Code of Ethics and Morality Bullsh*t

Then you are selfish because you want to avoid the repercussions of NOT living up to that responsibility and also because you would ignore the feelings of others.


This leads into my point explained below.


And that's exactly how I see things. It is possible to not be selfish, but it would require a completely spontaneously made decision so as to be equivalent to a dice roll or coin flip.

I think I'll end my involvement in this topic here since it occurred to me that I'll just point out the selfishness in every situation presented to me, and that wouldn't be conductive to discussion.

There are plenty of unselfish acts, many mothers would die for their child in a second and I don't believe there's anything to gain for them.

Well, nice to see your topic.

Morality is not for selfishness but for civility. Good behavior promotes good relationships which important for people in order to live together in peace and promotes value, such as war is not peace but it can unite or defend countries.

There are good morals that's actually bad from corrupts on the elite.

Yeah but the problem is that the word "good" and "evil" are just opionated words. Therefore I can throw your post out of whack but I'll leave it be.

Opinionated but tried. Such as, manners, or if I'm real pervert then it's trolling, it's prohibited and it had good effect. If there were no morals, we'll be like animals, it's so much fun in the world of humans than animals, we can enjoy civility and when that flourished it can lead to having time to invent. Well...?

Quite a few psychologists actually believe that there is no such thing as altruism. In your own words, "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."

But then it did benefit you, didn't it? It made you feel good about yourself to do this "selfless deed, thus you benefited. Sacrificing your life for another can also be seen as selfish, if one presumes that the person who sacrifices him or herself only does so because he or she wouldn't be able to live with themselves if they didn't.

Or maybe it is the primal need to do something that benefits the tribe(your family & friends nowadays), though you, the individual, may suffer.

Anyway, that's a very pessimistic world view, but it does kind of make sense from an evolutionary, survival of the fittest perspective.

I really enjoy talking about morality and ethics because it is something that can be approached from a relatively objective point of view and yet, few people do. People have a strong tendency to confuse what is right with what is favorable. Everyone want to find some sense of comfort in the world, but sadly, that's not always an option. Everyone seems to agree that, on some level, morality coincides with reality, but the truth is that reality is harsh.

That's just basic instinct in my opinion. Most if not all animals are living according to that the meaning of life is to spread your genes as much as possible and protecting your children which you have put so much work into is natural. But my opinions on human behavior and ethics are heavily biased since i study ecology:p

A moral code for comfort that's will that's beneficial to be put in law was those that will benefit all of its followers. Promoted morals doesn't necessarily stops a person's own moral and will. It's just that it helps people to get along. For example, forum rules, if it's non enforced, you will see fuck(I can't describe) that's imagination is the limit.

From what everyone has posted I'd say that Morals and ethics are a combination of social, psychological, biological, enviromental and depending on your views spirtual factors. While some of this factors are effected by outside forces, many things are also innate.

I don't see why people are arguing it has to be one of these things over the other, most philosophy classes teach this same concept as well.
One thing I disagre with though is that you make your own morals - I don't think you can choose about how you feel about something - if that was the case we wouldn't face so many delimmeas in our lives.

I agree. If people could decide how they feel about something, despite outside stimuli and experiences, then post-traumatic stress disorder wouldn't exist at all. And people who were beat or molested as children wouldn't have issues later in life.

Exactly, because they would choose that those certain things don't bother them inorder to avoid the trauma it brings. Also people wouldn't hestitate before killing or stealing because they would simply choose before hand to not think of those things as morally wrong.

I think you can have your morals influenced to a degree but the control one has over there own morals is very limited IMO.

A few people can handle problems that others can't, how do I put this thing in words?
The amount of mental strength a person has varies? I think this is the right term.

Not all people become traumatized just because of getting into some huge accident.

It also depends on how a person deals with the problem, and how that person sees it.

About the code of ethics and morality...

I think that ethics and morality is important, because it does make the world civilized and inhabitable.

But about the right or wrong thing, no one can say he or she is right or wrong because of many reasons:
1. We don't understand their feelings
2. We didn't undergo what he/she has gone through
3. We have different points of view
4. We have our own ways in solving our problems
and etc.

It actually depends on the person if that person is right or wrong, and sometimes people agree to it or not.

That's how I perceive things, but usually I go against some people cause I don't agree to their beliefs.

I do agree that most people are selfish, but some are not selfish enough to just leave a dying person lying on a street.
having a guilty conscience doesn't prove that your selfish, it's just something that hurts you when you pity towards something or someone that you can't or won't help.

My opinion, it is really your upbringing and what your society has forced you into beleiving correct or incorrect. Like in Code Geass Britannians don't care whether you are whatever nationality you are, they only know that you have been forced and subdued by the supreme race. Their lives don't mean anything to you as they are treated like objects, furniture.

It is really what you beleive is the right thing to do, as people have different and mixed opinions they must have different beleifs as well. I'm going off topic so I'm backing out.

When I think morality, I'm very liberal. I think of mata in se and mata prohibita. Mata in se is basically "bad in of itself" like murder, rape, etc. Mata prohibita is basically only bad because some asshole says it's bad, such as lolicon, or marijuana. In considering these two it's easy to find what side of a debate I'm on.

The problem with that is that what belongs in either of those groups is really subjective. Which might sound odd, since basically what you seem to be saying is that mata in se is objectively bad, while mata prohibita is subjectively bad. But really, the entire thing is based on your perspective. While you see loli as objectively fine, and only bad because someone thinks it is, those people you are talking about who are against it see it as objectively bad.
Most people wont put something they don't WANT to see as bad in a category were it is.

Simply put Democracy anyone?

Safety in numbers implies a proven method, thus Ethics is a constant never ending battle between Discovery and tradition

Imo

I'll keep my reply short.



Live your life the way you want and fuck anyone who tells you that you are wrong. The only time a lifestyle becomes harmful is when it hurts other people physically.