Results 1 to 20 of 49
What's Wrong With A Moral Code
What is wrong with a strict moral code?
2+2=4
strict (str¹kt) adj. strict·er, strict·est. 1. Precise; exact. 2. Complete; absolute. 3. Kept within narrowly specific limits. 4. Rigorous in the imposition of discipline. 5. Exacting in enforcement, observance, or requirement; stringent. 6. Conforming completely to established rule, principle, or condition. 7. Botany. Stiff, narrow, and upright. --strict“ly adv. --strict“ness n.
That's exactly what is wrong with a 'strict moral code'.
Then take it to heart.Yes I know what strict means.
This is an awfully vague question.
Nothing is inherently wrong with a moral code, the question is qualitative: what type of moral code? Where does it come from? How is it enacted?
The issue with a 'strict' moral code is that this rigid line is usually drawn by some individual(s) distinct from the individual engaging in moral action (ex: the church declaring what is right or wrong). This is an extreme form of authoritative oppression, as the individual in question is not licensed to dictate his/her own moral feelings, and must conform to those of the authority. This, in turn, further consolidates political power (political power drawn from moral authority) towards that small group of people dictating moral codes. Consolidated political power always leads to abuse.
- August
If we have no business with the construction of the future or with organizing it for all time, there can still be no doubt about the task confronting us at present: the ruthless criticism of the existing order, ruthless in that it will shrink neither from its own discoveries, nor from conflict with the powers that be.
- Karl Marx
What strict moral code did you have in mind? Morals varily crazily for differant people, cultures, religions etc. Chances are most people have differant morals to you, Richard Nixon. So 'strict moral code' often creates more contradiction than it solves
Formerly zenga zenga !
i dont see any problem of having a reasonable moral code, i wouldnt like to see people walking naked in the street for instance or people masturbating in public places.
its all about common sense, but its important to be careful with that, otherwise you will have people receiving lashes for wearing trouser (sudan) and its not a good things
WHY kléber, WHY!!!!!!!
Nothing is wrong with a Moral code, everyone has one and most peoples moral code is relatively similar.
Some people (Richard Nixon especially) however have moral codes but are hypocrites and go against their own moral code. For example morally justifying the worst act of terrorism, the a-bombs in Japan, while still being outraged at lesser, more justifiable acts of terrorism.
A moral code is only good when its honest and unhypocritical.
wouldnt be more moral to condemn all kind of terrorism including the bombing of japan and not saying terrorism is justifiable?
WHY kléber, WHY!!!!!!!
Of coarse, if your moral code tells you terrorism is unjustafiable, which most peoples moral code tells them, then you must condemn both the bombing of japan and say, the 911 attacks. This is what most people do.
However there are some here, who are plain hypocrits.
so, do you actually think for exemple that terror attack against imperialist nation are morally ok? Personally i dont, i mean, i think what israel doing is horrible, but i dont think for exemple blowing up a crowded bus is justifiable in any way.
in that particular case do you still condemn both sides or you support the terror attack?
WHY kléber, WHY!!!!!!!
Did you read what I said??? I condemn both.
cool, beccause somehow i got the feeling that some people here jump against imperialism every time some say something about lets say muslim fundamentalists, saying for exemple that its not a big deal if they blow up stuff in america beccause america do worst things anyway.
Nixon started a thread about domestic terrorism in the us and people simply ignored the issues to jump against imperialism.
to me both domestic terrorism and imperialist are worrying.
WHY kléber, WHY!!!!!!!
Well sure, but comparing demostic terrorism to imperialism, is like comparing a crack head robbing a liqour store to the Cosa Nostra extorting entire cities.
That may be because terrorism and imperialism are both part and parcel of the same problem: Capitalism.
Get with program, kid! Time's running out for all, including those who think their comforts under capitalism will last forever. And we're not getting any younger, either!
indeed the magnitude isnt the same, but if a bunch of people are arrested beccause they where planning to blow up a bus i will not pitty them and blame imperialism, i will be just glad to not get killed in the attack.
then again it dosnt change nothing to the fact imperialism is horrible.
WHY kléber, WHY!!!!!!!
Strict moral codes are typically a simple list of things to "do" and "not do." While for the everyday scenarios we encounter these may be acceptable, they don't accurately capture the complexities of ethics.
Ethics are so complicated I think we should be careful about making incorrect decisions. The only ethical scenarios I think are simple are those that eliminate all the other possibilities. In real life, the other possibilities are often present.
The ethical scenarios where there are only two options, the "ideal" scenarios, are often incredibly easy to resolve, in my opinion. These scenarios just rarely appear. We seem to have an obligation to take the more difficult road if the end result is "better." However, when are we justified in claiming the road is too difficult. Clearly, we are sometimes justified. Kant would have us tell a murderer where their victim is. We can't have that.
Most people are very skeptical of ethics and morality on Revleft. I'm skeptical myself. However, if your "heart" isn't the reason for a belief in communism, I don't see why you'd be a communist. You might as well be a capitalist, take what you can get, and exploit everyone else for your own gain. Capitalist cleary has the means for most of us in the West to succeed, unless we're in poverty. If we are, and we still have no concept of ethics, we'll have a revolution and these people, simply acting out of self-interest with no regard for others, will corrupt the revolution and we're back to square one.
Communism has to start with the realization that the interests of other people matter. They may only matter because humans are organisms that have empathy and sympathy that creates the notion that other people matter. However, we only exist because we have emotions and material makeups that compose us. Simply because ethics are fairly relativistic doesn't mean society can't reach agreements in effective manners. That's precisely one of the reasons free assocation is so important. The differences in human behavior and interests.
Nothing is wrong with you following a strict moral code, however if you try to force your moral code on me, I will fuck you up.
and what if the majority would vote for exemple to ban the use in marijuana in public places? will you fuck them up has well?
i can understand you dont want to be opressed by an individual but if the community decided something together, i dont see why it shouldnt be respected.
WHY kléber, WHY!!!!!!!
COMMUNISM !