Morality... is it a prison or a tool?

Recently ive been watching alot of movies about the financial crisis of 2008 like margin call, the big short and others and while I did enjoy them i keep wandering at the end is morality a prison for the good guys that prevents them from exploiting all available opportunities and whether its just a tool that lets the smarter person use it to get ahead of the good guy

I find it strange after the crisis that crippled the world's economy that only ONE low level employee went to prison and the banks are back to business as usual. Now this post isnt about this topic and definitely isnt about politics etc but about just a simple question..... are there right and wrong actions? who sets them? and what happens when choosing the wrong seems to be helping u way more than choosing to do whats right?

Ive been drinking abit and I hope this doesnt bum u out but if u have something ud like to say about the topic please share it

 

have you considered that it could very well be a prison tool?
*shanks you with a sharpened toothbrush*

 

my drunk mind is blow the F*** away

 

Morality is a literal meme.

 

man expecting a constructive discussion on the forums is like expecting sex at the end of a bad date eh?

 

Look up what meme means.

 

The big short was a good movie, very few people actually followed it though and I've talked to many people who thought it was just a bad comedy.

I do believe having a set of morales and standards for ones own character can most certainly hold you back, however if that's what it takes to be loaded then I'll gladly take the road where I still have a soul at the end.

 

Morality is an illusion nature created for us to help ensure the survival of our species. Without morals to keep our selfish instincts in check, anarchy would reign. And civilization can't develop in anarchy.

 

lol wat.

The most efficient way for society to progress is with only the barest ethical codes, with arbitrary rules to keep people under the thumb of more intelligent authorities.
Look at Mad Max: Fury Road as an example (yeah yeah, it's a movie, but it brings up a good point imo). Imortan Joe was actually doing something that would've helped humanity as a whole to progress more quickly, even though what he was doing was "morally" wrong (****, imprisonment, slavery, etc.).

"Survival of the fittest", in theory, is the best way to progress. Get rid of the weakest links that hold back the stronger ones, so that the stronger ones are free to do more things for the species.
Eugenics, often thought of in reference to the Nazis, actually DOES work. It's been done in various ways, some more subtle than others, all of which have helped to progress society. Morality really serves no purpose if you have no real basis for it. It just is one way to make us feel better.

Of course, progress is kinda pointless in and of itself, it has to serve a purpose. Generally, that purpose is to make our lives easier so we can get back to leading less moral lives with minimal effort and minimal consequences.

There are SOME instances where morality is beneficial, but only in the short term.

(just a note, I'm playing "Devil's Advocate" here, I actually believe very strongly that morality is needed and serves a variety of purposes, but that isn't really relevant to the discussion).

 

@SireofSuns doesn't quite understand survival of the fittest and I thought it was important to point that out.

 

This is a good way of explaining it and it all really comes down to the question: do the ends justify the means? and what price are u willing to pay to get what u want

unfortunately in today's world if u want to rise up in power / finance etc youll have to play dice with the devil and do things ud be disgusted with urself to do in an ideal world

In the end a wise man once told me history is written by the victor so if you win in the end you decide what the story about you will say and how ull be painted but I just thought it was a good question to ask ourselves, when we dont do something morally wrong is it because of a code within ourselves or is it because we want to be part of society and are afraid of stepping outside the boundaries

 

Damn, I read 'mortality' and was about to do a whole tirade on how that prevents us from sinking into decadence (obviously only to an extent) but since that's not the topic...
I think morality isn't an aritificial construct like some of the others that posted think, or if it is, then only to the same extent as wearing clothes because you'd feel shame if people saw you naked is an artificial construct. If it was artificial, then, for example, we would easily eat meat and not feel nausea while watching gore animal videos (and I know some people (including me) wouldn't, but that's a minority and an entirely different story). We have some sort of moral code implanted in us, wether we like it or not, and from the looks of it, when we don't follow it, that's when we get all sorts of psychosomatical and mental ailments. It's sort of like tabu was for the primeval people -- they'd die from a heart attack if they'd break it (it's been recorded in Papua New Guinea) but for us it's obviously less rigid. Maybe some day we'll get rid of morals completely and live some kind of supramental life, but until then, people that claim that they're outside of the moral spectrum are most likely supercilious wankers that have a postmodernism brain disorder. For those that think they can get away with doing evil Bane Shift -- try it, but I've yet to see that happen. Raskolnikov tried to and look what happened to him :>

"Wherever progress is to ensue, deviating natures are of greatest importance. Every progress of the whole must be preceded by a partial weakening. The strongest natures retain the type, the weaker ones help to advance it. Something similar also happens in the individual. There is rarely a degeneration, a truncation, or even a vice or any physical or moral loss without an advantage somewhere else. In a warlike and restless clan, for example, the sicklier man may have occasion to be alone, and may therefore become quieter and wiser; the one-eyed man will have one eye the stronger; the blind man will see deeper inwardly, and certainly hear better. To this extent, the famous theory of the survival of the fittest does not seem to me to be the only viewpoint from which to explain the progress of strengthening of a man or of a race." Nietzsche's critique of Social Darwinism.

I got the same impression.

 

I think in todays world it tends to be both in most cases, although I highly doubt that most people have the capacity for self reflection to think so. Also, don't forget that we're firstly emotional creatures, and only secondly -- rational. Hence, on the spur of the moment, we can easily and carelessly forget all of our delicately fostered morals and commit malevolent acts that we didn't even think that we were capable of. In that respect, I really like what Jung said on the duality of such nature: "The first step to enlightenment is in encountering the shadow. Everything evil that was done was done by human beings. And you’re one of them. And to understand means to imagine that. To imagine that it could’ve been you that was engaged in medieval torture. You’re never the same when you do that. You cannot be a good person until you know how much evil you contain within you."

 

thats fair enough and actually its an argument id support whole heartedly ....alot of people tend to judge people at certain moments who are undergoing special circumstances while never having had the need to face the same events under the same circumstances. The point is you cant say something is wrong unless u are put under the same test and you show that u can take a different road, people say for example stealing is wrong and i agree with that but if u say a man who steals for his starving family is wrong , you have to display or have a history of having faced the same difficulty and found a different road. The world isnt perfect and to assume people can behave in a certain pattern no matter what is naive which means that I think u are 100% on point with that post buddy.

 

Interesting that you used that as an example. Quite recently I watched Bicycle Thief, give it a try if you have the time, it's a masterpiece. It explores multiple themes quite peculiarly, including the problem that you mentioned.

 

it is a masterpiece indeed

 

about moral for the youngs, read this. its from 1880 but still really modern.

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/appealtoyoung.html

 

as A Dutchman I feel triggered by those words.
bicycle thieves have no morals.

 

What has being dutch got to do with despising bicycle thieves?

 

they have a lot of bicycles. like really a lot.