NationStates Jolt Archive

I had a little discussion about that recenty, and it appears that different people base their moral values on completely different concepts. The two main concepts seem to be the following:

Humanistic
The basis here is the individual and interaction with society. The two main guidelines are the Golden Rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity) and the Harm Principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle), combined with the Non-aggression Principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle). The benefit and welfare of humans and human society are the general measure of this approach.
There can be differences in the emphasis on the individual's rights or on society's obligations.

Religious
Religious scripture and it's interpretation is the basis of moral values. Humans and society on the whole are not the measure, the ultimate goal is to please the deity.
This can take the form of personal morals, applied to one's own life, or the form of morals that are regarded as universal, leading to the perception that everybody ought to follow them.


So, which of these is your moral basis? And are there any approaches I left out?

uh.....am I supposed to say religious even though your definition is biased?

uh.....am I supposed to say religious even though your definition is biased?

Is it? Sorry... that was unintentional. In what way is it biased?
I can amend it...

As long as it harms no one, and infringes on no one's right to property, life, or happiness it's perfectly moral.

Is it? Sorry... that was unintentional. In what way is it biased?
I can amend it...

Humans and society on the whole are not the measure, the ultimate goal is to please the deity.

I don't know. That sentence bothered me. I try to love my neighbor because I feel that it is right and because Jesus said to, not so much to please Him, like I am trying to be good for a bribe.....I could be way off today though.

Certainly not based on religion, besides from being an atheist I think a lot of things religionists see as sins are just silly.

morals? MWHAHAHAA... good joke...

my actions are dicated by will, whim or instinct and morals aren't a consideration... i will however subject myself to the general rules of social interaction but only as long as it is beneficial, not a second more. so yes, i am basically amoral.

Not to sound religious or antyhing, as I'm everything but... But I try to base my morals not so much on "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" But more along the lines of "Do unto others as they do unto others" In other words, if you are a nice person, you should be treated nicely. If you are a non-nice person, you should be treated as such. If you are neither, Thats even better and welcome to the club.

enlightened self interest.

i do what is best for me while understanding that most of the time it also has to be good for everyone else too.

i prefer behavior that improves the tone of society.

i extend myself to help others when there is no big downside to doing so.

over the course of time i have developed opinions based on my experience and the observed experience of others as to what brings a good result and what brings a bad result. i use that experience as a moveable guideline for my own life.

Humans and society on the whole are not the measure, the ultimate goal is to please the deity.

I don't know. That sentence bothered me. I try to love my neighbor because I feel that it is right and because Jesus said to, not so much to please Him, like I am trying to be good for a bribe.....I could be way off today though.

It's really the wording then? As you said, you do it "because Jesus said to".

Wait, as far as I know, the Golden Rule can be found in various religious scriptures... something that your distinction doesn't really take into account.

(compare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity )

Humans and society on the whole are not the measure, the ultimate goal is to please the deity.

I don't know. That sentence bothered me. I try to love my neighbor because I feel that it is right and because Jesus said to, not so much to please Him, like I am trying to be good for a bribe.....I could be way off today though.

Agreed.

Additionally, I would suggest that the OP show's its bias by transposing "The Golden Rule" link from its proper place in the religious section and placing it in the humanist’s side. The Humanists may have 'adopted' the rule for it's own sake but even the link shows the origins to be a religious scripture one (of many different religions as well) and it soundly belongs in that corner.

Such little nuances make the poll options biased. Taking the good from both sides and putting in one corner and suggesting only partial reasons for voting in the other corner.

It's really the wording then? As you said, you do it "because Jesus said to".
yeah, I guess. Maybe like it's a more of a spiritual calling than a functional one.

I don't know how to make that work.

A bit from colum A, a bit from colum B. I agree with Smunkee, I don't do it to make Jesus happy, I do it because it is the right thing to do, He just spelled out the rules as it were.

Humanistic sounds a tad too libertarian for my liking I would say that I reserve the ability to force you to do something if its for your own best interest (and morally I care more about others than myself)

I shall dub my new moral type humantastic!

yeah, I guess. Maybe like it's a more of a spiritual calling than a functional one.

I don't know how to make that work.

Well, there is the question if it's right because god decreed it or if god decreed it because it's right.

Most people in most religions and cultures agree with the Golden Rule, but when it comes to the specifics, such as sexual behaviour or specific eating habits, the moral ideas can differ widely. So, if god decreed that eating shellfish is wrong and that you commit a sin by eating it, is eating shellfish immoral?

A bit from colum A, a bit from colum B. I agree with Smunkee, I don't do it to make Jesus happy, I do it because it is the right thing to do, He just spelled out the rules as it were.

What makes it "the right thing to do", though? That's the question I'm asking here.

Golden Rule and Social Contract Theory.

Golden Rule and Social Contract Theory.

I knew I forgot something... :p

What makes it "the right thing to do", though? That's the question I'm asking here.
Ok, I'll try my best (and honestly, I was just fed 3/4ths of a bottle of sake, so please bear with me).

I view the right thing to do as part of a dual system. On the one hand, you have the concept that, according to the latest findings through genetics, there are just not any real appriciable differences between people. While each person is an indvidual, when looked at, there's no real difference between me and you. Since, we're both the same, or let us say equal, your ideas and values MUST have the same weight as mine. You are equal to me, so yours has to be equal to mine. Given that is the case, I must always (honestly now) consider what you want and need and I must give it as equal a weight as I do my own wants and needs, put myself in your shoes as it were.

You just scale up from there.

However, explaning all of that is rather clumsy and tends to get people's eyes to glaze over, so I use the short cut of "Do unto others as you would have done unto you" and "A new commandment I give you, love your neighbor as you love yourself". I describe myself as Christian because the message of Christ fits very well with my own moral code (or, as I said, a little bit from A, a little bit from B). But I am Christian not because I'm trying to make God happy (Lord knows I've failed at that many times over), but because I find His message worthy to follow.

Like I said, I just got fed a lot of sake, so if that doesn't make any sense what-so-ever, I appologize.

Ok, I'll try my best (and honestly, I was just fed 3/4ths of a bottle of sake, so please bear with me).

I view the right thing to do as part of a dual system. On the one hand, you have the concept that, according to the latest findings through genetics, there are just not any real appriciable differences between people. While each person is an indvidual, when looked at, there's no real difference between me and you. Since, we're both the same, or let us say equal, your ideas and values MUST have the same weight as mine. You are equal to me, so yours has to be equal to mine. Given that is the case, I must always (honestly now) consider what you want and need and I must give it as equal a weight as I do my own wants and needs, put myself in your shoes as it were.

You just scale up from there.

However, explaning all of that is rather clumsy and tends to get people's eyes to glaze over, so I use the short cut of "Do unto others as you would have done unto you" and "A new commandment I give you, love your neighbor as you love yourself". I describe myself as Christian because the message of Christ fits very well with my own moral code (or, as I said, a little bit from A, a little bit from B). But I am Christian not because I'm trying to make God happy (Lord knows I've failed at that many times over), but because I find His message worthy to follow.

Like I said, I just got fed a lot of sake, so if that doesn't make any sense what-so-ever, I appologize.


No, it does make perfect sense, actually. What you're saying is that you are religious, but that you don't take your moral values from that. They just happen to coincide largely with those established by your religion.

No, it does make perfect sense, actually. What you're saying is that you are religious, but that you don't take your moral values from that. They just happen to coincide largely with those established by your religion.
Sounds a lot like me, to be honest.

No, it does make perfect sense, actually. What you're saying is that you are religious, but that you don't take your moral values from that. They just happen to coincide largely with those established by your religion.

I could argue that ALL morality is from religion (if religion is used to mean from God, in this case), even when we don’t' choose to believe in God, we still would have morality IF God is real despite our insistence to the contrary.

Our personal thoughts about moralities affect our everyday choices, and these daily decisions are directed by our thoughts on morality’s origins. However, do we each choose for ourselves where the sense of right and wrong derives from or simply acknowledge that they exist? Can we deny their existence even when we differ on where we think they came from? I say no. We all have a morality of outlook, of right and wrong, or fairness etc.

One side holds to the idea that this conscience is a matter of our desires through evolutionary development, the other side argues that our ideas of right and wrong, and fairness, are "programmed" into each of us from God through creation (regardless of how creation was accomplished, even if through some evolutionary processes, the intent and direction are the relevant aspects of this point).

Christianity can be said to be endorsing this later outlook, even in the writings of Paul it can be found where this is a long thought of discourse into theology (not a new age idea), when he pointed out that even those who do not believe in God frequently obey God's laws as given in the old testament and the ten Commandments.

"Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them." (Romans 2:14-15).

Thus, God created in us a desire to be near to and like ‘fairness and morality’ even when we disagree on what exactly that details. We have no choice but to ‘believe’ in it because it was built into us.

Additionally, the opposing ‘humanist’ side equally takes away our choice in the matter of morality or not. Those who do not believe in God are left with the determination that we must have developed our decisions making abilities based solely on our forefathers need to survive. What we call our ethics, then, would be based on learned behavior and genetics of survivors breeding it into us, rather than part of individual choices.

We can only choose to believe in where our morality comes from, we cannot rationally choose to believe that there is no morality. We share it in common with each other and we notice when others don’t utilize it.

Arguing if we choose to follow morality because God built it into us or if Evolutionary chance built it into us is the only real answer to this poll. The morality of right and wrong is self evident to both humanists and religious believers.

Both. I have my own moral code that mostly coincides with that of Christianity. I try to follow the example set by Jesus, but sometimes I base morality on what I think is just, instead of what God says is right (ie. I think some people deserve the death penalty).

I had a little discussion about that recenty, and it appears that different people base their moral values on completely different concepts. The two main concepts seem to be the following:

Humanistic
The basis here is the individual and interaction with society. The two main guidelines are the Golden Rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity) and the Harm Principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle), combined with the Non-aggression Principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle). The benefit and welfare of humans and human society are the general measure of this approach.
There can be differences in the emphasis on the individual's rights or on society's obligations.

Religious
Religious scripture and it's interpretation is the basis of moral values. Humans and society on the whole are not the measure, the ultimate goal is to please the deity.
This can take the form of personal morals, applied to one's own life, or the form of morals that are regarded as universal, leading to the perception that everybody ought to follow them.


So, which of these is your moral basis? And are there any approaches I left out?

I have several moral viewpoints, which I change like you change your jackets and pants.

It depends on my situation.

Normally, religious-based morals are sufficient for getting along on a day to day basis.

I do revert to simplistic survival morality if physically threatened.

And, in terms of international affairs, I don't believe that morality applies.

I don't have morals. I live more by guidelines that may shift to fit my needs.

I don't have morals. I live more by guidelines that may shift to fit my needs.

At least you're honest. :p

...
Arguing if we choose to follow morality because God built it into us or if Evolutionary chance built it into us is the only real answer to this poll. The morality of right and wrong is self evident to both humanists and religious believers.

Only it isn't always, is it?

Personally, I find the idea that a widow should jump on the funeral pyre of her husband morally appaling, while some Hindus might claim it's immoral for her not to do so.
I would consider it a crime and highly immoral to mutilate a young girl by cutting of her external sexual organs, but there are societies in Africa who would consider girls with intact sexual organs immoral, and they will argue that their religion demands it.
I don't consider a person who has sex with changing partners to be immoral, whereas many Christians will tell me otherwise.

And I think the reason for this is that I don't "believe" in moralistic behaviour, let alone moralistic behaviour specified by any religion, but see it as necessary for society to function.

I could argue that ALL morality is from religion (if religion is used to mean from God, in this case), even when we don’t' choose to believe in God, we still would have morality IF God is real despite our insistence to the contrary.

I think our basic moral compass may very well have been given to us by God (I'm not convinced yet), but I think morality is still something you learn. The debate I've had many times with people is:

If a person grew up on an island completely seperated from any human contact and didn't know other humans existed, would he develope a sense of morality?

I think we have to learn morality from society because what use is it to know that stealing is wrong if there is nobody to steal from? How would you arrive at the conclusion that stealing is wrong if you never have the opportunity to contemplate what it would be like to steal or be stolen from?

We can only choose to believe in where our morality comes from, we cannot rationally choose to believe that there is no morality.

Maybe it is possible to have no sense of morality.

My morals are based on neither a religious or humanist model.

Instead, they're alcoholist!

No, it does make perfect sense, actually. What you're saying is that you are religious, but that you don't take your moral values from that. They just happen to coincide largely with those established by your religion.

Depending on how a person approaches religion, it may appear to be this way, without really being this way.

For those of us who are constantly questioning our religion (as I believe we shoudl be), our religion is changing with new experiences, with new ways of looking at things, etc. They may not appear to be drastic changes, especially from an outside viewpoint, but they are changes nonetheless. We can think about morals within the religious context and outside of it. Our moral code is affected by our religion and our religion is affected by our moral code - both developing together - intertwined.

In this way, you can't separate it into "humanistic" and "religious" approaches (and I definitely wouldn't confine religious approaches solely to scriptural study). The two are inseparable in some people.

Damn thats a hard one. I guess I am a bit of a prescriptivist, I base my morals on what would benefit society and help others and to prevent harm to society and others. Although it's most likely that most of our morals come from our upbringing and beliefs that was taught to us.

Sometimes though I feel I must have some sort of concience in me, something unexplanable that makes certain actions just seem wrong.

Only it isn't always, is it?

Personally, I find the idea that a widow should jump on the funeral pyre of her husband morally appaling, while some Hindus might claim it's immoral for her not to do so.

Because they beleive that the couple will begin life anew in the afterlife (whatever that might be) they believe the couple should stay together, as good for them both and they will be happy in the afterlife. And you don't believe they will be together in the afterlife, you think that the woman should stay alive and be happy for the remainder of her years here on earth. Thus, BOTH of you share the morility of trying to get happiness for the woman, you simply disagree on where that happiness should be found, you both believe in the existence of a right and wrong.


I would consider it a crime and highly immoral to mutilate a young girl by cutting of her external sexual organs, but there are societies in Africa who would consider girls with intact sexual organs immoral, and they will argue that their religion demands it.

Because both you and they are thinking of what is best for the girl when she is older, you both share a moralistic viewpoint, desiring what is best for her. Only you both disagree on what is best for her...


I don't consider a person who has sex with changing partners to be immoral, whereas many Christians will tell me otherwise.

Same again. You think, "what is best for the individual," and the other side thinks of what is best for the individual, only you don't agree on what that is. One side says keeping the marriage intimacy for each other is best for the couple, the other side thinks that the marriage will be better if they aren't restricted. One side claims sexual freedom is liberating while the other thinks it will only lead to future heartbreaks and exposure to unnecesary risks...


And I think the reason for this is that I don't "believe" in moralistic behaviour, let alone moralistic behaviour specified by any religion, but see it as necessary for society to function.

If you don't have an internal morality you can't control by logic alone, how could you 'feel' bad for those you mentioned above? What part of you creates the feeling of sympathy and an idea of injustice? I suggest that you do have a morality even if you don't think you do.

I don't think it's as black and white as 'religious or humanistic'. I take my moral lead from the christian (presbyterian) thinking absorbed while growing up, but I'm not a slave to it - the way I was brought up and the culture I'm part of also encourages humanism, and a secular perspective, including an element of moral relativism.

I don't think the 'religious' definition is nearly as narrow, impersonal, and dogmatic as its portrayed in the OP; it's not something I recognise in any of the religious folk I know.

As long as it harms no one, and infringes on no one's right to property, life, or happiness it's perfectly moral.

Sometimes harming another can be moral, indeed sometimes it's the only moral thing to do. My favorite example is shooting someone who is about to blow up a busload of nuns children and little baby kittens with an RPG. This is why I felt I could vote for neither choice. The way the choices are worded I could not see that harming people is sometimes nesisary and still have non-religously based morals.

I also think the premise of this question is a bit slanted, since I believe that things aren't right because God says them, but that he says them because they are right.

I also think the premise of this question is a bit slanted, since I believe that things aren't right because God says them, but that he says them because they are right.

Of course, if you think (as many do) that God is completely good and all goodness comes from God, the distinction doesn't even make sense. It turns into a chicken and egg problem.

Both seem to have so much overlap that it doesn't matter much which to pick.

Of course, if you think (as many do) that God is completely good and all goodness comes from God, the distinction doesn't even make sense. It turns into a chicken and egg problem.

I think of it that God also understands good in a way we can't understand while on Earth. So he's good for advice like that.

I draw my morality from popular advertising campaigns and things I see typed on the back of soda bottles.
Thus, we get the 4 Commandments:

1. Lo, when thou hast success, thou shalt share they bounty, whether it be tickets to the Super Bowl or a trip to Europe, as the Almighty Coca-Cola company always provides gifts in the plural.

2. And he that first discovers good fortune shall spread it to his friends, that he may profit $25 for each that joins him in his celebration.

3. Apply HeadOn to thy forehead every night and day, insect, for it is only by continual application of this substance that thou shalt preserve thy soul from being consumed by the Old Ones.

4. Hold a man not to an unwilling bargain, but, rather, allow him a period of no less than 14 days to determine if his exchange is truely good for him.

I draw my morality from popular advertising campaigns and things I see typed on the back of soda bottles.
Thus, we get the 4 Commandments:

1. Lo, when thou hast success, thou shalt share they bounty, whether it be tickets to the Super Bowl or a trip to Europe, as the Almighty Coca-Cola company always provides gifts in the plural.

2. And he that first discovers good fortune shall spread it to his friends, that he may profit $25 for each that joins him in his celebration.

3. Apply HeadOn to thy forehead every night and day, insect, for it is only by continual application of this substance that thou shalt preserve thy soul from being consumed by the Old Ones.

4. Hold a man not to an unwilling bargain, but, rather, allow him a period of no less than 14 days to determine if his exchange is truely good for him.


I love you. :)

I love you. :)
What a coincidence, I love me, too.
We could start a club.

Because they beleive that the couple will begin life anew in the afterlife (whatever that might be) they believe the couple should stay together, as good for them both and they will be happy in the afterlife. And you don't believe they will be together in the afterlife, you think that the woman should stay alive and be happy for the remainder of her years here on earth. Thus, BOTH of you share the morility of trying to get happiness for the woman, you simply disagree on where that happiness should be found, you both believe in the existence of a right and wrong.



Because both you and they are thinking of what is best for the girl when she is older, you both share a moralistic viewpoint, desiring what is best for her. Only you both disagree on what is best for her...



Same again. You think, "what is best for the individual," and the other side thinks of what is best for the individual, only you don't agree on what that is. One side says keeping the marriage intimacy for each other is best for the couple, the other side thinks that the marriage will be better if they aren't restricted. One side claims sexual freedom is liberating while the other thinks it will only lead to future heartbreaks and exposure to unnecesary risks...


Wrong on all accounts.

If the woman wants to jump on the funeral pyre, I'm not going to stop her. It's her life, she can do with it as she sees fit.
If a woman wants to have her clitoris and labia removed, I will not try and intervene. But I would asked all involved to not do it to an uninformed child, children require special protection in my eyes.
If someone wants to wait until he or she gets married before they have sex, it's none of my business. I'm not going to force them to fuck around.

The examples I listed were examples of religious morals being forced on people by the society they live in, without reflection (ok, with the exception of the last one in most of the Western world), but I actually listed them as an example how vast the differences between different religious values can be, and how quite often they clash directly with humanistic values.


If you don't have an internal morality you can't control by logic alone, how could you 'feel' bad for those you mentioned above? What part of you creates the feeling of sympathy and an idea of injustice? I suggest that you do have a morality even if you don't think you do.


It's called compassion, and it doesn't have much to do with moral values. I also feel sympathetic for every person on death row in US prisons, regardless of what crimes they may have comitted.
And who said I don't have morality? Of course I do. But I don't believe that my values are absolute and applicable to everybody on the planet.

Compassion and empathy (so, more of the first one, obviously). How I try and practice/encourage practice of morals includes practicality/rationality.

Sometimes harming another can be moral, indeed sometimes it's the only moral thing to do. My favorite example is shooting someone who is about to blow up a busload of nuns children and little baby kittens with an RPG. This is why I felt I could vote for neither choice. The way the choices are worded I could not see that harming people is sometimes nesisary and still have non-religously based morals.

I think you may have overlooked the fact that I included the Harm Principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle) in my description of the humanistic approach:

The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

It kills me that 'logic' or 'reason' is not an option, and that the only possibilities the OP apparently considers for a moral base are arbitrary superstition, altruism-collectivism, or no morals. Jerry Falwell, Karl Marx, or Dr. Evil.

I follow a religion - specifically, Judaism. I try to work out a moral system in that context. I do have a good reason for following G-d's rules on life - He's infinitely smarter than I am, and knows better.

Oh, and yes, sometimes killing is the right thing to do. If you stand by and let A kill B, you have committed a grave sin.

So, which of these is your moral basis? And are there any approaches I left out?

Morals schmorals let's get nekkid and try something completely different

I guess that I would go with Humanistic. I firmly believe that morals should be designed soley around the concept of not harming one's self or others.

While I think that some religions cover this concept in their teachings, I don't really feel that I need religion to tell me what is right or wrong. I think I would know that running an elderly lady over and over again with my car would be wrong without a religion telling me so. On the flipside, certain religions have concepts that I feel are morally wrong to my personal view.

Morals base themselves on me.

Morals base themselves on me.

In Soviet Russia?

It kills me that 'logic' or 'reason' is not an option, and that the only possibilities the OP apparently considers for a moral base are arbitrary superstition, altruism-collectivism, or no morals. Jerry Falwell, Karl Marx, or Dr. Evil.

Altruism is not equivalent to collectivism and certainly need not be associated with Karl Marx.

"Logic", independent of starting normative propositions, is fairly useless. "Reason", being somewhat broader, could conceivably include intuitive moral precepts, but to the extent that it seems to they are mostly the ones you dismiss out of hand as "altruism-collectivism."

I had a little discussion about that recenty, and it appears that different people base their moral values on completely different concepts. The two main concepts seem to be the following:

Humanistic
The basis here is the individual and interaction with society. The two main guidelines are the Golden Rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity) and the Harm Principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle), combined with the Non-aggression Principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle). The benefit and welfare of humans and human society are the general measure of this approach.
There can be differences in the emphasis on the individual's rights or on society's obligations.

Religious
Religious scripture and it's interpretation is the basis of moral values. Humans and society on the whole are not the measure, the ultimate goal is to please the deity.
This can take the form of personal morals, applied to one's own life, or the form of morals that are regarded as universal, leading to the perception that everybody ought to follow them.


So, which of these is your moral basis? And are there any approaches I left out?

Humanistic, definitely.

Oh, and yes, sometimes killing is the right thing to do. If you stand by and let A kill B, you have committed a grave sin.

The given is that if A kills B and I stand by and do not kill then I commit sin. I have several options then,

1)Stand by bloodless and commit sin
2) Murder A after he kills B and commit sin
3) Murder A before he kills B and remain sinless
4)Murder B before A can and remain sinless
6)Murder both A and B to insure that I remain sinless since death seems to be part of the social intercourse between A&B at any rate

A bit from colum A, a bit from colum B. I agree with Smunkee, I don't do it to make Jesus happy, I do it because it is the right thing to do, He just spelled out the rules as it were.

I suppose one could say that you do it because it is the right thing to do, but it is the right thing to do because Jesus said so. That is, if you believe God created morals, you believe they are good. To conclude: Everything God says is good; God says to do A; THUS A is good. Having a relgious basis does not mean you have different morals, it just means they come from a deity, and not nature. (Although one could say nature comes from God... it's all very confusing).

Ug.

If the religious option in this poll actually reflected my beliefs, I think I'd have to reject them.

Eating shellfish is not a moral issue, it's an obedience issue.

Most behaviours can be right or wrong depending on context while some general behaviours can be wrong or immoral.

In Christianity, Jesus pointed out that John the Baptist did not drink alcohol, but that Jesus himself did.
Yet some Christians would have you believe that drinking alcohol is a moral issue.

For some people drinking is wrong, for others, it is not and that is consistent with a "religious" belief. Both types of people should respect the choices/calling/restrictions that the other live with.

It kills me that 'logic' or 'reason' is not an option, and that the only possibilities the OP apparently considers for a moral base are arbitrary superstition, altruism-collectivism, or no morals. Jerry Falwell, Karl Marx, or Dr. Evil.

Fair enough, I did say that there might be some options I didn't think of.
However, I don't honestly see how you can arrive at moral values through logic and reason alone. Could you elaborate that?

I had a little discussion about that recenty, and it appears that different people base their moral values on completely different concepts. The two main concepts seem to be the following:

Humanistic
The basis here is the individual and interaction with society. The two main guidelines are the Golden Rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity) and the Harm Principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle), combined with the Non-aggression Principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle). The benefit and welfare of humans and human society are the general measure of this approach.
There can be differences in the emphasis on the individual's rights or on society's obligations.

Religious
Religious scripture and it's interpretation is the basis of moral values. Humans and society on the whole are not the measure, the ultimate goal is to please the deity.
This can take the form of personal morals, applied to one's own life, or the form of morals that are regarded as universal, leading to the perception that everybody ought to follow them.


So, which of these is your moral basis? And are there any approaches I left out?

Possibly the "fundamentally and intractably selfish" approach. It works for me.

Certainly not based on religion, besides from being an atheist I think a lot of things religionists see as sins are just silly.

Especially since they tend to regard their own religious taboo as obsolete (so, Pat Robertson, what was that bit about rich men, camels, and the eyes of needles?). Then the turn around and pretend that things that are not addressed (like dungeons and dragons) or are even encouraged (drinking and using natural herbal drugs like pot and opium) are sins.

Those things were 'banned' not because the bible said so, but because the ministers percieved a disruptive influence in the secular world.

Even religous values are just secular ones enforced by boogeymen. And not the good kind of the KC and the Sunshine Band variety. They're not about getting into heaven, even if they ever were. They're about making rich and influential people happy.

Morals schmorals let's get nekkid and try something completely different

Like chasing men off of cliffs, with their consent?

It kills me that 'logic' or 'reason' is not an option, and that the only possibilities the OP apparently considers for a moral base are arbitrary superstition, altruism-collectivism, or no morals.

Logic tells us fuck all about moral values. Sure it tells us how we can structure arguments concerning said values or show us how they interact or contradict with each other, but that is all. It doesn't tell us what the content of moral propositions should be.

Of course, I could be all muddle-headed about this, so would you like to provide an example of a moral value based entirely on logic?

to me, the humanistic theory of self-actualization actually seems a bit too self-serving. I feel more drawn to the spiritual notion of Christlikeness. Maybe those two concepts are one in the same, but hey whatever works

[QUOTE=
Of course, I could be all muddle-headed about this, so would you like to provide an example of a moral value based entirely on logic?[/QUOTE]

Just read Part II of the Leviathan to see what a purely logic-based argument can do to the notion of statecraft. In Hobbes' opinion, it leads to totalitarianism. In my opinion, a purely logical argument got him to a ridiculous result. He has a lot of things going for him, and many of his individual ideas are way before his time, but when he starts to apply his fear-based "state of nature" that he happened upon because of his tendencies to ultimate logic, that's where i get lost.

Just read Part II of the Leviathan to see what a purely logic-based argument can do to the notion of statecraft. In Hobbes' opinion, it leads to totalitarianism. In my opinion, a purely logical argument got him to a ridiculous result. He has a lot of things going for him, and many of his individual ideas are way before his time, but when he starts to apply his fear-based "state of nature" that he happened upon because of his tendencies to ultimate logic, that's where i get lost.

You miss the point entirely: logic tells us only how to structure propositions, not what the content of propositions should be.

My morals are based on my own self-preservation, it's that simple.

I picked humanistic, but it's really more complex than that. I was raised in a Judeo-Christian culture, so I have pretty much imprinted a Judeo-Christian moral base even though I am an agnostic-pagan by belief. I have divested myself of some of the more ridiculous sexual taboos, but I still have strong beliefs concerning violence, theft, killing etc. I would have to say that my moral values are based in both the humanistic and religious, with a stronger bias to the humanistic.

I think you may have overlooked the fact that I included the Harm Principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle) in my description of the humanistic approach:

I misunderstood the meaning of the harm principle. I access from a public library that allows me only one hour a day and don't always have time to click and read each link, your post was rather linky.

mine based on what functions me best.
i'm a naturally violent person, but i dont murder people randomly cause i might kill someone who may serve me well in the future. i only mug people when i'm hungry.

At least you're honest. :p

Which is rare since most the time I'm a liar:p

my morals are baised on my Religion but they are not baised exsclusively on my religion.

Altruism is not equivalent to collectivism and certainly need not be associated with Karl Marx.

"Logic", independent of starting normative propositions, is fairly useless. "Reason", being somewhat broader, could conceivably include intuitive moral precepts, but to the extent that it seems to they are mostly the ones you dismiss out of hand as "altruism-collectivism."

I apologize for the lack of elaboration - when I say logic or reason, I mean the application of logic to a set of axiomatic premises. For example, A=A, and the assignment of the quality of actorship to the individual mind. 'Intuitive moral precepts' are just a codephrase for 'arbitrary gut feelings' that justify Nazism as much as they do democracy.

Logic tells us fuck all about moral values. Sure it tells us how we can structure arguments concerning said values or show us how they interact or contradict with each other, but that is all. It doesn't tell us what the content of moral propositions should be.

Of course, I could be all muddle-headed about this, so would you like to provide an example of a moral value based entirely on logic?

Gladly. Given the axiomatic propositions that the qualities of actorship and volition are assigned to the consciousness of an individual, and that A=A, we derive the quality of self-ownership, in that an individual who involuntarily alters the decisions of another person away from their natural rationally self-interested reaction to a situation is attempting to substitute their quality of volition, B, for that person's, A, thus attempting to make A=A and A=B simultaneously, when A is, being someone else's consciousness, !=B. This is an attempted logical contradiction, and thus given a logical standard the root of an immoral or unethical act. Ergo, we derive the logically based moral obligation of every individual not to violate the volition of other individuals, a.k.a. the right to self-ownership.

From the right to self-ownership we derive everything from prohibitions of theft and murder to rights to property and freedom of expression: a moral-ethical code.

What do you base your moral values on?

Whatever the hell I damn well please.

I apologize for the lack of elaboration - when I say logic or reason, I mean the application of logic to a set of axiomatic premises. For example, A=A, and the assignment of the quality of actorship to the individual mind.

I replied to your argument from those principles on another thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11713442&postcount=53) already.

'Intuitive moral precepts' are just a codephrase for 'arbitrary gut feelings' that justify Nazism as much as they do democracy.

Maybe your intuitive moral precepts justify Nazism as much as they do democracy, but mine don't.

Both religious (Hinduism) and humanism/self-consciousness. If it conflicts, I choose what my self-consciousness says.

I replied to your argument from those principles on another thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11713442&postcount=53) already.

Sorry - I only have the time to get on here occasionally nowadays, so my contributions tend to be a lot shorter-run than they used to be.

I hope you don't mind if I quote that post in this thread, so as to avoid necromancy.

You cannot "succeed" if you intend a contradiction.

Your intention is an effect whose method is an attempt at a contradiction. You cannot succeed in a contradiction, but though you do not actually create a contradiction, your efforts create the effect you were looking for, and thus you can be said to 'succeed' in your intention.

The fact that he succeeds in his attempt - and he does, for he has managed to coerce his victim into submitting to his will - is proof that he does not intend a contradiction. All he intends to do is to add "another factor" strong enough to successfully coerce his victim.

That being a factor that replaces his victim's will to act with his own, and shifts his decision-making away from a natural, rationally self-interested reaction.

Edit: And even if he could supplant his victim's actorship with his own, that is no more contradictory than painting a blue ball red is.

A better analogy would be to paint a red ball simultaneously pure blue and pure red, which is a contradiction. The ball is always immutably blue (I'm equating blue with the individual's consciousness here) but the coercive painter wants it to be totally red.

That's kind of a twisted and limited metaphor, but I'm running with what I've got. Bear with me. :)

No, that is equivocation.

In one case "self-ownership" means the capability to consciously choose one's own actions, and in the other it means that others do not attempt to coercively influence one's actions.

Self-ownership is not merely a capacity - it is a property right, in a manner of speaking. It's implied in the word - you don't merely have the capacity to control your actions, you own your decision-making agency.

Maybe your intuitive moral precepts justify Nazism as much as they do democracy, but mine don't.

Precisely - whose 'intuitive moral precepts' are right? Given that they are arbitrary and baseless, whose should we follow, and why? What makes one any more correct, legitimate, or objective than another?

Sorry - I only have the time to get on here occasionally nowadays, so my contributions tend to be a lot shorter-run than they used to be.

Don't worry about it, I just didn't want to repeat myself.

Your intention is an effect whose method is an attempt at a contradiction. You cannot succeed in a contradiction, but though you do not actually create a contradiction, your efforts create the effect you were looking for, and thus you can be said to 'succeed' in your intention.

I think you are trying to have it both ways.

Either I intend a contradiction, or I do not.

If I do, then I cannot succeed in my attempt - but I do succeed. Thus, I cannot intend a contradiction.

Yes, my efforts create the effect I was looking for - that is precisely the point. The effect I was looking for is not contradictory; I do not intend a contradiction. I don't see why you insist that I do, there is no reason I would.

That being a factor that replaces his victim's will to act with his own, and shifts his decision-making away from a natural, rationally self-interested reaction.

Yes, but that still is merely compulsion of his victim's will, not the replacement of his victim's will with his.

You may say that there is no effective difference, but there is; in one case the quality of actorship is eliminated, in the other, it is merely freedom (not free will or actorship) that has been denied to the victim.

The person performing the coercion can get his will either way, and that is all he intends.

A better analogy would be to paint a red ball simultaneously pure blue and pure red, which is a contradiction. The ball is always immutably blue (I'm equating blue with the individual's consciousness here) but the coercive painter wants it to be totally red.

What about death? Is that a "contradiction," too? After all, the person is "immutably" conscious; thus he cannot die.

Of course, it's clear that he can; you are confusing immutability with essentiality. While free will may be part of the essence of personhood, nothing about the example demonstrates that personhood must have unending existence (and, obviously, it does not). Theoretically, through, say, a mind control machine, the coercive person could deprive his victim of free will, and thus of personhood. There is no "contradiction" there, any more than there is in melting snow (which, essentially, is unmelted.)

But let me give you all of these points, and for the purposes of argument assume it's a contradiction. So what? Why should I care? After all, I get what I want anyway.

Self-ownership is not merely a capacity - it is a property right, in a manner of speaking. It's implied in the word - you don't merely have the capacity to control your actions, you own your decision-making agency.

Thus, you cannot move from free will/actorship to self-ownership; they are different qualities.

Precisely - whose 'intuitive moral precepts' are right? Given that they are arbitrary and baseless, whose should we follow, and why? What makes one any more correct, legitimate, or objective than another?

Nothing. There is no objective moral truth.

I happen (definitionally) to like mine more than other people's, so I construct a moral system based on them.

I think you are trying to have it both ways.

Either I intend a contradiction, or I do not.

If I do, then I cannot succeed in my attempt - but I do succeed. Thus, I cannot intend a contradiction.

Yes, my efforts create the effect I was looking for - that is precisely the point. The effect I was looking for is not contradictory; I do not intend a contradiction. I don't see why you insist that I do, there is no reason I would.

My point is that the method you attempt to utilize to achieve your desired effect is one of contradiction; the desired end which you attempted to realize through contradiction has been realized by the closest non-contradictory analogue, such being the nature of the universe, so you can be said to have succeeded in what you were aiming for. Since the intended method was one of contradiction, regardless of what actually happened to achieve the desired end, you attempted a contradiction which failed in such a way that the contradiction's desired result was still achieved.

So in a way I am having it both ways - the person succeeded and failed, both. Different parts of their intention had different results.

Yes, but that still is merely compulsion of his victim's will, not the replacement of his victim's will with his.

You may say that there is no effective difference, but there is; in one case the quality of actorship is eliminated, in the other, it is merely freedom (not free will or actorship) that has been denied to the victim.

But the result and intention are the same - they have the same purpose and the same consequence, and the only reason the method is any different is because contradiction in the physical universe is impossible, leading to a path-of-least-resistance action that most closely approximates the attempted contradiction.

The person performing the coercion can get his will either way, and that is all he intends.

In place or at the expense of the other person's will, that will being the natural and logical director of that person's actions.

What about death? Is that a "contradiction," too? After all, the person is "immutably" conscious; thus he cannot die.

A conscious person - a.k.a. a living person - is immutably conscious. It's a tautology. If he dies, he is no longer conscious and thus the tautology no longer applies.

Of course, it's clear that he can; you are confusing immutability with essentiality. While free will may be part of the essence of personhood, nothing about the example demonstrates that personhood must have unending existence (and, obviously, it does not). Theoretically, through, say, a mind control machine, the coercive person could deprive his victim of free will, and thus of personhood. There is no "contradiction" there, any more than there is in melting snow (which, essentially, is unmelted.)

The problem is that the melting of snow and the painting of balls are not volitional or self-aware; thus they lack the moral applicability and rights of a sapient entity.

But let me give you all of these points, and for the purposes of argument assume it's a contradiction. So what? Why should I care? After all, I get what I want anyway.

You asked me how to base a morality off of logic: you didn't ask why you should care if you are behaving irrationally.

I happen (definitionally) to like mine more than other people's, so I construct a moral system based on them.

That works well enough for you, but not for a system or group. If you're looking for the best, most legitimate, etc. moral code, the criterion of 'what makes Soheran like it better' isn't much of a standard. Thus the need for an objective basis that you can justifiably apply and extrapolate.

Also, it's a rather poorly justified belief if your gut feeling is its only basis.

My point is that the method you attempt to utilize to achieve your desired effect is one of contradiction; the desired end which you attempted to realize through contradiction has been realized by the closest non-contradictory analogue, such being the nature of the universe, so you can be said to have succeeded in what you were aiming for. Since the intended method was one of contradiction, regardless of what actually happened to achieve the desired end, you attempted a contradiction which failed in such a way that the contradiction's desired result was still achieved.

So in a way I am having it both ways - the person succeeded and failed, both. Different parts of their intention had different results.

Really? So the person will feel as if he has partially failed? Why? He knows he can't replace his will with that of his victim; he merely attempts to make his victim act in accordance with his commands.

Again, why do you think he intends to replace his will with his victim's? There's nothing whatsoever to suggest that he does, and it makes more sense that he doesn't, because people know that it's impossible to replace someone else's will with yours.

But the result and intention are the same - they have the same purpose and the same consequence, and the only reason the method is any different is because contradiction in the physical universe is impossible, leading to a path-of-least-resistance action that most closely approximates the attempted contradiction.

If "the result and the intention are the same," then he is not intending a contradiction; he is intending something that, in a different universe, might manifest itself as something that is (at this point anyway) impossible in this one.

He is simply intending to get his victim to do what he wants. The "method" is irrelevant to him. Clearly, this does not at all involve contradiction, because he can succeed.

The notion that one way of succeeding would involve contradiction is irrelevant (as well as inaccurate, but we discuss this below), because there is another way.

In place or at the expense of the other person's will, that will being the natural and logical director of that person's actions.

"At the expense," I can accept, but if you're going to use that term you'll have to accept that there is nothing "natural" and "logical" about the unmitigated will being the supreme guide of a person's actions. All the time, we are forced to not do what we desire because circumstances interfere.

A conscious person - a.k.a. a living person - is immutably conscious. It's a tautology. If he dies, he is no longer conscious and thus the tautology no longer applies.

No, a "conscious person" is only conscious for as long as she is a "conscious person." This is not immutable, you admit this yourself - at a certain point, the tautology no longer applies, because she is no longer a "conscious person."

It is the same here. A being that is a person - by definition possessing free will - need not always remain a person. That being can be deprived of free will/actorship, and thus of personhood, without contradiction. What the being can't do is remain a person while being deprived of free will, but why need she remain a person?

The problem is that the melting of snow and the painting of balls are not volitional or self-aware; thus they lack the moral applicability and rights of a sapient entity.

Neither volition nor self-awareness are at all relevant, except to the specific example you gave.

If intending a contradiction is immoral, and intending to replace someone else's actorship with yours is a contradiction, then the melting of snow (intending the "contradiction" of replacing the solid quality of snow with the liquid quality of water) is likewise immoral.

You asked me how to base a morality off of logic: you didn't ask why you should care if you are behaving irrationally.

You have not based a morality off logic, you have just given an argument for why certain actions are irrational. Morality presumes obligation; you have yet to show that I have an obligation to avoid intending contradictions.

That works well enough for you, but not for a system or group. If you're looking for the best, most legitimate, etc. moral code, the criterion of 'what makes Soheran like it better' isn't much of a standard. Thus the need for an objective basis that you can justifiably apply and extrapolate.

You don't need an objective standard, you need a common standard.

Thankfully, most people's moral intuitions are fairly similar.

Also, it's a rather poorly justified belief if your gut feeling is its only basis.

"Gut feeling" is a poor description. Is the self-evident nature of logical propositions merely a "gut feeling"?

Really? So the person will feel as if he has partially failed? Why? He knows he can't replace his will with that of his victim; he merely attempts to make his victim act in accordance with his commands.

Again, why do you think he intends to replace his will with his victim's? There's nothing whatsoever to suggest that he does, and it makes more sense that he doesn't, because people know that it's impossible to replace someone else's will with yours.

There's no difference. If Person A is confronted with Situation X and would by his rational will react with Response P, but Person B by his rational will wishes A to react to X with Response Q, and by force coerces A into doing so, his intention and result has been to supplant or replace will[A] with will[B].

If "the result and the intention are the same," then he is not intending a contradiction; he is intending something that, in a different universe, might manifest itself as something that is (at this point anyway) impossible in this one.

He is simply intending to get his victim to do what he wants. The "method" is irrelevant to him. Clearly, this does not at all involve contradiction, because he can succeed.

The notion that one way of succeeding would involve contradiction is irrelevant (as well as inaccurate, but we discuss this below), because there is another way.

The essential method, and the one reflected by the effective result, is one of contradiction. The action of A is such that an external observer unaware of the psyche of A or B, and discounting the realization of contradiction, would judge that will[A] had been replaced by will[B], to forward-chain; or to backward-chain, the desired result of B is such that the same external observer would judge that the method by which B would accomplish his desired result is by replacing will[A] with will[B].

"At the expense," I can accept, but if you're going to use that term you'll have to accept that there is nothing "natural" and "logical" about the unmitigated will being the supreme guide of a person's actions. All the time, we are forced to not do what we desire because circumstances interfere.

And if those circumstances are nonsapient (and thus not morally meaningful) or agency-neutral (and thus not a supplanting of will), they don't affect this topic. But if those circumstance are a sapient entity taking a non-agency-neutral action - a.k.a. coercion - they are in the wrong.

No, a "conscious person" is only conscious for as long as she is a "conscious person." This is not immutable, you admit this yourself - at a certain point, the tautology no longer applies, because she is no longer a "conscious person."

It is the same here. A being that is a person - by definition possessing free will - need not always remain a person. That being can be deprived of free will/actorship, and thus of personhood, without contradiction. What the being can't do is remain a person while being deprived of free will, but why need she remain a person?

Because no matter what, the action you must take to destroy a person's agency or personhood must at least partially occur while they are still a person, and thus unless they do not wish to live and remain a person, their logical qualities resulting from personhood, and thus their self-rights, remain applicable.

Neither volition nor self-awareness are at all relevant, except to the specific example you gave.

You can't have morality (or lack thereof) without choice, and you cannot have choice without self-awareness.

If intending a contradiction is immoral, and intending to replace someone else's actorship with yours is a contradiction, then the melting of snow (intending the "contradiction" of replacing the solid quality of snow with the liquid quality of water) is likewise immoral.

Snow has no natural right to being solid; it can have no rights, not having the capacity of choice. There is no volitional power over state of matter intrinsic to snow.

You have not based a morality off logic, you have just given an argument for why certain actions are irrational. Morality presumes obligation; you have yet to show that I have an obligation to avoid intending contradictions.

My assumption being that actors are rational, and that they thus observe the obligation that is the definition of being rational: to act logically, and thus not intend contradictions.

You don't need an objective standard, you need a common standard.

True. But choosing a common standard and getting people to agree to it presupposes that it can be proven objectively superior or preferable to the other moral options those people might have.

Thankfully, most people's moral intuitions are fairly similar.

And if they aren't? By your reasoning, what exactly was wrong with the Holocaust?

"Gut feeling" is a poor description. Is the self-evident nature of logical propositions merely a "gut feeling"?

No - fundamental logical premises are axiomatic, or are based on logical arguments preceding from axiomatic premises. Logic, like mathematics, is a self-consistent edifice built inevitably from axiomatic foundations.

There's no difference. If Person A is confronted with Situation X and would by his rational will react witResponse P, but Person B by his rational will wishes A to react to X with Response Q, and by force coerces A into doing so, his intention and result has been to supplant or replace will[A] with will[B].

Equivocation. This kind of "supplant" is not a contradiction, and has nothing to do with actual [i]replacement of A's will with B's.

B still has free will; it is simply that the situation with which he is confronted has been changed.

The essential method, and the one reflected by the effective result, is one of contradiction.

No, it isn't. The "essential method" is whatever method B needs to get A to submit to his will. The "effective result" is B's submission. There is no contradiction in either case, otherwise B would not submit; contradictions cannot exist.

The action of A is such that an external observer unaware of the psyche of A or B, and discounting the realization of contradiction, would judge that will[A] had been replaced by will[B], to forward-chain; or to backward-chain, the desired result of B is such that the same external observer would judge that the method by which B would accomplish his desired result is by replacing will[A] with will[B].

Perhaps, but there is no reason that I should not intend to do something that merely appears to be contradiction.

And if those circumstances are nonsapient (and thus not morally meaningful) or agency-neutral (and thus not a supplanting of will), they don't affect this topic. But if those circumstance are a sapient entity taking a non-agency-neutral action - a.k.a. coercion - they are in the wrong.

But coercion occurs all the time, there is nothing "unnatural" about it.

Because no matter what, the action you must take to destroy a person's agency or personhood must at least partially occur while they are still a person,

And whatever action you take to melt the snow must occur while the snow still exists. So what?

and thus unless they do not wish to live and remain a person, their logical qualities resulting from personhood, and thus their self-rights, remain applicable.

But the moment the "contradiction" actually happens - the moment my will actually replaces theirs - they are no longer persons.

You can't have morality (or lack thereof) without choice, and you cannot have choice without self-awareness.

The moral agent cannot, no, but I'm not claiming that snow can be a moral agent, merely that certain actions committed to it fulfill your notion of "contradiction" (and are thus immoral, according to the reasoning you have presented.)

Snow has no natural right to being solid; it can have no rights, not having the capacity of choice. There is no volitional power over state of matter intrinsic to snow.

Why is having rights contingent on having the capacity of choice? (Other than "gut feelings" on the subject, of course.)

My assumption being that actors are rational, and that they thus observe the obligation that is the definition of being rational: to act logically, and thus not intend contradictions.

That is not an "obligation." That is a quality.

Rational creatures tend to be amenable to rational arguments, yes - but that is mostly because they see that if they do not behave rationally, they will not achieve their objectives. To return to the painter example, if you can convince the painter that is impossible to paint a ball simultaneously pure red and pure blue, then he will cease to do so. But since coercion does indeed work, that reasoning doesn't apply here.

True. But choosing a common standard and getting people to agree to it presupposes that it can be proven objectively superior or preferable to the other moral options those people might have.

No, it doesn't. It only presupposes that they will see it as preferable. Objectivity is not at all necessary.

Moral intuitions do not come in proposition form. They have to be put in that form, and often we only incompletely account for them, or come up with formulations that lead to bad conclusions.

Take the Principle of Utility. On the surface, it appears to be a nice moral theory - happiness is good, so what can be better than maximizing it? But nevertheless people have intense arguments about it, because some of its conclusions do not mix well with our moral intuitions. If I can successfully appeal to a utilitarian's moral intuitions in my argument against utilitarianism, I can convince her that it is a bad moral theory.

And if they aren't? By your reasoning, what exactly was wrong with the Holocaust?

Killing people on the basis of race or religion is wrong. Hitler disagreed; so what? I do not feel the need to respect the opinions of evil people, especially when they are willing to harm others.

No - fundamental logical premises are axiomatic, or are based on logical arguments preceding from axiomatic premises. Logic, like mathematics, is a self-consistent edifice built inevitably from axiomatic foundations.

And does "axiomatic" mean anything other than "strongly in accordance with one's intuitions"?

Other... I don't base mine on someone else's (or group's) views or ways of thinking.

So, which of these is your moral basis? And are there any approaches I left out?

You left out one: cultural.

Many, maybe even most, people like to conform to the moral values of the predominant culture without religious zeal. For example, most people in the Western world don't like the idea of eating dogs. From a humanistic point of view, eating a dog isn't any different from eating a pig or a cow, and as far as I know, there's nothing against it in the bible. We've just been taught that dogs are for something entirely different, and that's it.

Now, I understand the line between cultural and religious viewpoints can sometimes be vague at best, but there is a profound difference deep down, between the reasons and thought processes leading to these approaches. I don't think many of the old-fashioned agnostics like having to pick a side between hippies and fundies.

I picked religious; it's not accurate, but it's closer than the other two.

Humanistic.

But I have a little problem with the word "morals," because I have a problem with one word that covers everything from murder to taboos against eating fish on Fridays, inclusive. I just cannot think of dietary restrictions or the sex lives of consenting adults as being in anything like the same category as things like murder or bearing false witness in court. Also, I have a problem with a system of thought that says, for instance, that it's immoral to judge others, but says that addicts are weak because they are immoral.

I prefer the word "ethics."

To me, ethics are, essentially, things you will not do, a system of thought that tells you where to draw the line. My mom always says that you can tell the character of a person by what they will not do. Morals and ethics are not actually the same thing. It is possible to have totally immoral people who are strictly ethical, and totally moral people who are also totally unethical. I prefer ethical people to moral people. You always know where you stand with ethical people, even if, morally, they're scum.

So, for me, my ethics come from humanistic and somewhat utilitarian thinking. I always ask, what will result in the greatest good and the least harm all round? I start with an assumption of equality among people, and I keep in mind my list of things I will not do, which are obstacles I must work around, and I try to steer the best course to the desired goal, based on that. I believe in the win-win situation, so whatever I want, I look for ways to achieve it that will give the other guy some of what he wants, too. I apply those three primary assumptions to every moral or ethical question, even when I'm asked to make a negative judgment, like, for instance, the harm that is done by others.

I apologize for the lack of elaboration - when I say logic or reason, I mean the application of logic to a set of axiomatic premises. For example, A=A, and the assignment of the quality of actorship to the individual mind. 'Intuitive moral precepts' are just a codephrase for 'arbitrary gut feelings' that justify Nazism as much as they do democracy.

Good, however, the formulation of the axiomatic premises is a completely arbitrary operation, uninformed by any logical guidance (other than some principle of internal consistency within each individual premise), yes?

I base them on whatever the situation calls for.

I base them on whatever the situation calls for.

So, you're an existentialist?

So, you're an existentialist?

Yes, actually.

Humans and society on the whole are not the measure, the ultimate goal is to please the deity.

I don't know. That sentence bothered me. I try to love my neighbor because I feel that it is right and because Jesus said to, not so much to please Him, like I am trying to be good for a bribe.....I could be way off today though.

Didn't bother me, actually. I think it's a fairly objective way of expressing the religious attitude.
(Maybe "deity" ought to have been slash pluralled?)

Didn't bother me, actually. I think it's a fairly objective way of expressing the religious attitude.
(Maybe "deity" ought to have been slash pluralled?)

I was trying to keep it as neutral as possible, otherwise I know I would have been accused of hating Christians ;)
I'm not too familiar with polytheistic religions, but I would assume that in most you tend to please one god at a time. Or are there any moral statements that several gods made in agreement?

There should have been an option for common sense, so I chose the humanistics since I felt that was closest to common sense.

It seems like people are losing common sense. To me it comes natural. :D

I was trying to keep it as neutral as possible, otherwise I know I would have been accused of hating Christians ;)
I'm not too familiar with polytheistic religions, but I would assume that in most you tend to please one god at a time.

Neither do I.
You may know already I favour the line that came just before your epigraphic Weinberg quote. Would be best to keep it to myself otherwise I'd be accused of hating Christians as well.:(