What is your 'moral code', or 'set of standards'?

[zemarl]

But your arse does look big in that.

and some men like it that way, i hear. completely besides the point though - the fact that the woman is asking and that neither answer (basic yes or no, which is usually the demand) will please her, makes the situation the thing to be detested, not the truth or the lie to follow.

therefore don't have to feel accountable to anyone but myself for what i do, which is a whole lot better than the huge guilt trip laid on nearly all members of the Catholic church.

There we are.

except you're wrong, because i meant to say protestant. catholics have the bonus of confession, where they tell someone they did something bad and they get their little slap on the wrist and it's over. protestants claim to not need confession, but still so many of them experience such doubt over whether they are in fact forgiven, because nobody believes a no-strings-attached policy, that these uncertain misfortunates continue to feel guilt over things they have done wrong in the eyes of god. trust me on this, i go to church and i know.

[Undestined]

It is a very muddied water and has been used to justify some supreme evils in human history.

The Bible is rather muddied, granted. However, what you seem to be implying is that those who follow religious doctrine are somehow less moral than those who follow their own conclusions. However, a single person's conclusions can be, potentially, disastrous. You must remember that Far-right extremists who kill in the name of their cause are not following the Bible. Their murders go against the word of God. Nowhere is it written, "Thou shalt hold the fetuses of your land in higher regard than your 14-year-old mothers, for the fetus is the most exalted of all beings."

Yes, the Bible is self-contradicting. That's why I don't follow it to a T. Niether did Jesus for that matter. It makes a good deal more sense to follow Christ's example than to follow the rantings of hundreds of "prophets."


By the way: I call myself a Christian because I follow the teachings of Christ. It's very simple, and you don't need to go questioning people's religious affiliations simply because they're not zealots.

[fishum]

I hate it when people question your standards and moral codes. Who are they to judge how you have been brought up, your experiences and what you have learned from them

[krebbe]

I was thinking about the 'if it doesn't harm anyone then let people do it' ideal.

How does that apply to people who want to test on animals, eat them, wear them as clothing or just kick one to death because they feel like it?

That's not imposing on any other person's freedom. If you extend the general idea to not imposing on any other animal's freedom, we'd all have to be vegans.

Why is it acceptable (and desired) to stop a person from kicking a dog to death, but stopping a person from killing a chicken for food would be considered to be imposing on their freedom? We don't need to eat animals, but we do need to eat. We don't need to wear fur, but we do need clothing to help regulate our body temperatures and yet wearing fur is much more controversial. It doesn't appear to be based on a simple one sentence ideal (such as the one mentioned at the start) in any case.

Is the moral attitude towards animals fair and logical. or is it just an irrational product of traditional values?

[Somewhat]

I hate really extreme animal activists. I'm all for Greenpeace and the WWF, mind, and think that if our governments can't get their act together and at least try to save endangered species, we can at least all support Greenpeace, at least in spirit.
But what makes me seriously mad are the animal activists who blockaded the road for a convoy that was planning to transport a group of elephants out of a quarantine enclosure where they were being held for the past year due to red tape, and delaying the process by many more months. The elephants were going to travel to Sydney zoo where they would have more males to breed with, and a considerably better enclosure. Get your ~*iguana*~ priorities right, for chrissakes! The zoo is now thinking about taking legal action against the activists, and I completely agree with them. Saving whales is one thing. Leaving extremely rare animals in low-quality enclosures when they are in a breeding age is just sheer stupidity, especially when the zoo had already paid a few hundred k for the world's largest transport plane and such.

[The Funny Man]

I think it's great when people question your morals and beliefs. It allows you to actually know what you believe in, and really mean it. My own code is close to Will's, but I would have shot that sucker right in the face if he broke into my house. Right-wing Conservitive, AT YOUR SERVICE!!

[Jez]

I hate it when people question your standards and moral codes. Who are they to judge how you have been brought up, your experiences and what you have learned from them

I wonder why I didn't respond to this when it was first posted... Hmm... Anyway, this line of thinking really annoys me. So many people say this: you shouldn't judge! Or, you can't judge me because I have different beliefs from you! etc. This is utter rubbish. People judge all the time. It's an unavoidable part of our lives. As soon as you meet someone, you're judging them, assessing how friendly they are, maybe how attractive, how interesting - in short, forming an opinion of them as a person.

And if we shouldn't judge others' morals, where does that leave our own? Surely we follow our own moral code because we believe it to be the best one. And that's a judgement in itself. If you oppose abortion, for instance, you've made a judgement about whether abortion is good or bad. If someone else thinks the opposite, it seems to me to be hypocritical to dance around the issue and say, 'Oh well, you know, everyone has different opinions, and I shouldn't question your belief even though it utterly contradicts mine.' That doesn't show any firm conviction in your own morals.

And finally, what about the other consequences that follow if we aren't to judge or question moral standards? Laws become arbitrary. We can't say that Hitler's actions were evil - he just practised a different moral code, so who are we to judge him?

Well, I think I've said enough to get my point across.

Is the moral attitude towards animals fair and logical. or is it just an irrational product of traditional values?

That's a difficult one, which is probably why I didn't respond before. I've seen arguments that animals simply aren't part of the moral sphere, so we can do what we like with them, but that doesn't feel right to me. Then you could say that meat-eating is the natural order of things, so it's okay, but I'm not sure if that's a good argument either.

Mostly I just like to eat meat. And I feel terrible that I haven't got any logical justification for that.

[Ultracommando93]

My code is rather complex, but here goes:

1. Rights: Pretty much the usual. You konw, everyone should vote, be portected from assualt, discrimination etc. It's governments' job to protect the rights of people, not corporatiosn etc. As for corporations, they should exist ot give services to the public, not to make money by screw up the Earth, while violating peoples' rights along the way. Of course, it's going ot take a long time before this is realised.
2. Genders: The massive difference in treatment between men and women is ridiculous. The only different treatment they should get is medically (where they have different needs in some areas) and in soenm areas in education (both genders have different issues which should be addressed)
3. Religion: Ok. This is a rather contentious topic. Personaly, I'm an atheist, and I think that evolutoin should be taught in schools. Teaching creationism in science classes should stop. People can practice their own religion, to the extent that it does not violate the rights of other people or animals. Religion is not a sufficient reason to force people to do what they do not want to. Also, people have no, repeat no right to impose thier beliefs on others, regardless of what their beleifs are. That means no wars on "infidels" etc and no sacrifices. Note: No religious discrimination either.
5: Money etc. People should be paid as much as psosible, but I think our prioities are a little mixed. The massive salaries actors and so on get should be reduced- they don't do all that much. Teachers and scientists, meanwhile, get bugger all. Politicians and corporations spend millions on advertising etc- that should be stopped. If corporatiosn get over a certain limit of profit, they shoudl either pay all their workers more or give the money to people who need it.
4: What should we do? Personally, I think our tasks are to keep gainign knowledge and technology and to ensure the survival of intelligent life for as long as possible. If we can learn something, we should.

Also, we shouldn't shun technologies like stem cells or cloning for religious or ethical reasons. I think that's wrong, conservative and foolish. People used ot say IVF was wrong. Now who cares? We should research, document and test every technology available to us. If we have any purpose, that's it. I really hate things like pro-life and that stuff. I think such views are wrong- the whole idea of women being breeding machines has got to stop (note: when a male is saying that this is a problem, then it must be a pretty big one ). Shouldw e go to toher worlds? Almost certainly- why sohuld we stay here on Earth, when there's a whole galaxy waiting for us?

BTW, Moonflash, I agree with you. I think we should protect animal rights, but the way those people were doing it was not the right or most effective one. (At the very least, we should catalogue genetic samples of every life-form we can. That way if we ever move to other worlds, we can grow new life there).[/i]

[n0stalgia]

I have a very unique personalized moral model that is so personalized that it switches dynamically with each situation to what is convenient to me and my desires.

Okay, in reality, I'm far to young to have a set moral code to abide - I am still in the stage of discovery and introspection.
I've made far too many choices recently that have caused me to genuinely surprise myself and shaken me to the core (okay maybe not that dramatic), but I've taken to smoking recently. Enough said.

A general overview:

Freedom, yes, everyone should be able to do what they want as long as it does no harm to others and/or society. Example: Drugs should be legal for recreational use, but regulated with government-subsidized addiction-help and disease monitoring.
Individual members of society should think not of just themselves, but should make decisions thinking of what would benefit society in mind. The goal of our civilization is to raise the standard of living of every human being in the multiverse, which would include the safe but radical advancement in technology and science in every field possible.
Discrimination, based on race, gender, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status should be a non-issue.
Income distribution should have a relatively balanced structure, the government should intervene to produce that goal, as market forces would usually concentrate wealth into very few hands given time.
People should have the right to choose what religion, but no matter what that religion teaches they should not make decisions based on that religion if it is specifically for other people. Church and state should be separated and government policies and laws should have no religion connotations, and religion should not be used as a catalyst for major political movements, etc. Abortion, stem cells, whatever should be legal.

Yaddiyadda, my political compass swings wildly on an irregular basis but rest assured it always stays on the left portion of the compass.

[Vicinity of Obscenity]

So many subjects to touch on and so little organization in my stride that I can't remember what I wanted to highlight. I suppose I will just do what I remember.

My code of morals isn't based on any religion, though reared within the religious community, I find their insight valuable in my consideration of right and wrong within humanity. I've grown beyond my religious roots but I agree with Undestined in the fact that Christianity revolves completely around Jesus Christ and should therefore practice his example first and foremost in their doctrine. (obviously an opinion) I also think that the bible itself historically depicts the evolution of an extremely popular religion, and offers a lot of wisdom in its insight to lifestyle and social roles. My problem isn't necessarily with a creator but with an afterlife...I don't believe in that garbage. (another opinion)

Now on to my views about animals...I believe being that being the most intelligent species to our knowledge comes with the responsibility of maintaining an appropriate balance. We should place it upon ourselves to practice a civil self-control in the "harvesting" if you wish to call it -- of our plants and animals really. Both live and face extinction. We would be poor stuarts of this place if we were careless with what we know to be crucial to the ecological balance that supports our way of life.

And then there is questioning other moral codes. Go right ahead there's nothing stopping you. I greet it as I would a stranger. If ours coincide considerably, I am more apt to trust you and befriend you. And when I say friends, I mean more than just your "Hi, how are you's?". If our views clash then I remain considerate to their personality without overstepping my own. Once your line is crossed I merely smile and conclude the conversation tactfully and go about my business. It has always worked for me whenever I remain cool headed at least.

[Stardust]

While I believe that the Christian moral code is the most benevolent and reasonable, I believe that humans all abide by a sort of Moral Law that influences our daily actions. It varies among different cultures and even among individuals (i.e., debates over abortion and euthanasia), but I think that we all follow it to a certain degree. I mean, if a stranger was drowing in a river, who would walk by without a second glance, or stop and watch with mild interest? Any sane person would try to help the poor guy.

There are just some connections that we as humans have that enable us to look out for each other and do the "right thing", whatever that may be, and morals are one of those connections.



EDIT: While some people's moral codes may be derived from religious doctrine, and others' from a philosophical school of thought, it is important to establish that while philosophy is not necessarily religous, religious doctrine is most definitely philosophical.

[the31337ofPurgatory]

I'm no longer religious...so my moral code is based on my own personal opinions and conclusions. I see myself as a very good, moral, kind person. I had a period in my life about a year ago or so where I wanted to find a religion for myself and the one that probably came closest to my thought processes on things was Daoism. But I then realized in the course of this search that I agree with some things from almost every religion and disagree with many things in all religions. I came to realize that even though Daoism came close....it didn't really portray my own personal belief system. I realized that I really didn't need to give my beliefs a name (I belive that's unnecessary).

So I could go way deeper into this and into the aspects of my personal belief system but I just woke up and I have to mow the lawn....but if you have any questions then feel free to PM me or something.

[Mogget]

My moral code is very simple: Life ('specially human Life) is the only absolute good (read my signature!). Everything else depends on context.

[Vicinity of Obscenity]

My moral code is very simple: Life ('specially human Life) is the only absolute good (read my signature!). Everything else depends on context.

Good luck finding something to eat! lol j/k I understand what it's saying.

[Mogget]

Like I said, everything else depends on context (by the way, I eat meat.) Also, human life as an absolute good is rather above all other life.