Saturday, November 13, 2004

Calvin and Hobbes

Found this on the newpaper yesterday.

Calvin: Do you think our morality is defined by our actions or by what's in our hearts?
Hobbes: I think our actions show what's in our hearts.


Anonymous said...

Morality in the absolute sense does not have a right and wrong. Camus once asked, "If there were no god, is everyhing permissible?" (implication of no absolute morality).

The answer is still "No", such that even if there were no god, NOT everything is permissible: morality is judged based on a social understanding. What is considered moral (or not) could be a totally different thing centuries ago.

Who is to say (I'm anti-bible) what is right or wrong. Who is mortally and morally upright enough to decide what is a right thing to do; not everything in the world is a clear-cut matter. Some involve decision among a lesser evil--What is evil?

Social norms becomes slowly absorbed into absolute morality. In Europe, homosexuality is not considered a taboo, are the any less moral than us? I for one, think it's okay, but doesn't mean I follow it. Am I then, immoral?

-- What's Calvin's Dad and Mom's names anyway?

Day said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Day said...

If morality is based on what the social decides, then I guess it would waiver like the light on the candle wick. Uncertain and unsure. What then counts for the goodness and the righteous and integrity? If the society decides that sexual immorality, impurity, debauchey, withcraft, hatred, discord, jealousy, rage, drunkenness, orgies, murder, homosexuality and the like are OK, does the standard of morally good means being lowered? Morrie said "One would have a better life if he is brave enough to be out of the world's culture" Instaed of debating on who is morally correct and who is wrong, wouldn't it better to put what morally correct into action? Instead of the fighting of the tongue, let it be a proven action.
- by the way, Calvin's mom and dad's name are mom and dad.

season said...

Yeap it's true, morality is in fact decided by social norms and is based on social acceptence. If a society accepts homosexuality, then it is morally upright. Then robbery too is morally justified if the society accepts it.

Amsterdam has the lowest crime rate in the world. Why? Many things considered as crimes everywhere else are considered to be legitimate (both in a legal, and moral sense). There was also a time where people could thieves who stole their crop, because it was (at that time) socially accepted. I don't question the moral in doing that.

The only fallacy in your debate about morals, Anonymous, is that Morals have nothing to do with what's right and what's not. Morals only encompass what's moral or immoral. Doing the 'Right' thing, then is a different thing from a 'moral' thing. Something absolutely moral (accepted in EVERY country in the world) too may be wrong.

One day it may be, again, moral to kill. Does that make it the right thing to do? I won't answer that, lest any of you proceed to criticise me as being judgemental.

something RIGHT, then is based on eternal truths that never change with society. To steal is a wrong thing to do. Today, tomorrow, and forever, it will always be the wrong thing to do, whether the society accepts it or not.

SO then, strive to do what is right, not moral. Moral's justification may to some extent just be nothing more than putting the 'wrong' in a politically correct manner.

Site Meter