Quotessence
Home / Topics / Morals Quotes

Morals Quotes

Browse 810 quotes about Morals.

Morals Quotes

“If you go door to door in our nation and talk to citizens about domestic violence, almost everyone will insist that they do not support male violence against women, that they believe it to be morally and ethically wrong. However, if you then explain that we cannot end male violence against women by challenging patriarchy, and that means no longer accepting the notion that men should have more rights and privileges than women because of biological difference or that men should have the power to rule over women, that is when the agreement stops. There is a gap between the values they claim to hold and their willingness to do the work of connecting thought and action, theory and practice to realize these values and thus create a more just society.”

“This is dreadful! Not the suffering and death of the animals, but that man suppresses in himself, unnecessarily, the highest spiritual capacity—that of sympathy and pity toward living creatures like himself—and by violating his own feelings becomes cruel. And how deeply seated in the human heart is the injunction not to take life!”

“Jeg haver ofte recommenderet Friehed i at skrive, og anseet de publiqve Censurer som Baand og Lænker for den Lærde Verden. Jeg haver alleene holdet for, at Skrive-Friehed ikke burde tillades uden dem, der have naaet en moed Alder; og er jeg der udi bleven bestyrket, efterdi jeg paa nogen Tiid haver seet unge Personer, førend de have faaet Skiæg paa Hagen, at føre Pennen i de delicateste Materier saavel politiske som moralske. Det er om saadanne, som man bør sige med David:Lader dem blive i Jericho, indtil deres Skiægge voxe.”

“Da hans Soldater udi det Aar 1637 havde fanget et Fruentimmer af en stor og rar Skiønhed, bragte de hende som et kostbart Bytte til deres Anfører. Turenne havde da ikkun 26 Aar, og derfore ikke kunde være følesløs; men han stillede sig an, som han ikke begreeb, hvad Krigs-Folkene derved meenede, rosede derfor deres Skikkelighed, at de havde villet beskytte samme Dame mod andre deres Brødres Vold. Han lod derpaa strax hente hendes Huusbond, udi hvis Hænder han overleverede hende med disse Ord:See! der er eders Husfrue, hvis Ære mine skikkelige Soldater have reddet.”

“Men, naar Comoedier ere moralske og opbyggelige, kand jeg ikke see, med hvad Føye man kand kaste Foragt paa Acteurs, som forestille dem. Comoedianter ere vel udi de Roman-Catholske Lande excommunicerede: men, saasom paa mange saadanne Steder Skiøger offentligen tillades, lærer man intet andet deraf, end at den Canon er giort hen i Taaget, eller forfattet af Hypocriter, hvilke ere de eeneste lastværdige Comoedianter; Thi en Øyenskalk spiller de hæsligste Comoedier. Den Forskiel imellem ham og en anden Acteur er denne, at skiønt begge agere forstilte Personer, saa forstiller den første sig, for at bedrage Verden, og den sidste, for at legge Bedragerie og falske Dyder for Lyset.”

“As we walked home, I knew from far away the trees would've looked nice, the grass would've looked green, and we would've looked like just a couple of boys walking home, armed with Midwest love and Bible Belt morals. But up close, the trees were scorched, the grass was dead, and the boys were on the verge of tears with the belts of those morals tightening around their necks, threatening to hang them if they dared step off the stool of masculinity.”

“Before we complicated life with money, machines and missiles we did well with morals, manpower and meetings.”

“We need to learn from one another. Of one thing I am certain: No single people, tradition, religion, governmental form, ethical program, moral code, or civilization has had sufficient wisdom and goodness to set the pattern and govern the world in the ways of peace, decency, and mutual respect. I do not believe God ever intended it to be that way. He wants us to reach out and learn from the wisdom he has given to humanity over broad sweeps of time and place and personality.”

“He thanked God that she had been born and sheltered to such innocence. But he knew life, its foulness as well as its fairness, its greatness in spite of the slime that infested it, and by God he was going to have his say on it to the world. Saints in heaven - how could they be anything but fair and pure? No praise to them. But saints in slime - ah, that was the everlasting wonder! That was what made life worth while. To see moral grandeur rising out of cesspools of iniquity; to rise himself and first glimpse beauty, faint and far, through mud- dripping eyes; to see out of weakness, and frailty, and viciousness, and all abysmal brutishness, arising strength, and truth, and high spiritual endowment-”

“— Яка ж ця дійсна мораль? — Така, Олександро Михайлівно, яка не потребує ні заповідей, ні людських законів, ні тюрем, ні панів адвокатів; така, на підставі якої мати любить своїх дітей, мужчину тягне до женщини, і навпаки; на підставі якої ми живемо громадою, а не поодиноко, на підставі якої революціонер іде на смертну кару… Хиба є заповідь: «Мати хай любить свою дитину»?! Або: «Забороняється жити поодиноко»?! В таких заповідях немає ніякої потреби, бо це є вищі заповіді, яких нарушення далеко краще, ніж у людських, передбачив вищий закон природи. Там немає присудів «по снисхожденію». Винен і край! ... Уявіть: ви мати, ви маєте діти, частинки вашої істоти, що таємним, дивним способом продовжують ваше життя. Та не тільки ваше, а всього людства. Та це ж непохитний, абсолютний закон природи! Хай загинуть усі людські закони, всі правила, заповіді; хай щезне культура, слово, думка, а цей закон існуватиме, поки буде на світі хоч одна пара людей! І бійтесь нарушити цей закон, Олександро Михайлівно! Життя багато прощає, але цього не прощає ніколи. І ви мусите його виконати! Так, мусите, Олександро Михайлівно! Мусите відкинути дурні моралі і сказати собі: хочу бути матіррю, хочу передати в будуче переданий мені з минулого тисячеліттями святий вогонь. Чи «законний», чи «незаконний», свій, чи чужий, але в мене мусить бути чоловік, вільно вибраний мною, батько моїх дітей, стародавній, споконвічний приятель і товариш мій. От як вам треба говорити! І власне, вам, бо ви можете вибірати, бо ви гарні, розумні, незалежні. ... Що ж таке моральність? Моральність це рожева пудра на законах природи. Шапочка вважає неморальним боронити Кубешку. Але боронити закони сильних і пануючих — річ нормальна й моральна, бо вона санкціонована тисячолітньою верствою пудри — пануючою мораллю. Чоловіка своєї сестри, який служить у банку, де робляться ріжні шахрайські операції, який годується з цих операцій і, мабуть, сам бере в них участь, — вона й обнімає, й цілує. Сотням шахраїв, паразитів, грабіжників, але припудрених їхнім законом, вона подає руку. А одному через щось висловлює огиду та зневагу. Через те припудрені так гаряче й боронять пудру, яка помагає їм тримати дурнів у руках. Моральність — це стіна, яку вивели припудрені між основними законами життя й вищим його проявом — розумом. Увесь моральний поступ людськости є в тому, що люде по камінчику стараються знищити цю свою власну стіну. Але припудрені, з свого боку, дбайливо бережуть її, при чому їм ретельно допомагають дурні, яких вони доять. У моральному розумінні соціялізм є скасування стіни, приведення людини до вищої, природної одности, є поєднання законів природи з розумом. Але з яким трагікомічним старанням багато сучасних соціялістів підтримує цілість стіни припудрених! ... — А що таке «чесність», «нечесність»? Плід людської глупоти, лицемірства й поганого соціяльного ладу… ... Все дурниця: і мораль, і кохання, й життя, є тільки — сам біль. Та ще хиба смерть. Через кілька десятків літ і я, й Шапочка, й міліони чесних і нечесних, розумних і дурних, рабів і панів, усі будемо лежати в землі і гнити. Чи варто ж ради такої коротенької хвилини хвилюватися, соромитись, виправдуватись? Рятуйся, хто може! От єдиний справедливий закон! ... Як це погано, паршивенько, шаблонно: коли мужчину образить кохана жінка, він починає пити й виробляти бешкети; коли жінка ображена, вона зараз же спішить зрадити його з иншим мужчиною.”

“... As Weber suggests, once science is employed to justify and enact ideal values, especially through the actions of an elite few (the academy), particular values, in this case the idea of what is 'natural', are cast into an objectively valid and legitimate form, and thus appear as being beyond critique. And at this point Weber rightly warns that science, contrary to Durkheim's belief, is not both cognitive and moral in nature, for it rests upon a designation of authority, and may, especially if used beyond its own limits, give rise to new means of domination.”

“In The Inhuman... Lyotard, like Weber, reminds us of the distinction between technological development and 'human' progress. He argues, in particular, that the development of technology, or 'techno-science', is driven by the quest for maximum efficiency and performance, and as such leads to the emergence of new 'inhuman' (technological) forms of control rather than to the emancipation of 'humanity'. Lyotard reasserts the instrumental nature of the modern system, arguing that 'All technology ... is an artefact allowing its users to stock more information, to improve their competence and optimize their performances'. In this view, techno-science may be seen to stand against all instances of the unknown, including the aporia of the future anterior, and thus to have little respect for forms which are different or other to itself. This is compounded by the fact that technological development is intimately connected to the drive for profit. Lyotard proposes that this directs the production of knowledge and conditions the nature of knowledge itself, for information, itself a commodity, is increasingly produced in differentiated, digestible forms ('bits') for ease of mass exchange, transmission and consumption, and with the aim of enabling the optimal performance of the global system.”

“A mature society is one that reserves its moral outrage for what really matters: poverty and preventable diseases in the third world, arms sales, oppression, injustice. Bad language and sex might offend some, who certainly have a right to complain; but they do not have a right to censor. They do not have to watch or listen if they are offended: they have an 'off' button on their television sets and radios. After all, it is morally outrageous that moral outrage should be used as an excuse to perpetrate the outrage of censorship on others.”

“...I realized that my father, of all these men, was the most obstinate, helplessly bonded to his better instincts and their excessive demands. I only then understood that he had quit his job not merely because he was fearful of what awaited us down the line should we agree like the others to be relocated, but because, for better or worse, when he was bullied by superior forces that he deemed corrupt it was his nature not to yield--in this instance, to resist either running away to Canada, as my mother urged our doing, or bowing to a government directive that was patently unjust. There were two types of strong men: those like Uncle Monty And Abe Steinheim, remorseless about their making money, and those like my father, ruthlessly obedient to their idea of fair play.”

“The only difference between having an affair here and having an affair there was that the American men would always ended up losing half of his estates over a woman he was infatuated just as much as the next tramp who would come his way, while Japanese men would only earn more respect from their subordinates through the possession of much younger women, as a sign of prowess and affluence, while their wives at home, as if there were rule books distributed nationally on the “proper” marriage etiquette for all young Japanese women to read before they enter into the matrimony, would turn a blind eye on their disloyalty quietly.”

“The poison that is war does not free us from the ethics of responsibility. There are times when we must take this poison - just as a person with cancer accepts chemotherapy to live. We can not succumb to despair. Force is and I suspect always will be part of the human condition. There are times when the force wielded by one immoral faction must be countered by a faction that, while never moral, is perhaps less immoral. We in the industrialized world bear responsibility for the world’s genocides because we had the power to intervene and did not. We stood by and watched the slaughter in Chechnya, Sri Lanka, Sierra Leone, Liberia, and Rwanda where a million people died. The blood for the victims of Srebrenica- a designated UN safe area in Bosnia- is on our hands. The generation before mine watched, with much the same passivity, the genocides of Germany, Poland, Hungary, Greece, and the Ukraine. These slaughters were, as in, Gabriel Garcia Marquez’s book Chronical of a Death Foretold, often announced in advance”

“I might be asked, ‘Do you equally reject the approach which begins with the question “What do modern children need?” — in other words, with the moral or didactic approach?’ I think the answer is Yes. Not because I don’t like stories to have a moral: certainly not because I think children dislike a moral. Rather because I feel sure that the question ‘What do modern children need?’ will not lead you to a good moral. If we ask that question we are assuming too superior an attitude. It would be better to ask ‘What moral do I need?’ for I think we can be sure that what does not concern us deeply will not deeply interest our readers, whatever their age. But it is better not to ask the question at all. Let the pictures tell you their own moral. For the moral inherent in them will rise from whatever spiritual roots you have succeeded in striking during the whole course of your life. But if they don’t show you any moral, don’t put one in.”