Morals Are A Hindrance To Society

[Admiral Valdemar]

Using that title of morals holding back scientific devlopment and general advancement of the human race, put forth whether you agree or disagree with this statement and give reasons for your answer.

[Enforcer Talen]

morals are the key tenet of a civilization if it is to survive.

[Durandal]

Using that title of morals holding back scientific devlopment and general advancement of the human race, put forth whether you agree or disagree with this statement and give reasons for your answer.

I think you're trying to say, "Religion, which professes to be the source of all morals, is a hindrance to society."

[Enforcer Talen]

oh, well, that Id agree with.

[Zoink]

Using that title of morals holding back scientific devlopment and general advancement of the human race, put forth whether you agree or disagree with this statement and give reasons for your answer.

So for example: Rounding up all the homeless people and using them for cancer research? Might be more effective than those white mice. And we could control the population be just killing the remaining unwanted.

The problem with this thinking is that there is no way you can garauntee that you, as an individual, are in the group that benefits.

You might be thinking of this devilish way to use poor people to help you and your buddies become immortal. You look up and are swamped by a wave of equally devlish poor people who decide to use the "minority" rich people as a food source. From their perspective, canabalism is better human progress then allowing rich people to become immortal.

The only way to garauntee benefits to yourself is to give equal rights to all.

[The_Nice_Guy]

So for example: Rounding up all the homeless people and using them for cancer research? Might be more effective than those white mice. And we could control the population be just killing the remaining unwanted.

That's utilitarianism, I think.

Obviously, most of us don't subscribe to this value system.

The Nice Guy

[Admiral Valdemar]

It was just a question that, given the world we live in today with many a questionable ethic, seems somewhat on the tips of peoples tongues.

I did not mean it in a religious sense since many without religion also hold morals, if you are totally amoral then you could be considered utilitarian, which is a path a couple when faced with this same exercise on SB.com have come out as being.

[Kuroneko]

So for example: Rounding up all the homeless people and using them for cancer research? Might be more effective than those white mice. And we could control the population be just killing the remaining unwanted.

That's utilitarianism, I think.
Obviously, most of us don't subscribe to this value system.

Let's not lump all of that together. I have a hard time seeing how the above actions could be justified under all but an extreme form of act-utilitarianism (which concerns particular actions). None of it, however, would fly under rule-utilitarianism (which posits the existence of general rules of action).

[neoolong]

I disagree. While it may be true that a lack of morals would allow for a quicker scientific development, ie using humans as test subjects, it would not lead to the benefits that science can bring. Without morality society would soon fall into decay as people only did what they wished with no care for how it affected other people. Humanity would not advance.

[Tom_Aurum]

Well, I don't beleive precisely in "morals" myself. But I don't go about killing anyone because it would set a dangerous precedent. But how many times have you been told not to use a certain character in a fighting game because it's cheap? Or how many times have you had your little brother whine "that's not fair!" because you beat them using superior tactics at chess? Sometimes, I feel the point of morals is "Letting the Wookie Win."

[Joe]

SOME morals can be a hindrance to society. Other morals, like truth-telling, abstaining from murder, and raising children are necessary for society to continue to exist.

[Zoink]

SOME morals can be a hindrance to society.

Maybe those morals aren't morals at all, rather social taboos.

[Peregrin Toker]

Using that title of morals holding back scientific devlopment and general advancement of the human race, put forth whether you agree or disagree with this statement and give reasons for your answer.

That is not morals. That is anti-intellectualism and luddism under the guise of morals!

It will be a sad time the day when morality is used as an excuse for withholding the key to immortality itself.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

In my opinion, having read the various codifications of biblical morality and atheist morality, they appear to be roughly identical. The primary distinction between them is the attribution of their sources. Biblical morality is "inspired of God" and yadda yadda yackity schmack. Atheist morality is ascribed by at least one author I'm familiar with as being a natural outgrowth of logical, pragmatic principles of survival followed by this species from its earliest history. Either way, the rules of the two are essentially the same on the important areas. Killing is wrong. Rape is wrong. Stealing is wrong. Lying (in most cases) is wrong. In other words, remove all the "god" references from the Ten Commandments and you essentially have Atheist morality. Nothing wrong with that.

In my experience, however, the people that like to profess that there is "no such thing" as morality (of either type) are the people who are seeking a way to justify the fact that they don't want to follow either variety of morality.

Personally, I subscribe to atheist morality -- I'm not interested in following rules to curry the favor of some invisible pissed-off Rabbi in the Sky or his 2,000 year old delusional telekinetic Communist son. But neither will I go around raping, stealing from, lying to or killing people -- these activities do not lend themselves to the pursuit of a literary career. I guess that makes me a moral person.

[Andrew J.]

In some areas excessive morality (ie, wishy-washiness) might hinder societal development, but in other cases they may be necessary in order to keep the society together.

[Joe]

In my opinion, having read the various codifications of biblical morality and atheist morality, they appear to be roughly identical. The primary distinction between them is the attribution of their sources. Biblical morality is "inspired of God" and yadda yadda yackity schmack. Atheist morality is ascribed by at least one author I'm familiar with as being a natural outgrowth of logical, pragmatic principles of survival followed by this species from its earliest history. Either way, the rules of the two are essentially the same on the important areas. Killing is wrong. Rape is wrong. Stealing is wrong. Lying (in most cases) is wrong. In other words, remove all the "god" references from the Ten Commandments and you essentially have Atheist morality. Nothing wrong with that.

In my experience, however, the people that like to profess that there is "no such thing" as morality (of either type) are the people who are seeking a way to justify the fact that they don't want to follow either variety of morality.

Personally, I subscribe to atheist morality -- I'm not interested in following rules to curry the favor of some invisible pissed-off Rabbi in the Sky or his 2,000 year old delusional telekinetic Communist son. But neither will I go around raping, stealing from, lying to or killing people -- these activities do not lend themselves to the pursuit of a literary career. I guess that makes me a moral person.

Some of the foundations of Biblical and Atheist morality may be similar. The details are not; Atheist morality is not sexual puritanism, it is not racism, it is not (necessarily) socialism, it is not seeking justification for atrocities by some imaginary dude in the sky. Atheist morality is still morality without the horrors of religious morality.

[Darth Wong]

The purpose of morality is to ensure that human society functions smoothly and that its denizens are happy. Utilitarianism seeks to maximize the total amount of happiness and minimize the total amount of suffering and death; it is an optimized type of morality and has been greatly maligned by people who leap to the conclusion that it would condone things like Mengelian experiments.

Religious morality, on the other hand, is merely the first recorded example of Microsoft's "embrace and extend" technique. It simply takes common morals and adds extra baggage, such as making sexuality, faithlessness, or "playing God" into a sin, because its ultimate goal is to perpetuate itself, not to improve society (again, much like Microsoft).

Therefore, a good system of morality will never hold back society. However, most people carry around fucked-up schemes of morality around with them and confuse them with the universal tenets of morality which are common to virtually all societies.

[Crayz9000]

There's a difference between morals and traditions. Traditions have almost always been a hindrance to society, with a few exceptions, while morals serve to try and prevent us from doing catastrophically stupid things, like rounding up all the old geezers and sticking them in death camps.

[Kuroneko]

The purpose of morality is to ensure that human society functions smoothly and that its denizens are happy. Utilitarianism seeks to maximize the total amount of happiness and minimize the total amount of suffering and death; it is an optimized type of morality and has been greatly maligned by people who leap to the conclusion that it would condone things like Mengelian experiments.

Indeed, utilitarianism gets misrepresented due to that. However, just to play the devil's advocate, there are some act-utilitarianists (e.g. Smart) who bite the bullet and agree with some of those conclusions, like the framing of an innocent person to appease the masses, etc.

outsmart, v. To embrace the conclusion of one's opponent's reductio ad absurdum argument. "They thought they had me, but I outsmarted them. I agreed that it was sometimes just to hang an innocent man." -- Philosopher's Lexicon

[Shinova]

while morals serve to try and prevent us from doing catastrophically stupid things, like rounding up all the old geezers and sticking them in death camps.

Getting rid of seniors would, I think, :


1. Take money off of welfare to be used on other things

2. Some measure of population control

3. Less medicine used on old patients

4. Less resources overall used on people who can't really contribute to the economy anymore. Supposedly they can pass down experience to their children so that the latter can grow up to be wiser people, but then again you could just write it all down and keep a record of it to pass onto children, or take important parts out, censor the names, and teach the good or bad things one should do depending on the experiences of their progency.

5. Many old people tend to sometimes cling to old beliefs and traditions that only fit in their time periods, not in the present. These, coupled with the kind of higher-class status that comes with being seniors, can cause them to be a great influence on the younger generation. They might hold things back. This is a minor issue.



Basically, I think if seniors were all euthanized or something, then, looking at it from a completely pragmatic point of view, there'd be more left for society to pass around for those who can still contribute to it.

This is not saying that I strongly advocate a holocaust or government-policy euthanasia of seniors, but just a thought in regards to what Crazy said.

[Crayz9000]

OK, let me put it this way:

Have you ever tried looking at that issue from the senior citizen's point of view?

[Shinova]

OK, let me put it this way:

Have you ever tried looking at that issue from the senior citizen's point of view?

Of course. The senior wouldn't want to die, period; same for everyone. But looking at it from the entire, macroscopic, societal point of view, seniors would be more of a drain on society rather than an input, if that's the way to word it.

[Enricko]

OK, let me put it this way:

Have you ever tried looking at that issue from the senior citizen's point of view?

Of course. The senior wouldn't want to die, period; same for everyone. But looking at it from the entire, macroscopic, societal point of view, seniors would be more of a drain on society rather than an input, if that's the way to word it.

So, being an ingrateful bastard to elements of the society that have already contributed to its development is fair game because it means more ressource for our easy ass? Geesh!

It's true that when the ressources are scarce, the elders are the first to be thrown out to the lions, but that doesn't mean we should not try to take care of them...

[Andrew J.]

Euthanizing senior citizens would be more expensive than just cutting off all their medical care and throwing them all out onto the streets.

...why's everybody looking at me funny?

Seriously, though, old people provide more benefits than you think. They tend to spend lots of money (prescription drugs, presents for numerous grandchildren, etc.) and are therefore useful to the economy.

[Shinova]

Looks like senior citizens still have use as consumers, at least in a free market or mixed economy society.


I think I had in mind an Orwellian or Brave New World-ish society when I made that post.


EDIT: Actually, you do have to wonder where the seniors are going to get the money to spend on stuff and be consumers.