yes or no : philosophy : CAN OUR MORALS CHANGE? GOOD OR BAD? [+] serious ballot by jakesnake5 We learn by society, what is wrong and what is right. By observing what others around us do, we can help make a better life for everyone. Indiginous tribes in Africa are tought what is socially acceptable behavior, which would seem perposterous to the average american in today's USA. In today's world for instance, something as simple as staring (in Japan) is considered socially acceptable behaviour, whereas, in America it wouldn't necessarily. Theft and murder are wrong because they steal happiness from another being. Happiness at the cost of harming others in unacceptable. We all know this by our experiences in social interaction with each other. For example: If your friend has an ice-cream cone, and you steal it then eat it, you are looked down upon for your actions. Not only from his point of view, but also from society's point of view in general because we have all learned what it feels like to be in the position of having something taken away from us for someone else's benefit. Again, this would be "wrong" by having it looked at from the simple rule of "happiness at another persons expense is wrong". Back to my other point, to the indiginous tribes in Africa (or wherever indiginous tribes may dwell), they may not see anything wrong with "murder" if they had a good reason for it. Consider human sacrifices. Generally a human is made sacrifice to the gods to pay a sort of tribute for good blessing, or a deterrent for bad luck. Now the person being sacrificed may not want to be sacrificed at all, but, the village where he is living believes that it is socially acceptable and honorable for him to be murdered for this cause. Therefore, his society believes that it is, in fact, acceptable to murder for that given cause. We see how the morals differ in the two societies and take one conclusion. Morals can change. If morals can change, then what we find morally acceptable today, may not be acceptable in the future, or in different provinces around the world presently. Technically, survival of a species is one of the most basic laws that we should follow, and happiness at another persons expense is looked down upon because it builds on that reasoning. What does that mean? It means since our morals can change, and since survival of our species is the most important aspect of everything we do, then a new moral may find it's way into our society and that moral is: no individual. If we take out the individuals in our society, that act as a parasite to humans as a whole, it will only make our species grow larger and faster, rather than our previous ( and current) law of "the individual is important". Kill 2 innocent people to save 3 innocent people will be unaquivocally acceptable, which we may find strange right now. If morals can change, then we may have a Hitler-like policy to save a group of people and forget about the one person bringing the rest down. What do you think about this? I agree morals can change, but the result is still moral. I agree morals can change, but I find that result immoral. I don't think morals can change because... I follow morals not influenced by society (Koran, Bible, Torah). other - Commented. Ballot #127592 : SEE RESULTS Comment: Register to submit comments You may still vote without registration show your vote with comment?

v 2.0

© BESTANDWORST.COM

smile bank: