If a country is to have such "weak" morals, would it not also be safe to say "weak" ethics?

a branch of philosophy that addresses questions about morality—that is, concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice, justice, etc

Therefor the next stage would be to ask, where do morals come from?
now many say religion, but as we can see that arguement can not possible stand here.

Socrates (469 BC – 399 BC) was one of the first Greek philosophers to encourage both scholars and the common citizen to turn their attention from the outside world to the condition of humankind. In this view, knowledge having a bearing on human life was placed highest, all other knowledge being secondary.

Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC) posited an ethical system that may be termed "self-realizationism." In Aristotle's view, when a person acts in accordance with his nature and realizes his full potential, he will do good and be content.



Hedonism posits that the principle ethic is maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. There are several schools of Hedonist thought ranging from those advocating the indulgence of even momentary desires to those teaching a pursuit of spiritual bliss. In their consideration of consequences, they range from those advocating self-gratification regardless of the pain and expense to others, to those stating that the most ethical pursuit maximizes pleasure and happiness for the most people.

Cyrenaic hedonism Founded by Aristippus of Cyrene, Cyrenaics supported immediate gratification or pleasure. "Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die." Even fleeting desires should be indulged, for fear the opportunity should be forever lost. There was little to no concern with the future, the present dominating in the pursuit for immediate pleasure. Cyrenaic hedonism encouraged the pursuit of enjoyment and indulgence without hesitation, believing pleasure to be the only good


The Stoic philosopher Epictetus posited that the greatest good was contentment and serenity. Peace of mind, or Apatheia, was of the highest value; self-mastery over one's desires and emotions leads to spiritual peace.


Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right action is one that produces a good outcome, or consequence. This view is often expressed as the aphorism "The ends justify the means".

What sort of consequences count as good consequences?
Who is the primary beneficiary of moral action?
How are the consequences judged and who judges them?

One way to divide various consequentialisms is by the types of consequences that are taken to matter most, that is, which consequences count as good states of affairs. According to hedonistic utilitarianism, a good action is one that results in an increase in pleasure, and the best action is one that results in the most pleasure for the greatest number. Closely related is eudaimonic consequentialism, according to which a full, flourishing life, which may or may not be the same as enjoying a great deal of pleasure, is the ultimate aim. Similarly, one might adopt an aesthetic consequentialism, in which the ultimate aim is to produce beauty. However, one might fix on non-psychological goods as the relevant effect. Thus, one might pursue an increase in material equality or political liberty instead of something like the more ephemeral "pleasure". Other theories adopt a package of several goods, all to be promoted equally. Whether a particular consequentialist theory focuses on a single good or many, conflicts and tensions between different good states of affairs are to be expected and must be adjudicated.

Immanuel Kant's theory of ethics is considered deontological for several different reasons. First, Kant argues that to act in the morally right way, people must act from duty (deon). Second, Kant argued that it was not the consequences of actions that make them right or wrong but the motives of the person who carries out the action.

THIS I CAN NOT AGREE WITH, BECAUSE WHAT IS RIGHT AND WRONG?



Narcissism is the personality trait of egotism, vanity, conceit, or simple selfishness. Applied to a social group, it is sometimes used to denote elitism or an indifference to the plight of others.

maybe this can answer some of it.




Cutting directly to the point, morals and ethics are part of society and culture. But when it comes to sex, we are talking instincts and human nature to seek it out. When you try to mix the two together, you end up with a mess by trying to punish someone for being human.

Morals and ethics vs Thailand’s naughty nightlife
Posted on February 7th, 2010 by Richard



April 20th, 2011 by The Lost Boy
The big story coming out of Thailand over Songkran (Thai New Year) was the three teenage girls who stripped off and danced topless during a street party in the Silom nightlife zone. Photos and videos of the three girls surfaced and the Interwebs immediately came alight with shows of support for the girls and complimentary, witty comments being made about their breasts, and breasts in general. Then it was revealed that the girls are 13, 14 and 16.

Chalidaporn Songsamphan, an associate professor at Thammasat University in Bangkok, said Thais were uncomfortable when sexuality was displayed in public. And, she said, the anger directed at the topless dancers was a way for people to channel their frustrations about wider social problems, like alcoholism, low test scores among students and teenage delinquency. (NYT)

The fury only came after Culture Minister Niphit Intharasombat lambasted the three teenage girls for offending the country's culture.

What about the culture of heavy drinking? What about the rowdy crowd and the culture which treats women as sex objects? What about the commercial culture that pushes for girls' early sexuality or makes women think that flashing the flesh is a sign of self confidence?

Our culture maintains the good girl/bad girl divide to endorse men's sexual promiscuity, which allows the business of sexual exploitation to prosper.

The culture of blaming it all on bad girls allows the real culprits to get away with murder.




Not allowed to have hair of an "unacceptable" length (whatever that is?!)
Not allowed to have "seemingly" unclean clothes (many poor students have stained shirts. They are vilified for this. On many occasions, they end up leaving the education system).
Are allowed to gouge huge lumps of snot from their noses whenever & wherever they please.
Are not allowed to pick food from their teeth unless the mouth is covered.
Are allowed to hack, cough & sneeze all over anybody.
Are allowed to blow snot from their noses whenever & wherever they wish (block one nostril & blow out to clear the free nostril).
Are allowed to spit wherever & whenever they please.
Are not dissuaded from littering.

Share