NationStates Jolt Archive

If you don't believe in God but believe in morality, what determines it and why? If you do believe in God, why did he choose whatever moral law exists to be the moral law? In either case, are there any absolute principles, and what happens when they conflict?

Often moral law comes from what people themselves think is "bad" or "good", or if you want I suggest reading Kant's, Fundemental Principles of the Methaphysics of Morals, for one point of view.

I myself am not religous. I divide morals in to two categories, "basic" and "secondary". "Basic" morals are inherently a part of humans, they are concerned with the biggest crimes like murder, theft, abuse etc. These generally are much more absolute than the "secondary" but in all cases they are viewed in a situational context to better determine their morality.

"Secondary" morals involve mostly lifestyle choices. They are, in reality, heavily dependent on society's views (for a large number of people), which may come from religion or not. For example: Drinking, drugs, sex (with consent), porn, etc. would all fall under this category. These are totally gray for me, the only thing which would raise a problem with me is if they actually hurt another person in some way. Then they would likely fall under "basic" morals.

About God, I'm agnostic and am not sure if he exists, but I feel that in any case a question of that kind is unanswerable, since it would require the ability to think like God. In a way, morality can be seen as an extension of the need for survival, since a lot of the most serious things like theft and murder would be deadly to a small tribe of humans and so would be wrong solely in that context.

Finally, they can't conflict with me because there is no total absolute.

If you do believe in God, why did he choose whatever moral law exists to be the moral law?

In the same way that a mobile phone company determins that their phone is designs their phone so that it works best when it is used to make phone calls and not toast, so God determins that humans are morally best when they do not sin and they instead do what he asks of them.

If you don't believe in God but believe in morality, what determines it and why?

Your conscience. Because that's the basic concept of god/gods anyway. They exist to give us a set of rules/regulations on how to act. So why do we need a god/gods to do so? We know what's right and wrong, do we really need some ultimately powerful being to tell us that too?

Morality is a pale, sickly echo of what it means to be a true human being :mp5:

Often moral law comes from what people themselves think is "bad" or "good", or if you want I suggest reading Kant's, Fundemental Principles of the Methaphysics of Morals, for one point of view.

I hate Kant.

Just needed to say that.

I myself am not religous. I divide morals in to two categories, "basic" and "secondary". "Basic" morals are inherently a part of humans, they are concerned with the biggest crimes like murder, theft, abuse etc. These generally are much more absolute than the "secondary" but in all cases they are viewed in a situational context to better determine their morality.

"Secondary" morals involve mostly lifestyle choices. They are, in reality, heavily dependent on society's views (for a large number of people), which may come from religion or not. For example: Drinking, drugs, sex (with consent), porn, etc. would all fall under this category. These are totally gray for me, the only thing which would raise a problem with me is if they actually hurt another person in some way. Then they would likely fall under "basic" morals.

About God, I'm agnostic and am not sure if he exists, but I feel that in any case a question of that kind is unanswerable, since it would require the ability to think like God. In a way, morality can be seen as an extension of the need for survival, since a lot of the most serious things like theft and murder would be deadly to a small tribe of humans and so would be wrong solely in that context.

Finally, they can't conflict with me because there is no total absolute.

So why are these basic morals what they are? Why does harming someone for example fall under the umbrella of violations of basic morals? Why can't basic morals conflict?

In the same way that a mobile phone company determins that their phone is designs their phone so that it works best when it is used to make phone calls and not toast, so God determins that humans are morally best when they do not sin and they instead do what he asks of them.

The problem here is that unlike a mobile phone company God can determine that mobile phones would be better if they made toast. If God decided it was a sin to avoid killingrandom people off the street it would be. So why did god choose the morality he did?

The problem here is that unlike a mobile phone company God can determine that mobile phones would be better if they made toast. If God decided it was a sin to avoid killingrandom people off the street it would be. So why did god choose the morality he did?

Because we did, he doesn't exist, so we made the choice for him.

Your conscience. Because that's the basic concept of god/gods anyway. They exist to give us a set of rules/regulations on how to act. So why do we need a god/gods to do so? We know what's right and wrong, do we really need some ultimately powerful being to tell us that too?

So if morality is determined by our conscience, what is our conscience? Is it some sort of biological drive, like enjoying sex? Is it more of a compass imbedded in all humans that measures some sort of absolute standard? What is it?

Because we did, he doesn't exist, so we made the choice for him.

Check up on the other set of arguments on this thread. I'm covering both possibilities.

Or do you mean morality is solely determined by societal context? Would that make the holocaust moral? Why is societal whim the best guide to moral law?

Maybe God didn't choose the morals. Maybe he just gave free will and people chose the morals.

Maybe God didn't choose the morals. Maybe he just gave free will and people chose the morals.

Same response as the one above: does that mean morals are societal? How many people does it take to determine what morals are?

Every person decided what their own morals are. Some are just very common.

If you don't believe in God but believe in morality, what determines it and why? If you do believe in God, why did he choose whatever moral law exists to be the moral law? In either case, are there any absolute principles, and what happens when they conflict?
Regardless of whether you believe in God ( or a god ) or not, everyone has a priori assumptions. Your morality arises as a series of deductions from these assumptions, whether they are ones you simply adopted from your parents, or from others around you, or consciously constructed them on your own through reason and logic.

In a sense, this belief system of yours constitutes what for you are "absolute principles." There are surprisingly few people who have the presence of mind and intellectual capacity to examine their a priori assumptions, decide which to retain and which to discard, research other options for possible inclusion, and thus construct their own belief system. For those who cannot or will not do this, a "one size fits all" ready-made belief system becomes the only option.

The intellectually honest will continue to modify, and perhaps sometimes totally reconstruct, their personal belief system. I have modified mine repeatedly over the years.

So if morality is determined by our conscience, what is our conscience? Is it some sort of biological drive, like enjoying sex? Is it more of a compass imbedded in all humans that measures some sort of absolute standard? What is it?

Our conscience is something that we are - a) born with and b) learn...

even people who grew up with no family or people to look after them at all know somehow that certain things are wrong and certain things are right. That's just simple logic that all human beings are born with. The 'primary morals that vet was talking about.

Other things we learn through experience - it is wrong to watch or be involved with child porn for example - not everyone is born with that knowledge (stupid as it may seem) and in fact, some arguments for peadophilia is that there is a built in desire (in men) for virgins - this is not my argument i do not in any way agree with it - and children are the most likely to be virgins (sorry, just got distracted watching buffy) so those people are taught these proper morals, it is wrong to watch child porn etc.

Regardless of whether you believe in God ( or a god ) or not, everyone has a priori assumptions. Your morality arises as a series of deductions from these assumptions, whether they are ones you simply adopted from your parents, or from others around you, or consciously constructed them on your own through reason and logic.

In a sense, this belief system of yours constitutes what for you are "absolute principles." There are surprisingly few people who have the presence of mind and intellectual capacity to examine their a priori assumptions, decide which to retain and which to discard, research other options for possible inclusion, and thus construct their own belief system. For those who cannot or will not do this, a "one size fits all" ready-made belief system becomes the only option.

The intellectually honest will continue to modify, and perhaps sometimes totally reconstruct, their personal belief system. I have modified mine repeatedly over the years.

So just taking this argument to its logical conclusion, that means the holocaust was moral, right?

Our conscience is something that we are - a) born with and b) learn...

even people who grew up with no family or people to look after them at all know somehow that certain things are wrong and certain things are right. That's just simple logic that all human beings are born with. The 'primary morals that vet was talking about.

Other things we learn through experience - it is wrong to watch or be involved with child porn for example - not everyone is born with that knowledge (stupid as it may seem) and in fact, some arguments for peadophilia is that there is a built in desire (in men) for virgins - this is not my argument i do not in any way agree with it - and children are the most likely to be virgins (sorry, just got distracted watching buffy) so those people are taught these proper morals, it is wrong to watch child porn etc.

So is what's moral just what each person thinks is moral? Again, there's the holocaust example. Plus, I remember you said in a thread last night that autonomy was a universal moral good.

So just taking this argument to its logical conclusion, that means the holocaust was moral, right?
Moral perhaps to those who perpetrated it. As a matter of fact, most of those tried at Nuremburg for war crimes continuted to maintain their "innocence" of any wrongdoing, stating that they were "just following orders." "Following orders" was seen by most of them as being moral and "right."

So is what's moral just what each person thinks is moral? Again, there's the holocaust example. Plus, I remember you said in a thread last night that autonomy was a universal moral good.

It is, but i also remember saying that if they can't be TAUGHT (and not brainwashed) otherwise, then we should lock their bodies up (and probably throw away the key).

It is, but i also remember saying that if they can't be TAUGHT (and not brainwashed) otherwise, then we should lock their bodies up (and probably throw away the key).

Why can't they be brainwashed if brainwashing is in line with the moral codes of the people doing it?

If you're wondering what a moral absolute without God is, I've found a simple enough one. People being happy is a good thing, and people being unhappy is a bad thing. It's a good foundation for everything else that can reasonably be argued as moral.

Moral perhaps to those who perpetrated it. As a matter of fact, most of those tried at Nuremburg for war crimes continuted to maintain their "innocence" of any wrongdoing, stating that they were "just following orders." "Following orders" was seen by most of them as being moral and "right."

So you're basically saying that besides what people see as moral and right there is no other measure of either. So then if morality can't be applied to others and will always be followed anyway by oneself, what is the purpose of codified morality?

Why can't they be brainwashed if brainwashing is in line with the moral codes of the people doing it?

Because those moral codes would be wrong....people should understand that brainwashing is wrong - it's like smashing a harley into a tree because it looked at you wrong.

If you're wondering what a moral absolute without God is, I've found a simple enough one. People being happy is a good thing, and people being unhappy is a bad thing. It's a good foundation for everything else that can reasonably be argued as moral.

I think I've already posted the response to this: why is it bad to cause unhappiness? What makes the world work that way?

So just taking this argument to its logical conclusion, that means the holocaust was moral, right?


From a Secular Humanist perspective with a healthy dash of Darwinism yes, the Holocaust was moral. >.>

Because those moral codes would be wrong....people should understand that brainwashing is wrong - it's like smashing a harley into a tree because it looked at you wrong.

How can a moral code be wrong? Isn't wrong a function of morality? If moral codes can be wrong, then isn't there some sort of moral law apart from the codes of individuals that can determine such things as wrong?

And how can a harley look at you anyway? Or was that part of the analogy?

From a Secular Humanist perspective with a healthy dash of Darwinism yes, the Holocaust was moral. >.>

So then what is your response to what I said to Eutrusca about how that means morality has no purpose?

I think that the reason morals exist is because they provided an evolutionary advantage. Which society will last longer, the one where there is no respect for individual ownership, and they kill each other indescriminately, or theone where the members work together for the common good etc.

Religion was a good way to provide these "rules for life" so nearly all societies have some form of religion. Unfortunately, for purposes of personal dislikes, power and control, other rules have been added in as well, which do not necessarily provide the same advantages. (Similar to the primary and secondary morals someone else mentioned earlier)

This is all based on Vega's "If you don't believe in God" bit. As it happens I also don;t believe in absolute morality.

How can a moral code be wrong? Isn't wrong a function of morality? If moral codes can be wrong, then isn't there some sort of moral law apart from the codes of individuals that can determine such things as wrong?

Yes, the moral codes of a country or populace. That is to say the agreed moral codes of a country or populace...that is the one and only reason religion is ok - to share these moral codes.

I think that the reason morals exist is because they provided an evolutionary advantage. Which society will last longer, the one where there is no respect for individual ownership, and they kill each other indescriminately, or theone where the members work together for the common good etc.

Religion was a good way to provide these "rules for life" so nearly all societies have some form of religion. Unfortunately, for purposes of personal dislikes, power and control, other rules have been added in as well, which do not necessarily provide the same advantages. (Similar to the primary and secondary morals someone else mentioned earlier)

This is all based on Vega's "If you don't believe in God" bit. As it happens I also don;t believe in absolute morality.

So are morals biological? Sociological? Both? Can you determine your own moral law, and is what you determine really a legitamate moral law? Does culture work the same way?

Yes, the moral codes of a country or populace. That is to say the agreed moral codes of a country or populace...that is the one and only reason religion is ok - to share these moral codes.

How many people does it take to make a populace? Why can't one person be their own populace? Why should ability to legislate morality be determined by numbers?

I think I've already posted the response to this: why is it bad to cause unhappiness? What makes the world work that way?

Causing unhappiness is bad because it is. You can try to deny this argument because of its simplicity, but not with any argument that can be taken seriously. Find someone who says they want to be unhappy. Perhaps there are some oddballs who like to be unhappy. I suppose, in a weird way, that they have a right to pursue this. If they end up making others unhappy, then they have a right to take action to preserve our own happiness. What it boils down to is that we are defending something that we want.

What happened to all those people answering the what if there is a God part of the question? I though that debate would be really interesting, but they all seem to have left.

How many people does it take to make a populace? Why can't one person be their own populace? Why should ability to legislate morality be determined by numbers?

Becasue, frankly, a larger number of people are more likely to know what is right - it's just better that it's an agreed standard of right/wrong or everyone would be dying left right and centre.

How many people does it take to make a populace? Why can't one person be their own populace? Why should ability to legislate morality be determined by numbers?

It shouldn't, although in some cases the will of the majority is also the source of morality. However, the people of the earliest phases of human expansion were of extremely small groups, but still managed to develop independent moral codes.

So are morals biological? Sociological? Both? Can you determine your own moral law, and is what you determine really a legitamate moral law? Does culture work the same way?

Morals are a fortunate freak chance :-) Therefore, I would say they are Sociological. With the exeption of things like killing I suppose, I suspect that will have become biologically inherent by now. But if we keep letting murderers breed... who knows.

I think culture works on a purely sociological level, since in only one or two generations, families from one culture can very quickly adapt to a new one if they are submersed in it.

There is no "legitimate" moral law in my opinion. If it works, it's legitimate enough. Just my 1.33 GBpence.

Causing unhappiness is bad because it is. You can try to deny this argument because of its simplicity, but not with any argument that can be taken seriously. Find someone who says they want to be unhappy. Perhaps there are some oddballs who like to be unhappy. I suppose, in a weird way, that they have a right to pursue this. If they end up making others unhappy, then they have a right to take action to preserve our own happiness. What it boils down to is that we are defending something that we want.

But why should we also make sure that others get happiness? Why must moral law be beholden to what others want?

Causing unhappiness is bad because it is. You can try to deny this argument because of its simplicity, but not with any argument that can be taken seriously. Find someone who says they want to be unhappy. Perhaps there are some oddballs who like to be unhappy. I suppose, in a weird way, that they have a right to pursue this. If they end up making others unhappy, then they have a right to take action to preserve our own happiness. What it boils down to is that we are defending something that we want.

I believer Vegas-Rex was not denying it is bad to BE unhappy, but merely asking why it is inderantly "wrong" to CAUSE unhappiness in others, if it results in happiness for oneself.

It shouldn't, although in some cases the will of the majority is also the source of morality. However, the people of the earliest phases of human expansion were of extremely small groups, but still managed to develop independent moral codes.

So are those moral codes what is moral? And if morality is totally dependent on the individual, can you respond to the stuff I've already thrown out against that?

So why are these basic morals what they are? Why does harming someone for example fall under the umbrella of violations of basic morals? Why can't basic morals conflict?

Sorry about the late response. Basic morals are morals because they conflict with the survival instinct, aand harming someone falls under this because it spus division. A divided group has a lower chance of survival than a unified group. Also, they can conflict, just not as much or as often as "secondary" morals.

Becasue, frankly, a larger number of people are more likely to know what is right - it's just better that it's an agreed standard of right/wrong or everyone would be dying left right and centre.

How many are a large number? Isn't the idea that more people are more likely to know what's right dependent on the concept that any one of them has a chance of knowing it? What if they didn't? Why is it bad for everyone to be dying?

So you're basically saying that besides what people see as moral and right there is no other measure of either. So then if morality can't be applied to others and will always be followed anyway by oneself, what is the purpose of codified morality?
I never said that morality cannot be applied to others. I only said that each of us must either adopt a "morality" whole-cloth from others, or construct our own. There is considerable overlap between and among personal moral systems, otherwise there would be even more chaos than there already is. The reason for this overlap lies in the logical foundations of most moral systems, and perhaps in our very DNA.

Sorry about the late response. Basic morals are morals because they conflict with the survival instinct, aand harming someone falls under this because it spus division. A divided group has a lower chance of survival than a unified group. Also, they can conflict, just not as much or as often as "secondary" morals.

So why is division immoral? Why is survival moral? Or are morals just biological?
If they can conflict, how do you determine the order of preference?

How many are a large number? Isn't the idea that more people are more likely to know what's right dependent on the concept that any one of them has a chance of knowing it? What if they didn't? Why is it bad for everyone to be dying?

Maybe it isn't bad for everyone to be dying, but like i said yesterday, religion brainwashes - i have been brainwashed by the christian faith to believe that dying is bad. so therefore to me, it is bad. - on the first point, thewre is an interesting point that romans believed that young boys were to be used for sexual pleasure and women/girls to be used merely for recreation.

I never said that morality cannot be applied to others. I only said that each of us must either adopt a "morality" whole-cloth from others, or construct our own. There is considerable overlap between and among personal moral systems, otherwise there would be even more chaos than there already is. The reason for this overlap lies in the logcial foundations of most moral systems, and perhaps in our very DNA.

You're not answering the real intent of my question, though, which is that if everyone has their own morality then how is it possible to commit an immoral act?

So are those moral codes what is moral? And if morality is totally dependent on the individual, can you respond to the stuff I've already thrown out against that?

Actually, that is very difficult to answer. Moral codes have been passed that really wern't moral at all (eg. Puritan NE, Inquisition Spain, etc.), so the naswer would be most likely maybe. Unfortunately, the shifting nature of morality makes it difficult to make these judgments, since the society of today is different than that of the past. However, morality is not totally dependent on one or the other, mostly because humanity functions on both an individual and group level.

You're not answering the real intent of my question, though, which is that if everyone has their own morality then how is it possible to commit an immoral act?
"Immoral acts" are recognized as such by most moral systems. A good example is the fact that murder of the innocent is considered immoral by virtually all moral systems.

Maybe it isn't bad for everyone to be dying, but like i said yesterday, religion brainwashes - i have been brainwashed by the christian faith to believe that dying is bad. so therefore to me, it is bad. - on the first point, thewre is an interesting point that romans believed that young boys were to be used for sexual pleasure and women/girls to be used merely for recreation.

But is what to you is bad what "is" bad? If so, is that only in terms of what you do? If so, how can anyone commit an immoral act?

"Immoral acts" are recognized as such by most moral systems. A good example is the fact that murder of the innocent is considered immoral by virtually all moral systems.

So does the moral system of the area around you determine what is moral, or do you? If I believe that killing is good and someone else thinks it's bad, which is it?

Actually, that is very difficult to answer. Moral codes have been passed that really wern't moral at all (eg. Puritan NE, Inquisition Spain, etc.), so the naswer would be most likely maybe. Unfortunately, the shifting nature of morality makes it difficult to make these judgments, since the society of today is different than that of the past. However, morality is not totally dependent on one or the other, mostly because humanity functions on both an individual and group level.

So if moral law is a constuct of personal decisions and the decisions of others, what happens when they conflict?

"Immoral acts" are recognized as such by most moral systems. A good example is the fact that murder of the innocent is considered immoral by virtually all moral systems.

This would also confirm that there is an inherent morality in all people, since all moral systems are comprised of one or more people.

So does the moral system of the area around you determine what is moral, or do you? If I believe that killing is good and someone else thinks it's bad, which is it?
You're looking for "moral absolutes." There is no such thing. Morality within groups is established by a concensus of the meaning of morality and most laws are construced based upon a social concensus of what constitutes "an immoral act."

But is what to you is bad what "is" bad? If so, is that only in terms of what you do? If so, how can anyone commit an immoral act?

Well, that's just the point isn't it. How can anyone? to everyone what to everyone else they do is bad, to them is good, so no act can be absolutely immoral, but illeagal? yes... the law is invented to get around morals.

This would also confirm that there is an inherent morality in all people, since all moral systems are comprised of one or more people.
This confirms that logic, social consensus, and perhaps even genetic programming tend to agree with one another.

So if moral law is a constuct of personal decisions and the decisions of others, what happens when they conflict?

Most likely, the system would collapse, because they each should ideally support each other. However, should one of the two grow too divergent from the original system, the other will react and break away, causing the system to collapse.

You're looking for "moral absolutes." There is no such thing. Morality within groups is established by a concensus of the meaning of morality and most laws are construced based upon a social concensus of what constitutes "an immoral act."

So is morality just an opinion? Is there any way to determine what is moral or immoral, even if not in an absolute manner, or is it just a rhetorical device?

And what happened to all the people arguing the religious half of the question? Where are you guys?

Interstingly, in my lease contract, one of the clauses is that I may not use the property "for any illegal or immoral purpose." I've been trying to find a way to break that clause and not get caught :-) After all, some people would think that it is immoral of me to lie to my housemates... "No I'm not having a party this weekend, while you are all away..."

Most likely, the system would collapse, because they each should ideally support each other. However, should one of the two grow too divergent from the original system, the other will react and break away, causing the system to collapse.

What I meant was, if they conflict, which determines what is moral? Is morality just a function of power?

Interstingly, in my lease contract, one of the clauses is that I may not use the property "for any illegal or immoral purpose." I've been trying to find a way to break that clause and not get caught :-) After all, some people would think that it is immoral of me to lie to my housemates... "No I'm not having a party this weekend, while you are all away..."

How do they hold up in court that you were being immoral, anyway?

Interstingly, in my lease contract, one of the clauses is that I may not use the property "for any illegal or immoral purpose." I've been trying to find a way to break that clause and not get caught :-) After all, some people would think that it is immoral of me to lie to my housemates... "No I'm not having a party this weekend, while you are all away..."

Try tying someone up - would that be immoral enough? (you could get them drunk first)

So is morality just an opinion? Is there any way to determine what is moral or immoral, even if not in an absolute manner, or is it just a rhetorical device?

In a way yes and no. Yes in the sense that some parts of a moral system are only a result of the conditions of the time (eg. sumptuary laws, blue laws, etc.) and reflect society. No in the sense there are some (prohibitions agains murder for example) that have been present in almost all or all of the moral systems throughout time.

And what happened to all the people arguing the religious half of the question? Where are you guys?

Maybe the "Bible Bashers" thread scared them too much?

Well, that's just the point isn't it. How can anyone? to everyone what to everyone else they do is bad, to them is good, so no act can be absolutely immoral, but illeagal? yes... the law is invented to get around morals.

Same response as I gave to that other person: So is morality just a rhetorical device? Can morality be dealt with logically or debated about at all?

So is morality just an opinion? Is there any way to determine what is moral or immoral, even if not in an absolute manner, or is it just a rhetorical device?
Morality is far more than just "an opinion." In most societies, "opinion" is a totally unacceptable reason for executing another human being for whatever their crime may have been. The social consensus determines what a society labels "moral" or "immoral." As I indicated before, this consensus arrises out of the interaction of the personal moral systems of all participating members.

Same response as I gave to that other person: So is morality just a rhetorical device? Can morality be dealt with logically or debated about at all?

Logically no, really, yes. It can be dealt with legally as many legal cases prove.

Morality is far more than just "an opinion."

True. This would explain why there is such a huge difference in connotation between "immoral" and words like "distasteful" or "inappropriate", at least on a lingual level.

In a way yes and no. Yes in the sense that some parts of a moral system are only a result of the conditions of the time (eg. sumptuary laws, blue laws, etc.) and reflect society. No in the sense there are some (prohibitions agains murder for example) that have been present in almost all or all of the moral systems throughout time.



Maybe the "Bible Bashers" thread scared them too much?

So does omniprescence mean something is morality? Does it mean it represents an absolute good or just that it's a rhetorical device that everyone happens to use? In short, are good and evil just expressions, or can they ever be quantified?

True. This would explain why there is such a huge difference in connotation between "immoral" and words like "distasteful" or "inappropriate", at least on a lingual level.

A strong opinion then. The point is, do the words good and bad really have any meaning without a "for" clause?

Morality is far more than just "an opinion." In most societies, "opinion" is a totally unacceptable reason for executing another human being for whatever their crime may have been. The social consensus determines what a society labels "moral" or "immoral." As I indicated before, this consensus arrises out of the interaction of the personal moral systems of all participating members.

So what constitutes a society? Can I be a society?

So does omniprescence mean something is morality? Does it mean it represents an absolute good or just that it's a rhetorical device that everyone happens to use? In short, are good and evil just expressions, or can they ever be quantified?

Only if you were to believe that the majority's will is the best. It might not represent an absolute good because of the innate shifting nature of morality.
"Good and Evil" are probably only expressions in a group sense, since the morals of the group may vary greatly on a personal basis. Again it reflects back to the individual. Still, personally speaking, I do quantify good and evil:
e.g., "Idi Amin is evil, Gandhi is good". This comes from my personal moral system, and so is quantified by me, but in the "group" sense would still be only an expression because the individual moralities might hold vastly different opinion (unlikely of course in this case)

So what constitutes a society? Can I be a society?

You're just being picky now.

A strong opinion then. The point is, do the words good and bad really have any meaning without a "for" clause?

Only on a personal level do they have a definite meaning. In the larger "group" mentality it is much more subjective because of the diversity of the group itself.

Logically no, really, yes. It can be dealt with legally as many legal cases prove.

So is morality a legal construct? Can law determine morality? Is there any reason the law determines morality besides ability to enforce it? If that's the only one, why does power to enforce =truth?

So what constitutes a society? Can I be a society?
Society:

A group of humans broadly distinguished from other groups by mutual interests, participation in characteristic relationships, shared institutions, and a common culture.

The institutions and culture of a distinct self-perpetuating group.

Society:

A group of humans broadly distinguished from other groups by mutual interests, participation in characteristic relationships, shared institutions, and a common culture.

The institutions and culture of a distinct self-perpetuating group.

Good point vegas....are you a group of people?

Society:

A group of humans broadly distinguished from other groups by mutual interests, participation in characteristic relationships, shared institutions, and a common culture.

The institutions and culture of a distinct self-perpetuating group.

So me and one of my friends can technically be a society, and thus have the right to determine our own moral law. So if we say killing is good, then it is.

So me and one of my friends can technically be a society, and thus have the right to determine our own moral law. So if we say killing is good, then it is.

A group is normally defined as more than three people.

So is morality a legal construct? Can law determine morality? Is there any reason the law determines morality besides ability to enforce it? If that's the only one, why does power to enforce =truth?
Morality at a societal level is determined by consensus. Laws derive from the moral consensus.

So me and one of my friends can technically be a society, and thus have the right to determine our own moral law. So if we say killing is good, then it is.
No, that would be a group. A society is much, much broader than that.

Only if you were to believe that the majority's will is the best. It might not represent an absolute good because of the innate shifting nature of morality.
"Good and Evil" are probably only expressions in a group sense, since the morals of the group may vary greatly on a personal basis. Again it reflects back to the individual. Still, personally speaking, I do quantify good and evil:
e.g., "Idi Amin is evil, Gandhi is good". This comes from my personal moral system, and so is quantified by me, but in the "group" sense would still be only an expression because the individual moralities might hold vastly different opinion (unlikely of course in this case)

But the point is that the only effect of something being good or evil to you is that you want to support or oppose it. Is this any different than any other opinions? What if something without a personal moral code (a computer, for example) was asked to weigh morality? Could it?

But the point is that the only effect of something being good or evil to you is that you want to support or oppose it. Is this any different than any other opinions? What if something without a personal moral code (a computer, for example) was asked to weigh morality? Could it?

picky picky picky

No, that would be a group. A society is much, much broader than that.

How much? Is the difference about number of people? If so, why is whatever number it is what determines right to determine morals? Is it age, and doesn't that fall under the same problem? Who is this society you speak of?

I have to log off now, but I hope another pseudo-Socrates will step in to keep things livened up.

How much? Is the difference about number of people? If so, why is whatever number it is what determines right to determine morals? Is it age, and doesn't that fall under the same problem? Who is this society you speak of?

I have to log off now, but I hope another pseudo-Socrates will step in to keep things livened up.

Bye bye vegas :mp5:

How much? Is the difference about number of people? If so, why is whatever number it is what determines right to determine morals? Is it age, and doesn't that fall under the same problem? Who is this society you speak of?

I have to log off now, but I hope another pseudo-Socrates will step in to keep things livened up.
The difference is about internal stability and external security. Any society which holds a different morality than those around it will cease to exist unless it has sufficient size and power to defend itself from both gradual absorption and forceable takeover.

I refer you to my nations motto and signature when I can be bothered to add it...

"General Consensus Doesn't Make It Right nor Moral!!"

History has proven this, is proving it and will continue to do so!!!

But the point is that the only effect of something being good or evil to you is that you want to support or oppose it. Is this any different than any other opinions? What if something without a personal moral code (a computer, for example) was asked to weigh morality? Could it?

Only in the sense that my opinions form my personal moral system, and so would be more than opinions.

No, because a computer can not "think" outside of its programming (yet), so it could not weigh morality because this would require a mind able to contemplate non-logical or linear thinking, which is what morality would fall under

I hate Kant.

Just needed to say that.

I know how you feel.

Try Books two and three of Hume's Treatise on Human Nature.

If you don't believe in God but believe in morality, what determines it and why? If you do believe in God, why did he choose whatever moral law exists to be the moral law? In either case, are there any absolute principles, and what happens when they conflict?

Morality is a construct of social evolution.

Those societies with moral codes benefitial to their survival and propogation outlive those that do nothave them; those individuals with moral instincts benefitial to their survival and propogation outlive those who lack them.

The existance or nonexistance of a god makes no difference. If a god gave people the morals, and the morals helped them survive and propogate themselves and their culture, the morals survived. If a god's morals didn't work, the culture that worshipped that god dissappeared. If a society got their morals from some old guy who thought it would be a good way to increase his control on his clan and hired a couple of thugs to beat up anybody who didn't agree with him, and the old guy's morals helped that culture survive and propogate itsself, it survived.

I refer you to my nations motto and signature when I can be bothered to add it...

"General Consensus Doesn't Make It Right nor Moral!!"

History has proven this, is proving it and will continue to do so!!!

It is very easy to make a negative statement, particularly an unsuported one. If general consensus, i.e. society, does not define what is right and moral, then what does? Where is the evidence that the general consensus does not make something right and moral?

What is morally good, for me is any action that is any one or more of the following:

useful to me
useful to another
pleasing to me
pleasing to another

whilst not being any of:

painful to me
painful to another
problem causing to me
problem causing to another.

(Complicated I know)

What is morally good, for me is any action that is any one or more of the following: Pleasing to me

No problem with that. Makes life all the more fun.

I hate Kant.

Just needed to say that.

I agree. Kant's cathegorical imperative is outright dangerous, or at least the thesis that it counts for everybody. I think we must all write our own cathegorical imperative. And the idea that the only good action is one that's done solely out of duty (i.e. without any enjoyment or other personal profit whatsoever) is quite nasty as well because it requires a person to function as a slave a duty (or virtue) not decided by himself/herself.

An exquisite book on the subject would be The Genealogy of Morals (Zur Genealogie der Moral) by Friedrich Nietzsche. I suggest reading The Antichrist (Der Antichrist) afterwards - its working title, I believe, was 'Why Kant Sucks'. The latter is an especially good read, and quite fun as well.

[QUOTE=Alien Born]It is very easy to make a negative statement, particularly an unsuported one. If general consensus, i.e. society, does not define what is right and moral, then what does? Where is the evidence that the general consensus does not make something right and moral?
QUOTE]

Wasn't meant to be negative in any real way just a realisation.

e.g. In the 1500's (somebody will no doubt correct me if i'm wrong) General consensus stated that the spanish inquisition was right and moral....yet now with hind sight we can see that was wrong...

1690+ The Irish/catholic clearances mass murders by the protestant maajority was viewed as moral and right at the time...

1750's The Highland clearances were viewed as right and Moral...

1800's European imperialism was viewed as right and moral....(including the genocide of the 'savages' of Africa and many polynesian tribes)

1942 The Final Answer to the Jewis question was seen by many as being moral and right....

1950's McCarthyism....

2001 September 11 was seen by many as moral and correct....

2003 Camp x-Ray was seen by many to be moral and correct...

2003 The Iraq war......need I go on...

There is more examples and will be more examples......the majority don't have either the wisdom, knowledge or balance to decide what is moral!!!

Precisely. This is why there is a divide between the individual and group moralities, simply because in many cases the group is wrong. This is the primary reason why morality is self determinate more than group determinate, because the power for corruption of the moral system is much more difficult on an indivdual level.

What is good? That which strengthens the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself, in man.
What is bad? That which comes from weakness.
What is happiness? The feeling that ones power is growing, that an obstacle is defeated. Not satisfaction, but more power. Not peace at all, but war. Not virtue, but skill.

Blessed be what hardens.

If I were less mature that would be a very innuendo laced thread... or was that your intentions. :p

But in reality, that is pretty much Survival of the Fittest. That theory is somewhat immoral by "civilized" standards because it would cause the follower to do things to survive which would be traditionally viewed as immoral.

Precisely. This is why there is a divide between the individual and group moralities, simply because in many cases the group is wrong. This is the primary reason why morality is self determinate more than group determinate, because the power for corruption of the moral system is much more difficult on an indivdual level.
We could argue that point, but I see what you mean.

In one sense of the term, morality cannot be separated from the individual, since only individuals can have "a morality." Societies take the consensus of individual moralities and codify them into a body of law. The more democratic the society is, the better job it does at determining consensus and subsequently at codifying morality into law.

The more democratic the society is, the better job it does at determining consensus and subsequently at codifying morality into law.

True. This explains the vast gap in the quality of life and civil rights between democracy and authoritarian governments. Since the entire population can voice its individual moralities, the group morality can shift all the easier and reduce the risk of immoral morality (e.g. inquisition, etc.), which authoritarian governments have because the group morality is influenced only by a few (nobles, clergy).

True. This explains the vast gap in the quality of life and civil rights between democracy and authoritarian governments. Since the entire population can voice its individual moralities, the group morality can shift all the easier and reduce the risk of immoral morality (e.g. inquisition, etc.), which authoritarian governments have because the group morality is influenced only by a few (nobles, clergy).
:)

Almost 100 posts!

The more democratic the society is, the better job it does at determining consensus and subsequently at codifying morality into law.

Not necessarily so...some would argue that the heart of democracy is the US and the UK....yet some of my most recent examples of Moral wrongs have been carried out by them. With the support of the majority and (more arguably) democracy....

My point is that the masses therefore democracy isn't the best determinent for what is morally correct....Otherwise 46,000 dying children per day in the third world is correct and moral...the huge divide between Mexicans and Americans while the Mexicans get shot trying to grab a piece of the good stuff is right.....again i could go on and labour this point....

Otherwise 46,000 dying children per day in the third world is correct and moral...the huge divide between Mexicans and Americans while the Mexicans get shot trying to grab a piece of the good stuff is right.....again i could go on and labour this point....

I don't think the majority of Americans support these.

I don't think the majority of Americans support these.

I get where you are coming from but 51% of the vote suggests otherwise....Bush's administration entering a second term suggests otherwise. There was no need for an uprising with this one....no need for a people's revolution....The chance to vote the guy and his people out of government was there but democracy and the majority voted for them to stay thus backing the morality of camp x-ray....the war on Iraq....the general middle east policy...the policy on the kyoto protocol....the policy on africa...need i go on....

I get where you are coming from but 51% of the vote suggests otherwise....Bush's administration entering a second term suggests otherwise. There was no need for an uprising with this one....no need for a people's revolution....The chance to vote the guy and his people out of government was there but democracy and the majority voted for them to stay thus backing the morality of camp x-ray....the war on Iraq....the general middle east policy...the policy on the kyoto protocol....the policy on africa...need i go on....
No. Don't bother. I've heard quite enough anti-Americanism on here today already. This is probably not a real good way to end this thread, but it does it for me.

I get where you are coming from but 51% of the vote suggests otherwise....Bush's administration entering a second term suggests otherwise

I think this is because of the party system and electoral college, which interestingly enough would fit the definition, at least in a political sense, the small controlling group that is responsible for anti-morality in authoritarian states. The individual has less say in their government with the electoral college in place and the two party system than they would without it.

No. Don't bother. I've heard quite enough anti-Americanism on here today already. This is probably not a real good way to end this thread, but it does it for me.

Who was discussing Anti-Americanism? Certainly not me!! I thought I was quite deliberate to give examples of European morality issues....

I don't think the Americans had anything to do with the inquisition? Or William of Orange or the Highland clearances....or the Nazi Final Solution..or....infact it would be a shame to end the thread on a mis understanding....my beef is with the majority's perception of what is right and wrong and how time and time again the majority get it wrong and that maybe democracy in it's current form isn't the answer....

That post by Goldaria was by me. I didn't switch back accidentally.

I think this is because of the party system and electoral college, which interestingly enough would fit the definition, at least in a political sense, the small controlling group that is responsible for anti-morality in authoritarian states. The individual has less say in their government with the electoral college in place and the two party system than they would without it.

This probably follows on quite well from my last comment in that democracy in it's current form doesn't work...

(emphasising again nothing to do with my feelings on americans pro/anti or otherwise indifferent!!!)

(emphasising again nothing to do with my feelings on americans pro/anti or otherwise indifferent!!!)

None detected from it. Even so, if they were, it would be your opinion and I wouldn't take offense anyway.

Democracy in America does need work, I agree. It doesn't work in its present form for sure. The real question is how is the best way to fix it?

I think that somewhere in the thread Eutrusca read that into it that I was....

The answer to democracy??? It would probably take books and books to fix.....

What probably needs to happen is some form of revolution from people of similar views and morals....Don't know how many people a couple of hundred...there would have to be some form of testing etc to judge that they are suitable...

Some general questions would be where do you stand on human rights?
the right of the child?
poverty?
taxation?

from this 'elite' they would then form a government that would hold power for the next 100 years....where the last 200 years brainwashing is 'wiped'....media controls would be totally re-vamped....the American dream would be dissolved (and trust me us Europeans suffer from this as well)....when self interest and greed is cleansed then gradually a democratic government would be introduced...similar to the first democratic government during Plato’s time (except women can vote)....

From there who knows......the only draw back is....what’s the chance of one of the original elite from the revolution going the way of Napoleon in Animal Farm???

Which leaves us with the depressing realisation we are all f*/ked, totally brainwashed that greed and self interest is good and there is absolutely no going back......As fukiyama said the end of history is here, but m y take would be that there is no future to follow....

depressed yet?

I won't be totally. depressed until people stop advocating change and reform. Then all hope will die.

Furthermore:

the right of the child?
In regard to what? I'm not exactly sure.

poverty?
Attempts to reduce it should be pursued to their fullest extent, through government expenditure primarily (charity probably wouldn't cover it).

taxation?
Taxation should be progressively structured and enough to pay for ensuring that the citizens are properly cared for and defended (if necessary), but not so much that the economy is unfairly crimped. A value added tax can raise considerable revenue, but since the US doesn't really have one I can't comment on it.

In regard to what? I'm not exactly sure.


That every child is born with aan equal chance, where they can't be used in slavery, sweat shops etc....that they have the right to be fed and clothed, that they have the right to a free education (with out bias), that the have the right to free health care....i'm sure there's more in there...the UN have a rights of the child resolution that only the US and one other middle eastern country have refused to sign (the name eludes me...)


Attempts to reduce it should be pursued to their fullest extent, through government expenditure primarily (charity probably wouldn't cover it).
QUOTE]

The richest governments should cover this wholey....starting from wiping the debt to the third world....I do emphasise starting though as following that must come the stoping corrupting the governments of these young countries...

[QUOTE=Vetalia]
Taxation should be progressively structured and enough to pay for ensuring that the citizens are properly cared for and defended (if necessary), but not so much that the economy is unfairly crimped. A value added tax can raise considerable revenue, but since the US doesn't really have one I can't comment on it.

We have a VAT in the UK and it does work on some scales, however it is completely unfair as it isn't means tested....it's quite simple if you 'earn' more....you pay more...the people at the higher end shoud be taxed more rather than given tax breaks...

You're not answering the real intent of my question, though, which is that if everyone has their own morality then how is it possible to commit an immoral act?That's easy. Have you ever done something which you know to be wrong (by your own moral system)? If not, ring the Vatican and tell the Pope to whip out his emergency canonization kit.

Facaetiousness aside, and to answer your real question, morality is clearly lodged firmly in the eye of the beholder. This is evident in, well, pretty much everything now and in our history.

It's interesting to consider what would happen if everyone in the world haboured the same moral system - get everyone thinking along the lines of Bush/Rand/Hitler/Gandhi/Mr The Hun/Dali/Jesus/Hussein.

We have a VAT in the UK and it does work on some scales, however it is completely unfair as it isn't means tested....it's quite simple if you 'earn' more....you pay more...the people at the higher end shoud be taxed more rather than given tax breaks...

A fair, properly written VAT seems like it would be the best choice. The taxes should increase at the higher end, since, for example 25% of a middle class person's income is a lot harsher bite than 25% of a millionaire's.


I totally support your description of the rights of children.

Yeah, I think that once you have paid your basic survival needs there should be an incremental system.....around 25% for those on lower incomes under 150k dollars, between 150 and 350 should be 40% with over 350 being around 60%......with no escaape clauses.....

I'd rather have higher taxes and better quality service from a well funded government than a red-ink Social Security and tottering Medicare like we have in the US.

I'd rather have higher taxes and better quality service from a well funded government than a red-ink Social Security and tottering Medicare like we have in the US.

when you think how much our governments spend on te military and the likes....it's not impossible....thats the truly sad part of it all...

when you think how much our governments spend on te military and the likes....it's not impossible....thats the truly sad part of it all...

Yeah, that Iraq adventure's going to cost us. Big time. How much does Iraq cost the UK?


The military expenditures of each nation form a self replicating spiral of expenditure, so until some major nation wakes up and scales back, world peace is only a dream.

Yeah, that Iraq adventure's going to cost us. Big time. How much does Iraq cost the UK?


The military expenditures of each nation form a self replicating spiral of expenditure, so until some major nation wakes up and scales back, world peace is only a dream.

apparently around £100 million a month...

How many schools can that build? How many hospitals?

How many schools can that build? How many hospitals?

Sadly, quite a few. In the US, we could repair our infrastructure (ever driven in some parts of the US :headbang: ), hire more teachers, and fix the ailing schools in the inner city, which are actually dangerous in some cases. This would do a lot more good than weapons ever will.

Our Senate complains about the deficit and spending, but they increase the defense budget (the second largest department, more than the dept. of education :confused: ) at 4-5% year, 2x the rate of inflation. And very little of it goes to the actual soliders.

Wasn't meant to be negative in any real way just a realisation.

e.g. In the 1500's (somebody will no doubt correct me if i'm wrong) General consensus stated that the spanish inquisition was right and moral....yet now with hind sight we can see that was wrong...

1690+ The Irish/catholic clearances mass murders by the protestant maajority was viewed as moral and right at the time...

1750's The Highland clearances were viewed as right and Moral...

1800's European imperialism was viewed as right and moral....(including the genocide of the 'savages' of Africa and many polynesian tribes)

1942 The Final Answer to the Jewis question was seen by many as being moral and right....

1950's McCarthyism....

2001 September 11 was seen by many as moral and correct....

2003 Camp x-Ray was seen by many to be moral and correct...

2003 The Iraq war......need I go on...

There is more examples and will be more examples......the majority don't have either the wisdom, knowledge or balance to decide what is moral!!!

What these examples do is show that what is right and moral is something that changes as society changes. It is what the majority, at the time, believe to be right and moral. It is not an absolute that the majority can distinguish, as there is no absolute to be distinguished. It is not even a function of time as different societies at the same time will make different judgements as to what is right and moral (McCarthyism being a good example of this).

Let us, however, pretend that it is not a function of the opinion of the society, but something else. What is it?

It is probably a reaction to change within society. If you look closely at th dates, you can see all of the mentioned examples occur as a result of societal, and even worldwide change. So these can be seen as examples of a reactionary response to shifting society rather than a corruption or twisting of the group morality.

hello, where's this thread gone now?

It's branched off from simply moral law to the morality of society and how it affects both the moral law and personal morality. A few posts about the policies of the US and European governments and their attitudes in regard to societal problems also entered. Definitely shifted from the original post.

It's branched off from simply moral law to the morality of society and how it affects both the moral law and personal morality. A few posts about the policies of the US and European governments and their attitudes in regard to societal problems also entered. Definitely shifted from the original post.

As they do. Personal morality changes along with the moral law...is that the way it's headed?

Reason.

I've believed for some time that morality and reason are intricately linked. With sufficient thought, it can be seen that some things are not right to do, things like murder, theft, etc. This is simply because you don't want these things to be done to you. As such, these are the initial morals, at least in my opinion, I cannot tell if they truly are your morals or not, as I am not you.

When we come across society, society is forced to develop a basic moral code, often codified in a religious text, or code of laws independent of religion. These moral codes are hopefully derived of reason. Whatever reason may be used, that is. Once again, something we may find as repulsive, could make perfectly rational sense to someone else in another time or place.

But, since society has this moral code, we must always realize that there will always be sociopaths who are willing to break this moral code a will. As such, we must have punishments, this is where it gets tricky.

The only moral option (in my moral and rational opinion, of course) in this case is to show that the person who has broken the moral code has given up the protections of the entire code, or portions thereof. How this is decided is once again up to the people of the time, and is hopefully decided by reason, however that may come about.

There, I went on a drivel about crime a punishment as well as the moral/rational derivation of laws.

Who was discussing Anti-Americanism? Certainly not me!! I thought I was quite deliberate to give examples of European morality issues....

I don't think the Americans had anything to do with the inquisition? Or William of Orange or the Highland clearances....or the Nazi Final Solution..or....infact it would be a shame to end the thread on a mis understanding....my beef is with the majority's perception of what is right and wrong and how time and time again the majority get it wrong and that maybe democracy in it's current form isn't the answer....
What on earth gives you the right to say that everyone else is wrong? That's rather the epitome of arrogance and elitism in my eyes.

As they do. Personal morality changes along with the moral law...is that the way it's headed?

More or less, although it seems that the moral law is created by the personal moralities of the group. However, they affect each other as well, based upon who is shaping the law.

More or less, although it seems that the moral law is created by the personal moralities of the group. However, they affect each other as well, based upon who is shaping the law.

You say that as if it is not logical?

The problem here is that unlike a mobile phone company God can determine that mobile phones would be better if they made toast. If God decided it was a sin to avoid killingrandom people off the street it would be. So why did god choose the morality he did?

Thats obvioulsy flawed. Of course the mobile phone company determine its better to use the mobile to make calls instead of toast. They MADE the phone.

You say that as if it is not logical?

Moral law is both logical and nonlogical (I'll use this rather than illogical), becuase it is involved in issues that could be seen as outside of logical thought, namely the human social and personal philosophies, which are the source of personal morality. It is for this reason that computers, things of pure logic, cannot form real, new moral laws because they do not have the ability to form nonlogical thoughts.

However, it is also logical because it is formed in a methodical manner
through group experience and in many cases prior precedent, so the answe would be yes and no.

It is for this reason that computers, things of pure logic, cannot form real, new moral laws because they do not have the ability to form nonlogical thoughts.

If computers are a thing of pure logic....then how do you explain microsoft run computers?

If computers are a thing of pure logic....then how do you explain microsoft run computers?

Some kind of evil joke, played upon the unwary. I think one day we will find that windows was the world's biggest practical joke...

Some kind of evil joke, played upon the unwary. I think one day we will find that windows was the world's biggest practical joke...

And the fact that Mac run computers are in fact the best!!

And the fact that Mac run computers are in fact the best!!

I like them. They seem a lot more reliable.

I like them. They seem a lot more reliable.

They are, my one has only crashed once in 6 months - my old microsoft computer crashed once a week. so do my parent's computers. I'm actually in love with my computer!! :fluffle:

Well, time to go over to your poll. I bet there are some Microsoft supporters somewhere...

Well, time to go over to your poll. I bet there are some Microsoft supporters somewhere...

You're joking??

An exquisite book on the subject would be The Genealogy of Morals (Zur Genealogie der Moral) by Friedrich Nietzsche. I suggest reading The Antichrist (Der Antichrist) afterwards - its working title, I believe, was 'Why Kant Sucks'. The latter is an especially good read, and quite fun as well.

Nietzsche was a genius, but he was sociopathic. I'd say pushing everyone else down without remorse is more dangerous than the Categorical Imperative.