Ouch. I was hoping someone else would try that first. Let's agree that the dictionary is only of marginal help, and that we may feel a need to add to or otherwise modify what we see there, shall we?

That asked, here's a quick take from Dictionary.com on "morality"

1. conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.
2. moral quality or character.
3. virtue in sexual matters; chastity.
4. a doctrine or system of morals.
5. moral instruction; a moral lesson, precept, discourse, or utterance.

But this list doesn't quite give me my starting point.

But this, from the same page: "motivation based on ideas of right and wrong" does give me a starting point.

The word "ideas" in the phrase "ideas of right and wrong" is crucial, the phrase must not be confused with "right and wrong."

Jumping from there, I'll now offer this starting point: Moral behavior is that which is supportive of life and well being.

I'll add that if there were just one person alive, moral behavior would extend only towards him or herself, but given that there are many, it extends to all behavior that affects (at least) the lives and well being of humanity in general. Thus killing your neighbor, or any wanton destruction of any thing or process that enhances life is immoral.

However, we (people) have (long ago) extended the notion of immorality into behavior that may actually be in support of life, for example in some sexual behavior. IE, it is considered immoral by many to have sex and make babies with more than your spouse. Yet, lots of babies would seem to be supportive of the survival of mankind. (Maybe not, but its argueable.

So morality has taken on what I think of as an emotional slant that may not have anything to do with that which enhances life and well being. Thus, our idea of right and wrong behavior may not be supported by the facts.

I think, while addressing the issue of morality you also have to take in to consideration that the "intent" of the individual may not be accurately reflected in an assesment of his actions, thus he may be acting morally internally, but actually doing harm.

To wrap this up, I say the moral behavior is that which supports life and well being. I question whether we "should" support emotional - knee jerk responses, or otherwise unsupported or unsupportable ideas of what is right or wrong.

Should we follow the whims of our current social context in determining what is moral? I think not. Society often disagrees with my take on what constitutes immoral behavior.

>and that you are a "super mod" of the forum, with almost 5000 posts
And what point are you trying to make here?

I am sorry you do not understand, but I won't try to help you any further. Perhaps if you ask someone to explain it to you that would help.

I am done with you, you have wasted my time.

I truly hope someone has benefited by your being here. From what I've seen, it won't have been you.

There is life outside your bubble.

Added comment:

That said, oh, sheesh ... I get it .. this, from your web site:

[So what's this confuzzled stuff anyway? Confuzzlement is a glorious state of being that involves a lot of confusion, frustration, and maybe a little bit of raving lunacy. In a good way, of course. Confuzzled people celebrate their ignorance openly and strive to reach a higher level of ignorance by learning from other confuzzled people. A confuzzled person is proud to be ignorant, but the unwashed masses are often incapable of seeing the subtle difference between being brilliantly clever, pretending to be stupid because you can't be bothered to think, and being genuinely stupid. They key to being confuzzled is having fun with it.]

Just funnin me, eh? I can see you are much smarter than your posts to me would indicate. You cannot be as obtuse as you act. (can you??)

Well, I'll say this for you, you can certainly be obnoxious. I won't suggest that you keep it up.

What does it feel like to be so full of yourself?

Go away, leave me alone, or not. You are useless to me.

rap music? anyone

These are my unfettered thoughts, provided with no supporting data: (I am usually willing to go the distance to support my opinions, but this is more in the realm of "What if?)"

While I shudder to think of rap as music, it falls into the realm.

Like all music, it is a result of a variety of forces. Of course, it often reflects the sensibilities of the times, and is often nothing much more than a marketing effort (Brittany Spears, anyone?)

But let us not forget that it provides an outlet for all of the emotions, including (but not limited to) love, rage, and rebellion. Does anyone remember how our parents felt about Elvis? They shuddered. And then, folk music and its progression into "protest" music? And, I'm here to tell you that Bob Dylan was not making fans of the over 30 crowd for the first several years.

Who of you are old enough to remember the drug songs of the 60s and 70s? Our parents were understandably concerned. Listening to he music, you'd have thought we were all going to die of drug overdose at the very least. And we listened to it with glee and joy, and with a certain guilty pleasure; that we were living a life that our parents forbid.

While many of us did the drugs, most of us didn't do them to the degree that the music suggested, and the musicins implored, if you will, by thier life-styles. Damned few of us went the way of Joplin and Hendrix, or for many of the others who were into coke and heroin, etc. (or at least we did not go all the way.)

I think the same is now true of rap. Sure, there's a lot of disrespect and hate in it, but reading between the lines, at least from most of what I've heard, it is almost a parody of a life style, of what we "older folk" fear. As much as anything, they are making fun of us and our sensibilities. Of course that's not all that's happening, but it is part of it. Kids simply want to do something, anything, that their parents dislike, particularly if they don't believe it will harm them.

Who's to say what harm is done, at least how much? And who is to say it would no have simply taken another form?

Kids died from drug overdoses in the 60s and 70s to be sure, and some of them were living beyond their capacities "because" at least in part, of the music itself. But we more or less survived. Many of those that were harmed might well have simply been into booze and fast cars instead of drugs. Who knows what else?

Some kids will certainly exhibit violence that was influenced by the songs they hear. But there's a LOT more going on behind that violence than rap.

Rap, at most, only serves to enforce what's already festering. I would not be surprised if rap actually does more good than harm, by providing an outlet for the angst that kids feel, so they don't keep it bottled up. By listening to it, they can keep it at bay, let it out slowly, and learn to deal with it.

For some, it's just a feeling they get from the songs, just as Dylan often didn't really make any sense, but we "got" the feeling of the song, and loved it. He mixed truth with nonsense for an emotional ride that had no par. And there was no shortage of imagery that offended the sensibilities of the elders.

Back to today, sure, we've had school shootings, and some of the shooters undoubtedly listened to rap. But I'd be willing to bet that they were bombs waiting to blow regardless of the music they listened to. Our societal probems go much deeper than our musical content.

Kids will probably listen to music thier parents hate forever. They will until we learn how to rise above the darker aspects of our human nature, and how to impart that to our young at a very early age. I don't see it unfolding that way, yet.

Ur Shmart

Psychology as a separate subject in the elementary and high schools? No. But, there are subjects (like Assembly) which do involve topics related to it. And talking about the undergraduate level, that is not the end of the entire subject, not even half of it..

The differences in our views have arisen due to our different backgrounds, scru. I just meant that understanding the psychology of kids is a handy tool in such issues.

No, not really...