mention to the person who have them. so naturally as a being who're scared of pain and suffering, people say yada yada to activities that are making them vulnerable to STDs. still sounds like nothing above the issue of convenience...well, of course that's the way it is in real life.

That's not quite true. It falls into the nature vs. nuture situation. No matter how selfish you are, a part of your morality is going to be structured based on your environment, like HentaiElder said. Selfishness only destroys "weak" morals when they become inconvenient. Most kids have the same morals as their parents, but if those morals aren't firmly established, then the child will simply create their own later in his/her life.


But the question becomes "Do you help them become happy because it makes you feel happy?" If so, than couldn't that also be considered a selfish action?

When you think about it you are speaking from an atheistic point of view, there are other points of view that really do impact morals such as religion but I'm not going to get in a debate on religion here. I'm just pointing out that the general masses, of the public's, point of view on there morals is brought about by a religious upbringing.

The point I'm trying to get across is that some morals exist to encourage the health and happiness of humans as a whole.

As for my personal stance, I don't see it as a matter of inconvenience. I don't enjoy seeing --anyone-- suffering and would much rather have those surrounding me in good health. To me, it's not just a matter of what happens to me, but also what happens to others.

The morals an individual gains from their parents and other outside sources are harnessed by everyone, like it or not. What changes these morals is how the person reacts to the world around them. The morals that they once used could either be reinforced or dis-proven by them simply living. This constant test of character by the outside world allows each person to decide their own values based on what they have come to believe is right, thus allowing them to establish a clearer view of the world.

Granted selfish actions may spur these events at one point or another, but it is more often than not experiences that change your perception of morality and such.

Some morality seems arbitrary, and is dependent on a person's environment, religion and society and your parents and all that, but there are some aspects of what we would call morality that are really instinctual and just what is best for everyone. Like not killing just for the sake of doing it. We evolve instincts to help our species and tribe survive, and they become part of general morality. It doesn't all come from one place.

Ethics and morality are the inventions of human beings to better predict and modify the behavior or their neighbors. The same is true with laws. Different countries and different time periods had completely different views on the same topic and each had justified reasons for those views. There is no right or wrong.

[size=10]Simple, people can be selfless as well. My morality and sense of what's right and what's wrong; Upon whether I see a smile on someone's face or not after my actions.[/h]

Again, it depends on if you want to be pessimistic or optimistic.

If every single action we took was judged to be selfish if it made us happy, then everything we did would be selfish. Even if it helped us only a little and helped another person a lot.

If I donate a kidney to a cousin, could that be considered a selfish act? Sure, I could be respected by others for doing something seen as selfless, but what if that wasn't why I did it? What if I did it simply because my cousin needed the kidney? Yeah, it can be argued that I want the cousin to live, and that is selfish, but what if my cousin wants to live as well? I would be hurting no one but myself, so could it still be considered selfish?

I still don't see how this applies. A person can be either and still have the same moral values. Both can still be selfish.


Yes. You would be donating your kidney to avoid possible guilt over not having done so and to avoid the pain of loss. It's not just a matter of respect/social status/whatever. What if he said he wanted to die, but was not of legal age to make such decisions himself? If he told you he wanted to die, yet his parents wanted you to donate a kidney for him to live, what then?

I say it's a matter of optimism versus pessimism because you're pretty much going to pick one side before trying to figure out if something is selfish or not. Pessimistic, you're going to see every action taken by a person that benefits that person as selfish. Optimistic, you're going to see that some actions are not selfish, even though the person who takes those actions does benefit.

I mean, don't all actions taken by a person benefit him/her in some way? I think some philosopher put it as, "No man will willingly do harm to himself." So, if all actions done by a person benefit him/her in some way, that would mean that all actions are selfish, if we say that an action is selfish if it benefits the person doing the action.


Yes. You would be donating your kidney to avoid possible guilt over not having done so and to avoid the pain of loss. It's not just a matter of respect/social status/whatever. What if he said he wanted to die, but was not of legal age to make such decisions himself? If he told you he wanted to die, yet his parents wanted you to donate a kidney for him to live, what then?[/quote]

If I donated my kidney to avoid guilt, it might be a selfish act. If I donate it just because I don't want my cousin to die, it might be a selfish act. But what if I donate it for a different reason? What if I simply feel that I have a responsibility? I have a working kidney, my cousin needs a kidney, and I can survive without one of my two kidneys. What if I just want to give him my kidney?

I think it all boils down to one question: Is it possible for an action to not be selfish? If no, then there's no need to discuss actions and scenarios, because they will always be selfish, no matter the outcome for either side.