NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm sure this has been done beore but it was probably done a while so I'm doing it again.

People these days seem to be under the impression that Good and Evil are some form of absolute powers independant of human feeling. Some people are under the impression that we can somehow, by looking at nature, determine exactly what Good and Evil are. Others think goodness comes from God. Others still (like myself) think that this whole Good and Evil thing is a bunch of Poppycock. Here are my arguments. Feel free to shoot anyone of the down in flames, except the God one. We've all tried and failed to do that before. I didn't put this thread up to argue God's existance. I can't stress that enough. No bible bashers, no Christian hating Atheists please. Just opinions based on what is written here.

I'm going to outline some of the most popular ethical systems and explain why I think they are wrong.

Christian Ethics
We are told what is Good by God. The Bible and nature are used as sources of God's will. We find what is right and wrong by interpreting the Bible and nature.

Criticism: Firstly there are those that don't believe in God's existance. That rules out Christian ethics for them. Then there is Plato's Euthyphro Dilemma.
Does God command what is good because it is good, or because he can command it? If the first option is true then morality is something independant of God. We as humans could then find this absolute morality and even atheists couldn't argue with it. Since this isn't the case the second option must be true. What is good is good because it comes from God. If God wanted torturing little animals to be good he could make it so and nobody could argue with him. In this case God is the only source of morality. Only christians (I'm using Christianity as an example, this applies to all theistic religions) can be moral.

Kantian Ethics
Something is good if it is done from a sense of duty. The consequences have no effect on the goodness of the act.

Criticism: Implausibility. If a person knows that they are a weak swimmer and panic in the water but still jump in to save a drowning person, if they drown the person in the act it is still considered moral because it was done out of a sense of duty.
Feeling. It is kant's opinion that duty is moral. There were no logical steps taken to show that consequences had no effect on morality.

Utilitarianism
I was once a Utilitarian myself. It is very attractive at first sight.
Since happiness is the only goal of all people in life, happiness is the only good. What is moral is what supplies the greatest ammount of happiness to the greatest number of people. There are several other forms of Utilitarianism but they work on the same principles.

Criticism: Utilitarianism has taken an 'is': 'the goal of all people is happiness', and turned it into a 'should': 'Therefore the goal of all people should be happiness'. There is no ought from is.

Emotivism
Any form of moral absolute is purely an expression of emotion. One person may say "Euthanasia is morally wrong. The dignity of life must be respected" another may say "If I were in terminal pain, I would expect to be killed mercifully" and neither person would be right or wrong. It would just be their emotions, in this case a persons strong emotion that God exists and the other persons sympathy and fear of pain, that motivated a moral statement.

Criticism: None. Philosophers have not been able to directly attack emotivism. The have pointed out that if we all became emotivist society would fall apart because nobody would do the right thing by anybody else. This isn't exactly right. People would recognise this and would be emotianally motivated to do what is in the best interest of society. Some won't care. Some will break the law. Many will be put in prison. Everything remains the same. The only difference is that we can't really call a murderer or a pedophile wrong. We can just say that it is in the best interest of society to lock them away.

So, to conclude, if God exists so does Good and Evil. If God doesn't exist there is no Good and Evil, just emotion. Anybody disagree?

Then explain to me if it's all relative then why does your statement get the exception to be absolute?

I personally think that good and evil do exist in this world. There have to be actions that most would consider evil (like murder), likewise there have to be actions that can be considered wholly good (kindness).

However, before man and the sentience and emotions we carried entered the world there were no concepts of good and evil in nature. There was no murder or kindness, only survival.

Humans created good and evil. We have the capacity to be either.

Then explain to me if it's all relative then why does your statement get the exception to be absolute?

Because my statment isn't a moral one.

Because my statment isn't a moral one.
Right and Wrong are morals. Checkmate.

No. There's right as in morally good and right as in logically sound. :rolleyes:

No. There's right as in morally good and right as in logically sound.

Exactly. It's not as though they're declaring all things to be relative (in which case Superpower's criticism would hold up), only that morality is relative. However, if you don't believe in absolute truth, you could always argue that logic is not objective either, in which case, any self-contradictions you make can be waved away since the claim that an idea must be coherent could just be dismissed as a POV.

So, to conclude, if God exists so does Good and Evil. If God doesn't exist there is no Good and Evil, just emotion. Anybody disagree?

That tends to be my view. Right now, I'm trying to find a way to refute Nietzsche's master morality and will to power form of ethics, but even if I do, I will mostlikely just end up with relativism. A refutation, but one that leads me to a stalemate.

I can't see how anyone could believe in absolute moral relativism without having been brainwashed by perverse and overenthusiastic professors.

I can't see how anyone could believe in absolute moral relativism without having been brainwashed by perverse and overenthusiastic professors.

Absolute moral relativism? Isn't that kind of a contradiction in terms?

Kantian Ethics
Something is good if it is done from a sense of duty. The consequences have no effect on the goodness of the act.

Criticism: Implausibility. If a person knows that they are a weak swimmer and panic in the water but still jump in to save a drowning person, if they drown the person in the act it is still considered moral because it was done out of a sense of duty.
Feeling. It is kant's opinion that duty is moral. There were no logical steps taken to show that consequences had no effect on morality.

Morality has nothing to do with the outcome of an act. Just because something is morally right doesn't mean it's not also the stupidest fucking thing you could do in that situation.

Also, if the person consciously knows how bad they are in the water and that isn't the only option open to them to help the person, than it really wasn't a morally right action.

Exactly. It's not as though they're declaring all things to be relative (in which case Superpower's criticism would hold up), only that morality is relative. However, if you don't believe in absolute truth, you could always argue that logic is not objective either, in which case, any self-contradictions you make can be waved away since the claim that an idea must be coherent could just be dismissed as a POV.



That tends to be my view. Right now, I'm trying to find a way to refute Nietzsche's master morality and will to power form of ethics, but even if I do, I will mostlikely just end up with relativism. A refutation, but one that leads me to a stalemate.

I'm not yet familiar with the works of Nietzsche. I haven't been able to find 'Beyond Good and Evil' anywhere. :(

I'm not yet familiar with the works of Nietzsche. I haven't been able to find 'Beyond Good and Evil' anywhere.

I managed to find it on the net. I don't remember where, I'm afraid, though. I think the wikipedia article on the book has a link to it, though.

Morality has nothing to do with the outcome of an act. Just because something is morally right doesn't mean it's not also the stupidest fucking thing you could do in that situation.

The strongest point in that argument wasn't implausibility. It was that there was no logical basis for assuming that the consequences of an action have nothing to do with it's morality. The point was that it was an expression of Kant's emotion not a logical deduction.

Absolute moral relativism? Isn't that kind of a contradiction in terms?
That's is a contradictory way to put it (and funny, now that you point it out), but I'm talking about how much rope you'll allow and still remain uncritical.
Eventually, you're either really messed up and lost in an ivory tower, or you've ceased to be human.

Right and wrong are not relative. I am always right, anyone who disagrees with me is wrong. There is no middle ground.

*caveat: I am not back, I'm just drunk, and this comment seemed to be worthy of this crazed response.

I managed to find it on the net. I don't remember where, I'm afraid, though. I think the wikipedia article on the book has a link to it, though.

Thanks, but nobody in my family has a credit card so I don't think we can order off the net.

That's is a contradictory way to put it (and funny, now that you point it out), but I'm talking about how much rope you'll allow and still remain uncritical.
Eventually, you're either really messed up and lost in an ivory tower, or you've ceased to be human.

So you know of a solid basis for morality?

Thanks, but nobody in my family has a credit card so I don't think we can order off the net.

Actually, it was just a text file and doesn't cost anything, though I don't recall whether it was pirated or not.

So you know of a solid basis for morality?



Actually, it was just a text file and doesn't cost anything, though I don't recall whether it was pirated or not.

Oh. I'll try and find it then. Thanks.

So you know of a solid basis for morality?
Yes, I believe most humans have an innate understanding that murder, rape and torture are wrong. It's not just a social construct as this basic blueprint for action supercedes borders or cultures. It takes strong will to defy these basic errors, and usually requires modest motivation.
Beyond that, we're talking many more shades of gray.
But that's enough to lead me to believe in at least a few moral absolutes.

Yes, I believe most humans have an innate understanding that murder, rape and torture are wrong. It's not just a social construct as this basic blueprint for action supercedes borders or cultures. It takes strong will to defy these basic errors, and usually requires modest motivation.
Beyond that, we're talking many more shades of gray.
But that's enough to lead me to believe in at least a few moral absolutes.

That is a mixture of social brainwashing and empathy. Society claims that murder is not acceptable because society looks at the best interest of it's members. Also, when you think about somebody being killed or tortured you involuntarily put yourself in their position. You think about what it would be like for you. You then pity yourself. You confuse this self-pity for conscience. This explains the diversity of conscience. Why people are affected differently by different scenarios. Why people have different views on morality.
It can be shown by counter example that these feelings you have are not morality in it's most common form: The feeling you get when you consider somebody being shot is the same feeling a child gets when they are told that the steak they are eating was once a walking talking cow. Clearly killing a cow for food is not immoral. So if the feelings are the same, and they are I've had them both, does that mean that killing a person is also not immoral?

The point is, you're putting yourself in somebody elses position and feeling bad. It's a learned feeling. Not one preprogrammed before birth.

That is a mixture of social brainwashing and empathy. Society claims that murder is not acceptable because society looks at the best interest of it's members. Also, when you think about somebody being killed or tortured you involuntarily put yourself in their position. You think about what it would be like for you. You then pity yourself. You confuse this self-pity for conscience. This explains the diversity of conscience. Why people are affected differently by differently by different scenarios. Why people have different views on morality.
It can be shown by counter example that these feelings yuo have are not morality in it's most common form: The feeling you get when you consider somebody being shot is the same feeling a child gets when they are told that the steak they are eating was once a walking talking cow. Clearly killing a cow for food is not immoral. So if the feelings are the same, and they are I've had them both, does that mean that killing a person is also not immoral?

The point is, you're putting yourself in somebody elses position and feeling bad.

All of that is still just an ivory tower idea that's a little comical for a social animal like ourselves to assume in the first place. :p

Having a conscience doesn't seem to be optional as a default state for our species. We can choose to act as we wish, but it doesn't negate it's existence. We're bound to our state of being, and we seem to have an innate sense of right and wrong, good and evil.
I think it takes more conditioning to erase this trait (unless you're born mentally ill).

All of that is still just an ivory tower idea that's a little comical for a social animal like ourselves to assume in the first place. :p

Pardon my ignorace, but what is an 'Ivory Tower Idea'. It's been a while since I've seen the Neverending Story.

Pardon my ignorace, but what is an 'Ivory Tower Idea'. It's been a while since I've seen the Neverending Story.
The term "Ivory Tower" is used to describe an intellectual haven far removed from reality (or practicality).

The inherent problem in today's outlook on right and wrong is that while murder and steaking can be clearly marked wrong by most anyone and kindness can be marked right by most anyone, we now have huge grey areas making things confusing. For example we can think of gay marriage, drug use, and a host of other issues.

What's right and wrong are not clear because of advances in society and new ideas being ventured upon that were never before.

Historically this has happened many times, with slavery and women's rights for example. Back then it was unclear to many what was right and what was wrong, looking back now it's easier to see the positives and negatives because we can see the events and their impact on society. The very fact that we have to ask, "what's wrong with gay marriage" proves that we have no idea why it's wrong, thus because of the "black and white" mentality we assume that it's right, or at least okay - unless we find some source that we invest ourselves in that says otherwise - such as the Bible. (Yes, I am aware that many claim that the bible says nothing of homosexuality, but it's just not true, I'm sorry - but that's for a different thread)

So, what does the bible represent? A map - for some. For some it is an accurate map, and for others an inacurrate map. Why? Because we believe whatever we want to believe because we, as humans, are biased to our own desires. Some of the most difficult religions, such as Buddhism, Mormonism, etc. require people to push aside their natural insticts and desires and follow another path that is dictated by another party.

But that's just an analysis of the situation - makes you think though doesn't it? Our own conscience demands that there be a right and wrong, and yet so many times we try to find a way out of it because we do not know exactly what is right or exactly what is wrong.

Food for Thought.

All of that is still just an ivory tower idea that's a little comical for a social animal like ourselves to assume in the first place. :p

Having a conscience doesn't seem to be optional as a default state for our species. We can choose to act as we wish, but it doesn't negate it's existence. We're bound to our state of being, and we seem to have an innate sense of right and wrong, good and evil.
I think it takes more conditioning to erase this trait (unless you're born mentally ill).

John Locke wrote an essay on this. It's sitting in my room and I haven't read it yet. :headbang:

John Locke wrote an essay on this. It's sitting in my room and I haven't read it yet. :headbang:
Locke assumed a natural right to liberty, and freedom from authoritarian government. Not suprising that you'd think of him in this conversation.

My relatives are asses, not a one of us is right in the head. It's just wrong.

The inherent problem in today's outlook on right and wrong is that while murder and steaking can be clearly marked wrong by most anyone and kindness can be marked right by most anyone, we now have huge grey areas making things confusing. For example we can think of gay marriage, drug use, and a host of other issues.

What's right and wrong are not clear because of advances in society and new ideas being ventured upon that were never before.

Historically this has happened many times, with slavery and women's rights for example. Back then it was unclear to many what was right and what was wrong, looking back now it's easier to see the positives and negatives because we can see the events and their impact on society. The very fact that we have to ask, "what's wrong with gay marriage" proves that we have no idea why it's wrong, thus because of the "black and white" mentality we assume that it's right, or at least okay - unless we find some source that we invest ourselves in that says otherwise - such as the Bible. (Yes, I am aware that many claim that the bible says nothing of homosexuality, but it's just not true, I'm sorry - but that's for a different thread)

So, what does the bible represent? A map - for some. For some it is an accurate map, and for others an inacurrate map. Why? Because we believe whatever we want to believe because we, as humans, are biased to our own desires. Some of the most difficult religions, such as Buddhism, Mormonism, etc. require people to push aside their natural insticts and desires and follow another path that is dictated by another party.

But that's just an analysis of the situation - makes you think though doesn't it? Our own conscience demands that there be a right and wrong, and yet so many times we try to find a way out of it because we do not know exactly what is right or exactly what is wrong.

Food for Thought.


Yeah, interesting... I will be thinking bout that some more and I may post something more intelligent later, but there's one problem in the first paragraph when talking to CC: he doesn't believe that murder and stealing can be clearly marked wrong and that kindness can be clearly marked right. So yeah, just something to keep in mind while posting here...

Yeah, interesting... I will be thinking bout that some more and I may post something more intelligent later, but there's one problem in the first paragraph when talking to CC: he doesn't believe that murder and stealing can be clearly marked wrong and that kindness can be clearly marked right. So yeah, just something to keep in mind while posting here...

That's right. I don't. And I've got a damned good reason for it.

That's right. I don't. And I've got a damned good reason for it.

*sighs*

I don't really feel like getting into this argument, I just felt like making sure that Eribern knew who he/she was talking to...

*sighs*

I don't really feel like getting into this argument, I just felt like making sure that Eribern knew who he/she was talking to...
But did you really need to? :p

http://markramsey.com/wp-content/captain.obvious.jpg

*sighs*

I don't really feel like getting into this argument, I just felt like making sure that Eribern knew who he/she was talking to...

Lashie, look at the first post. If God exists, there is Right and Wrong, if he doesn't, there isn't. I am, as you know, an Atheist. So unless there is some logical fallacy in my argument which you would care to point out, get the hell off my back because your intolerance is starting to irritate me.

Lashie, look at the first post. If God exists, there is Right and Wrong, if he doesn't, there isn't. I am, as you know, an Atheist. So unless there is some logical fallacy in my argument which you would care to point out, get the hell off my back because your intolerance is starting to irritate me.

Yeah I know I can't prove it from you point of view, which is why I didn't want to get into it...

I just felt like warning Eriben...:(

Yeah I know I can't prove it from you point of view, which is why I didn't want to get into it...

I just felt like warning Eriben...:(

So if you can't show from my point of view that I am wrong, don't get all high and mighty on me when I bring up my view of morality, don't get angry with me because my opinion is different to yours and try and learn some bloody understanding.

CC, you really need to calm down. Lashie is not "being all high and mighty" as you say. Nor is s/he getting angry. S/he is just reminding Eichen of your positions (i.e. your likely reactions), which you later proved highly accurate.

And by the way, don't tell someone to try to understand you when you yourself cannot seem to understand others.

Lashie, look at the first post. If God exists, there is Right and Wrong, if he doesn't, there isn't. I am, as you know, an Atheist. So unless there is some logical fallacy in my argument which you would care to point out, get the hell off my back because your intolerance is starting to irritate me.
Don't let it bother you. You have every right to believe whatever you choose, and you've provided reasons for doing so.
Back on topic: It's important to clarify whether we're philosophically discussing the material world or the collective human experience. Many things that can be said to "exist" (like happiness) don't reside outside of subjective reality. So to definitively argue for or against the existence of intangibles is pointless if we are only to consider that which we can see or touch. Of course, in the end (as a Buddhist) I think that ultimate reality lies beyond dualistic and contradictory concepts like good and evil, but I think these concepts have a very real existence here (even if it's only because we need them to).

If God exists, there is Right and Wrong, if he doesn't, there isn't. I am, as you know, an Atheist. So unless there is some logical fallacy in my argumentI would say that the logical fallacy is assuming that right and wrong can only come from God.

CC, you really need to calm down. Lashie is not "being all high and mighty" as you say. Nor is s/he getting angry. S/he is just reminding Eichen of your positions (i.e. your likely reactions), which you later proved highly accurate.

And by the way, don't tell someone to try to understand you when you yourself cannot seem to understand others.

Thank you for your advice but this is a personal matter between me and Lashie(she) which goes outside of Nationstates. Sorry if it isn't immediately obvious to me, but what exactly don't I understand about other peoples opinions?

I would say that the logical fallacy is assuming that right and wrong can only come from God.

If you'll read the first post in a little more detail I made the point of the Euthyphro dilemma. If morality doesn't come from God then it is independant of him and can therefore be determined by humanity. If this is the case the morality which Christians hold so close to their hearts is then also applicable to atheists, agnostics and apathetics. We should have been able to find this morality since the entire concept of morality came into being. We haven't though. We haven't found it in 6000 years! Any forms of morality we have found can be shown to have logical fallacies, which is why the only remaining option in the Euthyphro dilemma is to accept that morality comes directly from God.

If you'll read the first post in a little more detail I made the point of the Euthyphro dilemma. If morality doesn't come from God then it is independant of him and can therefore be determined by humanity. If this is the case the morality which Christians hold so close to their hearts is then also applicable to atheists, agnostics and apathetics. We should have been able to find this morality since the entire concept of morality came into being. We haven't though. We haven't found it in 6000 years! Any forms of morality we have found can be shown to have logical fallacies, which is why the only remaining option in the Euthyphro dilemma is to accept that morality comes directly from God.How about the Golden Rule? (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.)

How about the Golden Rule? (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.)

What about the golden rule?

What about the golden rule?
Where is the logical fallacy in it?

Where is the logical fallacy in it?

In the axiom.

In the axiom.How so? I mean, granted it could use a little clarification.

[yada yada yada]

Hey! I resent you imposing your morals on me! Surely your not-morals have something to say about imposing beliefs on me!

How so? I mean, granted it could use a little clarification.

The fact that there is a distinct lack of axiom is the logical fallacy.

Hey! I resent you imposing your morals on me! Surely your not-morals have something to say about imposing beliefs on me!

You. Oh, great. First I had what's her face come and annoy the shit out of me and now this. I'm not imposing anything on you. What the hell are you on?

The fact that there is a distinct lack of axiom is the logical fallacy.

CC won't believe anything unless you can extrapolate it from the assumption that 1=1.

You. Oh, great. First I had what's her face come and annoy the shit out of me and now this. I'm not imposing anything on you. What the hell are you on?

*hums* Denial 'aint just a river in Egypt...

I just think its funny that someone who has a fit when Christians tell him about their morals feels he's perfectly entitled to then impose his not-morals on others.

CC won't believe anything unless you can extrapolate it from the assumption that 1=1.

No no. 1 + 1 = 2.

*hums* Denial 'aint just a river in Egypt...

I just think its funny that someone who has a fit when Christians tell him about their morals feels he's perfectly entitled to then impose his not-morals on others.

I was just making sure that my logic was sound. No imposing anything. :(

No no. 1 + 1 = 2.

lol. I love asking you this:

Prove it.

lol. I love asking you this:

Prove it.

You're going to die you realise.

You're going to die you realise.

A reminder "Bruce the Coward":

"Cowards die a thousand deaths. The valiant taste of death but once."
-Will Shakespeare.

What do your not-morals have to say about him?

A reminder "Bruce the Coward":

"Cowards die a thousand deaths. The valiant taste of death but once."
-Will Shakespeare.

What do your not-morals have to say about him?

They say he's another one of those Christian wankers. :sniper:

They say he's another one of those Christian wankers. :sniper:

Commie Catholics: The emotivist, cowardly philistine.

Commie Catholics: The emotivist, cowardly philistine.

Why don't you go have a wank, you Christian wanker.
What do your not-not-morals have to say about that?

Why don't you go have a wank, you Christian wanker.
What do your not-not-morals have to say about that?

Oh, well, Jesus loves you even when you impose your not-morals.

The fact that there is a distinct lack of axiom is the logical fallacy.
So you're saying that because it isn't a well known or universally recognized truth that it must be fallacious?

Oh, well, Jesus loves you even when you impose your not-morals.

:headbang:

Where is the logical fallacy in it?
What's hugely wrong with the Golden Rule, is that it assumes that what you'd want done for yourself is a good thing to do to others. What's good for one may be awful for another.

For instance, I think that keeping myself free of jobs, is a very good thing. However, I believe several million people would be very pissed if I extrapolated that, via the Golden Rule, and somehow got them removed from their jobs. And, the economy would probably tank.
The reverse is also true: I would want to murder anyone responsible for causing me to get a job, and it wouldn't matter that they would be happy to get one themselves.

(For the record, I'm self-employed.)

Fergi America']What's hugely wrong with the Golden Rule, is that it assumes that what you'd want done for yourself is a good thing to do to others. What's good for one may be awful for another.

For instance, I think that keeping myself free of jobs, is a very good thing. However, I believe several million people would be very pissed if I extrapolated that, via the Golden Rule, and somehow got them removed from their jobs. And, the economy would probably tank.
The reverse is also true: I would want to murder anyone responsible for causing me to get a job, and it wouldn't matter that they would be happy to get one themselves.

(For the record, I'm self-employed.)This is why I think it needs some clarification. The Golden Rule should be amended to read "Do unto others as you would have them to unto you if you were in the same position." Being that you are not in the position to want a job, and they are not in the position to want to be unemployed, you would not need to do anything.

The fact that CC disagrees on the issue of murder and kindness, etc. only proves that there is actually that much confusion or grey area. I used those only because they were clear examples to most people, no offense CC, but murder and stealing are both illegal and kindness is not, so its a basic, and I think adequate example.

PS I am a he. lol

So if you can't show from my point of view that I am wrong, don't get all high and mighty on me when I bring up my view of morality, don't get angry with me because my opinion is different to yours and try and learn some bloody understanding.

sorry, I wasn't trying to get all "high and mighty"...

What I would like to bring to this discussion is the concept of emotion, higher thought, and instincts.

For example (taking in the assumption of evolution : which may or may not be right so please dont argue this, take it from where i'm coming) does the instinct for basic survival override the need to even consider morals. If one is starving at what point do the actions become wrong, when he steals from the mouth of another? when he kills another? Does sentience hold any bearing in the killing? Or say the person gives up and starvges to death, is that morally wrong for the lack of appreciation for ones life?
I believe in the course of history the need to survive was all important and morals weren't looked into as much.
Now that those needs are no longer imperative we've begun to look at life differently. Language is imperfect so meanings of words such as altruism, kindness, and even reality, can be argued and debated. You can argue that an individual may even consider the idea of wanting to survive to be immoral in certain instances. But does this higher thought continue on to humanity as a collective or end at individuality? What I mean by this is that is does anyone see all of humanity working towards some moral center, or guidlines that all follow in order to obtain a goal?
Personally I believe their are communities and collectives of individuals which share the same ideals of morality, but these may be contradictory to anothers. And it is easy enough for one group to compete and accuse another of evils. All siding on one side or another for the grey areas of killing killers, torturing tortuers, saving suicides, aborting possibilites, sacrificing life to save life, the greater good, etc. Which bears to wonder if that with higher thought are we dividing into new species based on what we think?
With technology allowing for strives and taking away alot of time consuming work, we are faced with more and more emotion based needs. Spirituality for instance. For many life has a need of purpose, it can't just simply be, there have to be answers, whether it's scientific, reassurance through communication, or concept of eternal life after mortal life. WIth these new needs, and goals in a way, we apply the rules.
I've rambled for a bit now, an in an attempt to sum it up, perspective dictates morality, but only because we realise we're alive.

What I would like to bring to this discussion is the concept of emotion, higher thought, and instincts.

For example (taking in the assumption of evolution : which may or may not be right so please dont argue this, take it from where i'm coming) does the instinct for basic survival override the need to even consider morals. If one is starving at what point do the actions become wrong, when he steals from the mouth of another? when he kills another? Does sentience hold any bearing in the killing? Or say the person gives up and starvges to death, is that morally wrong for the lack of appreciation for ones life?
I believe in the course of history the need to survive was all important and morals weren't looked into as much.
Now that those needs are no longer imperative we've begun to look at life differently. Language is imperfect so meanings of words such as altruism, kindness, and even reality, can be argued and debated. You can argue that an individual may even consider the idea of wanting to survive to be immoral in certain instances. But does this higher thought continue on to humanity as a collective or end at individuality? What I mean by this is that is does anyone see all of humanity working towards some moral center, or guidlines that all follow in order to obtain a goal?
Personally I believe their are communities and collectives of individuals which share the same ideals of morality, but these may be contradictory to anothers. And it is easy enough for one group to compete and accuse another of evils. All siding on one side or another for the grey areas of killing killers, torturing tortuers, saving suicides, aborting possibilites, sacrificing life to save life, the greater good, etc. Which bears to wonder if that with higher thought are we dividing into new species based on what we think?
With technology allowing for strives and taking away alot of time consuming work, we are faced with more and more emotion based needs. Spirituality for instance. For many life has a need of purpose, it can't just simply be, there have to be answers, whether it's scientific, reassurance through communication, or concept of eternal life after mortal life. WIth these new needs, and goals in a way, we apply the rules.
I've rambled for a bit now, an in an attempt to sum it up, perspective dictates morality, but only because we realise we're alive.


Perspective dictates morality. Well put. :fluffle:

Interesting arguments indeed.

I'm inclined to think that morality is part of 'social' construction, be it a secular social construction based upon empathy and emotion, or a religious social construction based upon religious teachings or implemented on our behalf by a greater power.

That is only my thought on the topic though and by no means absolute in any way. I think the key to understanding morality might be best understood by comparing humanity as an animal on this planet with all the other animals. The differences between how humans interact with each other and how animals interact (if there are any differences?) might hold a key to answering the question?

But i think the one thing i would have to make a point about is that humanity is made up of individuals and individuals react differently and will do different things. Some might have empathy to understand why someone is suffering and will do their utmost to reassure them whilst another might think it's a very good time to take advantage, kick them while they're down and get more money out of them!

Honestly though i cannot say, i see a logical strand of argument in all the original poster's differing systems on this issue.

Call me a fence sitter.

What I would like to bring to this discussion is the concept of emotion, higher thought, and instincts.

For example (taking in the assumption of evolution : which may or may not be right so please dont argue this, take it from where i'm coming) does the instinct for basic survival override the need to even consider morals. If one is starving at what point do the actions become wrong, when he steals from the mouth of another? when he kills another? Does sentience hold any bearing in the killing? Or say the person gives up and starvges to death, is that morally wrong for the lack of appreciation for ones life?
I believe in the course of history the need to survive was all important and morals weren't looked into as much.
Now that those needs are no longer imperative we've begun to look at life differently. Language is imperfect so meanings of words such as altruism, kindness, and even reality, can be argued and debated. You can argue that an individual may even consider the idea of wanting to survive to be immoral in certain instances. But does this higher thought continue on to humanity as a collective or end at individuality? What I mean by this is that is does anyone see all of humanity working towards some moral center, or guidlines that all follow in order to obtain a goal?
Personally I believe their are communities and collectives of individuals which share the same ideals of morality, but these may be contradictory to anothers. And it is easy enough for one group to compete and accuse another of evils. All siding on one side or another for the grey areas of killing killers, torturing tortuers, saving suicides, aborting possibilites, sacrificing life to save life, the greater good, etc. Which bears to wonder if that with higher thought are we dividing into new species based on what we think?
With technology allowing for strives and taking away alot of time consuming work, we are faced with more and more emotion based needs. Spirituality for instance. For many life has a need of purpose, it can't just simply be, there have to be answers, whether it's scientific, reassurance through communication, or concept of eternal life after mortal life. WIth these new needs, and goals in a way, we apply the rules.
I've rambled for a bit now, an in an attempt to sum it up, perspective dictates morality, but only because we realise we're alive.


I can't argue with any of that.

It does seem that without a god dictating how people should live that people have to make up their own social rules.

The problem in this is that what may be termed 'good' in one society may be termed 'bad' in another.

Thus surely the concepts of 'good' and 'evil' are relative to what society you live in and other factors.

However if there is a god then right and wrong are not relative but I don't believe in god so :P

Christian Ethics
We are told what is Good by God. The Bible and nature are used as sources of God's will. We find what is right and wrong by interpreting the Bible and nature.

Criticism: Firstly there are those that don't believe in God's existance. That rules out Christian ethics for them. Then there is Plato's Euthyphro Dilemma.
Does God command what is good because it is good, or because he can command it? If the first option is true then morality is something independant of God. We as humans could then find this absolute morality and even atheists couldn't argue with it. Since this isn't the case the second option must be true. What is good is good because it comes from God. If God wanted torturing little animals to be good he could make it so and nobody could argue with him. In this case God is the only source of morality. Only christians (I'm using Christianity as an example, this applies to all theistic religions) can be moral.


Flaw in your criticism of Chirsitian ethics.

It somehow implies that only Christians can follow the teachings of the Christian God. This is not true. Morality can come from God, and the Bible can show it but you dont have to be a Christian to be aware of good and evil. All humans are aware of good and evil since the fall.

Flaw in your criticism of Chirsitian ethics.

It somehow implies that only Christians can follow the teachings of the Christian God. This is not true. Morality can come from God, and the Bible can show it but you dont have to be a Christian to be aware of good and evil. All humans are aware of good and evil since the fall.

Not as such. You will find that there are cultures that are unaware of the concept of good and evil and simply work with the concept of right and wrong.

It does seem that without a god dictating how people should live that people have to make up their own social rules.

The problem in this is that what may be termed 'good' in one society may be termed 'bad' in another.

Thus surely the concepts of 'good' and 'evil' are relative to what society you live in and other factors.

However if there is a god then right and wrong are not relative but I don't believe in god so :P


Which is why i argued it's socially constructed, different societies have different ways of looking at things, even with religion out of the equation. Look at i don't know, eating dogs for example, some countries it's simply not the custom (some think it perhaps morally not right), others well if you want it, you can get it and no one thinks twice about it.

Different customs, different cultures. Entwine religion into it and it's even more complex.

Philosophy is not truth though it is merely opinionated debate.the debate of opinions and none of us will agree with anyone else 100% So you do have to ask, why bother?

Flaw in your criticism of Chirsitian ethics.

It somehow implies that only Christians can follow the teachings of the Christian God. This is not true. Morality can come from God, and the Bible can show it but you dont have to be a Christian to be aware of good and evil. All humans are aware of good and evil since the fall.

Not a flaw as such. A Christian will act morally either because they love God or because they fear God (frequently both). A non-Christian has no reason to act within Christian morals. Christian morals aren't motivated directly by emotion. They are strongly influenced by their religion. They are indirectly influenced by their emotion due to the fact that their morality relies on faith. An atheist whom confines themself to Christian morality has done so because of emotion, not because they have deduced that Christian morality is correct. It is an expression of emotion, which brings us back to my conclusion. That Good and Evil only exist for religious people. Good and Evil in this sense means absolute Good and Evil. Obviously everybody has their own interpretation of what is good, but those interpretations aren't claimed to be absolute like the Christian morality. Agree?

(I'm not directing this at you Neo Danube) I originally started this thread because I was sick of having some Christians enforcing their backward morals on me. They were under the assumption that not believing in God did not excuse you from not believing in morality. Now I've got a damned good justification for my beliefs, all they have is faith. So they can leave me the hell alone.

Which is why i argued it's socially constructed, different societies have different ways of looking at things, even with religion out of the equation. Look at i don't know, eating dogs for example, some countries it's simply not the custom (some think it perhaps morally not right), others well if you want it, you can get it and no one thinks twice about it.

Different customs, different cultures. Entwine religion into it and it's even more complex.

Philosophy is not truth though it is merely opinionated debate.the debate of opinions and none of us will agree with anyone else 100% So you do have to ask, why bother?

It is socially constructed but only if you don't believe in a god as pretty much every major religion claims that theirs is the one true religion that everyone should follow and hence that they know good and evil from their god's divine will or whatever.

Because debating topics like this is interesting sometimes and someone might have thought of something you might have missed:p

It is socially constructed but only if you don't believe in a god as pretty much every major religion claims that theirs is the one true religion that everyone should follow and hence that they know good and evil from their god's divine will or whatever.

Because debating topics like this is interesting sometimes and someone might have thought of something you might have missed:p


Okay! (I can't argue with that either!) :)


With the religion point you raised there, i suppose if you're a monotheist then yes that would be hard to refute.

Right, wrong, good, evil, it all depends on your point of view. What is good for you may be evil for another, and vice-versa. I don't believe in evil, or 'wrong'. I do not believe that anyone, anywhere believes himself to be evil. (insane people aside) I think that one will always do what one believes to be the best thing. For others, or for themselves. Does it matter? For you, 'right' will always be what YOU consider best. Some people will be selfish bastards, yes, but they themselves probably won't experience it as such. They will most likeley feel that they earned whatever they get. (hmm, sounds a bit like karma now that i think about it...except it only applies to positive things). Right and wrong are a very difficult topic. And people will not ever agree about them, because people all look at life differently. (wich, in my perspective, is a good thing...imagine everyone would always agree...the world would be awfully boring). So, right and wrong depend on perspective. Whith this established, we can argue that in fact, right and wrong do not exist. There is no universal 'right' or 'wrong'. It simply depends on what you believe, wether it be religion or something else.

Hmm... I think I just said the same thing 4 times, so I'll just stop now...

Taken out of a conversation I had recently:
"I'm right" "No you'r not, you're left!"

Taking into consideration religous doctrine. Granted the Fall allowed for the knowledge of good and evil, it does not necessarily define good and evil. At the point of the fall (which i believe just represents are ability to now be self aware and have higher thought) it still becomes subjective. Much of doctrine is written by humanity and thus contains that human's biases, it is no longer the word of pre-fall, the purity of instinct without thought of consequence. It is debated and enacted with will and conscious thought.
Even if the writing of the Bible was influenced by the Christian God, it can still hold flaws through the interpreter. A book by another can be used as guideline but ultimately it is what we do and its effects that will cause judgment. There is no way to avoid some form of judgement, whether its Divine, through society, or by community. We all have a sense of perpective and all actions affect and effect all of us accordingly to this perspective even to the point of altering said perspective."

Socrates said (roughly quoted) "Civilization is the ability to hold an ill thought, without enacting it."

I strongly adhere to this statement as well as of that of Thoreau "Most of what my neighbors call good, I am profoundly convinced is evil, and if i repent anything, it is my good conduct that I repent." However this does not make it an absolute. Since it is within the realm of possible good and evil and possible right and wrong, it can be disagreed with. The same goes with religion of all cultures. It is done by man in man's realm therefore its is up to debate.
Ultimately what you have is action, no amount of philosiphising and religious doctrine can take back action, what you do in the world will have consequences the more permament the action the more sever the consequences. Think of it muder to war, the more an ideal is compared to action, the larger the consequences.

With the religion point you raised there, i suppose if you're a monotheist then yes that would be hard to refute.

What would the difference be if you weren't a monotheist?