Black, White and Shades of Grey

Watching the news and having observed a variety of incidents on here and a number of other forums it seems to me that society seems to have shifted drastically in its views of morality.

Right and wrong would appear to be open to interpretation, the "rights" of the individual seemingly percieved as being of higher importance than what would previously be percieved as ethically and morally acceptable. Freedom of speech is the best example of this. People are allowed to say what they want, regardless of its effects and influence on other people. The current Michael Jackson Child abuse case being a prime example.

I'm not passing comment on his guilt or what has occured. If he is innocent though, he will have had his reputation and potentially his career destroyed because soemone wanted to tell a story to the media. The whole case, whether right or wrongis permenantly as risk of being jeapordised by the media sturation its recieving. How can a juror give an impartial view based on the facts when they have been swamped in media bias since before the case began?

The morally right thing to do in this case would have been for the case to have taken place, and if found guilty then lambast him in the media, but the media have exercised their "rights" to freedom of speech. What about his "right" to be innocent until proven guilty?

A similar case occured recently in the UK where a television presenter was accused of rape. The allegations turned out to be unfounded, but he still lost his job and his career because of the lies of someone else. I think that is wrong.

We live in a world where others perception is viewed to be of higher importance than morality, where the appearance is deemed more important than character. I don't think that is a forward step. If losing face is viewed as being of more importance than doing the right thing then thats is not progress. That is the reason, in my opinion, that the west went to war against Iraq. Yes, Saddam was an ass and Iraq, given time, can be a better place now he's gone, but he wasn't a clear and present danger to global stability, but the political heirachy in the UK and US were too concerned with losing face to say 'OK, we messed up, there weren't any WMD's, that was an excuse'

So heres my question, is appearance and convenience more important than what is right and wrong? Are a persons rights more important than doing whats right? Is appearance more important than integrity? Ideas, view and opinions are welcomed.

There are two answers to this, in my opinion. The RIGHT answer is: Right is right and wrong is wrong. In a perfect world, it is never more important to keep up appearances than to do what's right. One should never sacrifice morality for convenience.

The REALISTIC answer is: There are certain circumstances where it's a bit more difficult to do the right thing. This doesn't mean that one shouldn't still DO the right thing, but there are times where a situation falls in that gray area where it's not so cut and dry. I'm not going to bore readers here with a lengthy example, we've all been in a situation where it actually made a bit of sense to lie about something than tell an ugly truth that could cause all types of problems...was that right? No...did it make sense, yeah. I digress, however...I feel that, honestly, one should always do what's right, but one has to be aware that the right thing is rarely the easy thing.

I'd actually like to see theDon's opinion on this, as he's probably the one person here who's been faced with choices between what's right and what's for the best appearance on a regular basis, being military.

I'd actually like to see theDon's opinion on this, as he's probably the one person here who's been faced with choices between what's right and what's for the best appearance on a regular basis, being military.

Yeah, well, my views also seem to be rather askew to those of most other people. The problem you have when talking about what is right or wrong concerning morality is, whos morality are you using as the measuring stick? The church? I have no faith in any God. Society? Shit, most of society is insane and or stupid. Before any real discussion can be made about this issue we need to define these things.

Yeah, well, my views also seem to be rather askew to those of most other people. The problem you have when talking about what is right or wrong concerning morality is, whos morality are you using as the measuring stick? The church? I have no faith in any God. Society? Shit, most of society is insane and or stupid. Before any real discussion can be made about this issue we need to define these things.

This is why people tend to decide for themselves what is right or wrong. The church does not offer what people need or want and neither does society. So people must fend for themselves

Whilst I wasn't specifically referring to the Judeo-christian view of right and wrong, they have been the social yard stick by which right and wrong have been traditionally measured. Belief in a deity, be it Jesus, Mohammed or Shiva, is something that seems to be less common, and religious voices seem to be growing more extreme, be they more quiet or louder and more outlandish.

I wasn't specifically referring to religious element, more to the values that have been spawned from them.

As always, theDon makes a good point. I suppose, then, that we'll have to use either one's personal morality, which varies from person to person and therefore isn't a very good measure, or use the laws to define right and wrong, since the country is (theoretically) governed by them as agreed upon and established rules.

Indeed, TheDon, we are in agreement. Morality is flawed because of it's relativity to religion. Moral relativism, nihilism, et cetera, et cetera.

An ideal that has almost been lifted to a proverbial status, is "If you tell a child why not to do something, it will do it instead."
Now, from personal experience, I know this to be true :D. Regardless, if you tell a child why, and if it appears to the child as a valid reason, I do believe the child will take responsibility.

So too, I believe it works with results. The fact that people use KaZaA and the lot to illegally download music is not odd. If you forbid something, give people a valid reason. The reason, however, does not seem valid in the eyes of the person who is mass-downloading.
In video-clips, he sees artists toting hot cars and hot partners, in documentaries huge houses. These people do not come across as victims of a crime. They come across as people who are in fact the criminals, exploiting young people from their hard-earned money.

I do not believe any person does what he thinks is evil. Every person acts from what he feels is good. Whether or not that is the 'Christian good', or more a 'personal' good is dependant on the person.

The re-evaluation of values is one of the things that Nietzsche suggests in his books, and I do believe that such an evaluation, and the actual changing of values towards a 'make-sense(-to-atheists-too)' value system is an important step.

With a 'make-sense' moral value system, I mean putting the norm of what all people can accept. Ergo, a moral value system based on science, not religion (though religion is often based, in it's moral values on 'science', or has at least reasoning).

I have made an attempt to create a foundation of moral values in my "The meaning of life, the universe and everything", but fear I haven't come very far. Eventually, moral values have been the debate of philosophers for a long time. I doubt we will reach a solution any time soon :D.

Mr U

Ok then. So the rules that govern the United States. So then it can be said that a moral person would follow all of these laws, regardless of how trivial it may be. All the laws, everything from torturing a prisoner to exceeding the speed limit, would apply. So if a person commits no other crime except for speeding, then is that person amoral? Which laws are deemed socialy acceptable to break, and how do they become so? Does the "everybody speeds so it doesnt really matter" make the moral obligation any lesser?

Hey Swamp, you know what our media is like. Give them any Z-list celeb and the slightest hint of scandal and they'll be all over it. By the way, who was that recent presenter? The last one I can remember was John Leslie but that was quite a while ago

See, now I was trying not to mention names but thats who I meant

Ok then. So the rules that govern the United States. So then it can be said that a moral person would follow all of these laws, regardless of how trivial it may be. All the laws, everything from torturing a prisoner to exceeding the speed limit, would apply. So if a person commits no other crime except for speeding, then is that person amoral? Which laws are deemed socialy acceptable to break, and how do they become so? Does the "everybody speeds so it doesnt really matter" make the moral obligation any lesser?

The act may be immoral, but that does not make the person immoral. I guess the act must be really really bad in the case for a person to be seen as immoral. But hey, don't blame me, I didn't invent them rules. I'd say burn everyone who speeds. In fact, just burn everyone!

Mr U

But hey, don't blame me, I didn't invent them rules. I'd say burn everyone who speeds. In fact, just burn everyone!

Mr U

You know, there's medicine to help that kind of thing. :D

The act may be immoral, but that does not make the person immoral. I guess the act must be really really bad in the case for a person to be seen as immoral.

I guess I dont understand then. What is the point behind being moral and saying that something is moral or is not moral if it has no effect on a person being considered to have morals? If only the most immoral things can reduce a persons morality then why do we even bother applying a moral principal to any of the smaller stuff? This of course brings us back to the issue that if morality doesnt apply to something, then it CAN be doen just for looks without any consideration to right or wrong.

I do not believe any person does what he thinks is evil. Every person acts from what he feels is good. Whether or not that is the 'Christian good', or more a 'personal' good is dependant on the person.

I don't know if it's as clear-cut as that... Stealing is wrong, but if stealing that loaf of bread is the only way to keep my children from starving to death, I'd do it. Drunk driving is wrong, but people still do it because of convenience and the fact that they have no other way to get home... When they're getting tried for killing a family after an accident during their intoxication, are they immoral?

We discussed this very topic in AP US Gov and Politics... 'tis a pity that I don't remember much of the discussion. Perhaps I'll remember later.