View Full Version : The Illusion of ethics and morals

18th June 2008, 2:36 PM
Ok. i will make my introduction as short and brief as possible. just pay attention and read the whole thing. YES, READ THE WHOLE BLOODY THING

This may be a very confusing topic for some of you but i am here to discuss the idea of ethics and morals. basically, why and how do they exist the way they do. currently, it is believed that killing is mostly wrong yet it is still necessary in some cases. how has humanity evolved to think like this.

Let's look at this hypothetically. Imagine a culture that existed in a state the world existed 1000 years ago. (call them the snolias) this culture has primitive gunpowder weapons, a strong army, and natural borders against invasion against barbarian tribes. however, there is one thing. they are completely peaceful, their army used for defense, and they have never sought to expand their borders.

you may think this is a good society, a society in which they have changed and have grown to be smart enough to understand the waste of killing. yet there are many problems the society faces. it is rather crime ridden, there are at least 20 murders a day in a city. the emperor is very harsh and the death penalty is imposed on many crimes, including but not exclusively murder.

perhaps one would think they enjoy killing. but keep in mind whether they do really. they have all the ideas of modern society an in america, killers are extremely frowned upon. yet do we turn up our noses to soldiers. sure some of us did in vietnam, yet today they are mostly welcomed as heroes. but their job is to kill.

now you think they they're killing the enemy, its kill or be killed. but why have america and the middle east chosen to kill men from both sides. war can be basically stated as a killing contest. whoever kills a certain number soon enough wins. (this is a generalization, there have been bloodfree wars but they are just shows of power).

so now comes in the UN and their peacekeeping units. they try to minimize violence in areas such as korea, africa, and south america. yet wouldn't it have been better to send in a peacekeeping unit to negotiate with saddam?

oh wait, now your saying that saddam cannot be negotiated with, which is true. so we bomb the hell out of them and tada problem solved. but now this is off topic.

So back we go to this society, who is greatly against killing but it happens so much. to see the contrast, let's look at another society. they are the biggest barbarian tribe outside this society's borders. (lets call them evalia) for fifty years they have lived peacefully, although in tension, knowing that it would be easy to spark a war with the snolias. they dont want to since they would probably lose now, with snolia's gunpowerder weapons.

they have trading relations with snolia, yet they are a strong warring tribe. the land they live on is harsh and arid so they attack other barbarian tribes and smaller countries that lie opposite of snolia.

evalia, however, is a very peaceful tribe. they have no qualms against killing, yet there is very little crime and the death penalty is almost never used. this is not because they are nomadic and live closely. they are nomads, yet they have large capital cities. Yet why is it so that they have evolved, over years and years, to develop such a society?

lets go back to morals and ethics. are ethics innate? are they part of being human? or are they developed according to society? Hypothetically, imagine an "evil" america. they love killing and they believe in survival of the fittest. the whole country is dotted with clans, banded together to survive, and they kill each other.

yet there is something odd about them. they believe it is the right thing to do. i dont know why, but thats just what they do. they are very civilized people. when with they're clan brothers (and sisters) they dont hunch over or anything but they sit and eat and talk like we would do. when they fight others, they dont roll on the floor choking each othes, but they have knives and weapons, and fight in dueling matches.

do they love killing? some do, they loving the thrill and playing god. but most just dont care. they just do it. they think it is part of being human. it is in their morals to kill as many as possible and to die with their guns blazing. so now im asking is are their morals still exactly morals?

so basically, in a society that thinks killing is a moral, is it still really a moral? how could morals in themselves have evolved to say killing is right. as with the snolias and the evalias (which were really just china and the mongols around the time of the golden horde) which of them was truly ethical and moral? they were both rather violent, but in different ways. how has their morals evolved over the years?

To answer that, lets say that 200 years ago, the evalias didn't exist. there was a large but much weaker snolia group, yet without ANY of the crime mentioned before. because of a political schism, the evalias broke off. so in 200 years, how is it possible for morals to change.

18th June 2008, 2:46 PM
Exactly morals and even "good" and "evil' are all opinions. The only things that arent opinions are truth and lie. eithics,good,evil,and morals, are all a base of opinion I cant beleive people havent relized this.even if god were to exist he could put someone we consider "good" into hell because he considerd them "evil" although I find nothing wrong with the rules we have now.

now to you large paragraps I honestly had a hard time understanding it (sorry!) but I think I get the overall message though.

19th June 2008, 3:16 AM
No one like to get hurt. As such, a (moral) system where no one is hurt benefits EVERYONE. Making it 'good.'

However, if people think what they are doing is good or do not know it is hurting another, they are not (intentionally) doing a bad act. Also, there are times when people want to limit other people's rights. At times like that, enough violence (which, if not done in controlled retaliation, harms other and is 'bad') to effectively negate the limiting of other's rights is justified. That is my opinion on morals.
As far as moral evolution goes, the two groups probably split for a fairly good reason. Perhaps they split because their morals were different to begin with.

19th June 2008, 3:47 AM
Question: Masochists. Think about it. They think pain is good, so does that me their view of "good" and "bad" is skewed?
I've been wondering about that.

19th June 2008, 3:59 AM
Question: Masochists. Think about it. They think pain is good, so does that me their view of "good" and "bad" is skewed?
I've been wondering about that.

that's something add too.