NationStates Jolt Archive

While posting on a morality thread it just occurred to me that there is really no way to judge an argument between two moral systems. The only way to weight two things is on some sort of objective standard, so how do you decide which objective standard to use?

Compromise?

(i.e. allow gay marriage as moral, but not abortion)


~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Wrong.

You could say the same thing about anything.

We use reason, wisdom, judgment, and experience to weigh moral arguments.

Just as we use them to believe we exist, that the light switch will work, poor sanitation causes disease, the earth is round, etc ....

While posting on a morality thread it just occurred to me that there is really no way to judge an argument between two moral systems. The only way to weight two things is on some sort of objective standard, so how do you decide which objective standard to use?


If it's not MY standard, I object!

Wrong.

You could say the same thing about anything.

We use reason, wisdom, judgment, and experience to weigh moral arguments.

Just as we use them to believe we exist, that the light switch will work, poor sanitation causes disease, the earth is round, etc ....

The issue is that moral arguments (arguments of "should") can't be tested empirically. "Good" and "Bad" are not things you can test for in the real world. There isn't a defined effect that being morally obligated has on people outside of what a given moral system says it does. I really don't see how you can use reason on morality.

We use reason, wisdom, judgment, and experience to weigh moral arguments.

Just as we use them to believe we exist, that the light switch will work, poor sanitation causes disease, the earth is round, etc ....

That is partially true, but there is a subjective portion of morality. You cannot just throw out the personal values of those involved.

we all use self interest when choosing morals.

some people are just more enlightened than others as to what there self interest really is.

Compromise?

(i.e. allow gay marriage as moral, but not abortion)


~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Problem is, nothing except a moral system tells you to compromise. So if you don't have a system yet you're still stuck.

we all use self interest when choosing morals.

some people are just more enlightened than others as to what there self interest really is.

Doesn't self interest also require a value system though? Various systems of morality also have different concepts of self interest (achieve release or become immortal? love or money?), so you still don't have an objective standard.

Arguing about morality now? I'll add my $0.02 early on...

Morals are matters of opinion. Ok, most people will agree that killing people, rape, arson, treason, and theft are immoral. However, they disagree on whether violence on TV, gay marriage, abortion, euthanasia etc. are moral or immoral. In fact, there are some people who believe in "moral murders" (i.e. honor crimes, or killing a menace to society), but we're not going into them right now. The point is, everyone has their own system of moral values, and no two are exactly the same. Therefore it's virtually impossible to have a single standard of "morals" except by a shared religion. That's why religion came into being in the first place: people needed their morals written down in a book for them. Religion is also a kind of security blanket for insecure people...but that's a tangent. The problem is, people confuse morals with religion. They think that morality = religion and atheist = immorality or amorality. That's not true. Everyone can have morals, not just religious people. Religion is just a moral standard.

/me cowers in corner waiting for flamefest\

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Arguing about morality now? I'll add my $0.02 early on...

Morals are matters of opinion. Ok, most people will agree that killing people, rape, arson, treason, and theft are immoral. However, they disagree on whether violence on TV, gay marriage, abortion, euthanasia etc. are moral or immoral. In fact, there are some people who believe in "moral murders" (i.e. honor crimes, or killing a menace to society), but we're not going into them right now. The point is, everyone has their own system of moral values, and no two are exactly the same. Therefore it's virtually impossible to have a single standard of "morals" except by a shared religion. That's why religion came into being in the first place: people needed their morals written down in a book for them. Religion is also a kind of security blanket for insecure people...but that's a tangent. The problem is, people confuse morals with religion. They think that morality = religion and atheist = immorality or amorality. That's not true. Everyone can have morals, not just religious people. Religion is just a moral standard.

/me cowers in corner waiting for flamefest\

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Look, I've seen much more crazy stuff that wasn't flamed. Have some confidence!

Anyway, I think I've already refuted this. The question I'm asking in this thread is whether you can have any standard comparing two systems. Different people have their own standards, but the problem here is how they debate them. What standards can someone possibly use to determine their personal moral code? If two people have different moral codes (and no matter who they are they do) how should they weigh arguments between eachother?

Doesn't self interest also require a value system though? Various systems of morality also have different concepts of self interest (achieve release or become immortal? love or money?), so you still don't have an objective standard.
how could self interest EVER be considered objective.

there is no objective standard unless you want to give up your judgement to someone elses self interest (jerry fallwell will be glad to take all that responsibility from you)

we just PRETEND that we are being objective when we are merely justifiying our own behavior in some way or other. for many people that standard varies with whatever problem faces them at the time. for example, good catholic girls who get an abortion because taking the pill was banned by the church.

is that cynical?

Well, you could redivide the world up so that countries were based on their morals as opposed to nationalities, etc.

Like 1 place could have no drug laws, but be very anti-gay and anti-abortion, but against the death penalty.

Another place could be pro-choice, drugs are illegal and punishable by death, and they tolerate kids being taught sex ed at the age of 5.

Of course, this would never happen because the parts of the world like to keep their land.

Arguing about morality now? I'll add my $0.02 early on...

Morals are matters of opinion. Ok, most people will agree that killing people, rape, arson, treason, and theft are immoral. However, they disagree on whether violence on TV, gay marriage, abortion, euthanasia etc. are moral or immoral. In fact, there are some people who believe in "moral murders" (i.e. honor crimes, or killing a menace to society), but we're not going into them right now. The point is, everyone has their own system of moral values, and no two are exactly the same. Therefore it's virtually impossible to have a single standard of "morals" except by a shared religion. That's why religion came into being in the first place: people needed their morals written down in a book for them. Religion is also a kind of security blanket for insecure people...but that's a tangent. The problem is, people confuse morals with religion. They think that morality = religion and atheist = immorality or amorality. That's not true. Everyone can have morals, not just religious people. Religion is just a moral standard.

/me cowers in corner waiting for flamefest\

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe
and i would go farther in suggesting that religion is the strong leaders way of keeping the masses in line with HIS morality i.e. his best interest instead of their own.

I'd actually vote for not bothering with the morals. You simply allow as much behavior as you can to give people a macimum amount of freedom. Sure, it won't please everyone, but if they can't live with it, then they're obviously not suited for a diverse society.


(as a stipulation, all of the aforementioned behavior has to be between consenual parties i.e. polygamy)

Look, I've seen much more crazy stuff that wasn't flamed. Have some confidence!

Anyway, I think I've already refuted this. The question I'm asking in this thread is whether you can have any standard comparing two systems. Different people have their own standards, but the problem here is how they debate them. What standards can someone possibly use to determine their personal moral code? If two people have different moral codes (and no matter who they are they do) how should they weigh arguments between eachother?Well, they can't really. A Christian, a Buddhist, and a Hindu arguing, each with different moral codes, would disagree with each other on almost everything. It would turn into a NS-like argument of

Person A: You're wrong!
Person B: No! You're wrong!
Person A: Person B, you are a dumb idiot if you think I'm wrong!
Person B: You dare call me a dumb idiot? You're a #&$^#!
Person A: Well you're a #&*$ &$^#** @*@&#!!
Person B: *gasp* Cursing at me? God will punish you by sending down a firebolt!
Person A: Well if your God can hear me...*sticks out tongue* Na-na-na-na-na! :p
Person B: How dare you! *kills Person A*
Person A: *kills Person B*

And thus the world is rid of two fanatics.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

I'd actually vote for not bothering with the morals. You simply allow as much behavior as you can to give people a macimum amount of freedom. Sure, it won't please everyone, but if they can't live with it, then they're obviously not suited for a diverse society.


(as a stipulation, all of the aforementioned behavior has to be between consenual parties i.e. polygamy)
but doesnt that freedom require a moral code?

what do you DO about the asshole who would enslave others ?

are you morally obligated to smooth out some of the worst unfairness in life....as in giving to charity so that the children of the poor dont starve to death?

are you obligated to intervene when the husband is beating the crap out of his wife?

is it OK when your neighbors turn your whole neighborhood into a crackhouse/brothel thus making your life dangerous and your property worthless?

does freedom not imply responsiblility and thus enforcement of SOME kind?

Well, they can't really. A Christian, a Buddhist, and a Hindu arguing, each with different moral codes, would disagree with each other on almost everything. It would turn into a NS-like argument of

Person A: You're wrong!
Person B: No! You're wrong!
Person A: Person B, you are a dumb idiot if you think I'm wrong!
Person B: You dare call me a dumb idiot? You're a #&$^#!
Person A: Well you're a #&*$ &$^#** @*@&#!!
Person B: *gasp* Cursing at me? God will punish you by sending down a firebolt!
Person A: Well if your God can hear me...*sticks out tongue* Na-na-na-na-na! :p
Person B: How dare you! *kills Person A*
Person A: *kills Person B*

And thus the world is rid of two fanatics.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe
was person C the buddhist who just sat there with a smug smile on his face?

was person C the buddhist who just sat there with a smug smile on his face?

The buddhist set himself on fire. Like in Robin Williams: Live on Broadway.

The fundamentalist Christian and the Muslim were fighting. The buddhist sets himself on fire. The Muslim goes "WTF are you doing?!?!" The buddhist says "Making you deal with your shit!"

The buddhist set himself on fire. Like in Robin Williams: Live on Broadway.

The fundamentalist Christian and the Muslim were fighting. The buddhist sets himself on fire. The Muslim goes "WTF are you doing?!?!" The buddhist says "Making you deal with your shit!"
it does kinda get your attention

was person C the buddhist who just sat there with a smug smile on his face?Actually, the Buddhist was off meditating at that moment, attempting to achieve nirvana.

~Czardas...try and guess

Actually, the Buddhist was off meditating at that moment, attempting to achieve nirvana.

~Czardas...try and guess
freaking hinayanas only think of themselves

While posting on a morality thread it just occurred to me that there is really no way to judge an argument between two moral systems. The only way to weight two things is on some sort of objective standard, so how do you decide which objective standard to use?

You can judge a moral system on its internal consistency and reasoning behind prescribed actions. If it for instance says one must do one thing, while forbidding the result of that action it is internally inconsistent, and therefor flawed. It is also flawed if it prescribes opposite actions in different situations without explaining why something is wrong in situation a, and good in situation b. For instance saying that God must decide who lives and who dies, so forbidding euthanasia - but at the same time allowing lifesaving medical actions. Someone basing their morals around an assumed value of the biological aspect of human life on the other hand would not be inconsistent in this case.

Of course, according to these criteria every moral system based on "God says so and we do not question him" is per definition flawed and therefor inferior. And someone who creates a consistent moral system in which it is ok to murder other people (for instance based around the reasoning: every action should increase *my* standard of living and other people are irrelevant) would not be judged wrong. Though actually making such a system consistent might be harder than you think.