juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Moral Quandaries
Kindest regards to all!
I would like to begin a thread dealing with moral quandaries. My purpose is not to solicit condescending platitudes, but to engage discussion of genuine philosophical conflicts of the everyday variety. This is an exercise in exploring the psychology that drives us morally, in an attempt to discover why we do what we do. It is easy to claim a moral high ground, and even strive to attain it. It is another matter altogether to live up to those same claims. I suspect some questions have no answers, and certainly not easy answers. Additional conflicts are encouraged to be submitted for discussion.
For instance, why is it that we (in the collective, general sense) seem to vent our most violent psychological and physical hatred on those we love the most? Does it stem from such constant close proximity? Is it because we feel most comfortable with these people, and therefore feel free to express in ways we wouldn't dare consider in polite (read: moral) society? Is it that love is subjective and fleeting, that we no longer "love" these same people? Is there a direct relationship between love and hate?
What drives hatred? Is it endemic, and part of our natural inclinations? Why are we disposed to dissociate from those that are not like us, especially those who do not fit comfortably into our clique or group? Why, even with the best intent, do we still hold certain prejudices? For example, we may hold as intent the admirable goal of not being judgmental, yet find ourselves turning away from and avoiding a person with the misfortune of being horribly scarred from some accident.
Another intriguing conflict that has come to my attention involves a concept labeled in German "Schadenfreude." I've afraid my German leaves a great deal to be desired, and my source is but one article, so I may be incorrect in this, but the concept has no English term to label it. The concept is that we delight in seeing the misfortune of others. Let a friend step on a rake and have the handle rise up and smash him in the mouth, and you cannot help but laugh at him. Situation comedies are rife with this form of humor, and judging by the ratings received, we are not offended but rather seek more of the same. But to step back from the situation is to realize that that individual has received very real pain from his misfortune, and rather than empathize with that person's suffering and seek to alleviate it, we instead find a source of glee. Of course, when similar things happen to us, we realize the pain, and then suffer the humiliation of embarrassment. Is this moral?
Since religion, including pseudo-religion, has as its goal the promotion of morality, why is it there are so many conflicts of morality that we overlook or make light of? It would seem that morality is the promotion of society for the benefit of the individual. Yet morality seems at times subjective, and regardless of explicit benefit, gets ignored or contravened. Some of these conflicts seem average (as opposed to normal) behavior, so I wonder if we are predisposed or "hard-wired" for such responses. Therefore, is morality contrary to human nature? Would one act morally if morality were not taught and stressed? And ultimately, who was the first to teach morality? At what point in human social development were the benefits of morality realized?
Sticky questions, but then, that is the purpose of this discussion.
Kindest regards to all!
I would like to begin a thread dealing with moral quandaries. My purpose is not to solicit condescending platitudes, but to engage discussion of genuine philosophical conflicts of the everyday variety. This is an exercise in exploring the psychology that drives us morally, in an attempt to discover why we do what we do. It is easy to claim a moral high ground, and even strive to attain it. It is another matter altogether to live up to those same claims. I suspect some questions have no answers, and certainly not easy answers. Additional conflicts are encouraged to be submitted for discussion.
For instance, why is it that we (in the collective, general sense) seem to vent our most violent psychological and physical hatred on those we love the most? Does it stem from such constant close proximity? Is it because we feel most comfortable with these people, and therefore feel free to express in ways we wouldn't dare consider in polite (read: moral) society? Is it that love is subjective and fleeting, that we no longer "love" these same people? Is there a direct relationship between love and hate?
What drives hatred? Is it endemic, and part of our natural inclinations? Why are we disposed to dissociate from those that are not like us, especially those who do not fit comfortably into our clique or group? Why, even with the best intent, do we still hold certain prejudices? For example, we may hold as intent the admirable goal of not being judgmental, yet find ourselves turning away from and avoiding a person with the misfortune of being horribly scarred from some accident.
Another intriguing conflict that has come to my attention involves a concept labeled in German "Schadenfreude." I've afraid my German leaves a great deal to be desired, and my source is but one article, so I may be incorrect in this, but the concept has no English term to label it. The concept is that we delight in seeing the misfortune of others. Let a friend step on a rake and have the handle rise up and smash him in the mouth, and you cannot help but laugh at him. Situation comedies are rife with this form of humor, and judging by the ratings received, we are not offended but rather seek more of the same. But to step back from the situation is to realize that that individual has received very real pain from his misfortune, and rather than empathize with that person's suffering and seek to alleviate it, we instead find a source of glee. Of course, when similar things happen to us, we realize the pain, and then suffer the humiliation of embarrassment. Is this moral?
Since religion, including pseudo-religion, has as its goal the promotion of morality, why is it there are so many conflicts of morality that we overlook or make light of? It would seem that morality is the promotion of society for the benefit of the individual. Yet morality seems at times subjective, and regardless of explicit benefit, gets ignored or contravened. Some of these conflicts seem average (as opposed to normal) behavior, so I wonder if we are predisposed or "hard-wired" for such responses. Therefore, is morality contrary to human nature? Would one act morally if morality were not taught and stressed? And ultimately, who was the first to teach morality? At what point in human social development were the benefits of morality realized?
Sticky questions, but then, that is the purpose of this discussion.