If we presuppose that society's mores are an amalgamation of moral guidelines from the past, that tommorrows guidelines shall be based partially on the present status quo, where does that leave the individual?

To clarify, an individual's morality is based upon experience, expectation, and ego... if only the first two are influenced by society's morality, with the third being singular to the individual, what happens when they conflict?

Is society's morality conflicts with an individual's, should society win? Even if it is a compromise of general ideals?







I apologise if my thoughts are a bit jumbled. Something happened recently to someone I know. I want to support them, but society would be against us. I'm searching for the Reason needed to justify and support our claim.

man no longer becomes as soceity cages him.....Nietzsche

i am extremely interested with the topic concerning morality......the problem with it generally is that morals are not truly set in stone (what once was normal becomes immoral, what once was wrong becomes justified, etc).....anyway, the problem swings both ways.....yes society is wrong for caging man, but if it does not then chaos is possible....though not as likely as believed.....both society and man generally consider certain things to be immoral, such as murder, rape, stealing, neglect, human testing, etc.....but how far should society go to label morality? i mean soceity tends to view murder wrong unless you kill in self defense, or in some cases out of revenge.....but would you consider it wrong if i killed a convicted child molester over fifteen years ago, even if my vengence is on behalf of his victims and solely for me?

It seems highly unlikely to me that if your individual morals conflict with those from society, that you would choose to abide to society's morals. That would be self defeating.

Don't forget that society morals come from individuals. Once enough (the majority, i guess) individuals agree on a moral, it becomes a society moral.

...just thought I'd point that out

If the individual's morality greatly differs from society's we should tolerate the fact of existence of a different one. But we can, of course, not tolerate what the individual's morality is about.

I hope you understand what I mean

what is the breaking point then? say as with homosexuality... it is generally accepted nowadays... but still illegal...

i suppose then that we could label society in two ways......that of its people, and that of its laws......but which make which?

illegal? whoa. where is it still illegal?

*ahem* many states still have Sodomy laws still on the books...

Hmmm.... in some countries even showing faces by women is forbidden.

What's more important, living for yourself or living for your particular society? Of course society, if it had some sort of booming voice, would say "Forget your own beliefs and do what we say is right, or you're fucked."

People live as Hobbes or Pope; either you believe people are naturally and instictively bad...or inherently good, and many societies push and promote the former, thus you have morals set in place.

If you don't agree with your societys' beliefs as a whole, so what?
You're thinking for yourself and following what you believe.
Could there be consequences? Of course.
Do you have to be careful and think about your actions more than, say someone immersed into mass-accepted morals and beliefs? Oh, absolutely...It can get you into trouble or worse...hangings, burnings, incarcerations, beheadings, lynchings etc...as people who don't follow some main flow of a stream throughout history have been killed for "straying."

The Bible has passages devoted to denouncing those who drink blood, because drinking blood is taking another's life source. God gave people their lives, therefore, everyone is entittled to their lives as deemed by God we should do.

The problem isn't so much people's individual rights, as it is society's disregard for other people's innate right to be themselves. So many times people feel entittled to make laws, torture those who do not conform and wage wars on eachother. As for slavery, it is an abomination. That is the most outrageous intrusion to another person's life.

Who knows were the World would be today if so many philosophers were not killed before or after they first shared their ideas and thoughts with everyone. The course of ignoring personal rights has slowed society's growth and well-being.

as i do agree with you NM, one must think about the other aspect.....for example, as you were saying "the course of ignoring personal rights slows society's growth" this is indeed true.....after all, think of the 60's compared to the 50's......yet, if one looks at the 50's, life and soceity was so much more easier and wholesome (though on a limitied scale), yet after every revolutionary birth comes new consquences, new crimes, new terrors, etc.....

life and society became harder and more complex by a multitude of factors. The biggest one would be technology. Morals do not evolve as quickly.

Society may not be the one who should win, but usually does. As already said, social morals are those that are shared collectively by a population of people, morals that are shared by a majority at least.

Having similar morals and laws do put people's minds at ease, however, as sixxx(sic)six inferred the technology era with exponental growth taking place, didn't come about until after shedding a lot of the old conservative methods. I remember MicroSoft making a substantial turn around people who were qualified. It didn't matter if you had blue hair. You could still move up in the company. A lot of brilliant people worked there because at least they had personal freedom.

The destruction in the world at the moment is promoted by the moral stance of religion and culture.
Individuals with similar moral codes will attract each other usually, thereby becoming a force to be reckoned with.
A universal code based on the survival of the species could be classified as instinctual law without moral prejudice?

Moral prejudice is an oxi-moron. The fact is it is a sin to judge others. How hard we try not to, it always happens. Moral Prejudice is therefore a label for the ignorant.

See I just judged bunches.

By whose code is it a factual sin to judge others? That would be considered a Christian moral prejudice. You can have immoral prejudices.


Maybe it's not a matter of 'judging not' but 'knowing what not to judge'.

That would be Various Sins in Leviticus. Many religions use the Old Testament.

Most religions tell people to get along though, in one way or another. How is being judgmental and hatefull that inspires harm to others ever "moral"?