Debate: Morality

[Longbowman]

Even if all actions were reflexive/instinctive then people still would (and do) deem certain actions in certain contexts, as good or evil.

Objectivity is a moot point. People judge each-other everyday, and actions, as good or evil.

Their judgments are reflexive too.

[Longbowman]

I think morality can only be inherited genetically. Very few show signs of morally superior beings. And those are very special creatures. I hate the assumtions of third worlders or religiously oppressed people that somehow "the west lacks people with morals". Some of the most supreme souls are produced by the west, raised under all temptations and dirty tricks imaginable and still maintained their moral superiority throughout their existences. I sincerely love good people.

If morality is inherent and ergo reflexive it's not really morality. See my point.

[Illancha]

It is Better to Suffer an Injustice Than to Commit One - Socrates 101

This is so basic I knew it intuitively when I was an infant.

[zhaoyun]

It is more moral to have evil committed upon you.

However, it is perhaps wiser and more strategic to commit evil upon others for your own advantage.

Ultimately, the most ideal path in life is to avoid either route.

[Breedingvariety]

It is Better to Suffer an Injustice Than to Commit One - Socrates 101

This is so basic I knew it intuitively when I was an infant.

Me too. But this basic knowledge can easily be lost or forgotten along the way. But life always reminds it one way or the other. I think therefore opinion.

[Breedingvariety]

However, it is perhaps wiser and more strategic to commit evil upon others for your own advantage.

Unome proposes to commit evil for no other benefit than superiority. I personally would say a misguided superiority. Such proposal is nothing more than pure evil without redemption. Whereas strategic evil can be placed within the context of nature and necessity.

Now, Longbowman on the other hand maintains all actions are like reflexes and inherently amoral. His position is reasonable, but my objection to it is that it doesn't address the prescriptive nature of everything we say. Our sayings create morality. Then, the question arises, what is the right saying that has moral aspect unavoidably. Which saying seems the right one: "do evil" or "do no evil"? What should the prescription of our utterances be?

[Gooding]

" Evil to him whom evil thinks." I heard that somewhere. Ultimately, it is preferable to avoid doing evil personally and to endure evil done to you, knowing that Justice will bring its own retribution on the evildoer.

[Smitty]

On the contrary,

Being a victim is morally weak and inferior; being a perpetrator is morally strong and superior.

Somebody who is morally accountable (responsible), capable of choosing between good or evil, is moral.

Victimhood, being unaccountable and irresponsible for yourself, is immoral.

Discounting my position about the possibility of a real debate here...

Irresponsibility is not necessarily the cause of victimhood. Assuming one did all one could to avoid being victimized, then he is morally neutral or, as the case may be, morally positive. He has performed all that morality/law/God/society demand of him and has done nothing they condemn.

On the other hand, how you can call "being a perpetrator...morally strong and superior" is beyond me. "Being a perpetrator" is presumably, by definition, an immoral act - unless, of course, you hold that the end justifies the means. And most moral systems do not.

[Breedingvariety]

By Unome proposed morality, a guy who goes around pissing in other peoples drinks is superior.

[de Burgh II]

Morality is very multifaceted and subjective in its own right so everyone has their own sense of ethics that varies considerably via experience. If one has to utilize their own means to accomplish something that has viable justification; its up for the individual to decide; not society nor anyone else for the matter. Morality can only go so far since it is an arbitrary human creation that is intangibly maladaptive in the grand scheme of things. A rigid generalized conscience that perceptually seek to control one's behavior can only go so far until it inevitably breaks down in a twisted stroke of irony; you can only control a populace until they lash out against their own perceived oppression. So its more malleable and peculiar to have it exclusively govern one's self. Instill a sense of leniency with a strong reinforcement via laws to mesh it together to make a more responsible, productive society with a sense of responsibility in a collaborative work effort with others to make it successful. Morality should only be reserved to an individual; nothing more, nothing less.