The Morality Crusade - is it a lost cause?

[Technosoul]

Is the attempt to make America a moral country a lost cause?

Many of our poltical and religious leaders have fallen below the standards of morality that everyone is preaching about. If they cannot make the grade then why should we have laws to force the population to be moralistically correct?

I do not know about you... BUT I AM GETTING SICK AND TIRED OF WATCHING ALL THOSE PEOPLE IN FRONT OF NEWS CAMERAS ASKING FOR PUBLIC FORGIVENESS because they something concidered to be immoral.

Why can't society just admit that many men are just super-horny, that people in every culture want to get high with some sort of subtance. That men are prone to violence. That no one is going to change their minds about being gay. ETC.

That's nature. That's life. People are people ( not angels ).

[Morality Games]

My contention is, while morality exists, most humans settle into amoral states -- this is arguably our 'natural element'. Amorality is functional enough to maintain somewhat positive society (it is after all the state I consider the status of most humans in the United States), so I tend not to worry about the sexual indiscretions of politicians (what's the worst that could come of it?) -- although hypocrisy can get on anyone's nerves.

[Court463]

I can agree with the OP, I'm personnaly tired of people apologizing and than resigning after they do something, not necisarlly Illega but immoral, it doesn't make any sense to me that a Govenor had sex with a prostitute or a commedian made a racial comment and than they resign, just a waste of time.

[lindsay7]

I really don't care if a politician has sex with a prostitute. Or if they got high while they were in college. But if that same politician has been making a public crusade against prostitution, or getting thousands sent to jail for possession of drugs before getting caught with their own pants down - that's a different story.

I think in a lot of cases it's more the hypocrisy of the leader that people are angry about, rather than the act itself.

[Jack]

Perhaps we should consider decriminalizing drug and sex crimes and substituting hypocrisy as a felony for all public figures.

[KayTwee]

Quote by: Isherwood Perhaps we should consider decriminalizing drug and sex crimes and substituting hypocrisy as a felony for all public figures.

Indeed, perhaps we should.

I'm not a "anything goes" crusader by any means. However, having just lived several years in the Netherlands with it's extremely relaxed attitude toward soft drugs and sex I have to say that it was refreshing not to hear stupid crap about naughty politicians and people smuggling drugs into the country constantly.

The Dutch have shown that if you legalize or simply tolerate the purchase and consumption of marijuana by the general public it stems the flow of hard drugs that normally pour in on the back of marijuana smuggling efforts. Yes, there are people in the Netherlands who use cocaine, heroin and meth but it is simply not as prevalent in countries who hold marijuana possession as highly illegal.

Same thing for prostitution; if you legalize it you eliminate a good bit of the criminal element from it. Interestingly enough, the Dutch right-wing religious party CDA is currently trying to reduce the sex trade in Amsterdam itself, but even they don't attempt to eradicate it from the country completely; they know it works.

My opinion: legalize it, regulate it, tax the hell out of it and then get everyone a decent education.

[loser]

My contention is, while morality exists, most humans settle into amoral states -- this is arguably our 'natural element'. Amorality is functional enough to maintain somewhat positive society (it is after all the state I consider the status of most humans in the United States),

You're wrong. Amorality (in the classic sense) exists in only a tiny fraction of humanity and is usually the result of extremely dysfunctional nurturing and/or abuse. However, it is true that there is a new kind of 'morality' which rejects the religious underpinnings of right and wrong and, instead, places that onus on individual perspective. Basically, people are IMMORAL and not amoral. However, although many people do not want to be inhibited/prohibited by a religious code that tells them what they should feel guilty about (or what they shouldn't do), they STILL want laws protecting them from other people's immoral activities (theft, rape, etc.).

To be amoral one has to have no ethical notion of right and wrong. Fortunately, the knowledge of good and evil is an innate characteristic of humanity.

That's why you KNOW that I am right and you are wrong!

[Technosoul]

Quote by: KayTwee Indeed, perhaps we should. I'm not a "anything goes" crusader by any means. However, having just lived several years in the Netherlands with it's extremely relaxed attitude toward soft drugs and sex I have to say that it was refreshing not to hear stupid crap about naughty politicians and people smuggling drugs into the country constantly. The Dutch have shown that if you legalize or simply tolerate the purchase and consumption of marijuana by the general public it stems the flow of hard drugs that normally pour in on the back of marijuana smuggling efforts. Yes, there are people in the Netherlands who use cocaine, heroin and meth but it is simply not as prevalent in countries who hold marijuana possession as highly illegal. Same thing for prostitution; if you legalize it you eliminate a good bit of the criminal element from it. Interestingly enough, the Dutch right-wing religious party CDA is currently trying to reduce the sex trade in Amsterdam itself, but even they don't attempt to eradicate it from the country completely; they know it works. My opinion: legalize it, regulate it, tax the hell out of it and then get everyone a decent education.

Of course if a product or service is taxable that is better then it being underground. But I do not agree with "tax the hell out o it".

Do the Dutch have an underground?

[KayTwee]

Quote by: Technosoul Of course if a product or service is taxable that is better then it being underground. But I do not agree with "tax the hell out o it". Do the Dutch have an underground?

Why not tax the hell out of it? We tax the hell out of cigarettes, alcohol and every other luxury we can stick a tax stamp on. It's a ready source of revenue and it'd make significant inroads towards getting rid of the budget deficit.

Of course there is a black market in the Netherlands, there's one everywhere. You can buy hard drugs there, but the use of them is not as prevalent as it is in the US.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: loser You're wrong. Amorality (in the classic sense) exists in only a tiny fraction of humanity and is usually the result of extremely dysfunctional nurturing and/or abuse. However, it is true that there is a new kind of 'morality' which rejects the religious underpinnings of right and wrong and, instead, places that onus on individual perspective. Basically, people are IMMORAL and not amoral. However, although many people do not want to be inhibited/prohibited by a religious code that tells them what they should feel guilty about (or what they shouldn't do), they STILL want laws protecting them from other people's immoral activities (theft, rape, etc.). To be amoral one has to have no ethical notion of right and wrong. Fortunately, the knowledge of good and evil is an innate characteristic of humanity. That's why you KNOW that I am right and you are wrong!

Why would people have an "innate characteristic" of morality about sex or the use of mild drugs? Can you link us to some data about them finding a "morality gene" in the DNA?

If stealing is wrong due to something innate, then how come tiny children do not know the difference and will grab someone's elses toy?

On the other hand. The Dutch law did not make it lawful during the day time or near playgrounds. Only when darkness hides the activity. If they are so "Lib" why not permit it in daylight hours also?

[Morality Games]

Quote by: loser You're wrong. Amorality (in the classic sense) exists in only a tiny fraction of humanity and is usually the result of extremely dysfunctional nurturing and/or abuse. However, it is true that there is a new kind of 'morality' which rejects the religious underpinnings of right and wrong and, instead, places that onus on individual perspective. Basically, people are IMMORAL and not amoral. However, although many people do not want to be inhibited/prohibited by a religious code that tells them what they should feel guilty about (or what they shouldn't do), they STILL want laws protecting them from other people's immoral activities (theft, rape, etc.). To be amoral one has to have no ethical notion of right and wrong. Fortunately, the knowledge of good and evil is an innate characteristic of humanity. That's why you KNOW that I am right and you are wrong!

What a clever person you are.

[KayTwee]

Quote by: Technosoul Why would people have an "innate characteristic" of morality about sex or the use of mild drugs? Can you link us to some data about them finding a "morality gene" in the DNA? If stealing is wrong due to something innate, then how come tiny children do not know the difference and will grab someone's elses toy?

Morality is not innate, it is learned. Children learn their morality from those who raise them as those people learned when they were a child.

Whether or not we agree with it, it is a fact that the US and indeed most Western societies formed their legal ideologies on Judæo-Christian morality.

[Morality Games]

Quote by: KayTwee Morality is not innate, it is learned. Children learn their morality from those who raise them as those people learned when they were a child. Whether or not we agree with it, it is a fact that the US and indeed most Western societies formed their legal ideologies on Judæo-Christian morality.

Greco-Roman morality plays into that too.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: KayTwee Morality is not innate, it is learned. Children learn their morality from those who raise them as those people learned when they were a child. Whether or not we agree with it, it is a fact that the US and indeed most Western societies formed their legal ideologies on Judæo-Christian morality.

I would agree.

[Morality Games]

Quote by: Technosoul I would agree.

"COUGH" Greco-Roman.

And it is asinine to present the question of 'is morality innate or acquired?' as either/or, because a person's conscience will develop from a mix of their genetics and what experiences they have. Or to be more precise, genetics mold character and enviroment (experiences) determine how a character will express itself.

[KayTwee]

Quote by: Morality Games a person's conscience will develop from a mix of their genetics and what experiences they have. Or to be more precise, genetics determine character and enviroment (experiences) determine how a character will express itself.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that we'd found a gene for morality or proved the theory of cellular memory. There is instinct of course, but the only true instincts we have as humans are to protect ourselves from harm, put food in our mouths when we're hungry and find someone to share our genetic material with.

A lot of things usually pinned on instinct are not in fact instinctual in the textbook definition but merely learned behaviour, in my opinion.. and I have an anecdote that illustrates it rather well, if you'll pardon the unusual subject. : )

When I was in school one of my neighbors had a cat that was hit by a car and killed a few weeks after she had a litter. I took one of the kittens to help out, though it required a lot of time.. constant bottle feedings and what not.

She was a great cat, except for one little irksome issue; because she never saw another cat use one nor was she taught by her mother to use the litterbox, she never even contemplated trying to bury anything she did in it.

Now you can argue that she was a genetic mishap and in fact, I rather chalked it up to that myself, at the time. But a year later when she had kittens of her own none of them ever tried once to bury any of their business either.

Spontaneous cat-gene mutation that completely obliterated the cats' instinctual needs or simply a lack of learned behaviour? Occam, and I, say the latter.

[Technosoul]

I proposed a simular observation in another post.

Most animals fear forest fires and will react to smoke that might represent that threat.

That fear via a natual process would be passed on as innate in humans. And the nose is useful for detecting a fire in our house, or anyplace else for that matter, which causes an alarm in our thoughts.

So, that natural reaction could be re-interpreted in those who react to cigarette smoke, with fear that it is a threat of some kind.

Point being is that some of the things we believe are innate, via having a gene, can really be false interpretations of such gene instructions, relative to our emotinal response system.

Especially now that humans are so removed from being a part of the natural environment.

In animals good and evil would be the difference between staying alive and dieing. Between pleasure and pain, etc. Morality is sort of an man-made evolution of such natural determinations. But re-interpreted.

[Technosoul]

Litter Box Morality.

This could be an interesting topic.

We actually train a cat to conform to our standards of what is right or wrong when it comes to doing the doo doo. Using the punishment/reward methodoloy.

I saw a story where someone taught his cat to sit on the tolet. Smart kitty.

But what is morality? It is basically related to pack animal behavorism, learning to conform to "group behavorism". Monky see monkey do.

In the case of humans we sometimes try to reverse that process.

We do not let children to see some things (prono) with the idea - Monkey don't see, monkey won't do.

They want to ban actors from smoking in movies. Again the "monkey don't see, monkey don't do" theory.

Now back to the litter box.

I had a kind of open door policy for cats in the neighborhood, with exception of tom cats that like to get into bloody fights. This one cat would come in and go to the litter box and cover up any doo-doo left by other cats that did not bury their doo-doo. Although it was not his own doo-doo. I could imagine hearing him saying " my my, shame on this mess".

An attempt to do a "cover up" for the immorality of my cats? hmm?

[Morality Games]

Quote by: KayTwee I'm sorry, I didn't realize that we'd found a gene for morality or proved the theory of cellular memory. There is instinct of course, but the only true instincts we have as humans are to protect ourselves from harm, put food in our mouths when we're hungry and find someone to share our genetic material with. A lot of things usually pinned on instinct are not in fact instinctual in the textbook definition but merely learned behaviour, in my opinion.. and I have an anecdote that illustrates it rather well, if you'll pardon the unusual subject. : ) When I was in school one of my neighbors had a cat that was hit by a car and killed a few weeks after she had a litter. I took one of the kittens to help out, though it required a lot of time.. constant bottle feedings and what not. She was a great cat, except for one little irksome issue; because she never saw another cat use one nor was she taught by her mother to use the litterbox, she never even contemplated trying to bury anything she did in it. Now you can argue that she was a genetic mishap and in fact, I rather chalked it up to that myself, at the time. But a year later when she had kittens of her own none of them ever tried once to bury any of their business either. Spontaneous cat-gene mutation that completely obliterated the cats' instinctual needs or simply a lack of learned behaviour? Occam, and I, say the latter.

Genes are primary determinants of temperment, which influences behavior. For example, they exert strong influence on whether a person has an an aggressive or passive approach to life. Irregardless of whatever moral theories they affiliate themselves with, what a person judges to be good, bad, or evil (how they use their conscience) will depend much on the types of behavior they exhibit.

[CaveSnow]

In the case of humans we sometimes try to reverse that process. We do not let children to see some things (prono) with the idea - Monkey don't see, monkey won't do. They want to ban actors from smoking in movies. Again the "monkey don't see, monkey don't do" theory. Now back to the litter box.

Well you make this process seem an inverse implication that as we know isn't logically flawless. If it rains I will bring an umbrella doesn't mean that if it doesn't rain I will not bring the umbrella.
Actually the logic behind no smoking in films if rather different: we know that smoking in films favors smoking among viewers. In the hope to reduce smoking we try at least not to favor it.

Anyway, initially we were speaking of the absurdity of moralism in politics. Well, I think that in a certain sense the problem is not with our moral code but with public opinion. In mass culture of today the morals are dictated by the majority. Once it was the Church that had that power but now, in an epoch of mass cultural-relativism the only distinction from right and wrong is based on the fact that more people believe in one action being wrong rather than an other. Then there is the obvious fact that dominant morality has the ability to perpetuate itself: if a certain system of morals has been established it will probably be passed down through the generations with minor variations through the educational facilities.
So in a certain sense there is no point in talking about morality in politics today. The only thing a politician does is to try to have the approval of the majority, and if apologizing for an "immoral" action is the means to do so, well, he's doing his job... Then again it is useless to accuse a politician of misbehavior in such cases: an individual has the right to refuse common moral as long as that moral regulation has not been encoded into a law. Such actions, however, can be fatal for his career so he must hide or do something to maintain credibility.
It is rather dumb to be scandalized by immoral actions of politicians since these do not violate any legal restrictions. On the other hand it is normal for a politician to apologize in such cases since by doing so he is only doing his job...