Who decides morality?

[RGMage2]

A majority of political activists, probably. But maybe not a majority of the population. People have become so cowed by political correctness that it makes it hard to get a read on what they really think.

[HeyYou]

Sometimes I wonder if most people even really think..... at all.... or do they let the mainstream media tell them what they should think.......

[edgeburner]

People have become so cowed by political correctness that it makes it hard to get a read on what they really think.

 

 

SOMEBODY SAY "AMEN"!!!

 

Pretty soon, we will all need to purchase the "scroll of Political correctness" and study it before we venture out through our front door. We surely cannot take it with us, as it will be a huge burden to bear physically..... a real back breaker due to it's sheer size and volume.

 

How else are we to learn addressing someone who is different from us?

 

Keep the divide alive.....separate and divide the people via political correctness.

 

 

[IndigoV]

Morality will never be decided universally, aside from on key issues, like murder(where the world is actually, statistically speaking, becoming less violent), and slavery(we will have few nations to convince on that).

There will be a plurality of moralities, where morality is acculturated(the learning of one's proximal culture) to some degree or another within the family, the schools, religious institutions, and the community. Then beyond that, there's also the spheres of music, sports, entertainment, politics, "national culture"(ugh) and of course ethnicity(ugh again).

Ultimately, much of this is in flux, but there is a general "arc of progress" which historians, scientists, anthropologists, and sociologists alike recognize. Certain things can set this back however, such as scarcity of resources, extreme overpopulation, and extreme weather events which wreck economies and cause civil wars(the most common form of modern warfare now).

[Daedthr]

Morality in my view is personal in concept, an individual decides on their ethical system and either abides by it or not. Society on the other hand is tidal, it ebbs and flows between the polar opposites of conservatism and liberalism. Currently I believe the liberal view is ascendant, they have mastered the media, subsumed the educational process and are dominant in the entertainment medium as well. Thomas Aquinas said "give me a child to the age of ten and they are mine for life", think on the media conditioning that children absorb before they reach an age of intellectual discernment , if they ever do.

If one believes (as I do) that our society is one that does not like to ponder about difficult issues and has the attention span of a mayfly. Instead of formulating an independent analysis on issues they allow their demagogues to lead them by their collective left/right noses because it's easier than THINKING. I have a simple view of pushing my morality on someone else....not to.

Frankly I think there is much to be apprehensive about in either a far left or far right victory in the culture wars.

 

The problem is, if morality is a personal concept, then it is pointless, it means nothing. As you say, someone might decide on their ethical system, but the fact that they have created the ethical system means that there is nothing compelling them to actually act upon it. The problem I see here is that literally, EVERYTHING, is based upon morality, if its pointless then society ceases to exist, although I suppose to some who have created their own ethical system this might not necessarily be a bad thing. The PRACTICAL problem of the point of view (imo of course) is that it only takes a few with this outlook to seriously mess up society for everyone else, but then again, to those few there is not necessarily anything wrong with this. If morality is personal, there is no accountability, a degradation of society back to survival of the fittest. To me this is devolution.

Edited January 3, 2015 by Daedthr

[Stronglav]

Who decides morality?

 

They are:

 

http://images.vfl.ru/ii/1420709226/ef00b1f0/7407646_m.jpg :D

[Lakan]

If you put the LBGT community in context with their liberal coalition allies I think you find a de-facto majority consensus.

Not to say anything disparaging, however, Auriellus, this talk of conservatism vs liberals seems to be centered around America. I would be the first to know as I live here! :laugh:

 

It just seems like we're treading false-dilemma zone when we speak of these two as "polar opposite". You know, the man who invented the name "East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere", for all intents and purposes, had pretty conservative ideals, but he was also looked upon as a liberal, and this is also what got him jailed up, he did not agree with the Japanese militants.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiyoshi_Miki

 

My point is that "conservative" has a very different context all around. Kiyoshi Miki has conservative ideals in that he wanted Asia to be "de-europeanized" or "de-colonized" like his fellow intellectuals. I know a friend, a cultural activist, who is labelled a "conservative" for similar reasons, and it's not that either of these guys are racist, they don't hate the west or anything. In fact, my friend is probably the most liberal guy you will ever meet :)

 

My second point is that in dealing with morality, there should not be a single locus centered on one part of the world. We are more colorful creatures than that, and thus, the scope of morality is a bigger ensemble.