What do you use to measure morality? How do you judge if a society is moving forward towards a “higher” level or if we are regressing?
e.g. Increased nudity in films produced in Pakistan.
(btw, example may be interpretted either way – good or bad)
Well, cyclus phenomena. You are wearing clothes and you decides to go take a shower. Then you undress yourself to take bath. After finishing your again put on the robes. So, the cycle goes on and on till you die. This is an example in private atmosphere. The commercial one is the you have said.
Jeez, I've tried so often to take bath with my clothes on.
We all have an innate sense of morality and the extent to which we enforce this basic level of morality is one criteria we can use to judge how progressive a society is.
As an example let’s take one basic moral value that we hold that does not require any lengthy theological justification. Stealing from others is wrong so let’s see to what extent this rule is enforced within the society in question. We can look at the likelyhood of having something stolen from us in this society, and then look at what the society does to enforce the rule and reduce it’s occurrence. We can also look at the prevaling social attitude towards breaking this piece of morality within the society.
When moving onto more complex issues the criteria used to define morality differs between different societies. The ability to have sex with a prostitute may be my fundamental right in some societies while other societies will view this as a crime and not a right.
I would judge society using a criteria defined from our innate sense of morality that we all no matter which part of the world we live in can agree on.
Farouq Taj.
I agree with your approach Farouq ...
Can we begin to compile such a list of "morals"?
I partially agree with what Farouq has to say and this is a good topic, thanks Muzna!
Myself I am a supporter of the Theory which Farouq has brought forward. However, the other day when my friend and I were discussing this we couldn't answer all questions. The Thoery of Cultural Relativism is basically what Farouq has stated, that different cultures have different moral codes. To me, morality is just a convenient term for socially acceptable actions in a society.
Morality is thus to be treated as a subjective entity and the fundamental problem is where and how can we draw a line to Objective Morals or Universal Morals.
I can only see a few items on the list.
Secondly, I point to Muzna's question about Progress. If you hold this theory true, than in a society, folkways are the right ways and to deviate from them in name of progress wouldn't be justified by the theory.
I feel that Universal Morals are yet to be realized, and once they are, then I fear that the theory of Cultural Relativism wouldn't remain logically sound. How :
Lemma 1 : Cultural Relativism holds
Lemma 2 : Universal Morals also hold
Situation : Society "A" takes a certain act to be acceptable.
Society "B" condems that same act.
By Lemma 1, this is possible
By Lemma 2, either "A" or "B" can be at fault if the act is on our list of Universal Morals.
Hence, 1 & 2 cannot coexist (at least not for most situations).
I would like to hear more in this interesting thread.
My question is that would it be possible to take an average of at least all the actions which have a social stigma attached to them in all cultures and put them on a list of "DON'TS".
Ciao.
I would be very interested in hearing what the following group have to say on the subject:
Shirin
Antidote
Haya
Jez
Wish Yasmeen was around . . .
Tariq
zman
Quark
JackHandy
Niaz
Imran
Khalifa
Yoo hoooooo
Where are you?
Muzna
This topic deserves some serious thinking. I was trying hard and cannot come up with a thought which could even satisfy myself. Give me some time and I will gather my thoughts and share them with group.
Let me give it a shot.
Measuring morality : Cant really measure it because its like a moving target. With every new generation the very definition of morality changes. Therefore, the measuring stick for morality needs to be sort of a combination of old values and new values. Think 15 years back, the pre-MTV culture, the benjamin sisters singing on a PTV show, their attire was simplistic and they were'nt even allowed to move from their spots while singing. Now things are quite different where the western values are slowly settling in and the Pakistani pop-culture is more and more like the Western pop music culture. Finally, its really hard to say that based on the morality issues, the Pakistani society is regressing or moving towards a "higher" level.
Later
Zman
Jeez, my god, look ha, they're getting inteligenter, my...my...but not really. These fools will never be able to conclude any discussion effectively. They're just swimming in their own traps from which it will be very difficult for them to get out. There are two kinds of geniuses. Fools and the other one - Fools!!
Man came late on planet Earth and will leave early. Why? Because he is a Fool. Other species will survive.
Here I am madam ,at your servise.(This is my first code of marality)
There are 2 seperate aspects to it,
1-The degree to which,individuals adhere to the accepted codes, and
2-The " rule book",developed by any culture.
Rules are formulated in any culture keeping in view 2 goals.First one is satisfaction of individuals in that culture,which comes from ,the human needs,being met.And second, the overall goal/fantasy of the direction of mankind.
The first of these two is a common variable ,shared by human race globally.The second however ,is based on philosophy of ,"what we are", "where we need to go", and "if there is a creater,do we owe her anything",this of course varies with different cultures.
My personnal opinion is that satisfaction of each individual is much more important than over all goal of human race.For one simple reason that we have very few facts,We are born and have to spend 65 or so years on earth.This is the only truth we know.If there is a God,or not(and even if there is,do we owe her anything),where we are going,if there is an after life,these are all interesting questions that we dont have answers for.
In order for a large number of individuals trying to divide resourses,we need to have a clear rule book.But since individuals vary in their needs,no strict code can be appropriate for all.Meaning the best thing is to provide as much individual freedom as poosible,and only make few rules that are absolutely necessary for the functioning of the society.
To lie,steal,kill are accepted by almost all cultures, as things not to do,and surprisingly ,you will find that, these can be applied to decide so many situations ,that are seemingly unrelated.
I am tired of typing now,will post as the diss. will proceed.
[This message has been edited by Quark (edited 09-08-98).]
Laws, religious codes, constitutions are general guidelines to lead people towards a common direction. In my humble opinion, these guidelines do not necessarily provide a scale to measure the height of morality in a nation or amongst a group of people. Stealing is a sin and a punishable crime in most of the societies but Robin Hood is a character whose morality stands higher than many other characters (fictional or non-fictional) discussed in the history. On the other hand, chopping the hand of a thief has no moral explanation (its my opinion so lets not start an argument on this) but its a part of Islamic social law. To lie, is against the code of honor, but what if its to save your life or to end a conflict between two people.
Man made laws and religious codes only take care of actions. If your action is violating certain code or law then you are a sinner or a criminal. Morality of a behavior can only be determined by looking into the big picture, i.e both, cause and effect. Morality of an action can be judged by considering the advantage and disadvantage of the actions, also by looking into different options, the individual had, before he committed certain act. Religion and law do not provide this luxury. They don't consider pros and cons. They don't look into options. As a matter of fact, most of the time, religious codes and man made laws come face to face as a conflict. That is because of their built in rigidity.
On the other hand, issues which give birth to moral objections do not necessarily violate any existing law or religious code. Issues like Cloning or Animal rights. The reason being that religious and man made laws are based on logics. Logic is not the answer of all the question. Also, morality of an issue cannot be determined, only by logics (at least, not all the time).
To me, morality is an attribute of individuals, but its growth depends upon the acceptance of a certain act by a society. Morality is not a guideline, but for sure, it reflects the presence of "Human factor" in a society.
I did not discuss the actual issue, at all. My debate was that one should not confuse morality with religion or social laws.
Enough said (at least for now).
[This message has been edited by Tariq Khan (edited 09-09-98).]
If morality is connotated with public sexuality, then Rome would have the heyday of debauchery, some 2000 years ago. The puritanical version followed in the West is a post-Renassaince code of morals. Human
sexuality is something normal, and what consenting adults do in public, in movies or in theaters, should be acceptable. The question is how so we protect the children from viewing such stuff ( censorship??)- and the explotative industry that spawns from the sale and merchandising of human sexuality.
The goodness or badness of sexuality in movies depends on the audience. I firmly believe in the rating system - on the other hand explicity sexuality on television or other easily accessible print/video medium
is probably not desirable.
For example pornography in the US is a billion dollar business, - with the majority of viewers being normal everyday family men & women. ( suprising isn't it) - on the other handy porno theaters are in the seediest parts of towns often occasioned by perverts or school jocks.