Personal Morality vs Social Morality

[Nor Vindsval]

Hey ya.

I was wondering a few days ago, (like usual) how humanity built or developed a social morality? Specially because for me its hard to form steady concepts about morality in general (lack of consistency and measurement). Then I answered myself that in case that we have one, we were supposed to have a personal morality first. Why? Simply because we developed ourselves as individual first, and then we form part of the community (or do we always belong to the community?) So I made a research about it, and found some interesting articles of philosophy in which people were debating whether our moral is for own convictions or is it really thought for social issues.

Do you consider morality in general is relevant? If yes, how should it be applied?
Do you see social morality in response to certain social issues, or is it a "value" we all should follow?


Just that, oh and, have a nice day!

 

[Sandglass]

In the universal sense, I do not believe there is any true morality.

Using a less general scope, I believe goals or virtues must be listed in order for a morality to be applied as it is a relative term.

If you believe the point of society is to benefit its people, then there must be a personal morality and personal values should be held above societal ones. It would also be helpful to define what is good (happiness, knowledge, other arbitrary concepts, etc.).

If you believe society should trump the individual, social morals should be held in higher regard than individual ones and people should be willing to give up personal well being for the benefit of the community if needed.

Also, if you believe that society is more important than the individual, you might want to consider what the ultimate purpose of that is. Would it be for a 'perfect' society to be created that will perpetuate forever? Will it keep combining with other societies as well? Will there ever be a break to the cycle of societies combining to form greater societies? Does it attempt to help it's constituency in any way or is everything all for it's own good?



Related to how social moralities were developed at all, part of the answer can be seen through evolution. The societies that promote themselves are more likely to survive than those that don't. Social morals make individuals care about promoting society. Societies with strong social morals are more likely to persist than those that only care about individuals.

 

[Minute Squirrel]

The simple answer is intuition and the projection of values through the dominant people. And also the evolution part of Sandglass' post

The long answer is....well I don't feel like typing it all out(partly because I might be wrong and partly because it'll be too damn long).

I'm sure you'll figure it out

Or someone else will answer


Idk

In the universal sense, I do not believe there is any true morality.

I mean, if we're the part of the universe that's conscious doesn't that mean that every sentient being is apart of the universes 'psyche' . Doesn't that also mean that whatever morality the largest amount of people hold to is the universal morality. So in the end the universal morality is whatever the dominant sentient part(galactic or multi galictic empire maybe (sounds kinda stupid)or perhaps what most sentient beings value most) of the universe decides.

So basically an introverts (especially fi doms) worst enemy, the collective morality, is the true universal morality.

I think

 

[The Gopher]

Social morality comes first. Individual morality is born out of conflicting social morality, have enough different groups of conflicting social morality and choosing sides out of them and you create someone with their own personal morality. That is assuming morality doesn't intrinsically exist. If it does, it's the same but with whatever baseline programmed in.

 

[redbaron]

Social morality is just a collection of personal moralities.

So I think it's important that people 'be what they desire in the world'. Despite the impact being limited and difficult to quantify sometimes, it's still there.

 

[Perfectly Normal Beast]

^ perhaps if the religious texts that name themselves the fountains of morailty had stopped at "do unto others" we wouldn't all be in this horrible mess

i think i'm finally ready to start a cult...

 

[Nor Vindsval]

^ perhaps if the religious texts that name themselves the fountains of morailty had stopped at "do unto others" we wouldn't all be in this horrible mess

i think i'm finally ready to start a cult...

You got a nice point there. There are certain values which are considered as "good" for some groups of the community than for others are just "unrespectful". For example when Nietzsche talks about compassion based on Christianism. He criticize deeply on the counterposed effect of the concept itself therefore the negative consequences of promoting this.

Morality in general has been taught not to be analyzed. There are not parameters or degrees of measurament. I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist but, isn't that just part of "mass control"?

 

[Nor Vindsval]

If you believe the point of society is to benefit its people, then there must be a personal morality and personal values should be held above societal ones. It would also be helpful to define what is good (happiness, knowledge, other arbitrary concepts, etc.).

I liked this part, because it makes me think how are we supposed to determine wether something is enough good or enough bad? For instance: you commit a crime knowing that what you are doing is wrong, but you have a good reason (let's not call it good, but enough reasonable) to do that, and you try to justify yourself. So how do you measure in that situation? Is it the final "result" more important than your "reason"?

 

[kantor1003]

Morality, in one sense, as I see it now, is the set of rules written into us (partly by birth, partly by upbringing and social context) that governs our behaviour. In another sense, it is the science of how we should act in the world, as individuals and as a society.

I think individual morality relates to group morality as members to a species. Any particular member will have certain divergences from the species as a whole. Most of these variations, we may assume, will stay and die with the individual, but a certain few will be assimilated into the species. The morality of the species is, on this account, in continual development. It could, perhaps, be called moral progress.
Anyway, that is one way of looking at it to explore.

 

[Sandglass]

I mean, if we're the part of the universe that's conscious doesn't that mean that every sentient being is apart of the universes 'psyche' . Doesn't that also mean that whatever morality the largest amount of people hold to is the universal morality. So in the end the universal morality is whatever the dominant sentient part(galactic or multi galictic empire maybe (sounds kinda stupid)or perhaps what most sentient beings value most) of the universe decides.

While there is nothing wrong with defining morality that way, it still seems arbitrary. The method which the conscious develops a morality also seems random in accordance with universal laws. Pretty much everything humans consider morally good helps themselves and other humans (or related / necessary species) survive. Why is that a good thing? Would the universe care if there was no life?

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

I think it's all quite simple. Social morality starts with a formalization of imperatives we believe will serve us as individuals. The rest comes from superstitions, various states of megalomania (like in religion) and our cultural past.

 

[Minute Squirrel]

Why is that a good thing? Would the universe care if there was no life?

The universe quite literally would not have the ability to "care" if there was no life. If we're going to talk about the universe as a single entity then we need to remember that we are a part of it. We aren't sepereate, we're that part that thinks, feels, and creates values. The concept of good cannot exist without life.

 

[JPS]

Humankind is very, very thrifty. It tends to keep the bathwater even after it's thrown out the baby.

What does this mean? Although most of today's cultural values were born long ago from specific, often material, needs, the needs themselves are long gone. These old needs have been replaced by new needs, for which we've appropriated the old values. Old values serve new needs only semi-adequately, but it beats the cost of persuading everyone to start from scratch, as revolution is a huge tax on resources and morale.

So I find that my ideal personal morality is simply a more forward-thinking version of social morality—one that contains many of the old values, but remains flexible enough to accommodate new needs. My morality admits that it is neither completely right nor completely static.

I'm able to make these admissions because I am only one person, and change comes more easily to the individual than it does to the collective. So my personal morality also comes with a tacit understanding of its own partial ineffectiveness; I know for a fact that society will not readily bend to my will, at least not without a great deal of persuasion.

What's more, I understand that a society of moral relativists would be a circle of hell: we need our true believers, yes, but I'm just not one of them.

In summary, I'm a cesspool of indecision and compromise, and this doesn't bother me at all, even if it would bother others.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

I can't help but feel that this is drawing on a distinction reminiscent of the Fi vs Fe divide; that one's personal or social approach to right and wrong is something varying from individual to individual, and that previously the divide was of a more fundamental nature, which splits into alternate paradigms.

So, presumably the divide between individual and community happens at once - one views oneself as a single entity embedded with a larger entity made of similar entities.

We also have the question: when did morality become a distinct approach from the more general approach of decision making, which is one aspect of information processing?

I think it worth noting that an individual is also a community; on the one hand a community of various organs of the body, but on the other hand (and what I am more getting at) a community of various spirits like faces of a dice.

One may say that morality depends on a community, or at least some kind of multitude, to exist, but one's morality applies to oneself, perhaps even before the consideration of multiple spirits existing within an individual. Much of morality is heightened by the proximity to others, but much needs no other. It may be that its existence is for the sake of communities, or perhaps it is for the sake of an intelligent being to consciously determine the nature of the experiences it wishes to pursue...

... so there's a divide: what is worthy of achieving, and how do we achieve it? What is valuable, what is feasible? When we have one without the other, we are either hopeless at reaching the desired ends, or reaching ends which we didn't desire, but on the other hand we need to be able to hone in on each particular aspect separately, keeping in mind that it all forms part of the one whole. For example, to know what we want to achieve, we must have information about how the world around us is composed.

So,,, morality,,, is,,, the way we determine what is good and make choices in line with what is good. It applies to the way I am writing this post just as it applies to social issues. To address a social issue, one needs some understanding of things beyond what we need, yet morality informs every moment of our existence, to some extent.

How should it be applied? Well, some advice is to take careful consideration of one's innate reactions to stimuli, which inform of its worthiness, together with a voice that propels us to higher places. Scratch the MBTI picture - we are always working towards something higher, morality informs every moment of our decisions and perceptions. Without it, we still have it, yet lack recognition, lack conscious rationality.

General formula.

There is a state of being higher than that which I am currently aware of -> I make decisions to strive towards this higher state, as best as my abilities are aware.

Perhaps the primary moral offense is to go against one's own nature, one's own assessment of good and bad - to say - I should, but I am weak, thus I shan't. It must turn into an: I shall: for only then do we move past the weaknesses which draw us in and around; when fully immersed in one's plan for greatness, the way forward is moving and shaping in a free manner; to be held back by the fight against the should, is to be constrained by the mundane in a way which must somehow be broken from.

I shall: turns into: I am [becoming]



--

Lastly, check Blut Aus Nord's "The Last Journey of Ringhorn".

Because the artist is Vindsval and the music is Superb.