NationStates Jolt Archive

What is morality?

In a day where pro-life and pro-choice views, along with those of death penalty and slavery, are claiming morality in their arguments, I ask nations to describe their definition of morality. Where does it come from? Should morality be based on religion? Or individualism? Or existantialism? Where are the limits? At what point do I know I hvew crossed the line.

I am pro-choice in all aspects. By killing a self-independent human being, a criminal choses to be under the rules of death in some nations. By chosing, a mother should be able to abort her fetus. I define the line of immorality as the point where choice is restricted. Thus the UN res. currently at vote is good, for it does not force mothers to abort, but makes it illegal to force them not to. This can be applied to other issues as well.

Also, is it possible to pass a resolution in the UN which defines a word, such as morality or abortion? Thus we nations will have a less complex method of debating issues when we have a clear defined definition, instead of debating what means what.

In my opinion someone's morals are there own choice. They can be whatever they want.

Laws, however, should be based on something more tangible.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

In my opinion someone's morals are there own choice. They can be whatever they want.

Laws, however, should be based on something more tangible.



I agree with this view...
Also,you don't need religion to be moral.

The Black New World wrote, "In my opinion someone's morals are there own choice. They can be whatever they want."

What if it is within somebody's morrals to murder, steal and cheat? According to your statement, that should be allowed. What if they say that they are morrally entitled to murder you?

While I agree that morrals should not be legislated (because I do not want to be foreced to adhere to somebody else's morrals), Relativistic Morrality has its limitations.

What if it is within somebody's morrals to murder, steal and cheat? According to your statement, that should be allowed. What if they say that they are morrally entitled to murder you?

Yeah but that doesn’t mean I should let them do it or that the law shouldn't punish them.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

Morals are based upon he standards of the society, they are not defined by UN laws.

Morality isn't objective, but that doesn't mean that all moral positions are equal.

We run on an unholy synthesis of virtue ethics and existentialism.

While I agree that morrals should not be legislated (because I do not want to be foreced to adhere to somebody else's morrals), Relativistic Morrality has its limitations.
It does have its limitations: but after all, the UN wants to impose its moral code on places like Iraq, Cuba, or North Korea, in the name of objective morality, and no one much likes that.

A society should be able to define its own moral code, and in isolation that works fine, but once that society moves into a global world, its own moral codes are more and more having to conform to that of the accepted (or not so accepted) standards.

Do I have a point to this post, I don't think so, just musings.

Well, the larger scope of the problem is the NSUN's majority of really understanding governmental forms in the first place. Their assumption is their resolutions can really have any bearing in all member states. Socialisic democracies, and socialistic dictotorships, was a heafty pilling on of "Father-knows-best" makes up the majority of the U.N. member states. What all of these nations assume, is that the resolutions actual have final authority upon all the nations. From what I've actually seen and in fact come accross, is in fact they don't. They all fail to understand is that, especially amongst the Republics, is that in the Republic's the gov't is not sovereign over the people, and therefore, the will of the people can take precedence over the gov't. And I would say, that just as there are U.N. resolutions in force to legalize euthanasia, and to make nations endorse gay marriage... the Republic of Tekania still has illegal euthanasia, and gay marriage is still not "legalized" or "endorsed" (though technically the republic has no authority to declare anything in conjunction with the institution of marriage legal, or illegal, valid, or invalid)... And we will continue to consider abortion within the scope of First-Degree (i.e. capitol ) murder, and punishable as such. Yes, she has the "right" to choose to have an abortion, and she also has the "right" to be charged and stand trial, and if convicted be sentenced to death, for doing so. Nothing in the wording of the recently passed resolution can change this. We simply can't "interfere" so we won't have any licensing scheme for abortion clinics, we won't have any councelling centers, we won't impose any safty standards, as all of those aspects are interference. Holding someone accountable for a crime isn't interference.

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tekania.jpg

"Qui Desiderant Pacem Preparate Bellum"
("Those who desire peace, prepare for war.")

Morals are universal and the basis for all law, ethics, and government. They are abstract ideas to make life more orderly.

Many people relate morallity with religion when both are quite independent. Many who oppose religion do it out of their resistance to morallity because man yearns to live as animalistic as possible and wants to resist that what make him human and better.

A common error to make is to see morals and laws as one and the same. Morals are something held by an individual, defined by one's upbringing, experiences, and (if you feel inclined to argue this point) personal opinions. Laws are things set by the government to regulate the morals of every individual in such a way as to minimize social disharmony. Laws do not make a person's morals wrong, only punishable by an organization set in place to make a group of people coexist peacefully.

A common error to make is to see morals and laws as one and the same. Morals are something held by an individual, defined by one's upbringing, experiences, and (if you feel inclined to argue this point) personal opinions. Laws are things set by the government to regulate the morals of every individual in such a way as to minimize social disharmony. Laws do not make a person's morals wrong, only punishable by an organization set in place to make a group of people coexist peacefully.

That may or may not be true... depending on the idea.... the larger the group defining law, the less the law and morals cooincide... Which is why the Republic is against global moral defining, believing rather that the governmental body closest to the people it represents should define the codify the morals of said people into law.

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tekania.jpg

"Qui Desiderant Pacem Preparate Bellum"
("Those who desire peace, prepare for war.")

Many who oppose religion do it out of their resistance to morallity because man yearns to live as animalistic as possible and wants to resist that what make him human and better.

Then there are those of us who resist religion because we rightfully fear the oppressive nature of that institution. You don't need religion to be moral, but religionists would force you to believe it so.

Many who oppose religion do it out of their resistance to morallity because man yearns to live as animalistic as possible and wants to resist that what make him human and better.
Humans are animals. We have self awareness and we are capable of making rational decisions but we are still animals.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

Then there are those of us who resist religion because we rightfully fear the oppressive nature of that institution. You don't need religion to be moral, but religionists would force you to believe it so.

Or, one could accept religion and reject the Church. As much as some of my more devout colleges would like me to believe it is not so, one can be devoutly religious in solitude.
But, I agree religion and morals are not irrevocably linked. My son happens to be an agnostic, and I like to think I have done a good job in raising him to be a morally upright individual.

Morals are universal and the basis for all law, ethics, and government.

Are they really. I will not deny that they are widespread, but I have heard of some very mentally ill individuals that could be considered to be without morals -- they did what pleased them at the time.

Minister Mar Darenka,
Daryn