We had a lively discussion at lunch today about morality. One person maintained that morality comes from a Higher Power, for lack of a better term, and that if you're not religious you don't have morality, you just go by what's "right" or "wrong" according to the laws of whatever society you live in.

I maintain that an atheist can have morals.

I would love to read your-all's thoughts on this, if we can do it without getting into whether or not there is a Higher Power (of whatever name) or judging the various religions.

Morality is a trait of any successful social species. Without morality it would be impossible for that species to survive. If there's a higher power involved that higher power is natural selection.

I maintain that an atheist can have morals.

I've never bought the "only the religious have morals", which in my experience means those whose religion is closest to the speaker's.

I think all humans have morals (just step on somebody's toe or reach into another person's shopping cart at a store and remove an item for yourself).

And, what one's ethical system is a mishmash of the traditional plus the idiosyncratic.

As to its origins, like many things, it comes from the individuals who make up the societal group.

Yes, but not exactly.
Morals are but an aspect of the mechanics of evolution.
A Higher Power is needed to effect a Creation to put the billiard balls in motion.

A Higher Power is needed to effect a Creation to put the billiard balls in motion.

Ah, deity qua big bang.

Too many capitals in that sentence.

Morality is, morals are the principles that maintain in or bring into equilibrium the interests of the individual with the interests of a group/ society.

I think it comes from our hunting, gathering, cave dwelling past.
How to fight and compromise over territory and bone. From rudeness to refinement. Who's the expert in the does and don'ts of our prehistory?

Clearly said BranShea.
And buffalo, if you can't capitalize THE Creation how can you justify capitalizing Walmart or Chicago or Obama or Sin?

If we didn't have morals to start with we would never have made it that far.

Well, three out of four are what they call themselves, so who am I to say? I don't know anybody named Sin.

Morals are but an aspect of the mechanics of evolution.

I think it comes from our hunting, gathering, cave dwelling past.

Could you-all clarify your statements a little further for me, please; specifically, are you saying that morality is different from right-vs.-wrong, and if so, how?

The Roman Archbishop of Manila was named Jaime Sin.

So that capital is fine, too.

Beats me! Just adding my pittance for what it is worth.

Now BS, you know very well that the rules of Capitalization grade into convention. You can if you like de-capitalize the word "earth" but when you come down to earth you'll still find "Earth" capitalized by the coterie.

But my capitaling was just for kicks.

Yes Jackie, morality is different from right and wrong but at the same time they are the same. Both concepts are cultural devises invented to abet the continuance of the breeding group.
"Right and wrong" are the parameters of acceptable behavior and "morality" encompasses a subservience to the Cultural norm.

Could you-all clarify your statements a little further for me, please; specifically, are you saying that morality is different from right-vs.-wrong, and if so, how?

Morals is about right-vs-wrong. Only the right-vs-wrong can differ from culture to culture. I was told by a Congolese friend that in the tribe where Mobutu came from, stealing without being caught was a highly esteemed virtue.

Note also that the God who some claim gave us morality told us to commit genocide just a few chapters after telling us not to kill.

And we all know who's wearing the boot...

in the tribe where Mobutu came from, stealing without being caught was a highly esteemed virtue. Whoa!

Yes, and look at the history of the DRC from
Leopold to now.

I'm almost totally ignorant about that; I just know it has been, and is, terrible.

Which does not imply that one out of over 200 tribes' morals has decided the course of history. Where in this tribe stealing was an acknowleged virtue, there have been many robbers of all colors and continents that influenced the course of Congo's history. Still do.
(but I am stepping out of the language comfort zone)

Gee BranShe, if language has a comfort zone then language can't get its job done. The term "politically correct" is semantically self-damning and to all who think; self-demeaning.

And remember; all in-groups rationalize, modify, excuse, and sometimes exalt, any violations of the mores of the larger group if perpetrated by members of their own in-group.
[How otherwise could money-grubbing lawyers and politicians and doctors get rich?]

Usage. The term "Culture" can apply to the self-aggrandising beliefs of two renegade bank robbers as well as the collective self-aggrandising beliefs of everyone else in the World.

Language does not have a comfort zone, language ìs a comfort zone.

How cozy!

language is a comfort zone

... I agree with Burroughs, "language is a virus from outer space" ... and culture is a pedestrian zone ...

- I only meant the comfort zone of language against the discomfort zone of politics and opinions.

I only meant the comfort zone of language against the discomfort zone of politics and opinions.

I knew what you meant, Branshea, and so did other folks.

So did I, BranShe.

Obviously this is not a forum for political debate.
But our love of words and language is meaningless if we don't speak out against those who would censor our words to advance their own political agendas.

A "comfort zone" with fay words is a pacifier without milk.

>A "comfort zone" with fay words..

I'm not sure I understand the use of 'fay' (elfish?) in this context; or perhaps you meant 'fey' (otherworldly, precious)?

our love of words and language is meaningless if we don't speak out against those who would censor our words to advance their own political agendas.

I see things differently. The PC crowd and the anti-PC crowd are both trying to control how language is used. Both have their own political agendas which they are servicing. That aside, one can do things with language, e.g., lie, swear, incite, pacify, hurt, humor, philosophize, etc. Nobody likes being told how to speak or how to behave or how to act, but we are social creatures and we live in this world with others. I don't care how un-PC somebody is, if you use language against them (even having the temerity to tell them how to speak in your presence) they will no doubt get upset, and who am I to say with this is rightly so or even true? We pretty much eschew discussions of politics and religion (to choose just two of the major taboo topics), and our forum is the better for it. Every now and then somebody sneaks something through (in the Name of Liberty, Justice, Ethical Behavior, etc.), and we all suffer it and suffer by it.

No tsuwm, I meant "fay" as in "fairy-like".
I woulda said "fairy" but I thought some people might think that "fairy" was a homophobic term so I went with "fay".

Today, I'm thinking, it is more politically correct to say fay rather than fairy.

Morality is a trait of any successful social species.Morality and ethics are the core things for any world culture and for global culture as well.

sigh. silly spammer.

You think they'd get a clue.

Well said zmjezhd.
Except you equate the PC crowd with the anti-PC crowd. That is not reality, that is political correctness.

Is there any difference in meaning between elfish and fairy-like and what's the use of inventing a euphemism for a euphemism for a ...and so on and so on...

That's the point, Sheba. Civil people automatically select words and meanings so as not to offend and social correctness in a condition neccesary to effect orderly communication.

Political Correctness is otherwise. It seeks control.

Political Correctness is otherwise. It seeks control.

I most assuredly agree. It's the imposition one's
value system on others.

that, or tolerance speaking.

That's the point, Sheba. Civil people automatically select words and meanings so as not to offend and social correctness in a condition neccesary to effect orderly communication.
Political Correctness is otherwise. It seeks control.

I'm afraid I can't follow the conversation very well, but I'm glad you both agree.

Signed and added to files,
BranShea

I can understand that especially in cases of racism.

Political Correctness is otherwise. It seeks control.

If I say something, you censure it as politically correct, how then is that not seeking to control my speech? The interesting thing about the term is that it started out in leftist contexts where somebody's rhetoric would be labeled politically correct as a censure that the person was just parroting ideas without actually understanding them. But, now it has mainly be adopted by the right as a way to control speech that involves ideas that are at variance with those who wish to censure.

What most people dismiss as PC, I think falls under the old-fashioned concept of being polite. It really does not matter to me if you want to shout blasons populaires in a crowded theater. Go for it. Another thing termed PC is euphemism. Again, if you want to say somebody croaked to their widow, that's your prerogative, but I'll err with a little euphemism.

hear, hear.

“Don't you see the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the language of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible because there will be no words in which to express it”
__________________________ George Orwell, 1984

And don't you see, zmjezhd, that the distinctions between Left and Right political beliefs are contrived and are designed to categorize into groups the non-thinking man. You know, sorta like but not like when we join together as Americans to oppose those wish us dead.

But reality is different. Political Correctness even or especially when encoded into law has but a single objective: Control.

the distinctions between Left and Right political beliefs are contrived and are designed to categorize into groups the non-thinking man. You know, sorta like but not like when we join together as Americans to oppose those wish us dead.

It's not just left and right (or Left and Right). Don't you see that all ideologies, especially those acquired shortly after birth, and which remain with us mainly un-examined can be a short-circuiting of reason. In fact, they are the opposite of rational argument. But one's own ideologies are usually not so classified. I have a philosophy of life, you have an ideology un-examined and patently false. Orwell's "thoughtcrime" (which you no doubt identify with some US laws on hate crimes) are an extreme form of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. That language controls thought is a nice lengthy topic to discuss on a words-related board, but why do I have the sneaky suspicion that what you really want to discuss is Politicks (intentionally thus spelled with lofty capital letter and archaic 'k' attached to raise its level to a classical argument).

What are laws, if not something to control the people who constitute Society. "What do you mean I cannot strange some fool in a parking lot because she parked across two spaces? Stop trying to control me. You're not the boss of me!" You can argue that a law is unjust, but not on the grounds that it is trying to control you or anybody else. (Although the latter is usually not so much worried about.)

Oh, and for the record, Orwell was a fine writer, and although I liked his non-fiction better (i.e., Down and Out in Paris and London and Homage to Catalonia), he knew diddly-squat about language or how it works.

In youth we inherit the collective wisdom of those who have gone before us and in late youth we usually rebel and imitate our radical pea-headed professors such as those who design and ban the words from our achivement tests.
The following words were banned by the NYC Board of Education NYC because... only-God-knows-why:

•Abuse (physical, sexual, emotional, or psychological)
•Alcohol (beer and liquor), tobacco, or drugs
•Birthday celebrations (and birthdays)
•Cancer (and other diseases)
•Catastrophes/disasters (tsunamis and hurricanes)
•Celebrities
•Children dealing with serious issues
•Cigarettes (and other smoking paraphernalia)
•Computers in the home (acceptable in a school or librarysetting)
•Crime
•Death and disease
•Divorce
•Evolution
•Expensive gifts, vacations, and prizes
•Gambling
•Halloween
•Homelessness
•Homes with swimming pools
•Hunting
•Junk food
•In-depth discussions of sports that require prior knowledge
•Loss of employment
•Nuclear weapons
•Occult topics (i.e. fortune-telling)
•Parapsychology
•Politics
•Pornography
•Poverty
•Rap Music
•Religion
•Religious holidays and festivals (including but not limited to Christmas, Yom Kippur, and Ramadan)
•Rock-and-Roll music
•Running away
•Sex
•Slavery
•Terrorism
•Television and video games (excessive use)
•Traumatic material (including material that may be particularly upsetting such as animal shelters)
•Vermin (rats and roaches)
•Violence
•War and bloodshed
•Weapons (guns, knives, etc.)
•Witchcraft, sorcery, etc.
---

banned from what? being written? being spoken? where did you get this list?

What, mein Führer?
Ja, ja, don't strike me, I will tell...

I got it from Fox News.
Stop, ouch, stop, I lie.
The list is from the net. CBS NYC Television 2012

What, mein Führer? Ja, ja, don't strike me, I will tell...

I was waiting for Godwin's Law to apply.

How silly. Are you offended by light humor?
Do you not care about the engovernmentation of everyday words?


"Free speech is the whole thing, the whole ball game.
Free speech is life itself."
_______________________________ Salman Rushdie

Some humor is so light that it evaporates before you can get the meaning.

Small humor has only one person to please but it is better if there is at least one other.
But to abruptly change the topic of discussion by way of semantic turns is both rude and childish. Again...

The NYC Board of Education concocted a list of 50 words not to be used by the company they hired to create achievement tests for their NYC students. Buffalo Shrdlu asked for my source and I gave it to him.

Does anyone else have anything further to add?

I was intrigued by Z's Segue.
Godwins law in an ironic way delves into the PC/UN PC nature of how language can devolve into something quite disturbing

Well, I have this to add: I have been a public school teacher for more than 25 years, I can see pretty easily why those words were "banned" from the achievement tests. I'm not going to make a list, but one only needs to think a little while about each one, and I think understanding might dawn.

Does that make it right? Does that make it wrong? Yes, and yes. And no, and no.

But what it does make it is thoughtful. Knowing that when a child is expected to do well on a test, you don't hit them with a bunch of things which might bother them very much. I think there are plenty of available topics leftover.

And I enjoyed this conversation more when it was about morality, prior to its derailing into the PC quagmire.

Does anyone else have anything further to add?

Sure. I'd like to add that topics have a tendency to meander from here to there all the time. Nothing rude about it.

But..I would like in discussion subjects that the original topic title would be contained all through the thread. ( no mini discussions in the topic-box). (I've asked for this before because I don't take email notifications, lose the topic this way and after all it reminds us clearly what started the discussion).

Banned words... could they invent a more positive approach?

Oh, BranShea. I'd like ham and cheese on rye with butter (no mayo), but they just have so many things at my local deli... I never seem to buy that.

*******

A discussion that went from "morality" to "Pc -vs- nonPC" didn't meander very far... it just went next door to see if that swing set is any more fun!

*******

It should be easy enough to add a field here to make it "the original thread title" which, created at the beginning, is unchangable... in addition to the "Subject" one we have now. It would require a complete database rebuild... which would probably take this board offline for a few days...

It seems a lot like a topic list for the "Nightly News". I guess those actual words are used, but usually in such a general way. Yet, I suppose the individual experience will be immediately drawn out by the mere mention of those words. There must be some study revealing that experiences with these "descriptives" are so personal so as to be distracting and therefore become "results skewers". The same reason the "Nightly News" wants them *in.

You are right musick, next door is almost the closest from here to there you can get but some threads go all around the block. I don't consider it rude. And what are a few days seen from the perspective of eternity?

I maintain that an atheist can have morals - absolutely. For me, the expert in this field was the philosopher David Hume (1711-1776). But his deliberations didn't meet with much acclaim at the time. Many other thinkers have struggled with your question. They failed to answer it by arguments based on pure reason. Like the great Kant, they had to postulate some "a priori's".
In modern times, experimental psychologists have entered the fray, devising highly simplified experiments e.g. on the famous "prisoner's dilemma" and its variants. Others have done computer simulations on "populations", which included some "antisocial" individuals, besides the law-abiding (moral?) majority. It turned out that "policing" by some members of the majority improved the fate of the group. But this almost amounts to "begging the question" - a question which, in my opinion, is still unanswered.

I have a philosophy of life, you have an ideology un-examined and patently false. - You know, I have often admired, on this board, your wide-ranging knowledge, differentiated arguments and mastery of language(s). But if you quit your usual reserve and wax polemical, things tend to turn ugly. Better be careful with your sharp sword.

this was, undoubtedly, meant to be a rhetorical you, not aimed at anyone in particular, eh?

I have a philosophy of life, you have an ideology un-examined and patently false.

You know, I have often admired, on this board, your wide-ranging knowledge, differentiated arguments and mastery of language(s). But if you quit your usual reserve and wax polemical, things tend to turn ugly. Better be careful with your sharp sword.

Yeah, well, it was an overheated discussion anyway, but, I guess, in the end, I need to work on my sarcasm or ought that to be irony? I was riffing on the conjugations meme (or whatever it's called). You know, where I am object, your are subject, and s/he is beyond the pale. And, thanks for the kind words ...

this was, undoubtedly, meant to be a rhetorical you, not aimed at anyone in particular, eh?

It was aimed at the Royal We, the editorial we, and the we of nurses. (What is the adjectival, Latinate form for nurse?)

This was clearly a rethorical I and a rethorical you, even I could understand that and the tendency of the post; between ironic and sarcastic. I hope irony and sarcasm will still be allowed on this originally free and open board.

No, sarcasm will never ever be allowed again. Yes, that was sarcasm.

Shoulda used a winky frowny there, boss. ;(

Thinking about the difference between irony and sarcasm. Could sarcasm be the critisism of a bitter person and irony the critisism of someone capable of relativating the facts of life? No matter how awful the facts often are? I'm reading the integral Don Quichote by Cervantes. Besides being mad he is masterfully ironic.
Perfect classic for the summer vacation fully illustrated by Honoré Daumier.

Mad: Don Quichote, not Cervantes.

heh

One problem here is that Brit usage of irony covers what USns call sarcasm. It also covers what I'm not sure we call anything, like on a 35°C day someone will always ask, "Hot enough for you?"

Evolution created morality.
God created Evolution.

Think.

"Hot enough for you?" I think it is an ironic question. Ironic is nice and sarcasm is not, I think. Irony is based on friendliness, sarcasm is bitterness revealed. Though the fine line between the two may not be straight.

I agree. We (USns) just don't call it irony.

irony

So, saying "I could care less" is being ironic?

Sure, why not?

Sure, why not?

Super!

Well thought out and well said, BranShe. All spoken words are situational in meaning, that is; whenever the speaker and the "spoken to" agree on the essence of what has been said that becomes the meaning of what has been said.
Period.

Branny, as a Brit who enjoys both irony and sarcasm, I think that your analysis of the two forms is masterly. Couldn't have put it better meownse'f!
(Underlines the closeness of Dutch and Brit ways of thinking! Let us never forget that William III was a Dutchman!)

YES.

You can tell an Englishman
You can tell the Dutch
You can tell a Yankee
But you can not tell him much ________________________________________________

Thank you Rhubarb, neighbours we are and many words we share. So the thinking may be somewhat close. William III? ( 1650). It's ironic that the first Dutch King was not King of the Dutch. More irony, the first King of the Dutch was not Dutch:
Louis Napoleon (1806), Napoleon Bonaparte's younger brother.

Also: a little verse for 7enny 7enny,

To slay the Folks and Cleanse the Land
And leave the World a Reeking Roastie
High purpose of the Gallant Band
And Six were Kids and One a Ghostie.

(now I wonder where thát came from)

To slay the Folks and Cleanse the Land
And leave the World a Reeking Roastie
High purpose of the Gallant Band
And Six were Kids and One a Ghostie.

(now I wonder where thát came from)
_______________________________________

Uh...Shakespeare?
No, let's see, uh, somebody better...
Uh....

Sounds more like Burns than Shakespeare.

But it wasn't him, either.

One of your neighbors and I know you rated him high.

Maybeso, Branny Shea, but please tell us this:
Where does your own morality come from?

People like me
and the tsuwms and the Faldages and Zees and other weirdos do so much want to know.

"How, how, Cordelia! mend your speech a little". Please, don't use plurals where singulars are due.
You will not get my answer untill you find the writer you yourself mentioned before and who wrote his books only two blocks away from your's.

And of course you are right, Cordelia. But that aside I do pledge to pull an honest answer from your stubborn tongue if need be, so tell me now, Cordelia; from whence comes your morality, as corrupt as it might be?

Shoulda used a winky frowny there, boss. ;( Run your cursor over the space after the period there, minion.

Rhuby--thanks.

Silly me. I shoulda known to look at the invisible.

What is the word for provocation? Oh yes! 'provocation'.

Though this topic started as a question in general and not as a personal inquiry I don't mind to give an answer:
Good adults taught me to care
Five siblings taught me to share

Virtues connected to morality (trial and error), faith hope love, courage moderation wisdom, the feeling of justice, (trial and error). Morality does not come from just one source. But basically: love, observation and admiration of creation.

To end this intermission I can give you the asked for writer for free: R.A. Lafferty

good answer.

See, BranShe, that is what I would have said if I could order my thoughts and use the English language as well as you.

And of course, I, as well as you, read R.A.Lafferty.

Then Jenny Jenny we share a common love for an uncommon clever madman , I read his books with great pleasure.