MORALITY: a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.



Chicago, I'm told, has a morality problem. That's what White House deputy press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said the other day when asked if violence in our city is related to easy access to guns. "I think that the problem there is pretty clear that it's a crime problem," she said. "I think crime is probably driven more by morality than anything else." That's an interesting statement, given the reason the question was posed: The administration had just announced that 20 federal gun agents were being dispatched to Chicago to help with a task force focused on the flow of illegal guns into the city. The 20 agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives are certainly not

from https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/fb337701-e929-3849-834a-1b55f83f8524/ss_trump-administration-blames.html


at the root of most discussions of 'morals' lies cultural or regional standards and expectations, usually with quite a bit of overlap so as to make it nearly impossible to lie the issue of 'morals' squarely on the shoulders of any of those cultures or regions

I have noticed that the topic of 'blame' is very popular when holding people 'personally responsible' and usually those people are either the impoverished or the despised with the same 'personal responsibility' being diluted a bit for others by creating an 'illness' or even normalizing a past taboo or behavior that was considered immoral


I prefer to deal in the issue of 'responsible' which most often spreads out to many many people as opposed to 'blame' which attempts to just shove everything off on one entity




my question is this: If we all have the FREEDOM to make our own choices and if we do not live in a vaccum and if our actions and choices impact others and their actions and choices and so on,,,,


why do we put so much emphasis on 'blame' and 'morality'?

for example: it is not 'moral' to assault another person, however there is a difference between assaulting some stranger who just happened to walk past and assaulting someone who has on several occasions walked past and slapped you,,isn't it? I mean past experience can shape current behavior and perception,, even to the point of shaping PHYSIOLOGICAL reactions, like pavlov's dogs

If we could understand the interconnection we have with each other, could we possibly get accomplish more as a species? (I am not talking about creating more technology, I am talking about natural and human concerns and issues like disease and poverty,,etc)

The answer would be yes to your last question. To accomplish that there would be a utopian way of looking at it. Morals are created by individuals with different walks of life. We can only hope by educating the majority we impact the minority. If we were able to come up with a solution to our problems I don't think we would be having this conversation. All we can do is keep our minds open. If someone comes along with a different point of view and solution is it fair to call them dumb or imputant. Now if their solution or point of view personally affects you physically. Thats where I find it ok to slap them back but words are only words till they physically do something to you. This is why I believe by listening you will achieve greater knowledge and have less conflict. In no way do you have to change what you believe is morally correct, when you just listen. That also means stating your opinion once. Repeating yourself will only aggravate the other person. You can put logic behind a lunatics rant but you can't change the mind of a lunatic. In the end I think that by having manny different points of views we will eventually reach one conclusion. Thats what I hope for anyways. Hopefully we will be able to become a utopian society. Let everyone figure out their own morals. In the end we will achieve what we want, when we want. I'm not sure if I answered any of your questions to be honest. Hope this is in someway helpful.

If you are stating the importance of 'allowing' people different points of views as a potential for learning,, I totally agree.

If you are making the case that we should be accepting everyone's points of view as logical fuel for personal or community advancement, I do not.

I do not feel there is really ever a need for name calling , so I agree with that as well.

For instance, if one states a belief that women are stupid, I feel that should not be just accepted because of the FACT that others may be observing that statement as well. I feel an obligation to share another belief with logical explanations to support it.

If someone I love believes it is ok to cheat on their spouse, I also feel like I should say something to them about how and why such behavior is so unhealthy and 'wrong'. That is true of many 'beliefs' about behavior that people differ about.


I do feel that listening to people helps us better understand the 'realities' that others live in though. I once listened to a lady that was just very hateful of men, wanted nothing to do with them. She was very 'superwoman' in her self assessment and needed no man for anything and needed to express that at every opportunity. I did not care much for her. As I listened to her more and over time though, I learned of her horrid life experiences of being mistreated by males she should have been able to trust and I saw her totally differently. I could not excuse her bigotry towards men, but in her PERSONAL situation, I could certainly understand why it had developed. She went from being a terrible bigot in my eyes, to being a misguided hurt soul.

Everyone can teach us something, even if its how we do NOT want to act or live.

Huh?
If we have the freedom to make our own choices, we don't live in a vacuum, our actions and choices impact others, and their actions and choices effect us, why do we put so much emphasis in trying to define what is good, acceptable, and/or expected behavior, and assign responsibility (punishments/rewards) for the consequences of behavior that effects them/others, possibly negatively?

Seems kinda obvious.


Of course.
Although there is the possibility that with greater understanding of "the interconnection we have with each other," we could/would "accomplish" far less (I am not talking about creating less technology, I am talking about natural and human concerns and issues like eugenics and forced birth control and forced nutrition limits).


Why would you assume he hadn't already considered your arguments and judgments, those necessitating you to say something?


I disagree.
IMO not "everyone" can teach you something.
At best "everyone" can probably remind you of something.
IMO "everyone" has the potential to learn and experience and interpret things uniquely which could potentially teach you something, but not everyone can inherently teach you something.

People naturally segregate themselves into the familiar and comfortable.

Chicago no more has a morality problem than any other community in the world.

Morality has a different impact on a closed system.
The morality on a ship is different than the morality in a major city.
The morality of a country is different than the morality of the planet.

For instance, in a squad during war, in battle the morality of the group in that closed system may be different from that same group of people together at a concert.

The morality of the USA is different than the morality of the world.
Everyone does not have the freedom to make their own choices.

There is a reason why the USA is hated so badly in the world stage. We have a tendancy to force our morality on all we meet. We think that we are the moral standard and that all others should adopt our morals.
To some, we are very immoral.

I've always said this tom.
Who are we to go around the world world inflicting our way of life on some countries. they have a totally different outlook and thousands of years of tradition, some we don't agree with.
I've always said a little education is a dangerous thing, in 3rd world countries it causes friction amongst them

Unbiased acceptance is very hard for some people to truly grasp.
We set on our soapboxes and preach morality to everyone completely unaware of the circumstances of other's lives.

When we witness something that goes against our beliefs we must find someone to blame for the injustice or immoral behaviors. We need to focus on one thing because the abstract chaotic element won't give us the closure we want.

We exist in a reactive state and not a proactive state.
Instead of creating a society standard where greed is not tolerated we point fingers at the greediest after the fact.

Japan has a code of ethics we could all build from. Honor is rewarded. Some might say they hinge on perfectionism but while it may not work perfectly for the rest of the world it could be a start to a new standard of global societies.

We have a bastardized version in what we call 'team building'. In team building techniques, if one person fails the entire team is at fault. The problem is that we don't use that base morality during the team building exercises. We persecute the one that failed instead of helping them not to fail. It is a forced conformity for the sake of the team. Lets find the poor performer and remove him from the team if he doesn't shape up.
You also have team members that take up the slack 'for the team' which changes the dynamics and skews the team results.
Its all pointing fingers.
He's the worst.
He's the best.

I agree with most of what your saying ...
and very hard working under condition ...
where they pit each other against each other ...
and that is not called a team ...

some think they know best and just not want to work with teams ...
but if this is the kind of business that is ran ... then that person should shoulder the whole mistakes of the business when made ...



one example for me in the biz world ... I did not like working on commissions... in NY in a clothing store ... the girls would undercut each other and steal the others customers...that mad me mad but I really like the store ... and after talking to the manager about what I was experiencing ... he game me other things to work on like window dressing ... thats when I learned that ... or how to do that anyway ... I had a good sense of style ... which helped me get ahead like I did ... then I started to love the work I did ... but not for long I had to move ... but loved what I learned ... and as far as commission I always took different kinds of work... with out that cut throat stress...

What bothers me most about the subject of morality, is that so often, the people who are bringing it up, are actually doing so in a tremendously IMMORAL fashion.

That is, when a government functionary, for example, complains that crime is the result of "morality problems," it is too often the truth, that what they are REALLY out to do, is to deflect responsibility to act, onto others, especially to blame the victims of crimes themselves.

Agreed.

I agree... also with that


This may sound mad But with Trump in the white house and his family working for him ... and this Russian thing ... they got going on ...is way better then the Nixon's scandals ...