OCCUPY WALL STREET

[EnderD_503]

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

To me a moral code, to be judged useful, must treat others with dignity and respect. A moral code that reduces the quality of people’s life is no moral code at all.

The time has come for those who clearly revere and respect humanity, for those who see the need for equity and justice, for those who understand the dignity inherent in all life to take back the use of the term morality. We must overcome our initial revulsion to the term moral. Our reluctance to use the words moral and morality is understandable. There has been a bad taste left in our mouths because of what passes for moral behavior and what is done to other human beings in the name of morality by supposedly god fearing morally righteous people.

Except that if we're going to define a moral code as treating others with dignity and respect, then we need to define "dignity" and "respect." We also need to realise that there are people in this world who believe (from a moral perspective, at that) that treating certain groups equally is actually an afront to the "dignity" and "respect" of others. For example, allowing same-sex marriage, to some, is an afront to the "dignity" and "respect" of the "heterosexual institution of marriage." They believe that the "moral health" of a nation/people is at risk with allowing that form of equality, and, in fact, to them it is not equality at all. How can we sit there and call them "immoral"? How can we make a sound argument against them, morally? According to whom? To ourselves, of course. But we are almost always moral beings in our own eyes.

It's the same for everyone. Anders Breivik thought himself a rather moral chap. He even predicted that society would deem him monstrous and immoral. But he held the "moral high ground." He was a "martyr." The thing is, people like Breivik do not need to be incarcerated to the maximum because of "morality," but because they are a danger to the progress of society which they inhabit. I would like to quickly add, because when I speak like this people tend to think I'm a "monster" myself or something, that I am not reducing the severity of acts like Breivik's. When I see such things occur there are two "parts" of me at play. The one part, which is enraged that some 70 Norwegian youths had their lives taken because of some christian nutjob. The second part of me asks myself why I am outraged. It then asks why these acts should be condemned in society. Do they have a use? What would happen if we did not incarcerate murderers? What would happen when people live in a society where their family and friends (or themselves) are murdered without society persecuting such actions? It would leave us all feeling extremely unsafe, and violence in society would escalate to the "eye for an eye" mentality present in past ages. In such an atmosphere, modern progress cannot occur. It would cause society to regress, remain static or, at best, progress very slowly (with half a millennium between technological revolutions once more).

Now back to the debate

So what is "dignity" and what is "respect," and to whom should it apply? I ask this because there do need to be restrictions placed on those who would discriminate against others in society. They will be treated in a way that is not with "dignity" and "respect" by their own assertions.

And how do we define to "revere and respect humanity." What is "justice"? Justice to whom? Who defines it? The Westboro Church, for example, seems to think that it's out to save humanity from immorality and disrespect brought upon it by "the Gay Agenda (TM)." The politicians who toy with our futures every single day claim to be doing it to help humanity...and yet many of their nations' citizens live in squalor. Politicians claim to bomb other nations all the time out of "moral justification." It has nothing to do with what they claim is "respect for humanity," but their own greed.

You write "supposedly god-fearing morally righteous people." How do you know that they are not? If morality is a subjective/abstract concept, then how can they be "supposedly" god-fearing morally righteous people? These words are completely based on one's own discoursive vocabulary. If one were to take the bible word for word, these types would actually show themselves as pretty "good" christians, if a "good" christian is defined by how well they follow the bible.

There are more efficient and better defensible ways to assure that the common person is treated as an equal in a society run by bankers and politicians. I still maintain that morality is not the way to attain that goal, even though one's first reaction is to think that it is a matter of morality. If it came down to my own ethics, then yes I would feel that these people who oppress need to adopt a similar idea of equality and basic respect as myself. But it's very difficult to make any change or make an air-tight argument using a term that is subjectively defined. And I still maintain that if we want long term progress for society, we need to step away from immutable ideologies/morality, and take a step forward into a more analytical age where our "beliefs" are constantly mutating.