| Welcome to Fire Emblem Fusion. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Morality | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jan 1 2008, 02:25 PM (855 Views) | |
| Reaver | Jan 1 2008, 02:25 PM Post #1 |
|
Cynical. Very Cynical.
|
This is a debate of morals and morality: the main questions: Has there been a major decline in the morality of society? Who (what) establishes morals? Does (or should) society have a standardized code of morals? Are morals important, or does law eliminate the need for morality? |
Favorite Staffer Summer 2008 -- Send me a Personal Message | |
 |
 
|
| Dragon Hellfire | Jan 1 2008, 03:18 PM Post #2 |
Dragon Hellfire; three random words
|
I'm not fond of morality. It can be useful for people with out the rationalizing skills and logic to decide a situation depending on what's optimum for society and/or themselves. However, the logic behind morals cannot be applied to every situation, thus making them bad at times. This is only natural, so if somebody were to just use the logic behind the morals when it's best instead of the morals themselves all the time, they'd probably be better off. |
|
.:FES:. Formerly: Juggernaut, FireBane 100% of BwdYetis don't care about your percentages. | |
|
|
|
| Reaver | Jan 1 2008, 04:52 PM Post #3 |
|
Cynical. Very Cynical.
|
I think the only morals should be utilitarian morals. For example, stealing should be immoral, as it hurts more people than it helps. Morals also must change to fit society. Premarital sex used to be a strong moral held by society, but now society is slowly dropping this moral. I support this change because it's just how mankind works; now that girls are hitting puberty at much younger ages and couples are marrying later, it only makes sense couples are going to have sex before marriage. It's foolish to apply an old standard to an ever-changing society. |
Favorite Staffer Summer 2008 -- Send me a Personal Message | |
|
|
|
| Sentenal | Jan 1 2008, 05:29 PM Post #4 |
When you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat.
|
On the issue of premartial sex, just look at how many children are getting born to single mothers, who can barely even support their kids. Look at how many children are growing up without a father figure. Do you honestly think that its a good thing? Morals are a good thing. That... Kinda sounds weird to say, because to me, its kinda common sense. Without morals, society will just decline into a decadent cluster of people, only contrained by laws; laws that can easily be changed. Bottem line, is that society shouldn't define morals, morals should define the society. |
| "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same." | |
|
|
|
| Reaver | Jan 1 2008, 05:53 PM Post #5 |
|
Cynical. Very Cynical.
|
But society would never change and thus would never make progress. If morals defined society, then society could never change the same flaws would exist forevermore. I don't care about a "father figure." The nuclear family is a sexist, outdated structure that needs modification. Does the father always need to work? Does the wife always need to have the same roles of cooking, cleaning, child care, and other roles previously associated with the wife? Does the father need to work, or can he stay home and care for the kids? Does the father need to be the disciplinary figure? Does the mother need to be subordinate to the father? When you refer to "father figure," you refer to the nuclear family structure and obsolete sexist ideas. I believe children should be brought up with loving parents. Two mothers? Fine. Two fathers? Fine. A working mother and stay-at-home dad? Fine. However, if this cannot happen because men will not take responsibility or circumstances prevent such from happening, I hope a mother's (or father's) love is enough to properly raise and influence a child. |
Favorite Staffer Summer 2008 -- Send me a Personal Message | |
|
|
|
| Feez | Jan 1 2008, 06:43 PM Post #6 |
|
Ebullient Future
|
The "nuclear family" and "obsolete sexist ideas" are what have been keeping our society and families running together. Most broken families are those like Sentenal mentioned. The father doesn't HAVE to be the disciplinary figure, but if that's the only way things are going to work out well (since families in which the mother is the disciplinary and head figure are few), then I think we should stick to that old moral value to keep things going. |
|
|
|
| Reaver | Jan 1 2008, 06:59 PM Post #7 |
|
Cynical. Very Cynical.
|
I disagree entirely. Many prominent individuals in society have come from broken, nontraditional homes. Eric Clapton, for example, lived with his grandmother and mother (whom he believed to be his mother and older sister respectively, his mother was 16 when he was born) and I don't think he turned out too horrible. Oprah Winfrey is another example of someone successful who grew up in a "broken" home. Clearly broken homes aren't the causes for bad individuals and horrible morals. "Home is where the heart is" and "home is where you make it" have a profound effect on me: it's not about having all the "right" pieces it's about making things work. |
Favorite Staffer Summer 2008 -- Send me a Personal Message | |
|
|
|
| Sentenal | Jan 1 2008, 07:20 PM Post #8 |
|
When you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat.
|
How do you define "progress"? Some things which you call progression, I call regression. Morality wouldn't heavily effect technological advancements, or anything like that. And similarly, what do you define as "flaws" in terms of a moral society...?
Father figure refers to an authority figure in the family. Does it actually have to be the father? No. But a family with 2 parents, one being the provider, the other caring for the family/home, regardless of which one does it, is the best way to raise kids. I don't want to throw this into a gay marriage debate, but in certain ways, even gay couples can try and simulate a nuclear family. But back on the issue of premarital sex, all it has is ONE parent, struggling to provide for a kid she just downloaded. She has to work to make money. She can't work and take care of the kids at the same time. The kids only have one parent to look up to. This sort of thing is plaguing African American communities right now, with the destruction of the family. You can't tell me that a single working mother can raise a child better than nuclear family, which works FAR better than this situation. And as for you bringing up Oprah... Sure, its possible for good, productive people to come out of a broken family. Is it as common? Hell no. I can't believe you would even try and imply that. |
| "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same." | |
|
|
|
| Feez | Jan 1 2008, 07:39 PM Post #9 |
|
Ebullient Future
|
Pretty much agreed on everything. |
|
|
|
| Yzarc | Jan 1 2008, 08:26 PM Post #10 |
Coxian
|
I think Bush vetoing Stem Cell Research for moral reasons counts as slowing technological advancement. There not only are morals in the way of technological progression, but many would say that they aren't even good morals.
Yeah, that's a bad side effect of us being a more sexually liberal country than we used to be, but that doesn't mean that premarital sex is inherently immoral. As long as both are consenting adults, it's not a problem to anyone but themselves, making the resulting pregnancy a problem of stress and financing, rather than a problem of morality. My morals pretty much come down to this: If it's not hurting anyone who doesn't want to be hurt by it, it's not a problem. That said, I think it's stupid for doctor assisted suicide to be illegal. I think it's stupid for marijuana to be illegal. I think it makes total sense for driving while intoxicated to be illegal, and murder and any sort of robbery. |
  
| |
|
|
|
| Reaver | Jan 1 2008, 08:38 PM Post #11 |
|
Cynical. Very Cynical.
|
Morality effects technological regression. To provide a sample, let us say that society was based on the morals of 1500s Rome. The Church is always right is one of the morals. Galileo Galilei's theory of a heliocentric universe would be rejected and we would still think everything revolved around us, hindering our knowledge of space. Pope Boniface VIII banned cadaver dissection in the 13th century. If this held true, modern medicine wouldn't be anywhere close to where it is today because we wouldn't know how the body works. Morals often get in the way of progress, moreso than the converse. If society was defined by morals then we wouldn't have the same medical or astronomical knowledge we have today. I still think a loving influence is the best way to have a family and we can argue this all day and all night. The establishment of a set provider and set nurturer has embedded one of the overlooked stereotypes -- the one surrounding fathers -- into society. While, granted, this will fade over time if society continues to change, we're creating divisionns as well. I've met great kids who come from families ridden by divorce and I can't say that the traditional family is the most effective way to raise children. Wrong. It's not about the number of parents, it's about how the family functions. Single mothers and fathers can raise a child to be just as healthy and regular as any child from a nuclear family; look at any child who has lost a parent at a young age and continued to grow up to be a standard citizen (Dexter Scott King, son of Martin Luther King Jr., lost his father at the age of about 7-8). I bring it up because it proves my point: what a family consists of is irrelevant, everything is dependent on how a family functions. All one needs is a nuturing environment to grow and learn in for a family to be "functional." |
Favorite Staffer Summer 2008 -- Send me a Personal Message | |
|
|
|
| Askio | Jan 1 2008, 10:32 PM Post #12 |
Crit McGee on Speed
|
Morals are a necessity of life. Laws stem from morals, so hence, morals are the original 'laws' so to speak. Where did the punishment for killing and the law forbidding it stem from? The moral that killing is wrong. The society of the world has unfortunately lost sight of this, and now makes exceptions and other laws to contradict the laws that were originally placed. Now it has degraded so much that the number of laws only causes confusion and loopholes to the point that there no longer are really morals any longer. Even if people say so, and while it may somewhat exist among an individual level, as a whole, it disappeared a long time ago. Morals are more or less what define each person. It is what makes us unique. So it is important for people to have these in order to maintain or individualism. Now though, laws dictate actions more than morals, and while in some cases this is good, as I said before, there are so many contradictions in our world that laws are more or less useless on a grand scale when it gets right down to it. Morals are clear cut, and don't have loopholes. It either is or is not, very rarely is a maybe with it. Do you think killing is bad is one of the few exceptions. And also, if we still followed our morals instead of allowing the corrupt and morales people who abuse our societies, people going against there morals in order to survive, such as stealing, would more or less not exist. So yes morals are important. And society would advance going with morals, simply by going backwards. The same way it happened after the middle ages. So we would advance by making things more simple. |
|
Fire Emblem Online Askio: 9-1-1 | |
|
|
|
| Crysta | Jan 1 2008, 10:32 PM Post #13 |
時の扉
|
Like... 80% of my friends don't have a father. It's a problem for most demographics now. Hell, some of them even have bad mothers. On the whole, they're generally fine. My mom was the breadwinner for most of my life even when my father was around and capable of working. He just didn't want to, with three kids, so she divorced him. It's more complicated than that. The problems we're encountering NOW are probably rooted in how our parents were raised -- the baby boomers -- around the 50's and 60's, when the nuclear family was very much still alive but changing. Women were just entering the work force and birth control came about. Both my parents had parents who never seperated and I don't think either of their mothers actually worked. In conclusion, I can safely say family roles aren't the only thing you need. I think it'll get worse before it gets better, but on the whole people need to grow up and learn to take responsibility. We lost that. I don't think being a cookie cutter family would solve it, the people themselves have to. As a sidenote: I think it's a bad thing that some kids have sex THEN get each other's names. That's like having dessert before breakfast. 
|
~ Crysta, Zombie Queen Shameless Advertising: The Keep Roleplaying Chat - The Keep Forums Johari | Nohari My Twitter | |
|
|
|
| Reaver | Jan 1 2008, 10:58 PM Post #14 |
|
Cynical. Very Cynical.
|
Responsibility isn't taught anymore. Sex education should focus around responsibility and not "don't have sex!" or saying "we advise not to have sex but use a condom if you do!" rather than discussing the effects of impregnating a girl and those burdens. I completely agree; before people have sex they need to be ready for the responsibilities paired with it. |
Favorite Staffer Summer 2008 -- Send me a Personal Message | |
|
|
|
| Sentenal | Jan 1 2008, 11:03 PM Post #15 |
|
When you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat.
|
Wait, I'm not seeing any regression. The Church didn't stop Galileo from making his theory. The Pope didn't stop cadaver dissection. All those things happend. I'm not seeing where morality made anything go backwards.
Are those kids better off due to the divorce? Are those kids better off not having their single parent gone all day due to work? You talk about how a loving influence is the best way to have a family, and you talk about it like thats an alternative to a traditional one. Time will tell how much society has been damaged by the destruction of the family. As I've already said/you've ignored, the African American community has been plagued by it big time, and its only a matter of time till the entire country is.
According to that article, its not the number of parents in the family per se. Its economic issues and functional problems of the single parent family. Now, maybe I'm wrong, but maybe those economic issues comes from there being only one parent in the family trying to provide for themselves, their kids, and their life-style? And maybe those functional problems comes from the fact that there is only one parent trying to do all those things? lol? Not to mention its one study, going against conventional wisdom (the article even says that, btw, so its by no means fact).
You bring up exceptions, and there are exceptions to just about anything. Most of the people I know who were brought up in a traditional family have turned out to be good adults. Should I just start listing off people like that?
liek omg them there morals gonna eat ur society |
| "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same." | |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Debate Forum · Next Topic » |
7:23 AM Jul 4
