Debate Mansion

   

moral values- irrelavant today? (Page 4)

Post Reply New Post

Page 4 of 5

Page 1 Page 3
Page   of 5
Page 5 Page 5

Vinzy

IF-Stunnerz

Vinzy

Joined: 03 December 2005

Posts: 26605

Posted: 01 December 2010 at 12:41am | IP Logged
Originally posted by blue-ice

Originally posted by Believe

Originally posted by PhoeniXof_Hades

Define "morality" and "moral values" first, and then we can continue the discussion from there. Do you consider morality to be stringent and absolute or do you feel there is room for change depending on the time and context? Do you equate tradition with goodness and morality?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Morality is concerned with ideals... how you should be, what you should be. Therefore, I think morality is basically condemning...every morality creates hypocrisy..... It will do so inevitably. Hypocrisy will remain with morality..... It is part of it  the shadow...for eg...Have you observed the fact that in your bathroom you become more childish...Sometimes you can show your tongue to yourself in the mirror, or you can make faces, or you can hum a tune, sing a song, or you can even have a little dance in the bathroom. Bt while you are dancing or showing your tongue in the mirror, if you becom aware tht ur sis/bro/kid is looking through the keyhole, you change immediate change! The old face comes back...So I think moral person is not an individual becos he is divided, moral person has a personality bt no individuality..... Personality means persona, mask. And he/she has many personalities, not only one ...becos he/she has to have many personalities around him..... In different situations, different personalities are needed...and morality is a social phenomenon... society needs it becos society consists of millions of people..so we all follow differnt ideas / moralities/masks in our life...sub chaltha hey boss!!!Smile



@POH....morality is something that u have to decide for urself......it will depend on different factors...no one can define morality for u......my set of morals will be different from you...that soesn't mean that either one of us is immoral..its just that we believe in different things.....and no...nothing is absolute in this world .....it all depends on ur perspective.......and u don't have to follow what u think is not right.....no one can force u to adhere to a particular set of morals because there is not a set of morals that is universal and holds true for everyone....
@ Vinu....I think u are confusing morals with tradition and human nature.......we do a lot of things out of peer/society pressure.........for e.g..touching the feet of ur elders is an old Indian tradition.....some follow it some do not...those who follow it ..if they just do it for name sakes then they can be called hypocrites.........if u don't like it then don't do it.......so touching the feet is a tradition but respecting ur elders is a moral value ....you are not bound to follow either if u don't think they are right.....Just because someone follows what they feel is right doesn't make them hypocrites..for God's sake...this is a new one I have heard... ---Big smileok ,hope u like to hear new things...
 
When you say somebody is a very moral person, all that you mean is that he follows the rules  laid down by the society in which he lives. Morality became one dimensional.......Ya we have to follow what our culture and society says becouse, Society cannot tolerate somebody who is rebellious, because soceity think he will destroy the whole structure......He may be right...... Athens could not tolerate Socrates, not becos he was wrong .... he was absolutely right .... bt Athens could not tolerate him because if he had been tolerated then the whole structure of the society would have gone, been thrown to the dogs... then the society could not have existed. So Socrates had to be sacrificed to society.....!!!! And Jesus was crucified, not becos whatsoever he was saying was wrong ... never have such true words been asserted on this earth  bt he was sacrificed to the society becos the way he was talking, the way he was behaving, was dangerous to the structure........thats why I said... Morality is concerned with ideals... how you should be, what you should be. Therefore, I think morality is basically condemning...that why I said every morality creates different type of hypocrisy.....and we all know that mind is a creation of the society....... It has been educated different ways!

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

souro

Dear Guest, Being an unregistered member you are missing out on participating in the lively discussions happening on the topic "moral values- irrelavant today? (Page 4)" in Debate Mansion forum. In addition you lose out on the fun interactions with fellow members and other member exclusive features that India-Forums has to offer. Join India's most popular discussion portal on Indian Entertainment. It's FREE and registration is effortless so JOIN NOW!

blue-ice

IF-Stunnerz

blue-ice

Joined: 04 March 2009

Posts: 25723

Posted: 01 December 2010 at 12:55am | IP Logged
Originally posted by Believe

Originally posted by blue-ice

Originally posted by Believe

Originally posted by PhoeniXof_Hades

Define "morality" and "moral values" first, and then we can continue the discussion from there. Do you consider morality to be stringent and absolute or do you feel there is room for change depending on the time and context? Do you equate tradition with goodness and morality?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Morality is concerned with ideals... how you should be, what you should be. Therefore, I think morality is basically condemning...every morality creates hypocrisy..... It will do so inevitably. Hypocrisy will remain with morality..... It is part of it  the shadow...for eg...Have you observed the fact that in your bathroom you become more childish...Sometimes you can show your tongue to yourself in the mirror, or you can make faces, or you can hum a tune, sing a song, or you can even have a little dance in the bathroom. Bt while you are dancing or showing your tongue in the mirror, if you becom aware tht ur sis/bro/kid is looking through the keyhole, you change immediate change! The old face comes back...So I think moral person is not an individual becos he is divided, moral person has a personality bt no individuality..... Personality means persona, mask. And he/she has many personalities, not only one ...becos he/she has to have many personalities around him..... In different situations, different personalities are needed...and morality is a social phenomenon... society needs it becos society consists of millions of people..so we all follow differnt ideas / moralities/masks in our life...sub chaltha hey boss!!!Smile



@POH....morality is something that u have to decide for urself......it will depend on different factors...no one can define morality for u......my set of morals will be different from you...that soesn't mean that either one of us is immoral..its just that we believe in different things.....and no...nothing is absolute in this world .....it all depends on ur perspective.......and u don't have to follow what u think is not right.....no one can force u to adhere to a particular set of morals because there is not a set of morals that is universal and holds true for everyone....
@ Vinu....I think u are confusing morals with tradition and human nature.......we do a lot of things out of peer/society pressure.........for e.g..touching the feet of ur elders is an old Indian tradition.....some follow it some do not...those who follow it ..if they just do it for name sakes then they can be called hypocrites.........if u don't like it then don't do it.......so touching the feet is a tradition but respecting ur elders is a moral value ....you are not bound to follow either if u don't think they are right.....Just because someone follows what they feel is right doesn't make them hypocrites..for God's sake...this is a new one I have heard... ---Big smileok ,hope u like to hear new things...
 
When you say somebody is a very moral person, all that you mean is that he follows the rules  laid down by the society in which he lives. Morality became one dimensional.......Ya we have to follow what our culture and society says becouse, Society cannot tolerate somebody who is rebellious, because soceity think he will destroy the whole structure......He may be right...... Athens could not tolerate Socrates, not becos he was wrong .... he was absolutely right .... bt Athens could not tolerate him because if he had been tolerated then the whole structure of the society would have gone, been thrown to the dogs... then the society could not have existed. So Socrates had to be sacrificed to society.....!!!! And Jesus was crucified, not becos whatsoever he was saying was wrong ... never have such true words been asserted on this earth  bt he was sacrificed to the society becos the way he was talking, the way he was behaving, was dangerous to the structure........thats why I said... Morality is concerned with ideals... how you should be, what you should be. Therefore, I think morality is basically condemning...that why I said every morality creates different type of hypocrisy.....and we all know that mind is a creation of the society....... It has been educated different ways!

No This is what u are saying...please see my post again...I said morality is something that u decide for urself....the society doesn't decide it for you...the society gives u traditions,cultures and a set of rules....morals are ur own...u have to decide what u feel is right.............conforming to the society's norms is not morality...some morals do not change with time.....like speaking the truth...will be true in all ages...but the traditions,culture and rules will change with time ...and like I said...u don't have to follow anything ......morality doesn't create hypocrisy....it creates honesty.....

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

souro

Vinzy

IF-Stunnerz

Vinzy

Joined: 03 December 2005

Posts: 26605

Posted: 01 December 2010 at 1:14am | IP Logged
Originally posted by blue-ice

No This is what u are saying...please see my post again...I said morality is something that u decide for urself....the society doesn't decide it for you...the society gives u traditions,cultures and a set of rules....morals are ur own...   u have to decide what u feel is right.............conforming to the society's norms is not morality...some morals do not change with time.....like speaking the truth...will be true in all ages...but the traditions,culture and rules will change with time ...and like I said...u don't have to follow anything ......morality doesn't create hypocrisy....it creates honesty.....
 
We were honest, we were moral, we followed right means, we were truthful, and yet we failed. And the other person was dishonest, cunning, insincere, immoral and yet he succeeded.....Now, the whole moral system teaches that truth is going to win, that morality is going to win, that honesty is going to win. Bt in life we see that all the honest people are losing and immoral people are gaining. The cunning, the clever become powerful..... The simple and the innocent are crushed. Our whole value system is at stake....!!!
 
You come into the world just like an actor, comes onto the stage fully prepared. He/she cannot change anything. Once in a while actors can change things, because a drama is a drama....

zorrro

Goldie

zorrro

Joined: 29 July 2008

Posts: 1893

Posted: 01 December 2010 at 8:27am | IP Logged

Posting some portions from the long essay

Originally posted by return_to_hades

Drug Control & Addiction

Drug Policy:

All these known and evident fact make it clear that the battle against drugs is not successful. We have not managed to stop, limit, curb or control drug trade or abuse in any significant manner......

One option is definitely adopting closer to a 'zero tolerance' policy and establishing stricter, stringent control and laws and perhaps even making some currently legal substances illegal. This view is extreme and impractical. It will exhaust and consume more resources ....

 

....to adopt the liberal policy of legalizing all drugs. While this view is quite controversial, I believe such a drug policy will be more viable and a better alternative to society.

 

....controlled shift slowly introducing illegal drugs in the market with control and regulation....

 

Studies have shown that people who tend to abuse drugs usually suffer from depression, anxiety and other forms of mental disorders. People turn to drugs due to social confusion, rejection and often resort to substance abuse. They abuse drugs in order to feel better or be able to do better. People with a strong network of friends and family, people who encourage and support them in life are less likely to use or abuse drugs....

 

While the argument in favor of protecting people from harm due to drug users appears sound, rational and logical. However, it misses the key aspect of near and present danger.Just because drug usage may result in these problems, does not mean every instance of drug usage will cause these problems. It is unfair towards responsible drug users who may potentially never do something like that....

 

On the whole legalizing currently illegal drugs will benefit society in the long run.

However, it is the most reasonable alternative to a failed drug prohibition policy.

 It also forces us to tackle the core issues actually plaguing  society instead of using drugs as a scapegoat. Addiction, irresponsible behavior, etc. are not the result of drugs, but people and society. Anyone can be addicted to anything or behave in an irresponsible manner. The key is to prevent people from doing so in all walks of life

 

 me :
 
Its the people and society that needs to be prevented from irresponsible behaviour ..
So why is legalising Drugs the Most Reasonable alternative ???
To regulate drug use? Why not simply regulate our own behaviour? Makes more economical sense too .....
Failed drug prohibition policy , failed self regulation (?)
..so pass on the responsibility by making drugs legal and expect others to regulate it for us !


Edited by zorrro - 01 December 2010 at 8:31am

zorrro

Goldie

zorrro

Joined: 29 July 2008

Posts: 1893

Posted: 01 December 2010 at 8:35am | IP Logged
Originally posted by Believe

Originally posted by blue-ice

No This is what u are saying...please see my post again...I said morality is something that u decide for urself....the society doesn't decide it for you...the society gives u traditions,cultures and a set of rules....morals are ur own...   u have to decide what u feel is right.............conforming to the society's norms is not morality...some morals do not change with time.....like speaking the truth...will be true in all ages...but the traditions,culture and rules will change with time ...and like I said...u don't have to follow anything ......morality doesn't create hypocrisy....it creates honesty.....
 
We were honest, we were moral, we followed right means, we were truthful, and yet we failed. And the other person was dishonest, cunning, insincere, immoral and yet he succeeded.....Now, the whole moral system teaches that truth is going to win, that morality is going to win, that honesty is going to win. Bt in life we see that all the honest people are losing and immoral people are gaining. The cunning, the clever become powerful..... The simple and the innocent are crushed. Our whole value system is at stake....!!!
 
You come into the world just like an actor, comes onto the stage fully prepared. He/she cannot change anything. Once in a while actors can change things, because a drama is a drama....
Is morality about winning ? I think morality is listening to ones conscience in deciding whats good or bad . Each peson would have own conscience dictating differently. It can sometimes prevent us from doing something that we are undecided about or which we might see as logical also

Edited by zorrro - 01 December 2010 at 8:37am

zorrro

Goldie

zorrro

Joined: 29 July 2008

Posts: 1893

Posted: 01 December 2010 at 8:50am | IP Logged
Originally posted by PhoeniXof_Hades

Define "morality" and "moral values" first, and then we can continue the discussion from there. Do you consider morality to be stringent and absolute or do you feel there is room for change depending on the time and context? Do you equate tradition with goodness and morality?

You could easily look it up yourself ....
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Tradition isn't always the best, and change isn't always for the worse. Some changes - like empowerment of women and the acceptance of minorities - actually had been for the better. You cannot run down a practice just because they are "new" (or newly accepted) and were taboos in the past. Some traditional values often tend to be downright outdated, regressive, misogynistic and even destructive for humanity in general. (Of course the opposite holds true as well). It is against my principle to accept such values in the name of tradition or modernity without scrutinizing these issues from top to bottom.

Sure we can always take our time ...Tongue 
 
 I refuse to accept any of these passed-down values without my judgment. In my opinion, people should quit living in the past and harping over their past values;
You mean the values held in the past are no longer relevant ?  Did you arrive at this conclusion after scrutinizing "all the past values" from top to bottom Tongue
 
sure if you wish to live your life in the past, then by all means, do so, but let others - who chose to go forward - do so too.
Didnt think anyone could live in the past without moving forward ..
That said, tradition and traditional values should not be dismissed by the youngsters of today just because they happen to be of the past either.
Didnt you dismiss it yourself a few lines above ?LOL 
So what traditional values do you think are relevant today ? Not everyone must have scrutinised it as thoroughly ..so do share Smile

zorrro

Goldie

zorrro

Joined: 29 July 2008

Posts: 1893

Posted: 01 December 2010 at 9:02am | IP Logged
Originally posted by old-black-joe

The important aspect is goal. What is our societal goal? What can be done to achieve it?

We have to take into consideration that we are in a diverse society, so the goals of each person are different. People should live and let live, ie, live uninhibited,but at the same time, the general goal should be not to ruin anyone elses life in society.

Old world values are good in theory, they have to be made flexible in todays current world.
Looks like qute a chaotic situation if each of us lives according to individual goals only . There are bound to be frequent clash of interest . There has to be some common ground to avoid constant fights due to it.

mr.ass

IF-Rockerz

mr.ass

Joined: 27 October 2008

Posts: 9453

Posted: 01 December 2010 at 9:22am | IP Logged
Originally posted by zorrro

Originally posted by old-black-joe

The important aspect is goal. What is our societal goal? What can be done to achieve it?

We have to take into consideration that we are in a diverse society, so the goals of each person are different. People should live and let live, ie, live uninhibited,but at the same time, the general goal should be not to ruin anyone elses life in society.

Old world values are good in theory, they have to be made flexible in todays current world.
Looks like qute a chaotic situation if each of us lives according to individual goals only . There are bound to be frequent clash of interest . There has to be some common ground to avoid constant fights due to it.




@ bold: thats exactly what's happening in the real world, isnt it?

But yes, definitely, a selfish world is as awful as an over diplomatic over caring one.  What I was tryin to say was that people should be ambitious and do what it takes to achieve their goals in life , irrespective of the "old world morals" , but at the same time, don't be evil, as in unethical, or adopt underhanded tricks. However what is unethical or underhanded is subjective, so there will always be some clashes etc, which is exactly what happens. :)

Post Reply New Post

Go to top

Related Topics

  Topics Topic Starter Replies Views Last Post
In wake of SKS: censorship/moral responsibility? --arti-- 9 624 12 August 2009 at 6:04pm
By angelic_devil
Valentine's day - values anything?

2 3 4

raj5000 31 1547 15 February 2008 at 6:10am
By rockstallion
Soldiers killing is moral?

2

raj5000 15 710 02 October 2007 at 10:28pm
By sareg
Non Vegetarians Animal Activists - Moral?

2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 14 15

raj5000 117 4761 06 April 2007 at 6:41pm
By raunaq
Moral Inspector of TV? realitybites 8 495 07 February 2007 at 12:13pm
By realitybites

Forum Quick Jump

Forum Category

Active Forums

Debate Mansion Topic Index

Limit search to this Forum only.

 

Disclaimer: All Logos and Pictures of various Channels, Shows, Artistes, Media Houses, Companies, Brands etc. belong to their respective owners, and are used to merely visually identify the Channels, Shows, Companies, Brands, etc. to the viewer. Incase of any issue please contact the webmaster.