Fucking hell are you ever reaching for relevance. You don’t know what any of the terms your using mean, where they come from, or how they used across different applications.
MORALITY extends from MORES at a societal scale through codifying expected behaviour as moral right. The most basic definition of MORES explicitly references societal societal MORALS. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mores
As MORES are first described by Sumner, they are explicitly described as societal cultural practices through which a society’s MORALS are codifed customs. While I could pull many excerpts from his writings that substantiate this readily here’s one such quote:
“The case is somewhat different when attempts are made by positive efforts to prevent the operation of bad mores, or to abolish them. The historians have familiarized us with the notion of corrupt or degenerate mores. Such periods as the later Roman empire, the Byzantine empire, the Merovingian kingdom, and the Renaissance offer us examples of evil mores. We need to give more exactitude to this idea. Bad mores are those which are not well fitted to the conditions and needs of the society at the time. But, as we have seen, the mores produce a philosophy of welfare, more or less complete, and they produce taboos which are concentrated inhibitions directed against conduct which the philosophy regards as harmful, or positive injunctions to do what is judged expedient and beneficial. The taboos constitute morality or a moral system which, in higher civilization, restrains passion and appetite, and curbs the will.”
Looking at the MORALITY of age-gap relationships, we can understand that the MORES of how societal cultural expression and legal apparatus’ impact such MORAL considerations.
I guess the entirety of academia must be morons according to you to write entire books and articles about the MORALITY of different political systems.
Entire books written about how the MORALITY of governments evolve, change and are re-interpreted based on contemporary understandings.
If mores produce a philosophy of welfare, how exactly do you suggest that morals are somehow separate from society?
You seem to think that there is some sort of universal moral code. Did you learn that from your cult leader? Or did you read an excerpt on Kant once and decided that was the only ethical model available?
I suggest you sit down before you embarrass yourself much further.
MORALITY extends from MORES at a societal scale through codifying expected behaviour as moral right.
Mores is used to describe the scope of what a particular group of people believe to be moral in a fixed period of time. That does not mean that morality in general is defined by any set of social mores.
I guess the entirety of academia must be morons according to you to write entire books and articles about the MORALITY of different political systems.
Those academics are not judging the morality of different political systems by the political systems own social mores… That would obviously be redundant.
If mores produce a philosophy of welfare, how exactly do you suggest that morals are somehow separate from society?
I never claimed any society was devoid of the concept of morals, just that social mores can be described by people both inside and outside of that particular group as immoral/unethical. Both I and the Quakers contemporary to the time of slavery can both correctly determine that slavery is immoral/unethical.
You seem to think that there is some sort of universal moral code.
Lol, the whole point of the philosophical concept of ethics is that it’s an open debate. If you think something is immoral, then you can make that determination and convince other people to do the same. I would argue that there is no universally moral way to live your life, but in any given society you could argue that certain actions are bad for society or human decency as a whole and should be labeled as immoral.
suggest you sit down before you embarrass yourself much further.
Says the person who claimed slavery wasn’t immoral…
Fucking hell are you ever reaching for relevance. You don’t know what any of the terms your using mean, where they come from, or how they used across different applications. MORALITY extends from MORES at a societal scale through codifying expected behaviour as moral right. The most basic definition of MORES explicitly references societal societal MORALS. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mores As MORES are first described by Sumner, they are explicitly described as societal cultural practices through which a society’s MORALS are codifed customs. While I could pull many excerpts from his writings that substantiate this readily here’s one such quote: “The case is somewhat different when attempts are made by positive efforts to prevent the operation of bad mores, or to abolish them. The historians have familiarized us with the notion of corrupt or degenerate mores. Such periods as the later Roman empire, the Byzantine empire, the Merovingian kingdom, and the Renaissance offer us examples of evil mores. We need to give more exactitude to this idea. Bad mores are those which are not well fitted to the conditions and needs of the society at the time. But, as we have seen, the mores produce a philosophy of welfare, more or less complete, and they produce taboos which are concentrated inhibitions directed against conduct which the philosophy regards as harmful, or positive injunctions to do what is judged expedient and beneficial. The taboos constitute morality or a moral system which, in higher civilization, restrains passion and appetite, and curbs the will.” Looking at the MORALITY of age-gap relationships, we can understand that the MORES of how societal cultural expression and legal apparatus’ impact such MORAL considerations.
I guess the entirety of academia must be morons according to you to write entire books and articles about the MORALITY of different political systems. Entire books written about how the MORALITY of governments evolve, change and are re-interpreted based on contemporary understandings.
If mores produce a philosophy of welfare, how exactly do you suggest that morals are somehow separate from society? You seem to think that there is some sort of universal moral code. Did you learn that from your cult leader? Or did you read an excerpt on Kant once and decided that was the only ethical model available?
I suggest you sit down before you embarrass yourself much further.
Mores is used to describe the scope of what a particular group of people believe to be moral in a fixed period of time. That does not mean that morality in general is defined by any set of social mores.
Those academics are not judging the morality of different political systems by the political systems own social mores… That would obviously be redundant.
I never claimed any society was devoid of the concept of morals, just that social mores can be described by people both inside and outside of that particular group as immoral/unethical. Both I and the Quakers contemporary to the time of slavery can both correctly determine that slavery is immoral/unethical.
Lol, the whole point of the philosophical concept of ethics is that it’s an open debate. If you think something is immoral, then you can make that determination and convince other people to do the same. I would argue that there is no universally moral way to live your life, but in any given society you could argue that certain actions are bad for society or human decency as a whole and should be labeled as immoral.
Says the person who claimed slavery wasn’t immoral…