TED Conversations

lukwago hilda

Visual artist, photographer

This conversation is closed.

How do you define your moral code? What influences moral codes and how do they affect our communities?

this questions require you to share how you define a moral code,what influences the different moral codes and how is our surrounding being affected both postively and negatively by the way we are choosing to '' live our lives'' .


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Jul 9 2013: For one, I do not believe that there even exists something called a 'moral code'. The term morals suggests that there is concrete imperatives that need to be adhered to in every situation, and this concept, frankly, is too black and white when we live in a world that is painted in shades of grey. Everybody else seems to be replying in relativistic terms, I too believe that life is to be lived subjectively, but I would not call my interpretation of life a moral code I would call it an ethical code. For I truly believe that there can be no morals without universal standards either set down by God or The State and honestly I am not at a stage in my life where I believe that anybody or anything has jurisdiction over what I want to do and achieve with my life. The laws of state are often preposterous and motivated by some unseen hand and I am more than willing to disregard these if they do not come into line with what I believe. Similarly the commandments of religious belief are mutable also, who can honestly say they would not kill somebody if there life or the lives of those they loved were threatened, I couldn't.

    An ethic begins where an ethos ends. And in order to build an ethics one needs education to nurture that spirit.
    • Jul 9 2013: Uh, another proponent of subjective morality, you make the heathens proud. Lets be honest, even those who subscribe to religion rarely implement the given moral codes provided by their dogmas through out their daily interactions with others.

      Universal standards set down by The State?
      So, let me get this straight. You're suggesting that it is not possible for morals to exist with out the presence of The State and the implied imposed laws?

      I'll throw you a bone here, because I think I understand what you're trying to convey here, or maybe I'm wrong. The laws of state, as preposterous as they may seem are often in accordance with an established framework often denoted as a Constitution.

      Which then leads me to the following. Our adherence to any 'defined moral code' is not solidified by the very creation and enforcement of law. It is an individuals capability to rationalize their means referenced against multiple factors that differ from individual to individual. Like you have said, ethics is a construct of education, but not in the sense of 'formal education' or 'indoctrination', rather... experience and the bias' they manifest.

      Ethos never ends, it may be established, but no landscape remains the same and is being altered constantly. The beauty of rhetoric is that even the devil has an advocate. There for, an individual who suggests that morality is 'established', or that apparent competency supersedes freewill, truly fails to see the non-linearity of our social interactions.

      Granted, social engineering works, soft wars buffer, and tolerance fades to black while taboos perpetuate ignorance. It's not until we tare down walls and adopt tolerance that we will accommodate any said universal 'moral code' . For our boundaries define the social landscapes creating an environment of fear, this being the justification for separation, condemnation, while suppression manifests illicit activities, manipulating integrity and bringing about societal anomie blah bla
      • thumb
        Jul 9 2013: I was asked a subjective question 'How do you define your moral code?' and so the likelihood of me giving a subjective answer is rather high...And I don't appreciate your need to be condescending and 'throw me a bone' when I'm giving a perfectly cogent answer to the question that I was asked.

        The point I was trying to make in regards to religion and the state is that in my opinion, for something to be even remotely moral it needs to exist outside of ourselves and religion and the state are probably the two most dominant aspects in life that meet this criteria.

        It is more than tearing down walls and adopting tolerance that are needed for implementing a moral code. We need principles of universalization, something that can be accepted by all races, colours, creeds, genders etc etc etc, and this frankly can and will not ever happen because we are all ultimately greedy, passionate subjective creatures with our own interests deeply embedded in our hearts. At the very least we need an open and frank dialogue to start the ball rolling on this process and that will not happen either because people do not like it if it seems that their values are being attacked.

        So subjectivity in my opinion is the very best we can hope for, because it is all we have ever had.
        • Jul 9 2013: You're absolutely right, for I was mistaken and you really did mean exactly what you said. Unfortunately at the time I was refusing to realize the truth in your statement, as I must say that I agree in some respects.

          It is my opinion that the 'big 3' religions of the world will never be the vessel that brings humanity together for our maiden voyage towards a world moral code.

          "Every day for us something new
          Open mind for a different view


          So close no matter how far
          Couldn't be much more from the heart
          Forever trusting who we are
          And nothing else matters"


    • thumb
      Jul 9 2013: Our laws, morals and rules are treating us as potential criminals, or irresponsible individuals. It seems that humans create their man-made laws for to break them. It is impossible for one to be perfectly "moral" in our crazy society, if one wants to survive.
      • thumb
        Jul 9 2013: ok......and what should we do about that my dear friend how do think we can create a bettter and healty society for i believe in solutions.
        • thumb
          Jul 9 2013: Replace the old problematic Golden Rule with The New Golden Rule. This is the helpfull answer, I think. So I suggest that young children and stidents in schools shall learn:
          NEVER treat others as you would like to be treated yourself -- unless they agree to it first --because what is good for you may be damaging for others.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.