Hi Brian Le
So apparently I’m supposed to talk about morals a bit for my own entertainment and Brian’s. Let’s seeee now, where shall I begin.
Morals can be individualistic or societal. Individual morals tend to differ from a society’s because naturally they will value different things. And what exactly is a moral? An unwritten code of conduct people follow or at least attempt to. Abstract ideas such as honesty, charity, and thoughtfulness can be considered morals. Incidentally, following them benefits people which makes me wonder whether morals are innate or learned through an experience (loss of innocence topic!!!) unique to the society the person in question lives in.
If morals are innate, then it makes sense for them to be self-serving.
If they are learned, then different societies would have different morals and scorn those who believed differently. This is because morals are somewhat sacred and generally valued.
There is evidence for both of these. In the U.S., morals tend to serve individuals as well as the whole. I’ll try to make that more specific by questioning people as to what their specific morals are. To clarify things, lets take an example.
Honesty. A simple choice. You tell me the truth, I tell you the truth and the darkness of lies won’t permeate into our lives. This moral serves individuals because they are protected from potential manipulation and deceit; likewise it benefits entire societies because communication between government and people, politicians and their peers etc, is reliable and prevents the usual effort from discerning fact from fiction. Based on this, morals can be said to be instinctive because they assist the individual. How odd then, that the entire society should gain something as well.
But then countries such as Iran value chastity while Americans do not (not nearly as much anyways ;D) and this seems to protect the society far more than it does the individual. Probably because I can view it objectively, but either way it seems that in some societies morals are taught rather than automatically understood. Tabula rasa much?
And so I can’t conclusively state that either is true, but can theorize that both are quite possible. If only there was a way to slip into multiple people’s minds and see if their core morals matched up.
Now to morals of individuals. These are in general imposed by parents (evidence for the learning theory~) and childhood influences and experiences. Therefore, they don’t always match up to that of the society’s. So when they see their society to have a different moral code than they do, they react, which is typically what happens when conflicting, or simply varied, moral codes meet. This gives them two general options (there’s more, I know)
1) Spread their own moral code and back it up with popular and hopefully logical reasons.
2) Recede into themselves under the delusion that the world has gone to waste and that they no longer want a part in it, secretly hoping others notice their defiance. There is a word for this. “Denial”
Oh, and just a side note on the deterioration of the world that adults incessantly rant or complain about. It’s not possible for the world to fall apart. If it seems to be, then that’s a paradigm the individual in question holds. There will always be somebody who likes the world the way it is and values it in some way, and in doing so will give the world all it needs to remain intact. That needs more thought…
More on morals tomorrow hopefully? I have a boring field trip to an organic farm so I’ll think about it then if the animals don’t distract me.
Pointing out things people already know in a concise and obvious manner is fun :D
Who wants to give me a topic for sometime in the not to distant future?
