Morals - Why?

In several other threads i've ended up on the topic of morals, but i can't seem to get a direct answer from anyone as to why they believe in certain things. Maybe this is because they don't visit those threads anymore, or maybe they don't have a good answer; i don't know. So i've made this thread to finally put this topic to rest (and since we have a new active member, marxistfreeman, i'd like to see how he feels about morals).

I feel the need to leave this thread without a poll, cos i think that would take away from the meaning and depth that i would like to see in this topic.

My question is: Why are people morally averse to things like drugs, prostitution, pornography, and the like?

I'd also like to address this issue of these certain things being outlawed. Someone made reference to outlawing one of the aforementioned topics. I'm wondering why it is that some on this site believe we will be able to regulate certain things in a communist society, like drugs (obviously you non-communists out there can disregard this last paragraph if you so wish).

parents and society controle us completly, you end up trying to be diffrent in your teens but then somehow in the end you become your nightmere.

I a liberal so nothing banned unless it violates consumer rights, ie ciggarets, strong drugs and so on but I think it should be legal to own a littel cannabis, like one plant p/p to limit use this is a very effective way to minimise things is to allow them, like in switzerland were you can own assult rifels at your home and still the murder rat is 4 times lower than in the us.

morals?
like I think terrorists should be nearly drowned if they REALLY are terrorists?

mattabesta wrote:

I a liberal so nothing banned unless it violates consumer rights, ie ciggarets, strong drugs and so on

Cigarettes violate consumer rights? If that's what you mean, please explain why you feel that way.

Quote :

but I think it should be legal to own a littel cannabis, like one plant p/p to limit use this is a very effective way to minimise things is to allow them, like in switzerland were you can own assult rifels at your home and still the murder rat is 4 times lower than in the us.

Then why should strong drugs, as you put it, not be allowed? By this way of thinking, it would logically follow that by allowing the use and trade of strong drugs, the problem will dissipate.

Quote :

morals?
like I think terrorists should be nearly drowned if they REALLY are terrorists?

Erm, no. Like, why do you believe that what you believe in is right, and vice-versa. I mean, if you are anti-drug, why are you anti-drug?

You hit on what i'm getting at in your first stanza, but it goes a little deeper than that.

NoJustice.NoPeace wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

I a liberal so nothing banned unless it violates consumer rights, ie ciggarets, strong drugs and so on

Cigarettes violate consumer rights? If that's what you mean, please explain why you feel that way.

Quote :

but I think it should be legal to own a littel cannabis, like one plant p/p to limit use this is a very effective way to minimise things is to allow them, like in switzerland were you can own assult rifels at your home and still the murder rat is 4 times lower than in the us.

Then why should strong drugs, as you put it, not be allowed? By this way of thinking, it would logically follow that by allowing the use and trade of strong drugs, the problem will dissipate.

Quote :

morals?
like I think terrorists should be nearly drowned if they REALLY are terrorists?

Erm, no. Like, why do you believe that what you believe in is right, and vice-versa. I mean, if you are anti-drug, why are you anti-drug?

You hit on what i'm getting at in your first stanza, but it goes a little deeper than that.

1. ciggarets get you addicted and force the consumer to buy more and more not to mention they are poisinus.

Any use if I post here?

You know my point and convictions.

Voice of Reason wrote:

Any use if I post here?

You know my point and convictions.

Me? I don't think i do. I'd love it if you contributed.

I just wanna know why some people on this site cling to 'morals'.

Voice of Reason wrote:

Any use if I post here?

You know my point and convictions.

I don't

Why are people morally averse to abortion is what I'd like to know. cough cough.

^^ Are you insinuating something about someone on this site?

Who, me? Never.

NoJustice.NoPeace wrote:

In several other threads i've ended up on the topic of morals, but i can't seem to get a direct answer from anyone as to why they believe in certain things. Maybe this is because they don't visit those threads anymore, or maybe they don't have a good answer; i don't know. So i've made this thread to finally put this topic to rest (and since we have a new active member, marxistfreeman, i'd like to see how he feels about morals).

I feel the need to leave this thread without a poll, cos i think that would take away from the meaning and depth that i would like to see in this topic.

My question is: Why are people morally averse to things like drugs, prostitution, pornography, and the like?

I'd also like to address this issue of these certain things being outlawed. Someone made reference to outlawing one of the aforementioned topics. I'm wondering why it is that some on this site believe we will be able to regulate certain things in a communist society, like drugs (obviously you non-communists out there can disregard this last paragraph if you so wish).

The main reason morals exist is to ensure a messure of social stability. As different cultures develop they compile ideas of what they regard as beneficial or destructive to their society as a whole. For example, heroin use is destructive to a healthy society in that causes self neglect leading to
various social problems, it is therefore outlawed and considered immoral.

Of course different cultures have differing veiws on morality but certain virtues can be found in all societies, these are known by some as universal virtues.

Prostitution is often veiwd as a threat to the family unit, it is also seen as a potential form of sexual exploitation with both men and women.

'Certain' pornography is also seen to debase the female
reducing her to a meer object, her sole purpose of sexual gratification - this is also destuctive to the family unit and society since pornography can
influence the overall male attitude towards women.

Without standards and morals society would crumble.

If you look at it from an evolutionary approach, a pecies could not survive if they randomly killed each other. Therefore, to survive, a species must have a certain moral code. Humans have existed a very long time, so naturally we have morals. Doesn't mean they're right, but we have them nonetheless.

Pannekoek wrote:

If you look at it from an evolutionary approach, a pecies could not survive if they randomly killed each other. Therefore, to survive, a species must have a certain moral code. Humans have existed a very long time, so naturally we have morals. Doesn't mean they're right, but we have them nonetheless.

True as humans progress 'some' morals become outdated or change however you will find that many stand the test of time.

For the majority of humanity's existence there were no classes and everyone cooperated with each other. Then when surplus came they couldn't control their greed and turned to class divided society. Soon, however, humanity will return to classless cooperation.

Pannekoek wrote:

For the majority of humanity's existence there were no classes and everyone cooperated with each other. Then when surplus came they couldn't control their greed and turned to class divided society. Soon, however, humanity will return to classless cooperation.

Immorality is not exclusive to class society, nor is it a product of class society.

I never said that.

Inkus- Thanks for kick starting some conversation. I'll respond tomorrow (hopefully), but i've gotta go (figures i gotta leave as soon as the thread gets goin).

inkus2000 wrote:

The main reason morals exist is to ensure a messure of social stability.

Or social control, rather. Labeling things "moral" and "immoral" just makes people want to conform to the first. It's a way to make them be the way you want them to be; a way to mass conformity, if you will.

Quote :

As different cultures develop they compile ideas of what they regard as beneficial or destructive to their society as a whole.

Seems as though you're speaking of law, not morals. Pre-marital sex, for example, is seen as immoral in the christian community, but i can't see any way that it would be "destructive" to society.

Quote :

For example, heroin use is destructive to a healthy society in that causes self neglect leading to various social problems, it is therefore outlawed and considered immoral.

I don't believe outlawing it is the answer, cos that won't stop people from taking the drug, it will just give the police a reason to take them to jail (where they can suffer heavily from withdrawals if they take heavy doses). I believe people should be allowed proper resources to achieve an awareness of what the drug is capable of doing; if it is illegal, however, such resources are much more difficult to come by. In the end, it should be the decision of the informed individual.

Quote :

Prostitution is often veiwd as a threat to the family unit,

Please expand.

Quote :

[prostitution] is also seen as a potential form of sexual exploitation with both men and women

Unfortunately, most prostitutes are victims of circumstance and material conditions, and do not willingly participate in prostitution; rather they came to the conclusion that it would be their only way to survive on their own. THAT is exploitation.

But, there are some women (and probably some men) who like their jobs as prostitutes, and if the environment was changed so that they could be in complete control of the situation, not allowing for anything they were uncomfortable with, what's the problem with it?

Quote :

'Certain' pornography is also seen to debase the female
reducing her to a meer object, her sole purpose of sexual gratification

Yes, that's fucked up. But in the end, the decision to make such a film should land on its participants. If men start to believe they are just objects (which is ridiculous) and act in a way that makes it clear that they believe this, they should be dealt with in some manner. But people should be able to hold whatever crack-pot views they want. It's when they encroach on another's rights and autonomy that action should be taken.

Quote :

this is also destuctive to the family unit and society since pornography can influence the overall male attitude towards women.

So, because a few morons' views of women change, pornography is 'immoral'?

Quote :

Without standards and morals society would crumble.

Why?

Morals are a reactionary tool of the ruling class that is utilized in order to gain more state power.

Only moral you need is

NEVER exploit another person

Aristotle's golden mean I think is good as well

what would that be?

MarxistFreeman wrote:

what would that be?

Ok so basicly too much or to little of anything is bad so for example
ignorant=bad wise=good arrogant=bad

arrogant doesn't mean very wise.

plus im not sure that can apply considering a communist society is BASED around a state of abundance

MarxistFreeman wrote:

Morals are a reactionary tool of the ruling class that is utilized in order to gain more state power.

Only moral you need is

NEVER exploit another person

Thank you!!! This is exactly what i've been tryin to get to (without actually sayin it). Even then i don't think it really even needs to be said that it is moral. If everyone had freedom and no one had authority, there is really no need for morals, they could just fade away. That's why i've always been so irritated when people say drugs (or whatever) are immoral... Says who? As long as you are not encroaching on another's autonomy, what's the big deal?

Quote :

arrogant doesn't mean very wise.

I don't think that's what he's saying.

Quote :

plus im not sure that can apply considering a communist society is BASED around a state of abundance

Well, we couldn't actively apply it, but it is something to keep in mind on an individual level. We shouldn't take advantage of abundance, that could lead to its own problems (for the individual, that is).