<p>Well, I guess this is just kind of a random philosophical question, very open to interpretation. Any situations you would bring to make a point, in which morals should or shouldn't be compromised? Sorry if this question is a terrible starting point, I just want to see what other people think! </p>
<p>
Before I start saying stupid things, is there anything specific you’re thinking of?
What does it mean to compromise a moral? If you say “we should abandon such-and-such moral rule in this situation,” you’re just creating another moral rule. You’re still trying to do the “right” thing. </p>
<p>Right is subjective but society is rigid. </p>
<p>Morals are wrong in and of themselves. Do what you’ve gotta do.</p>
<p>@foolish
How are morals wrong in and of themselves?</p>
<p>Morals shouldn’t be rigid, for it is my greatest fear in life that I have not abided by the morals of a future society, and that I, like the slavers in the South, have committed a sin so great that I can’t see it. However, morals should exist. Unless any CCer can tell me that brutal homicides, gang rapes and arson are all crimes of fair morality, morals must exist, if not for a goal of a better humanity, then for the preservation of mankind.</p>
<p>Morality is a subjective creation of mankind for survival. It should be dynamic to our state and our circumstances.</p>
<p>If you are talking about the rigidity of a singular moral rule, then as others said, it depends on the situation, and would require an examination of the specific rule. I think if there is a specific here, it should be mentioned.</p>
<p>Also, how does one define morals? Lis it societal norms, law code, parental customs, or something else? Just because society may consider something good, doesn’t mean that it actually is. Take pinkification for example. </p>
<p>halyconheather: Well, I wasn’t thinking of a particular situation when I asked this question. I know someone who is always going on about how she has a “moral compass,” but I feel like having rigid morals is actually a detriment when it disables you from taking the best action (morally or practically). I also have another teacher who’s huge on morals and she’s always like “Integrity is the only thing you have.” But what if you are someone whose actions aren’t solely based on morality? Does that make you an immoral person? Right now, what I’m thinking of is Republicans vs Democrats (not sure if this is a moral or just a political issue). Okay, I know this is generalizing, but in general Republicans believe that people are entitled to the money they make, and they shouldn’t have to give back money for welfare causes. But then the Democrats believe in equalizing society, and uplifting the conditions of the struggling citizens. They both have valid morals, but what if a Republican politician passed a law that is more left-wing in nature? Would he be considered a hypocrite, because he didn’t stick to his “morals” or is he considered a good person for doing something that helps other. I suppose that opinion differs between parties. I guess I’m just kind of confused right now, because I’ve always been taught that morals are something you should stick by even when it’s difficult, but sometimes morals are difficult for a reason, and it’s better to adapt right? Should a person be criticized for not sticking to his morals? Is sticking to your morals consistency or rigidity? I guess I’m begin very hypothetical right now, so please tell me if I don’t make sense! </p>
<p>The time has come for saying stupid things.
My opinion is that you can’t reason anyone into morality and you can’t get morality to be objective (in the way that our other perceptions could be called objective) even if God exists. I’m not actually a relativist, but I feel like no matter where you are you can just keep asking, “But why?” until the only possible answer is, “Because.” Morality is dependent on the senses of empathy and self-interest that most people have.</p>
<p>Morals change with the times. There was a time when foot-binding in China, the caste system and sati ritual in India, and anti-Semitism in Europe were normal. They weren’t criticized for being immoral by the majority of people, but by modern definitions, they are seen as immoral and unjust actions. </p>
<p>Nothing is real. </p>
<p>
Oh, I see. I agree. </p>
<p>People should only stick to their morals as long as they continue to be good morals. There’s nothing inherently good about consistency if you’re consistently doing the wrong thing. </p>
<p>@halcyonheather </p>
<p>What is the wrong thing, by the way? It’s pretty hard to know if what you’re doing is moral, so I guess the consistency factor really isn’t that bad in this situation, it’s just sticking by conviction.</p>
<p>Morals are constructs of a society.</p>
<p>IF you were the only human on earth, would there be morals? While you could argue you shouldn’t cut down too many trees at that point, morals are more so just preventive measures from people doing something socially unacceptable. There would be no morals if you were the only human on Earth.</p>
<p>Cannibalism is morally correct in some tribal societies. But often time these tribal societies are not in the context of the global community, they are disconnected from it, so there is no “moral” force to “guide” them. Their way is the moral and correct way to them.</p>
<p>@Ctesiphon </p>
<p>There are base morals, according to psychological research, that exist beyond social constructs. </p>
<p>Of course, this may just be confirmation bias, but still, morals aren’t all perceived.</p>
<p>
Nothing is better than eternal happiness, and if you’re really hungry a peanut butter sandwich is better than nothing. So a peanut butter sandwich is better than eternal happiness.</p>
<p>
Whatever the consensus (derived from human empathy, knowledge, etc.) says it is. I think our goal in general should be to make the world suck less (I identify with utilitarianism more than anything else even though there are a lot of problems with it), but it’s impossible to justify this without appealing to people’s emotions.
Like I said before, I don’t think morality can be objective the way our other perceptions seem to be objective. It’s not even possible to imagine an alternate universe in which it were. Morality is just something we develop because living a world where people follow moral rules is, for most people, a subjectively preferable experience to living in one where they don’t. “But why?” is the wrong question to be asking. Answering that question would be like describing a color to someone born blind.</p>
<p>
They don’t have to be constructs of society just because they wouldn’t exist if I were the only person alive. It’s just that most moral rules relate to our dealings with other people, so if there weren’t any other people I wouldn’t have any place to apply my moral knowledge. </p>
<p>@halcyonheather
What are you majoring in?</p>
<p>Morality is only as important as the validity of its roots. One should always be willing to challenge his morals logically in my opinion, and thus they evolve. Morality is inherently subjective and should not be used as such an objective thing.</p>
<p>@OP, I feel like this question is better suited for Quora.</p>
<p>
At this point, it looks like I’ll be majoring in Mathematics and Teacher Education because I want to get a teaching license. I hope to take a lot of philosophy classes, though. </p>