Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A little frightening thing about morals.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A little frightening thing about morals.

    I also post in a video game forum. That is to say i kind of lurk there.

    Two days ago a woman posted a rant about Spider-man. Apparently Marvel is killing off Peter Parker in Ultimates storyline and replacing him a young man who is part black, part Latino and may become a gay in the future. Her angry rant was how she was tired of every last piece of her childhood being overrun by what she saw as this pro-gay agenda. I have to admit i did agree with her. But she was immediately attacked for her views, but she never backed down under the pressure of being called a racist and a homophobe. I was impressed.

    She finally laid the smack down by issuing a challenge. She challenged everyone on the forum to come up with one definitive, moral stance. She made sure the easiest stances were excluded. But she openly stated that she believed that most ppl would either not reply or they would go back to her original post. So far she has been utterly correct. Not one person has posted a definitive moral stance. Now most of that forum is filled with 20-somethings, but i can remember at 20 i had a strong, unflappable moral stance on a number of difficult issues. What is happening to our society. Is this country's entire generation of 20+ yr olds a bunch of spineless cowards waiting for someone to give them a sense of ethics and morals.

  • #2
    Re: A little frightening thing about morals.

    Originally posted by WilliamCA View Post
    I also post in a video game forum. That is to say i kind of lurk there.

    Two days ago a woman posted a rant about Spider-man. Apparently Marvel is killing off Peter Parker in Ultimates storyline and replacing him a young man who is part black, part Latino and may become a gay in the future. Her angry rant was how she was tired of every last piece of her childhood being overrun by what she saw as this pro-gay agenda. I have to admit i did agree with her. But she was immediately attacked for her views, but she never backed down under the pressure of being called a racist and a homophobe. I was impressed.

    She finally laid the smack down by issuing a challenge. She challenged everyone on the forum to come up with one definitive, moral stance. She made sure the easiest stances were excluded. But she openly stated that she believed that most ppl would either not reply or they would go back to her original post. So far she has been utterly correct. Not one person has posted a definitive moral stance. Now most of that forum is filled with 20-somethings, but i can remember at 20 i had a strong, unflappable moral stance on a number of difficult issues. What is happening to our society. Is this country's entire generation of 20+ yr olds a bunch of spineless cowards waiting for someone to give them a sense of ethics and morals.
    Not sure what you are trying to say. Is it not okay to have different races or different sexual preferences in comic books in order to not change childhood memories? Your childhood does not change just because a comic book does, and if you, or she, does not like the change stop reading the Ultimates storyline and stay with the others that still have Peter as Spiderman.

    As for a "moral" stance to have the change, maybe there is none. It is like asking for a moral stance on the differences between the movie versions of the comic books vs a direct translations from book to film.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: A little frightening thing about morals.

      That's just the thing, anyone who opposes to the change and the gender-bending biases the writers of the comic book have the right to simply not by the comic book or promote it. We as consumers make the ultimate vote with our wallets when it comes to consumable goods. And if people simply don't buy, the writers will soon enough get the message because they'll be broke.

      And Nimrod, You're right, what has this country come to these days? Consumers need to show more backbone and let the corporate Mesia moguls that people aren't about eating virtually anything the Media chooses to put out. No one is obligated to subscribe to it.

      Then again individuals who fancy that sort of thing are rightfully entitled to it, but we don't, under any circumstances, have to let their problem be our problem.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: A little frightening thing about morals.

        Does a "moral stance" mean white and heterosexual? Whenever someone complains about the "pro-gay" agenda, I turn off. This world is diverse and complicated. A so called "moral stance" in this context doesn't seem to recognize that. Perhaps I am being judgemental......

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: A little frightening thing about morals.

          I'm sort of curious what is meant by a "definitive moral stance".

          Morality is individual, adaptive, and pretty much completely subjective. The fundamental basis for any moral position is the value of life in general and human life in specific; this valuation is arbitrary, with no real-world justification beyond "because I think it does". That, of course, doesn't prohibit people from maintaining morals and even expanding on them; it couldn't, since our capacity for justice, fair play, and morality seem to be results of evolution, especially as they help to build stable societies.

          I've spent a lot of time trying to work out a basis for a rational morality, and I keep coming up against that block: that there's nothing intrinsically valuable about life. Partly as a result, I've shifted to thinking that ethics might be more important to a society than morality, since it's really ethics that form the basis for group behavior and survival. While ethics may have moral components at their roots, they don't require moral justification to persist and can stand on their own (even as arbitrary designations).

          This is all aside from asking the question of how someone justifies bigotry as a "moral position", or what exactly the "pro-gay agenda" is. I mean, I've been openly gay for 21 years and no one's ever clued me in to this agenda. Maybe I'm just not hanging out at the right bars.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: A little frightening thing about morals.

            Rico states;
            The fundamental basis for any moral position is the value of life in general and human life in specific;
            Here is the list of the United Nations principles regarding human rights which is very inspiring.
            http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

            Here are some other ethical principals which I very much like;
            • The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
            • Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
            • Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
            • A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
            • The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
            • The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
            • Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.
            Last edited by David77; 08-05-2011, 12:05 AM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: A little frightening thing about morals.

              Originally posted by WilliamCA View Post
              She finally laid the smack down by issuing a challenge. She challenged everyone on the forum to come up with one definitive, moral stance.
              Easy: Matthew 7:12

              Or even easier: "Don't be an asshole"

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: A little frightening thing about morals.

                She should be attacked for her views that line up more with her being an intolerant bigot. However, being a lurker on forums, you should know the first rule is to not feed the trolls, which she might be. But it sounds like her "definitive moral stance" is just her trying to tie it all back to some quasi-Christian stance that their morality is the only morality, which it isn't.

                But to answer her question, morality is very fluid, growing, and changing as people get older and learn to live with the rapidly growing, changing, and diversifying world we live in. Being one of these 20+ yr olds I don't think we're a bunch of a spineless cowards. I think we've grown up in a world that is very different from the one our parent's built, and we're trying to find our way while fighting a bunch up people from several generations ago that seem set in wanting to keep things the way they were, which doesn't work anymore.

                I kinda want the link to this forum so I can see what everyone was saying.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: A little frightening thing about morals.

                  By the way, if she is mad about the so-called "gay agenda" in the new Spiderman comics, she is going to be really mad when she finds out what the X-Men comics were all about.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: A little frightening thing about morals.

                    I'm not sure I like the idea of an unflappable moral stance. It shows an unwillingness to grow and an unwillingness to change your mind.

                    One might say that they have a moral stance that murder is wrong, but support the death penalty for certain cases.

                    One might say that they support the death penalty in all murder cases, but find out that a 17 year old girl murdered her father after years of raping her.

                    One might say that they have a moral stance that gays are wrong, but change when a family member comes out.

                    One might say that they have a moral stance against ignorance, but want to rid the country of public education.

                    One might say that they have a moral stance against drugs, but are OK with prescription drugs based on natural opiates.

                    There is always a situation that creates a quandry in people. For someone to say that they have an unflappable moral stance is a clear display that the person has given little thought to the issues and life.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: A little frightening thing about morals.

                      Originally posted by BinCo View Post
                      I'm not sure I like the idea of an unflappable moral stance. It shows an unwillingness to grow and an unwillingness to change your mind.

                      One might say that they have a moral stance that murder is wrong, but support the death penalty for certain cases.

                      One might say that they support the death penalty in all murder cases, but find out that a 17 year old girl murdered her father after years of raping her.

                      One might say that they have a moral stance that gays are wrong, but change when a family member comes out.

                      One might say that they have a moral stance against ignorance, but want to rid the country of public education.

                      One might say that they have a moral stance against drugs, but are OK with prescription drugs based on natural opiates.

                      There is always a situation that creates a quandry in people. For someone to say that they have an unflappable moral stance is a clear display that the person has given little thought to the issues and life.
                      It seems that you favor SITUATIONAL ETHICS. The definition and discussion of Situational Ethics is on the following web page;

                      http://www.google.com/search?q=situa...w=1280&bih=553

                      I, too, favor situational ethics.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: A little frightening thing about morals.

                        I did some checking on the thread and it seems that the woman who made the original post is black. Her main gripe was the changing of the main characters of a comic purely for pandering and what she felt was a pro-gay agenda. Now personally i have seen what she is talking about in our American media and such, it doesn't bother me that much. I think she was just angry in general and the rant was sort of the tipping point for her. As far as i am concerned the fact that no one could show a moral stance on anything was what made me concerned. I believe that one should have some definitive morals about what you believe and what is right or wrong. I don't believe in situational ethics or pop-culture morals. Both seem to me to be about going with the flow or political correctness instead of doing the right thing. I guess it's my own Christian upbringing and watching the world from a different point of view that allows me to see things differently.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: A little frightening thing about morals.

                          Originally posted by BinCo View Post
                          I'm not sure I like the idea of an unflappable moral stance. It shows an unwillingness to grow and an unwillingness to change your mind.

                          There is always a situation that creates a quandry in people. For someone to say that they have an unflappable moral stance is a clear display that the person has given little thought to the issues and life.
                          Right on, Bin.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: A little frightening thing about morals.

                            Originally posted by WilliamCA View Post
                            I believe that one should have some definitive morals about what you believe and what is right or wrong. I don't believe in situational ethics or pop-culture morals. Both seem to me to be about going with the flow or political correctness instead of doing the right thing. I guess it's my own Christian upbringing and watching the world from a different point of view that allows me to see things differently.
                            Morality is insufficient. It's not enough to say that "x is right and y is wrong"; such absolutism rarely exists in reality and is rarely enforced even by its most ardent supporters. Morality is personal, and thus morals for different people within the same community - or even in the same family unit - can vary drastically. Morals are also based on intangible beliefs that can shift suddenly or over time, especially as most people have never really considered their own morality and, instead, adopt or adapt one from an outside influece (such as a religion or other family members).

                            Ethics, however, are the rules a society or group agrees upon for mutual benefit. The perfect example of this is killing: one can easily say that "all killing is wrong". However, if one is defending one's self, we allow killing. If one is trying to stop someone from killing numerous others, we allow it. If one does it accidentally, we often excuse it. So, regardless of whether it's "right" or "wrong", society cares more about "allowable" or "not allowable".

                            Society can function without morals, but society cannot function without ethics; one could even say that society is the existence of a code of ethics, often defined or refined by a shared culture. Ethics may be influenced by morals, but more often than not they're determined by agreed-upon social contracts for mutual benefit: I won't kill/harm/steal from you if you won't kill/harm/steal from me. It's a form of negotiated self-defense.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: A little frightening thing about morals.

                              Originally posted by BinCo View Post
                              I'm not sure I like the idea of an unflappable moral stance. It shows an unwillingness to grow and an unwillingness to change your mind.

                              One might say that they have a moral stance that murder is wrong, but support the death penalty for certain cases.

                              One might say that they support the death penalty in all murder cases, but find out that a 17 year old girl murdered her father after years of raping her.

                              One might say that they have a moral stance that gays are wrong, but change when a family member comes out.

                              One might say that they have a moral stance against ignorance, but want to rid the country of public education.

                              One might say that they have a moral stance against drugs, but are OK with prescription drugs based on natural opiates.

                              There is always a situation that creates a quandry in people. For someone to say that they have an unflappable moral stance is a clear display that the person has given little thought to the issues and life.
                              Gray is the new black and white.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X