What is moral in life?

Lark_Truth · Post by **Lark_Truth** » January 2nd, 2017, 1:57 pm

This seems to be a confusing topic in the world, with the media seemingly promoting things such as procreational activities outside of marriage, gay marriage, teenage love, dating, drinking, smoking, love triangles, swearing, pornography, etc. There does seem to be a lot of people who are preaching against some of this stuff, but they seem to go unnoticed because of the loads of things that I just listed.
The question here is: What is moral? Not just what people say is moral, but what is moral without people's opinions butting in. Either there is a thick line drawn between morality and immorality, or it is up to us to decide.

Eduk · Post by **Eduk** » January 6th, 2017, 9:03 am

Well quite a few things here.
1. There does not need to be a false dichotomy of 100% moral and 100% immoral. There could exist things in between?
2. I'm really glad you are asking this question. I am a married heterosexual man with a child and it deeply worries me that people think gay marriage is a moral question. So I'm hoping that by asking the question you are at least opening yourself up to the possibility that this may not be true.
3. Philosophically asking what morals are is a well trodden question. Ultimately you have to start with an axiom and with your own interpretation of the word. For some the axiom is that morals come from the Bible. For me I would say that in practise morality is survival of your genes. Although I think there are other fair definitions, depending on how you define morality.

Post by **LuckyR** » January 6th, 2017, 4:17 pm

Lark_Truth wrote:This seems to be a confusing topic in the world, with the media seemingly promoting things such as procreational activities outside of marriage, gay marriage, teenage love, dating, drinking, smoking, love triangles, swearing, pornography, etc. There does seem to be a lot of people who are preaching against some of this stuff, but they seem to go unnoticed because of the loads of things that I just listed.
The question here is: What is moral? Not just what people say is moral, but what is moral without people's opinions butting in. Either there is a thick line drawn between morality and immorality, or it is up to us to decide.

You mischaracterize the media's role. The media does not set the agenda, it reflects what folks are already doing.

No doubt there are those who believe that certain behaviors are inherently universally more or less moral, though by the definition of the word we each get to decide what we find to be moral or immoral.

Eduk · Post by **Eduk** » January 6th, 2017, 4:23 pm

You mischaracterize the media's role. The media does not set the agenda, it reflects what folks are already doing.

Can it not do both?

Post by **LuckyR** » January 6th, 2017, 5:47 pm

Eduk wrote:
You mischaracterize the media's role. The media does not set the agenda, it reflects what folks are already doing.
Can it not do both?

It can try to set the societal agenda, but does it commonly succeed? especially in the Modern era where any media outlet is but a single voice in a cacophony of imploring pleading. How many mainstream media endorsements did the President-elect receive again?

Eduk · Post by **Eduk** » January 6th, 2017, 5:59 pm

LuckyR
On the whole I more or less agree with you. But the interactions are undoubtedly complex. In fact with your last point you prove the media doesn't wield ultimate influence and that it doesn't reflect society as a whole. At least as far as Trump is concerned.

Post by **LuckyR** » January 7th, 2017, 12:57 pm

Eduk wrote:LuckyR
On the whole I more or less agree with you. But the interactions are undoubtedly complex. In fact with your last point you prove the media doesn't wield ultimate influence and that it doesn't reflect society as a whole. At least as far as Trump is concerned.

Exactly. The media has little to no influence (my original point). And can do a better or worse job at it's actual purpose, reflecting society. In my example it did a poor job of reflecting, since a significant minority of Trump supporters were embarrassed enough about their choice to not admit to it to pollsters.

Ace9 · Post by **Ace9** » January 7th, 2017, 6:23 pm

Morality is the word we use to describe a set of predictable behaviors. A genetic inheritance that is played out in all of our actions that would be observed by others as moral, or in the case where behaviors do not fit the normative range, as immoral. Some would prefer that morality is a code, a divine gift bestowed to mankind. If you were to believe that free will exists then it would follow that
you have the choice to lead a moral life. However, if you are a free will skeptic or a hard determinist then you would know that your actions and behaviors are simply the natural responses of your brain to environmental stimulus. In other words the brain is acting in the only way it can

Leon · Post by **Leon** » January 8th, 2017, 5:11 am

Whatever may be meaningfull to do for someone, ethics are just not effective for everyone. So you can only investigate yourself (whatever you want others to do) and see if that is a moral position.

DPMartin · Post by **DPMartin** » January 10th, 2017, 4:44 pm

Lark_Truth wrote:This seems to be a confusing topic in the world, with the media seemingly promoting things such as procreational activities outside of marriage, gay marriage, teenage love, dating, drinking, smoking, love triangles, swearing, pornography, etc. There does seem to be a lot of people who are preaching against some of this stuff, but they seem to go unnoticed because of the loads of things that I just listed.
The question here is: What is moral? Not just what people say is moral, but what is moral without people's opinions butting in. Either there is a thick line drawn between morality and immorality, or it is up to us to decide.

its simply to do as one agrees to do. if you agree to pay x for y then pay it, the morals are the agreement.

Eduk · Post by **Eduk** » January 11th, 2017, 4:45 pm

Exactly. The media has little to no influence (my original point). And can do a better or worse job at it's actual purpose, reflecting society. In my example it did a poor job of reflecting, since a significant minority of Trump supporters were embarrassed enough about their choice to not admit to it to pollsters.

I think you make a lot of good nuanced points and I agree with those points to an extent.
Most papers (most of the time) write stories to sell which means they have to write stories which people want to read which means they have to sometimes reflect society because people hate to be contradicted. Like you say with Trump they got it wrong.
But I think this is a matter of timing. People can be influenced very easily if you get your message in before they have made their minds up. After someone has made their mind up it's almost impossible to change, before they have made their mind up it's mostly trivial.
So I do still think the media has a large influence, but not on all subjects all the time. The exact mix of when they influence and when they don't would no doubt be complicated to work out

Post by **LuckyR** » January 11th, 2017, 5:51 pm

Eduk wrote:
Exactly. The media has little to no influence (my original point). And can do a better or worse job at it's actual purpose, reflecting society. In my example it did a poor job of reflecting, since a significant minority of Trump supporters were embarrassed enough about their choice to not admit to it to pollsters.
I think you make a lot of good nuanced points and I agree with those points to an extent.
Most papers (most of the time) write stories to sell which means they have to write stories which people want to read which means they have to sometimes reflect society because people hate to be contradicted. Like you say with Trump they got it wrong.
But I think this is a matter of timing. People can be influenced very easily if you get your message in before they have made their minds up. After someone has made their mind up it's almost impossible to change, before they have made their mind up it's mostly trivial.
So I do still think the media has a large influence, but not on all subjects all the time. The exact mix of when they influence and when they don't would no doubt be complicated to work out

Well the entire field of advertising proves that folks are subject to influence. However if you define media as the mainstream media (those who attempt to follow journalist ethical behavior) attempts at influence are a combination of rare and ineffective. OTOH if you include Modern Internet "media" (which are de facto arms of vested interests), then, of course their entire reason for existing is to try to influence low information voters.

Lark_Truth · Post by **Lark_Truth** » January 19th, 2017, 10:47 am

The question I was trying to ask in life is what is moral in life? Not who or what defines morality in society. Yes, the media is a big influence on that, but the media does not control sociological trends.
Personally, I like reading books and watching tv without swearing or indecent exposure. Those things just seem to mess up a good plot and story.

Steve3007 · Post by **Steve3007** » January 19th, 2017, 11:26 am

Personally, I like reading books and watching tv without swearing or indecent exposure. Those things just seem to mess up a good plot and story.

Given that a large number of people swear in real life, surely any book that attempts to depict any of those people would be messed up if it didn't contain swearing? Likewise with nudity. In real life, people sometimes undress.

Although I guess in real life people also sometimes go to the toilet, sleep, pick their noses and accidentally get the pocket of their cardigan caught on a door handle when they're walking past it. But you don't generally see those things faithfully depicted in movies or books.

Eduk · Post by **Eduk** » January 19th, 2017, 11:37 am

The question I was trying to ask in life is what is moral in life?

I thought I attempted an answer in my earlier reply? Survival, to my mind, is the axiom of what is moral.

Given that a large number of people swear in real life, surely any book that attempts to depict any of those people would be messed up if it didn't contain swearing? Likewise with nudity. In real life, people sometimes undress.

Most movies aren't improved with swearing, most movies aren't improved with indecent exposure. Some are. In general a movie doesn't need to show banal reality, like tying shoe laces, although some are improved if they do, it's all down to the intention of the film maker. Also some subjects don't lend themselves well to realistic depictions, for example war movies if they truly depicted war would be unwatchable as it's just too harsh to want to watch. Sometimes cartoons do a better job in portraying reality because graphically they are divorced enough from reality that an average person can still watch them.

What is swearing in movies to do with what is moral in life by the way? Feels quite narrow?