|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
!. How are Morals established in a Society.
2. Are good and decent actions fostered in the youth through training and guidance?
3. Are morals and boundaries natural to a human being and built within his nature or are they infused through socialization?
I would think any society democracy or not would need a code of ethics.
1. laws and rules.
2. I'd like to think so.
They are more important where there is MORE freedom. Otherwise it is called anarchy.
1. Laws and rules based on what?
2. What type of training and guidance.
3. How is that socialization accomplished.
4. Why are jails so full of desperate men and women who never found their way in life?? Why do teens from the local high school sneak out of their wonderful cozy homes in the middle of the night to pick up heroin from some slimy drug dealer holed up in down town Los Angeles? Why are are homeless people sleeping outside night after night on those same streets where drug dealers hang?? What happened to THEIR socialization, sense of boundaries and morals? I wonder. (Not to mention all the goings on in our government.)
1. thought and ethics.
2. good parenting and guidance.
Based on what your interpretation of a good person is.
"Interpretation" seems to be a wrong word here. I think we are both stumped.
Have you ever studied ethics? I could explain it to you but it may be better if you read up a little on the topic first.
Morality does not have to depend upon religion. Morality can be learned through the principles of ethics.
(Gmwilliams: I never said it did depend on religion. This was presented outside of the usual. I would actually hope to keep religion out of it. Of course the belief in reality as far as metaphysics, I would invite.)
Ethics: "Schools of ethics in Western philosophy can be divided, very roughly, into three sorts. The first, drawing on the work of Aristotle, holds that the virtues (such as justice, charity, and generosity) are dispositions to act in ways that benefit both the person possessing them and that person's society. The second, defended particularly by Kant, makes the concept of duty central to morality: humans are bound, from a knowledge of their duty as rational beings, to obey the categorical imperative to respect other rational beings. Thirdly, utilitarianism asserts that the guiding principle of conduct should be the greatest happiness or benefit of the greatest number." Online Dictionary.
' morality ' as ' religion' is relative; doing " right" - righteously is absolute; " good is only one way manifested… ( Why are you taking what isn't your or you didn't work for it ?) ((Oh, for this "" we "" are making rules )) -- rules and regulations came as soon as nonproductive elements wanted to appropriate possession of others…
This is not right! wasn't it to be of "any Democracy …?"-- where is the 'government by the people' operative anyway ? ( I mean anywhere in the world at all ?)
What is needed is a uniform code of law. Any diverse society will never agree on what is immoral. But they can accept a shared idea of what is illegal which is based on avoiding or correcting situations where people are mistreated (suffer or experience loss unreasonably at the hands of others).
1. For the most part, might makes right (or the majority rules) with a handful of truly moral people understanding that differences are OK and the minority must be protected.
2. Usually, although there are exceptions as in everything associated with mankind.
3. The only morals/boundaries innate to the human animal are those that promote survival and expansion of the species. Those brought about by evolutionary processes, in other words, and they are relatively few.
Morality is the product of the evolutionary development of man and society. Morality is always relative and never absolute. Within the framework of our society, we chose our own, personal code of moral conduct.
There is no need for a castaway on a desert island to have or maintain a moral standard, morals only exist or are of any use in social groups. these morals will be based on different perspectives such as Theological, biological, sociological or cosmological.
Oh! The morals for any given society are based on the perspectives of the viewers involved. I see. So, some sort of agreement must take place. But, it stands to reason, somehow they have to be able to base that agreement on something logical, tangible and real…for them to all agree.
But do they all agree?
If morals were imbedded in our genes then there would be no differences between any societies and one set of morals would be accepted by all, of course its true that morals are based on something real and tangible and although morals themselves are not built into the genes fundamental prohibitions are, that is events that no human being wants to happen to him, such as killing or injuring another human being, to enslave another by restraint, to use another's property without consent.
Therefore, an effective moral code must define only those activities that are not permissible, that society prohibits under threat of punishment. Furthermore, it is imperative that any societal system of morality stipulates unequivocally that any act, which is not expressly prohibited, is permitted:
However all morals and moral codes can only be relative and subjective. Human beings devise moral judgments, such as good and evil, right and wrong, either with the objective of furthering law and order within societies, or with the objective of manipulating other human beings.
My prospective of good and evil maybe different to yours, if it was hard wired into our genes surely both our prospective about good and evil would be the same.
One word: Huh?
This is all over my head. What is the bottom line, Mr. (Very Respected) Silverspeeder? I totally trust your opinion on things and I usually understand you. But I am stumped by all you have said this time. As an exercise in detective work, let me isolate the difficulties: I hope you do not mind and please correct anything I have misinterpreted.
A. "Differences between any societies." (I am mostly discussing one society at a time.)
B. "These boundaries are built into the genes of every person:
1. Killing or injuring another human being.
2. Enslaving another by restraint.
3. Using another's property without consent." (This information is based on facts?)
C. "Moral codes define what is not permitted and are enforced through punishment."( Not always! Often, breaking a moral code will result in a negative consequence, but not a direct punishment. For instance, no tickets are given out for adultery, but maybe they should be! LOL)
D."Morality should allow whatever is not prohibited, to be permitted," (meaning: "Liberty!" Of course!)
E. Moral codes can be:
1. Relative (to what?)
2. Subjective (to whom?)
F. Human beings devise moral judgments in order to:
1. Further law and order."( Such as…)
2. Manipulate other human beings." (Such as…)
G. "My perspective of good and evil may be different to yours."
( I really do doubt it. In fact, I firmly disagree.)
A. But which society are you discussing?
B. These facts are based on the feeling of wellbeing and is much to do with self preservation and self interest.
C. Again its all according which moral code you are following. In some societies adulterers are stoned to death.
Would you say Benjamin Franklin was morally reprehensible? He did own a large amount of slaves. And would the slave have thought BF morally reprehensible?
E. 1 Relative to self 2 subjective to society
F. 1. The legal code of the society you live in 2.Others morals forced upon you to subjugate
G. My morals allow me to accept the death penalty as a punishment, does yours?
You are right and I stand corrected and explained to on all accounts. We are discussing more than one society…all democratic societies.
We do not all agree on the death penalty.
etc. blurry eyed. can't go on.
...How are Morals established in a Society.
By those in power and what prospers. Few aspire to martyrdom in order to be right.
...Are good and decent actions fostered in the youth through training and guidance?
Exposure to life in general. We see good and decent behavior mostly from those who are older and have life experience. Unfortunately American parents shield their youth from such experiences so they are not shown.
... Are morals and boundaries natural to a human being and built within his nature or are they infused through socialization?
I think everyone knows the difference between right and wrong. We only have to look at ourselves to see how we wish to be treated and transfer it to others. Many factors come into play that counter the correct actions. Fear, desperation and despotism are a few things that over ride the "Golden Rule".
… by knowing / doing what is right / just / honorable -EVERY person in so-called "society ";
… youth- the children are copying parents' ( adults?) actions, words, clean vocabulary;
… doing good is natural- opposite to "good" ( who have authorized you to take from me my toy or speak to me rudely ?)- comes of free will (?) - influence of "the evil" -- that where enters man-made label "morality"- that's as you know is a different subject so far being avoided intentionally since the basic reality of spiritual existence is not welcome.
No it is welcome. Philosophy does deal with metaphysics!
Once a commentator injects the universal , spiritual TRUTH established by the Creator, a verbal ' war ' starts immediately ( is that worth at all ?)
Socrates talked about the after-life and about the gods and about last lives. We know about Socrates through Plato about 350 BCE. When Jesus came upon the scene, he brought the idea of not only (One) God, but actual concrete God, (Heaven is within) and the precept of Doing Unto Others As You Would Like Others To Do Unto You. Plato in the Republic asserts that justice is Giving Others Their Due. Both Socrates, a man, and the Jesus, the "Son of Man/God", proclaimed that we cannot just *do what we like* if it hurts others. Our Due is to Treat Others As We Would Like To Be Treated. Bottom line with fairness and... roll the drums... with kindness.
Is stealing kindness?
Is lying kindness?
Is adultery kindness?
Is murder kindness?
Is coveting kindness?
This can be applied to citizenry and to government.
Doesn't kindness equal Love?
I mean, really, can't we just all get along?
Love should be the reason for Power, in the end.
Well, I have been trying to figure out Plato's Meno. Does that count?
I favor a moving morality that is not based on a fixed one like the bible or Plato. Good is based on culture and culture is relative. There was a time burning supposed witches was considered good (I don't). There is the secular morality as well as religious morality.
Could you explain a moving morality and this statement, "Good is based on culture and culture is relative," in greater detail? Interesting. I suppose the word "secular" is necessary.
To find my answers, please read my Hubs, "Morality has a wider scope than legality," and "Which should we live by: fixed morality or moving morality?"
Morals provide boundaries which are based on common sense. What is "common sense?" Sense which is common to all!!! Human nature is common to every single human. Therefore, valid moral codes are not relative and subjective. They are objective and applicable to all.
If moral codes were permanently and indelibly "built in" there would be no need to establish them. If they are built in, they are easily ignored, forgotten and discounted. There is proof of this everywhere, especially in the News!
So you are saying we find our moral codes within ourselves?
This is the argument. Some proclaim that morals are built in. Some say we need to establish them from without. Some say it is a combination of the two. What do you think?
I think they are built in, but are easily forgotten, ignored and discounted. Therefore, since men are not the angels they were at birth and beyond,(during childhood) we need moral codes and laws (which are based on the moral codes) to insure "justice and liberty for all."
But we do need to agree on them and this is why we vote. Why we discuss, why we argue, why we study and educate ourselves... why we think, feel, discern and sense. Why we must know the truth. Some sort of solid, agreed-upon reality. We will eventually get there. But we may need some help.
" Help" is provided. When the Creator has began to raise His family, He has provided all needed instructions for His man's living rightly, wisely , healthy and eternally... Once that is rejected,- well - generations are trying to supply alternative solution , as confirmed even in this conversation...( Word 'moral- ity' isn't in Creator's vocabulary ).
Then are we to assume that your creator has forsaken us?
anyone has freedom to assume; my Creator has not forsaken me...
Are YOU what is ultimately important? Why would he forsake anyone?
If he has not abandoned us where is he now? Where is he now that everything he made is now falling apart, is this the original purpose?
As for you we can see you have not abandoned the idea that god is waiting to return.
It's quite simple really.
Do on to others as you would have them do on to you.
+1. A concept found throughout the world, and the only moral that is nearly universal.
Of course, there is a difference between paying lip service to it and actually following it as a part of our lives.
If our leaders even tried a little to follow that . . .
I wrote: "...it stands to reason, somehow they have to be able to base that agreement on something * logical, tangible and real…* for them to all agree."
Yep. All they, (our elected officials) have to do, is agree on that one little precept.
HOW do we get them to do that?
The Ballot Box.
How do we get members of a democratic society to all agree with that one little precept? Well, that is the main issue! I hope the aliens who are reading all this, trying to figure out what makes us tick, are happy: This explains Our Predicaments… Those of us in any democratic republic or country.
Nutshell: What others (no matter who they are) owe us and (what we owe others) is the ability to tune into Heaven Within at any time… This ability should not be interrupted by unkind treatment from others! This is so simple it is hilarious!
There is the problem of what to do with offenders. Enforcing morals is another matter entirely.
(Kindness, it seems, cannot be enforced kindly, only powerfully.)
These are reasons why it advised to follow a prescribed and agreed upon moral code in a land of liberty.
Dealing with a corrupt nature we leave to absolute authority to whom vengeance belongs. God's children understand, the world doesn't that in all strife and contention those who revenge are conquered , and those who forgive are conquerors. ( In my personal walk with God seeing His act of "avenging' felt too harsh, without me having anything to do; in some instances God's " payment" is unachievable by a man even if I would like to thing to inflict.)
True. America was established as a democratic republic. Pure democracy leads to despotism.
History is always leading to the point when "was" still existed as "is" exposing process where man-(kind) gave up on original purpose of being ; you've mention one of the direction man is able to go in his state of rebellion against originally GIVEN freedom and liberty, - which manifests itself as tyranny with its final product an annihilation ...
by Yves2 years ago
Is morality undervalued? Are ethics replacing morality?Though similar, there are distinctions between morality and ethics. Which school of thought do you live by? Are you moral or ethical?
by Debra Allen5 years ago
Do you think that Christianity is the only group that teaches morals and ethics?
by Minister Mitch3 years ago
Do you think the Ten (10) commandments are really no longer useful?What will happen if the 10 commandments are no longer taught in the homes of Americans?.
by SpanStar6 years ago
Compared to people in the past would you say modern-day people are more moral than those since the days of Pharaoh up until present day?The crimes of modern-day man are too numerous to list here.
by Daniel Bassilios3 years ago
To what extent should we tolerate the ethics and morals of others without any kind of intervention?What do you think the limit to tolerance should be before we condemn and target certain points of view which we consider...
by SpanStar5 years ago
Having declared ourselves as free thinking righteous believers (meaning we understand the concept of a right and wrong).* Would curtailing shock jock radio announcer's verbal expressions over the airway be immoral?*...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.