NationStates Jolt Archive

On Morality

*********** Morality is by no means a straightforward topic, and the concept of Heaven and

Hell must either be incorrect, or unjust. This is what this paper seeks to prove. There is a

debate over whether genetics or upbringing is what determines a person’s character, but it

is widely agreed that it is some mixture of these two. Neither of them can be controlled,

so whether you are “good” or “evil” is based fundamentally on luck, the genes and

upbringing you had. Thus “good” and “evil” must be meaningless terms, exchangeable

with “luck” and “unlucky”. Some would counter this by saying that they believe that

genetics and upbringing are not solely what creates a person, it is something else as well.

Since it is impossible to cover all other possible factors, I will cover one here, the

possible existence of a soul, which determines your character. However if such a soul

existed, it would also be defined by luck, whether you got lucky enough to get a good

soul or not. Some would say that you defined your own soul , but what is it inside you

that makes you make different choices than others? If you go down deep

enough, everything about morality is defined by luck. Thus the concept

of “Heaven” and “Hell” is unjust as whether you gained entry into Hell or Heaven would be

primarily luck-based.

Just my thoughts

i would say that except for the criminally insane (jeffry dahmer who was driven to kill young men and eat them, that woman who drowned her 3 kids in sanfrancisco bay) the definition of good and bad is loose enough that we all have a shot at making the grade.

On Morality

*********** Morality is by no means a straightforward topic, and the concept of Heaven and

Hell must either be incorrect, or unjust. This is what this paper seeks to prove. There is a

debate over whether genetics or upbringing is what determines a person’s character, but it

is widely agreed that it is some mixture of these two. Neither of them can be controlled,

so whether you are “good” or “evil” is based fundamentally on luck, the genes and

upbringing you had. Thus “good” and “evil” must be meaningless terms, exchangeable

with “luck” and “unlucky”. Some would counter this by saying that they believe that

genetics and upbringing are not solely what creates a person, it is something else as well.

Since it is impossible to cover all other possible factors, I will cover one here, the

possible existence of a soul, which determines your character. However if such a soul

existed, it would also be defined by luck, whether you got lucky enough to get a good

soul or not. Some would say that you defined your own soul , but what is it inside you

that makes you make different choices than others? If you go down deep

enough, everything about morality is defined by luck. Thus the concept

of “Heaven” and “Hell” is unjust as whether you gained entry into Hell or Heaven would be

primarily luck-based.

Just my thoughts

:confused:

You make a lot of large leaps here.

There is a

debate over whether genetics or upbringing is what determines a person’s character, but it is widely agreed that it is some mixture of these two.

It was also widely agreed that maggots spontaneously generated from raw meat.

However if such a soul existed, it would also be defined by luck,

Why?

Your soul is inherited from your parents. Not only are you the biological child of your parents, but you are also their spiritual child. And we are therefore all spiritual children of Adam and Eve and are therefore all depraved.

Hidden assumption: justice is not based on luck.

Evidence?

Hidden assumption: justice is not based on luck.

Evidence?

Whom is this directed to?

Morality is not determined at birth. There is no 'Evil Gene'.

Whom is this directed to?

The OP and their line thus the concept of “Heaven” and “Hell” is unjust as whether you gained entry into Hell or Heaven would be primarily luck-based, within their argument it doesn't follow without that unstated assumption.

:confused:

You make a lot of large leaps here.



It was also widely agreed that maggots spontaneously generated from raw meat.



Why?

Your soul is inherited from your parents. Not only are you the biological child of your parents, but you are also their spiritual child. And we are therefore all spiritual children of Adam and Eve and are therefore all depraved.


If our soul is inherited from our parents, then it is still luck based (wethere you were lucky enough to be born to moral parents.) And if genes/upbringing does not determine morality then what does? If it is the decisions you make then what made you make those decisions? If you go deep enpugh, it is still luck-based. And yes I am assuming justice is not based on luck because that would be contrary to most standard definitions of justice.

If our soul is inherited from our parents, then it is still luck based (wethere you were lucky enough to be born to moral parents.) And if genes/upbringing does not determine morality then what does? If it is the decisions you make then what made you make those decisions? If you go deep enpugh, it is still luck-based. And yes I am assuming justice is not based on luck because that would be contrary to most standard definitions of justice.

You assume that parents can be moral. Scripture teaches that we are by nature sinful and that so the only morality that we can inherit is a sinful morality.

You all assume that there is a universal code of ethics and morality that is actually relevant, and that is the key problem with this debate. Furthermore, morality is highly irrelevant and should be disegarded.

Oh, and there is no "soul" to be inherited.

Furthermore, ethics and morality are highly irrelevant and should be disegarded.

I would say society depends on them to function. Anything else is meaningless nihilism, and a simple utilitarian analysis tells you that that position is utterly wrong. Without ethics, there is nothing.

Oh, and there is no "soul" to be inherited.

Well, no. It's something that interacts through our conscious mind, but it's created at the point when the brain is first formed and develops along with us. The soul is not something you inherit.

On Morality

*********** Morality is by no means a straightforward topic, and the concept of Heaven and

Hell must either be incorrect, or unjust. This is what this paper seeks to prove. There is a

debate over whether genetics or upbringing is what determines a person’s character, but it

is widely agreed that it is some mixture of these two. Neither of them can be controlled,

so whether you are “good” or “evil” is based fundamentally on luck, the genes and

upbringing you had. Thus “good” and “evil” must be meaningless terms, exchangeable

with “luck” and “unlucky”. Some would counter this by saying that they believe that

genetics and upbringing are not solely what creates a person, it is something else as well.

Since it is impossible to cover all other possible factors, I will cover one here, the

possible existence of a soul, which determines your character. However if such a soul

existed, it would also be defined by luck, whether you got lucky enough to get a good

soul or not. Some would say that you defined your own soul , but what is it inside you

that makes you make different choices than others? If you go down deep

enough, everything about morality is defined by luck. Thus the concept

of “Heaven” and “Hell” is unjust as whether you gained entry into Hell or Heaven would be

primarily luck-based.

Just my thoughts

Sure. Sounds right to me.
It's why we try to create 'correctional' institutions, to attempt to help people overcome their upbringing and natural tendencies.

ethics and morality are highly irrelevant and should be disegarded

This is a very, very strange claim. So, you're saying there is no good and evil and it'd totally be okay if I stabbed you lots?

There isn't so much a 'universal' morality as there is an implicit morality defined by human nature.

What a society needs to function is the rule of law, not morality or ethics. A hedonistic, sex-oriented society could feasibly function perfectly, yet not be "moral" by alot of people's standards. Or, you could have an anarcho-capitalist system, with everyone at the whim of the free market and corporations, which have minimal to no regulation, work absolutely well, but the actions of the corporations mightn't be considered "ethical".

EDIT: No, it wouldn't be okay to "stab me lots" because it violates the rule of law, and the benefit doesn't outweigh the costs, so it would be utilitarianally pointless.

There isn't so much a 'universal' morality as there is an implicit morality defined by human nature.

And, of course, that human nature tends to fall in to line with what is defined as "good". We are capable as free beings of deciding against our nature, but we have an evolutionary basis for doing "good" as a means of propagating ourselves and our species.

Of course, the metaphysical interpretations of this are your own; I interpret it in a theistic sense, but that's my own view.

What a society needs to function is the rule of law, not morality or ethics. A hedonistic, sex-oriented society could feasibly function perfectly, yet not be "moral" by alot of people's standards. Or, you could have an anarcho-capitalist system, with everyone at the whim of the free market and corporations, which have minimal to no regulation, work absolutely well, but the actions of the corporations mightn't be considered "ethical".

Well, any system could work, but that means nothing if it's not in practice.

Even so, hedonism is not necessarily immoral. In fact, if you were an Epicurean you would adhere to a solid code of ethics that is unwavering in many of its moral positions. It's important to remember that what is moral is not necessarily ethical, and vice versa.

EDIT: No, it wouldn't be okay to "stab me lots" because it violates the rule of law, and the benefit doesn't outweigh the costs, so it would be utilitarianally pointless.

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory. If ethics are irrelevant, utilitarian analysis is not a justifiable argument for not stabbing you to death.

What a society needs to function is the rule of law, not morality or ethics.

EDIT: No, it wouldn't be okay to "stab me lots" because it violates the rule of law, and the benefit doesn't outweigh the costs, so it would be utilitarianally pointless.

:rolleyes: Soooo... if the government of your nation suddenly mandated that everyone with your first name should get stabbed lots, that would be acceptable, since it helped the society function by venting a lot of pent up aggression?

Really, your moral relativism scares me.

Utilitarianism/humanism is my moral theory of choice. Right and wrong can be determined by considering the consequences to the people affected by the choice.

Oops. Did I say ethics? I meant only morals. Sorry.

If there was a rational, justifiable purpose for passing such a law, the majority of people in my nation approved said law, and the benefits of the law outweighed the harms to society, I'd be fine with it.

Utilitarian calculuses don't necessarily determine right and wrong. Adultery, for instance, could be interpreted multiple ways by utilitarianism.

Oops. Did I say ethics? I meant only morals. Sorry.

No problem; there's a big difference, however.

If there was a rational, justifiable purpose for passing such a law, the majority of people in my nation approved said law, and the benefits of the law outweighed the harms to society, I'd be fine with it.

Of course, given that none of those criteria would ever be the case, it's an extreme example that isn't much more than a thought experiment.

Utilitarian calculuses don't necessarily determine right and wrong. Adultery, for instance, could be interpreted multiple ways by utilitarianism.

True, which is why utilitarianism tends to not work on its own; you'll usually need to bring in situational and moral factors as well.

No problem; there's a big difference, however.

No. Ethics and morals are the same thing.

"everything is based on luck" eh. i personally could not be happy with those beliefs. I like to think there is more to who we are and what we do, and the kind of person we are, than sheer, dumb, lucky.

so what does make us who we are, then?

First, let's make a distinction between good and evil. Most rational people are capable of doing this. Good is good, evil is evil. Unfortunately, where people get irrational is over their definitions. Some people say there's no such thing as an absolute, and everything is shades of grey. Some people say everything is absolute, with no grey area. How touchy. I tend to believe that there are both absolutes and greys, since after all, in order for there to be a grey area, there must be an absolute. with me so far?

I'm not going to take the Christian stance that all humans are basically and necessarily evil. Neither will I take the politically correct stance that all humans are fundamentally good. That would be making an absolutist statement over something that cannot be defined as an absolute, but is rather several different shades of grey at once. On one side, we have good, and on the other, evil. If people were fundamentally evil, we would only be capable of evil. Were we fundamentally good, we would only be capable of doing good. Therefore, we must be in the grey area.

Now, this doesn't mean everything is a shade of grey. What if, hypothetically, acting out pure hatred, a man killed someone for being a member of an ethnic group, race, religion, sexual or political orientation that he did not like, simply because they happened to have that character trait? There is no redeeming element to what he has done. He has committed an act which is wholly evil. Now, does this make him wholly evil? Some would argue yes. But remember- he is simply on the greyscale, capable of doing evil the same as doing good. Perhaps the day before he told his children that he loved them, an act that is wholly good.

But that's just my view.

The thing about the human soul is that none of us fully understand it. I try to describe it as shades of grey. Slythros tries to define it as nothing but luck. Christians, Moslems, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and every other philosophy and religious organization out there has their own definition of the soul, but the point is none of us really know what it is. All we know is that we think, we act, and we feel, and we have free will. There is no dumb luck to that.

"everything is based on luck" eh. i personally could not be happy with those beliefs. I like to think there is more to who we are and what we do, and the kind of person we are, than sheer, dumb, lucky.

so what does make us who we are, then?

First, let's make a distinction between good and evil. Most rational people are capable of doing this. Good is good, evil is evil. Unfortunately, where people get irrational is over their definitions. Some people say there's no such thing as an absolute, and everything is shades of grey. Some people say everything is absolute, with no grey area. How touchy. I tend to believe that there are both absolutes and greys, since after all, in order for there to be a grey area, there must be an absolute. with me so far?

I'm not going to take the Christian stance that all humans are basically and necessarily evil. Neither will I take the politically correct stance that all humans are fundamentally good. That would be making an absolutist statement over something that cannot be defined as an absolute, but is rather several different shades of grey at once. On one side, we have good, and on the other, evil. If people were fundamentally evil, we would only be capable of evil. Were we fundamentally good, we would only be capable of doing good. Therefore, we must be in the grey area.

Now, this doesn't mean everything is a shade of grey. What if, hypothetically, acting out pure hatred, a man killed someone for being a member of an ethnic group, race, religion, sexual or political orientation that he did not like, simply because they happened to have that character trait? There is no redeeming element to what he has done. He has committed an act which is wholly evil. Now, does this make him wholly evil? Some would argue yes. But remember- he is simply on the greyscale, capable of doing evil the same as doing good. Perhaps the day before he told his children that he loved them, an act that is wholly good.

But that's just my view.

The thing about the human soul is that none of us fully understand it. I try to describe it as shades of grey. Slythros tries to define it as nothing but luck. Christians, Moslems, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and every other philosophy and religious organization out there has their own definition of the soul, but the point is none of us really know what it is. All we know is that we think, we act, and we feel, and we have free will. There is no dumb luck to that.

I am not happy with these beliefs either, but they are what my logic leads me to.Amd what makes you think, act, and feel differently from others? What is it about you? Whatever it is, if you are lucky (or unlucky, depending on your point ov view), you get one that makes you do good.

Individual
Morality is set upon the values we learn while growing. One man's morality could be another's Immorality. It may be perfectly moral for one person to beat their children while another will find the thought of spanking immoral. one may view wealth as immoral while others a very, VERY active sex life could be their pinical of immorality. The one thing we all have to remember tho, is that one person's morals affect only one person.

Social
Social morality is more of an aggreement that everyone comes to as to defining morality when it comes to others. in the past, it was considered Immoral to say Shit, while nowdays, it's pretty common to hear. some societies don't consider walking into someone's house without their permission immoral, while others will be offended if you look at them funny.

the Morals one person has and the morals that their society holds can be different. and the struggle is making the two match.

Morality is not determined at birth. There is no 'Evil Gene'.

That is false, evil people breed evil people. I also have proof of the existance of an evil gene. Look over history, most of the normal people in Caligula's family were evil except the one who was irregular, which leads me to believe that since his genes were mutated slightly he didn't express evil. Hitler had to have it, I bet if we cloned him he'd be just like a chip off the old swastika. And I also beleive leatherface had it, the Texas chainsaw massacre was based on an actual tragedy in Plainfield. Two mentally insane people married,[the Gein family] and their child Eddy Gein became infamous for chopping up people with a chainsaw, wearing their skins and eating their genitals thus inspiring the Texas Chainsaw massacre.

You all assume that there is a universal code of ethics and morality that is actually relevant, and that is the key problem with this debate. Furthermore, morality is highly irrelevant and should be disegarded.

Oh, and there is no "soul" to be inherited.

Saying that reduces humans to animals who base their decision making off of pure instinct rather than intuition.

LOL No offense but after reading may of you posts in NSG and II I believe you have the evil gene. :p And heres why.

:rolleyes: Soooo... if the government of your nation suddenly mandated that everyone with your first name should get stabbed lots, that would be acceptable, since it helped the society function by venting a lot of pent up aggression?

Really, your moral relativism scares me.

Utilitarianism/humanism is my moral theory of choice. Right and wrong can be determined by considering the consequences to the people affected by the choice.

Morality is triat passed down from our ancestors from the trees (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html?ex=1332043200&en=84f902cc81da9173&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss) and morality defines right and wrong in us. Thus deriving the synonym for and immoral act as "inhuman". Most evil people are morally relativistic which allows them to rape puppies, strap bombs to kids, poison school children ect. The ability to be moral is dominant since it is natural in our ancestors and WAS natural with us (the lefties tolerated them so now they're pulling heartless crap and breeding without being stopped) but those who lack the ability to be moral or understand the difference between right and wrong or those who have the inability to sense guilt, lack that and were rare so the evil gene would be recessive.

i think you copied and pasted the abstract from someone elses shitty essay.

good and bad are entirely subjective. there are some things that almost everyone recognises as good or bad and these are legislated for or against. everything else is legislated for or against according to whatever the people in power subjectively consider to be good or bad. that is all i think on the matter.

i think you copied and pasted the abstract from someone elses shitty essay.

good and bad are entirely subjective. there are some things that almost everyone recognises as good or bad and these are legislated for or against. everything else is legislated for or against according to whatever the people in power subjectively consider to be good or bad. that is all i think on the matter.

I think you dont know anythin at all about me, and are making foolish judgements based on no information.

i think you copied and pasted the abstract from someone elses shitty essay.

good and bad are entirely subjective. there are some things that almost everyone recognises as good or bad and these are legislated for or against. everything else is legislated for or against according to whatever the people in power subjectively consider to be good or bad. that is all i think on the matter.

Good and bad should be innate knowledge, its in our blood.

If our soul is inherited from our parents, then it is still luck based (wethere you were lucky enough to be born to moral parents.) And if genes/upbringing does not determine morality then what does? If it is the decisions you make then what made you make those decisions? If you go deep enpugh, it is still luck-based. And yes I am assuming justice is not based on luck because that would be contrary to most standard definitions of justice.

Everything can be attributed to luck. It's how we view certain circumstances that determines how we define them. A person may buy a handle of liquor. Some would call this an act of his own volition, as he chose to buy the liquor instead of doing something else. And yet, it is luck that the handle was there to buy. It is luck that ensured the man had the means to buy the alcohol. So yes, I see your point in attributing the creation of a soul to lucky circumstances; however, keep in mind that by "going deep enough," you necessarily reduce everything to luck; there is no purposeful behavior or decision. I agree that, yes, it could be viewed in this manner. Personally, I like to leave a little to both predisposition and determined effort to achieve a particular end. Some things just are. Some things need to be pursued. Others, like you say, are coincidence--luck, if you will. The universe, I find, is a balance of all things. Of course, it is really only luck that I was born with the particular brain cells that have luckily absorbed all my lucky experiences and, fortunately, brought me to this lucky conclusion. :)

Will someone please prove me wrong? I dont like the conclusion I have reached. But I can find no good refutation of it.

As to morality, right and wrong only exist in retrospect. Action is independent of any subjective conclusion. One makes a decision, and then history sorts out the rest.

Will someone please prove me wrong? I dont like the conclusion I have reached. But I can find no good refutation of it.

Well if someone learns how to use bacteriophages to alter DNA in multicellular organisms then you can make yourself whatever you want. ;)

On a more serious level, been there, when no one can refute a conclusion you don't like ponder with all the knowledge you have, and if your Christian, Islamic, pray to God to refute it for you. Works for me.

Morality is not determined at birth. There is no 'Evil Gene'.

But that would explain why I... oh, never mind.

On a more serious note I would say that it is impossible to define "good" and "evil," because in my mind a set "good" and a set "evil" dont exist. There is only what should be done for the betterment of oneself and society, and what shouldn't. However, even these are subjuective as what I believe is good for society is different from what George Bush, and Barrack Obama thinks is. So, basicallly what I'm saying is that it is impossible to define "good" and "evil" as there is no set point of reference.

Will someone please prove me wrong? I dont like the conclusion I have reached. But I can find no good refutation of it.

You are arguing philosophy, my friend. There is no right or wrong. The only advice I have for you is realize that its fun, maddeningly so, to delve into these things, but in the end they really don't have any impact on reality. Whether you define something as right or wrong, or attribute it to luck, or God, or volition, really does not change the fact that it exists. Things are as they are. The rest is subjective.

That is false, evil people breed evil people. I also have proof of the existance of an evil gene. Look over history, most of the normal people in Caligula's family were evil except the one who was irregular, which leads me to believe that since his genes were mutated slightly he didn't express evil. Hitler had to have it, I bet if we cloned him he'd be just like a chip off the old swastika. And I also beleive leatherface had it, the Texas chainsaw massacre was based on an actual tragedy in Plainfield. Two mentally insane people married,[the Gein family] and their child Eddy Gein became infamous for chopping up people with a chainsaw, wearing their skins and eating their genitals thus inspiring the Texas Chainsaw massacre.

Evil people do NOT breed other evil people, "evil" people are molded by the world around them. A man is the sum of his experiences; thus any man who was beaten or abused will see it perfectly alright to beat or abuse another. However, if someone had taken say Hitler as a child and raised in in a stable and caring household then he probably wouldn't have become the evil tyrant we think of him as today. Evil people are not bread, evil people are created; and that is where the problem lies.

You are arguing philosophy, my friend. There is no right or wrong. The only advice I have for you is realize that its fun, maddeningly so, to delve into these things, but in the end they really don't have any impact on reality. Whether you define something as right or wrong, or attribute it to luck, or God, or volition, really does not change the fact that it exists. Things are as they are. The rest is subjective.

I disagree with most of what you said however I find one part of the message apt. This topic is too great and complicated for us to fully understand with our finite minds, to ovoid going insane just try to be the best person you possibly can.

I disagree with most of what you said however I find one part of the message apt. This topic is too great and complicated for us to fully understand with our finite minds, to ovoid going insane just try to be the best person you possibly can.

Meh, I wouldn't invest too much in what I say. Everyone's got an opinion--I've no inclination to believe mine to be particularly noteworthy.

Evil people do NOT breed other evil people, "evil" people are molded by the world around them. A man is the sum of his experiences; thus any man who was beaten or abused will see it perfectly alright to beat or abuse another. However, if someone had taken say Hitler as a child and raised in in a stable and caring household then he probably wouldn't have become the evil tyrant we think of him as today. Evil people are not bread, evil people are created; and that is where the problem lies.

There is still other evidence of an evil gene. Some people have a neural disability where they are apathetic in a moral sense. They feel no guilt, don't understand right and wrong, they become puppy kicking rapists, sadists, murderers, the likes of, Hitler ect ect. They were born like that. And it is passed down.

There is still other evidence of an evil gene. Some people have a neural disability where they are apathetic in a moral sense. They feel no guilt, don't understand right and wrong, they become puppy kicking rapists, sadists, murderers, the likes of, Hitler ect ect. They were born like that. And it is passed down.

Yes, but that isnt an "evil" gene. That just keeps them from feeling empathy, it does not make the person evil, Hitler was not born screaming about how the Jews were the Germans natural enemy.

Yes, but that isnt an "evil" gene. That just keeps them from feeling empathy, it does not make the person evil, Hitler was not born screaming about how the Jews were the Germans natural enemy.

He was only pretending though. Only with such a disorder coul one be ok with the orders he given regarding Jews and civllians. He even conscripted kids into his army and ordered many soldiers (child and adult alike) to kill themselves if Germany lost.

:rolleyes: Soooo... if the government of your nation suddenly mandated that everyone with your first name should get stabbed lots, that would be acceptable, since it helped the society function by venting a lot of pent up aggression?

If there was a rational, justifiable purpose for passing such a law, the majority of people in my nation approved said law, and the benefits of the law outweighed the harms to society, I'd be fine with it.

You wouldn't be fine with it; you'd be dead.

He was only pretending though. Only with such a disorder coul one be ok with the orders he given regarding Jews and civllians. He even conscripted kids into his army and ordered many soldiers (child and adult alike) to kill themselves if Germany lost.

What was he pretending about? Hitler was an overly patriotic fool, who allowed himself to become severely disenfranchised and turned to the same scapegoat that everyone in Europe has always turned to... the Jews.