Is Morality is a weapon in class struggle ?

[chloe]

what's you thoughts about it?

[avatar4321]

There are no classes. So what classes are you referring to?

[chloe]

social

[logroller]

Morals are more of a tool than a weapon IMO. I'd say its more of an issue within classes than between them. I would hold somebody accountable to their peers before holding them accountable to someone in a completely different situation or class. Like in les miserables-- stealing is wrong, but to feed your family... morals are relative to a person's situation, rather it be class related or not.

Do you think there are morals which are universal to all situations or classes?

[ConHog]

There are no classes. So what classes are you referring to?

She's talking about the class she has to write a paper on this subject for LOL

[ConHog]

Morals are more of a tool than a weapon IMO. I'd say its more of an issue within classes than between them. I would hold somebody accountable to their peers before holding them accountable to someone in a completely different situation or class. Like in les miserables-- stealing is wrong, but to feed your family... morals are relative to a person's situation, rather it be class related or not.

Do you think there are morals which are universal to all situations or classes?

I think morals can differ slightly among classes. Example:


A wealthy person would have a hard time convincing me or anyone else that they had to steal food to survive or for their children to survive, but a poor person certainly make the case that they had to.

[logroller]

I think morals can differ slightly among classes. Example:


A wealthy person would have a hard time convincing me or anyone else that they had to steal food to survive or for their children to survive, but a poor person certainly make the case that they had to.

Indeed. Completely agree. Stealing to stay fed is a dire example; realizing survival is superior to morality, we accept the moral dilemma which is present, and they get a pass. Its like a self-defense argument-- were one not to violate a moral principle, one would likely perish. Hence we have entitlements: food stamps, welfare etc., which some people see this as theft, while others view it as a necessity to the social contract. Either way though, if one is in the position to qualify for such entitlements, but does not do so based on their own personal ethics, they have a certain moral high-ground over those who have accepted such assistance. I don't feel someone who has never qualified for such assistance, ie a different social class, has the same degree of moral authority. Same goes for the upper echelon of social classes. Say you have an wealthy investor who makes very shrewd investments, never over-extending themselves or finding themselves upside-down or in need of a bailout or bankruptcy protection, they certainly have some moral authority over those in their elite class who have accepted such assistance. But as i reasoned earlier, that is a function of moral authority within a class, not between them. Are there some morals which transcend classes, where no in situ difference applies?

I got to thinking, honor may be one. By honor I mean subordinating one's own personal interests to a greater sense of values. For example, in military service, regardless of rank or class, when a service-member places oneself in peril, but could easily elect not to without dishonor, one gains moral authority in all classes. Sadly, recognition of such is often granted posthumously, but the honor not only remains, it has been furthered. Such is a facet of love, I suppose. The only thing, that I am aware of anyways, which can been given away without depletion, rather the contrary, it is grown.

[revelarts]

Indeed. Completely agree. Stealing to stay fed is a dire example; realizing survival is superior to morality, we accept the moral dilemma which is present, and they get a pass. ...

I agree with your outcome but not the way you phrase it. Survival and the sustaining of life is not superior to morality it is a higher morality than not stealing.



Its like a self-defense argument-- were one not to violate a moral principle, one would likely perish...
Here it's more of a choice, who's life. Equal moral weight, however if the other person has no cause to justify killing you other than his own desires he's in the wrong of course and you have a superior moral claim to stop his fatal immoral act as well. Stopping immoral acts is moral.



Hence we have entitlements: food stamps, welfare etc., which some people see this as theft, while others view it as a necessity to the social contract.
that's a tough one, In the Bible the ancient Israelis where commanded to allow the poor the ability to walk through their feilds and eat what they could carry away in there hands -only- from the corners of the fields. becuase everyone has a moral obligation to the help his neighbor.



...Either way though, if one is in the position to qualify for such entitlements, but does not do so based on their own personal ethics, they have a certain moral high-ground over those who have accepted such assistance. I don't feel someone who has never qualified for such assistance, ie a different social class, has the same degree of moral authority. Same goes for the upper echelon of social classes. Say you have an wealthy investor who makes very shrewd investments, never over-extending themselves or finding themselves upside-down or in need of a bailout or bankruptcy protection, they certainly have some moral authority over those in their elite class who have accepted such assistance. But as i reasoned earlier, that is a function of moral authority within a class, not between them. Are there some morals which transcend classes, where no in situ difference applies? hmm, the idea of being morally superior for not having taken assistance doesn't strike me quite right, it hints of pride but i get what your saying i think.


I got to thinking, honor may be one. By honor I mean subordinating one's own personal interests to a greater sense of values. For example, in military service, regardless of rank or class, when a service-member places oneself in peril, but could easily elect not to without dishonor, one gains moral authority in all classes. Sadly, recognition of such is often granted posthumously, but the honor not only remains, it has been furthered. Such is a facet of love, I suppose. The only thing, that I am aware of anyways, which can been given away without depletion, rather the contrary, it is grown.

I get what your saying here but i'd note that mafia families might have a sense of honor as well and be completely immoral in their acts. Even military Honor in dishonorable acts like Nazi concentration camp guards or other military or terrorist that wipe out innocents, women and children "for the greater good" or because they are self sacrificially "following orders" do not transcend to a truly moral place for their faithfulness under pressures because there is a greater morality that they've failed to honor.

[revelarts]

what's you thoughts about it?
Some people will use anything as a weapon. But morality is an end in itself as it show love of God and humanity.
After that point sure some will and have used it not only as a weapon in class strugle but to justify wars, and every other activity. most don't want to appear to be on the outside of the current moral circle.

Specifically to class the OWS crowd is trying to use morals as a weapon, "stingy" "thieves" "hypocrics" "fair share". the left in general have tried to use those against the rich for years, it almost a mantra. The right's rich and middle class have tried to use morality against the poor, "crime" "lazzines" as a defense. But most debates have some moral component i think. If not your talking about pure preferences, chocolate or strawberry.