NationStates Jolt Archive

This was inspired by the thread "Another question for Christians" by Dyakovo. I have heard many atheists, agnostics, skeptics, and other non-Christians argue their "theologies".

On second thought, I guess "anti-theology" would be a more accurate term to apply to atheists, agnostics, and skeptics.

But anyhow, I have a question for all of you non-Christians out there:

What is your moral code/are your moral standards based on?

Serious replies only, please.

EDIT: Please do not take offense at my poor choice of words for the title of this thread. Some posters have expressed concerns of "trolling", but this thread is not meant to be a troll, flame, or a bait to either of those. I merely wish serious discussion of this topic.

being nice.

Well, not really, mostly like not being an asshole, which at times is completely different than being nice.

The idea that religion is the sole basis for having a "moral code", or for knowing something is "wrong" or "right", "bad" or "good" is ridiculous.

The idea that religion is the sole basis for having a "moral code", or for knowing something is "wrong" or "right", "bad" or "good" is ridiculous.
There's a small typo in your message. I believe you meant to write "The idea that religion is *any* basis for having...", given the number of people deliberately killed by religions that supposedly believe their god told them "Do not kill.".

I'd give a serious reply to the OP, but his phrasing makes me think he's just trolling.

Quran + My Conscience

I'd return the question to religious people:

Is it really the case that you don't kill people solely because God says it's wrong - is that really your only reason?

Of course it isn't.

There's a small typo in your message. I believe you meant to write "The idea that religion is *any* basis for having...", given the number of people deliberately killed by religions that supposedly believe their god told them "Do not kill.".

I'd give a serious reply to the OP, but his phrasing makes me think he's just trolling.

I believe I meant to write what I wrote.

You think just because I don't believe there's a magic man out there who made the world and let us suffer I can't distinguish between right and wrong? That I have no morals? Right. Because ALL atheists are assholes with no idea what's good and what's bad. You know who ACTUALLY teaches you morals? Or at least, who's supposed to? Your parents. Your guardians. Your friends. Please don't blame the problems of others on those who aren't superstitious. It offends me. And I apologize for sounding angry, because I am.

The idea that religion is the sole basis for having a "moral code", or for knowing something is "wrong" or "right", "bad" or "good" is ridiculous.

I never said it was. I just want to know what people base their moral code on.

There's a small typo in your message. I believe you meant to write "The idea that religion is *any* basis for having...", given the number of people deliberately killed by religions that supposedly believe their god told them "Do not kill.".

I'd give a serious reply to the OP, but his phrasing makes me think he's just trolling.

No, I'm not trolling. I just want to "pick your brain" and hear some different opinions and ideas.

I just picked a less-than-ideal way to phrase it because those were the first words that popped into my head, and I never can think of a better way of saying anything until after I've said it incorrectly the first time. That's just one of my characteristics; it's not "trolling".

The first time I say/write/type anything it always comes out different than what I'm trying to say, and I never can think of exactly what I want to say until AFTER I've said it wrong.

The Golden Rule I suppose.

Edit: woops.. this is only for non-Christians.. *feels left out*

This was inspired by the thread "Another question for Christians" by Dyakovo. I have heard many , and other non-Christians argue their "theologies".

On second thought, I guess "anti-theology" would be a more accurate term to apply to atheists, agnostics, skeptics, and infidels.

But anyhow, I have a question for all of you non-Christians out there:

Do you have any kind of moral code or moral standards, and if so, what is it/are they based on?

My moral code is based on my desire to emulate the lives of Jesus Christ and Andy Kaufman. *nod*

I'd return the question to religious people:

Is it really the case that you don't kill people solely because God says it's wrong - is that really your only reason?

Of course it isn't.

Indeed. I am religious, but people who make that suggestion scare the heck out of me. If their faith is truly the only thing keeping them from going out, raping, murdering, and pillaging, what happens if they have a crisis of faith or lose faith?

You think just because I don't believe there's a magic man out there who made the world and let us suffer I can't distinguish between right and wrong? That I have no morals?

I NEVER SAID THAT. Don't put words in my mouth.

Right. Because ALL atheists are assholes with no idea what's good and what's bad.

I never said THAT, either. You misunderstand me.

You know who ACTUALLY teaches you morals? Or at least, who's supposed to? Your parents. Your guardians. Your friends.

I don't dispute this.

Please don't blame the problems of others on those who aren't superstitious. It offends me. And I apologize for sounding angry, because I am.

There is no reason for you to be angry or offended. I wasn't blaming anything on anybody.

The Golden Rule I suppose.

Edit: woops.. this is only for non-Christians.. *feels left out*

Don't feel left out. I don't mind Christians posting; I simply directed the question at non-Christians.

Indeed. I am religious, but people who make that suggestion scare the heck out of me. If their faith is truly the only thing keeping them from going out, raping, murdering, and pillaging, what happens if they have a crisis of faith or lose faith?

Indeed - this question insults people who do believe far more than those who don't.

Indeed. I am religious, but people who make that suggestion scare the heck out of me. If their faith is truly the only thing keeping them from going out, raping, murdering, and pillaging, what happens if they have a crisis of faith or lose faith?

QFT. I was not meaning to imply that religion is necessary for morality. I just want to know what people who believe differently than I do base their moral code on.

Indeed - this question insults people who do believe far more than those who don't.

QFT.

No, I'm not trolling. I just want to "pick your brain" and hear some opinions and ideas.

I just picked a less-than-ideal way to phrase it because those were the first words that popped into my head, and I never can think of a better way of saying anything until after I've said it incorrectly the first time. That's just one of my characteristics; it's not "trolling".

Fair enough. You might want to consider phrasings such as "What do you non-Christians base your moral codes on?".

For that, I'd say:

The Jews and Moslems have their own holy books, of course.

There are a lot of "eastern" religions, such as Hindu (Hinduism?), Taoism, Buddhism, and so forth, that likewise have moral codes that depend on the teachings of their god(s) or prophet(s).

"Western" athesists, agnostics, and others who don't recognize the moral supremacy of god(s) sometimes refer to moral works of famous philosophers, such as Immanuel Kant, David Hume, or Thomas Hobbes. You could think of them as "secular prophets", because they encourage a specific moral code that follows a particular reasoning.

I follow such a code, called "Utilitarianism". Please see this description (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism-rule/) of it and similar moral codes.

Other western athesists, agnostics, etc, use "personal" or "intuitive" moral codes such as the golden rule, or other simple formulations.

Does that help?

I base it for the most part on one of the basic concepts in society's of all ages ... it was later adopted by Christianity as the golden rule. Whatever it is called it is a good start.

I am sure a lot of it came from my up bringing but the cores really are

1) Do onto others
2) Live and let live
3) Protect those that you have the power to do so (which really ties into 1)

A lot of them go back to 1 really

Indeed. I am religious, but people who make that suggestion scare the heck out of me. If their faith is truly the only thing keeping them from going out, raping, murdering, and pillaging, what happens if they have a crisis of faith or lose faith?

What really scares me is that I cannot think of a rational reason that they shouldn't. I mean, I know it's wrong, I have a very powerful "gut feeling," but intuition and logic are very different.

The idea of moral reciprocity: I have no basis to elevate myself above others, so I must act in a way according to which I would accept others acting towards me.

This was inspired by the thread "Another question for Christians" by Dyakovo. I have heard many atheists, agnostics, skeptics, infidels, and other non-Christians argue their "theologies".

On second thought, I guess "anti-theology" would be a more accurate term to apply to atheists, agnostics, skeptics, and infidels.

But anyhow, I have a question for all of you non-Christians out there:

What is your moral code/are your moral standards based on?

Serious replies only, please.

EDIT: Please do not take offense at my poor choice of words for the title of this thread. Some posters have expressed concerns of "trolling", but this thread is not meant to be a troll, flame, or a bait to either of those. I merely wish serious discussion of this topic.

Nonviolence. Value of life and liberty. That kind of stuff.

My moral code is based upon my reasoning and logic when it comes to my being able to live my life as I wish without it coming to harm by others, and how best for society to enrich itself.

Basically, I just figured it all out on my own.

I don't have morals, I have Ethics.


I suppose it could be split into two categories;

Sociopolitical;
-People should be able to do what they want so long as they are'nt directly and/or non-consensually interfering with another's freedom and Human Rights.
This actually encompasses protecting the environment and limits on private property (like no 5,000 acre chunks of land being used as a personal dumping ground), as well as some socioeconomic ideas.

General;
This one is actually based on he Chinese 'Eight Honors & Disgraces' concept.

Follow science; discard superstition
Be diligent; not indolent
Be united, help each other; make no gains at other's expense.
Be honest and trustworthy; do not sacrifice ethics for personal gain.
Be disciplined (as in self-discipline); not chaotic and lawless
Live comfortably, but not luxuriously and materialistic.

I believe humankind has a built in sense of what is 'right' and 'wrong', religion just picks up on this and puts it into writing, for the simple reason that humans also have the inherent ability to ignore that sense when it suits them. If religious 'morals' were outside of what we each inherently know is ethical then religion would have very few followers.

The belief that all people have the right to be treated with equality, diginity and respect. And also privacy. I suppose though that this is the same "code" most have, but just get to in different ways. ie religious or cultural influences.

I have no remorse, no caring, no love, and no sense of morality. I only have a desire for more and more. And now, quite simply, you have got my attention.

If you follow a moral code simply out of fear of punishment, either legally or spiritually, you don't really have a moral code. You also have the mentality of a six-year-old.

This was inspired by the thread "Another question for Christians" by Dyakovo. I have heard many atheists, agnostics, skeptics, infidels, and other non-Christians argue their "theologies".

On second thought, I guess "anti-theology" would be a more accurate term to apply to atheists, agnostics, skeptics, and infidels.

But anyhow, I have a question for all of you non-Christians out there:

What is your moral code/are your moral standards based on?

Serious replies only, please.

EDIT: Please do not take offense at my poor choice of words for the title of this thread. Some posters have expressed concerns of "trolling", but this thread is not meant to be a troll, flame, or a bait to either of those. I merely wish serious discussion of this topic.

I take it from the same place 'religious' people do, my from conscience. Religion is a reflection of 'our' morality, not some divine entities'. I mean seriously, do you think the ancient Hebrews thought murder and theft were good things before they got the 10 commandments, that before they got them the Hebrews went round randomly murdering each other for the fun of it?

I don't feel the need to bow the knee to a bunch of conmen and huckterists thanks.

What is your moral code/are your moral standards based on?

baby-killing, mostly.

Where do I get my morals from? Hmmm..... Well, my parents, to start with. Then the law. Then, my own personal monkey sphere.

This question gets asked a lot of non-believers. I think it would be much more interesting to ask murders and rapists and various other crooks where -they- get -their- morals from.

What is it based on? Logic. Reason. Observation. Personal experience.
What do I dislike having done to me, what do I enjoy having done to me/for me. What do other people seem to like and dislike.

What does it boil down to? Do no harm. If possible, provide protection and comfort. Do good (note: not "do well", but specifically, "do good").

On second thought, I guess "anti-theology" would be a more accurate term to apply to atheists, agnostics, skeptics, and infidels.

First of all, let clear your terminology.

an "anti-theist" would be a person who strictly objects to the mere concept of gods, in any form.
This is not the same as simply not believing that such things exist.

An atheist can be an atheist, and not be "anti-religion".

This was inspired by the thread "Another question for Christians" by Dyakovo. I have heard many atheists, agnostics, skeptics, infidels, and other non-Christians argue their "theologies".

On second thought, I guess "anti-theology" would be a more accurate term to apply to atheists, agnostics, skeptics, and infidels.

But anyhow, I have a question for all of you non-Christians out there:

What is your moral code/are your moral standards based on?

Serious replies only, please.

EDIT: Please do not take offense at my poor choice of words for the title of this thread. Some posters have expressed concerns of "trolling", but this thread is not meant to be a troll, flame, or a bait to either of those. I merely wish serious discussion of this topic.

My 'moral code' is kind of benign 'pragmatism'. At root, basically, that means that I don't kill because I don't want to be killed, don't steal because I don't want to be stolen from... etc. It's not quite that - because (as I said) it's benign pragmatism - my intention is to 'make it better'. For one person. Ten. The world. So - while I'm pragmatic, and the pragmatism does apply - it's the code, but not the guiding principle.

Pragmatism is how you work out which steps to take. Being philanthropic... is why.

This was inspired by the thread "Another question for Christians" by Dyakovo. I have heard many atheists, agnostics, skeptics, infidels, and other non-Christians argue their "theologies".

On second thought, I guess "anti-theology" would be a more accurate term to apply to atheists, agnostics, skeptics, and infidels.

But anyhow, I have a question for all of you non-Christians out there:

What is your moral code/are your moral standards based on?

Serious replies only, please.


My ethical and moral standards is based on:
rationality, compassion (sympathy) for fellow humans, respect for individuals, awareness of social issues, survival of my own person and of humanity.

I feel no need for sacred texts of any sort. I need my brain.


EDIT: Please do not take offense at my poor choice of words for the title of this thread.

Well, the title of this thread is actually ok... maybe it would have been better to avoid the use of "infidel" in your OP text, if you really wanted not to offend non-believers and non-Christian believers, don't you think?

My moral code is basically "secular humanism". To summarize it quickly and imprecisely in 10 commandments it would be something like (with no special order) :

1. help people around you

2. show respect and compassion for other human beings

3. try to make the world a better place

4. use reason and logic to understand the world

5. don't let your reason be clouded by anger, hatred or fear

6. never accept unfairness, injustice and abuse of authority

7. respect our mother Earth and life

8. be trustful and honest as much as possible

9. think about long term consequences of your actions

10. when you accept/propose to do something, do it well

Two things, basically: a right to property over the things I produce, and the non-initiation of violence. Those two things are basically enough to make a perfect world, I just need to properly justify them.

I personally base my morals on myself: I am the core of my ethics

I roughly believe that most things, needs and wants, that feel good and/or are necessary to me are more or less the same for everyone.

However, I also acknolewdge the physical realities - eg. limited resources - and complete subjectiviness of my viewpoint: If..When someone has different values from me he or she is not automatically any more right or wrong than I am even if their values and/or behaviour would seem displeasing to me.

All that spiced up with an utilitarian streak and a healthy dose of pessi...realism. :p

Two things, basically: a right to property over the things I produce, and the non-initiation of violence.
The former actively kills people while the latter passively allows killing to go on. ;) :p

But anyhow, I have a question for all of you non-Christians out there:

What is your moral code/are your moral standards based on?

Serious replies only, please.



The Golden Rule.

But anyhow, I have a question for all of you non-Christians out there:

What is your moral code/are your moral standards based on?

I developed my personal moral code the same way religious people do: I judge individual situations on their merits and in terms of the culture in which I exist and was raised, and I use these individual situations and my personal experiences to construct a general framework for morality.

The Golden Rule is the fundamental core of my morality. I treat others as I would like to be treated. (Well, I do my best, anyhow.)

very simply, and i suppose as adamantly as any theist, the avoidance of causing suffering. that really is the litmus test and only rational basis of any morality. though i've also heard cogent and persuasive arguments linking morality with collective survival.

and i'm not anti-belief as such. i'm right on for being on friendly terms with whatever invisible awairenessess intending no particular harm, great AND small, there might happen to be. i just don't support pretending to know what is not known.

and yes, that includes pretending to know what 'can't' be either.

and there ARE things, or experiencings of things, that don't have to be known or pretended to be known to be felt, experienced or to exist. just no obligation for any of them to resemble what anyone pretends to know about them.

=^^=
.../\...

This was inspired by the thread "Another question for Christians" by Dyakovo. I have heard many atheists, agnostics, skeptics, infidels, and other non-Christians argue their "theologies".

On second thought, I guess "anti-theology" would be a more accurate term to apply to atheists, agnostics, skeptics, and infidels.

But anyhow, I have a question for all of you non-Christians out there:

What is your moral code/are your moral standards based on?

Serious replies only, please.

EDIT: Please do not take offense at my poor choice of words for the title of this thread. Some posters have expressed concerns of "trolling", but this thread is not meant to be a troll, flame, or a bait to either of those. I merely wish serious discussion of this topic.

My moral code is thusly: Birds of prey > All. Birds > Non-birds.

Beyond that, it's fairly standard. Be nice to people, be polite, with the exception of people who are either rude to me first, or desire to infringe upon my rights in some way.

Mutual benefit. Do as to others, etc... That is not a Christian doctrine. It's common fucking sense. If my actions don't impact on anyone else, I'll do what I like.

This was inspired by the thread "Another question for Christians" by Dyakovo. I have heard many atheists, agnostics, skeptics, infidels, and other non-Christians argue their "theologies".

On second thought, I guess "anti-theology" would be a more accurate term to apply to atheists, agnostics, skeptics, and infidels.

But anyhow, I have a question for all of you non-Christians out there:

What is your moral code/are your moral standards based on?

Serious replies only, please.

EDIT: Please do not take offense at my poor choice of words for the title of this thread. Some posters have expressed concerns of "trolling", but this thread is not meant to be a troll, flame, or a bait to either of those. I merely wish serious discussion of this topic.

My moral code seems to be in line with the rest of most sane people, and I guess I get it from the same places. Some of it is inherent to our species, some of it is instilled via my parents, peers and what not, some of it is cultural, and some of it is personal.

My morals are based on the Bhagavad Gita.

AUM

I would counter this with where does a religious person get there morals from? Anyone saying the bible obviously hasn't read it. Also in the millenia since the Bible was written, religious people have changed their position on many things.

The Bible had no problem with slavery. Most religious people do. The bible had huge problems with sodomy. This is no longer as black and white amongst religious people as it used to be. he whole village should get together and kill anyone working on a Sunday. The woman should look after the children. I can continue but I think I've made my point.

The bible, or any other religious book, is not where religious people get their morals either.

My, and I believe most people morals, come from how they were raised. Some people obey the golden rule better than other. Some people obey the rule of whatever I can get away it.

I consider myself very moral. I have a strong belief that helping ones fellow man is critical. The strong should help and protect the weak. The strong should not prey on the weak which is unfortunately the most prevalent morality in the world today it seems. I am also an Atheist.

My Moral code can pretty much be summed up to the motto of my country on NationStates, "As long as it harms none, do as you will". Or basicly as long as what you do or believe in doesn't physically harm anyone or infringe on their freedom do act/believe what they want, do or believe whatever you want. (^_^)

If you've been raised in a religious country, even if you are an atheist or agnostic, you're still affected by the culture and morals of that country. I'm an agnostic, bordering on atheist, my ethics and values have a strong Judeo-Christian slant because I was raised in a Judeo-Christian country. The difference between my attitude and that of a lot of Christians I know is that I actually thought about the bases of those ethics and values. This means I did a lot of pruning and adapting. I eliminated anything about worshipping God or taking his/her/it's name in vain or idol worship. My attitudes on stealing and murder remain unchanged, I've added some stuff about not harming or taking advantage of the helpless (children, animals, etc.). The most radical change is in sexual morality - since the restrictions on sex are a patriarchal religion's attempt to control reproduction and the movements of women. I do believe in serious relationships, I don't believe that marriage is the only context for this. I believe in taking responsibility about who you have sex with and for the results of the sexual encounter(s).

having a moral code is not as important as...well... not doing bad things.

lots of people have fancy highly developed moral codes. they make a big deal out of how they know better than other people the right and wrong way to behave. they spend lots of time telling people what to do.

then you find out that they lie, cheat, steal, break vows, etc. in their private lives because they think they will never be found out.

so i just avoid doing bad things and avoid putting myself in situations where i might NEED to do bad things. that gets me through the vast majority of lifes moral decisions.

From a philosophical standpoint, Moral theory can focus on either:
Teleolgoical theories=moral judgements are based on the effects they are likely to have. Sometimes known as consequentialist theory, one example is Act Utilitarian theory.

Deontological theories= do not base moral judgement on the consequences. There are some acts that are right or wrong regardless of the consequences, one example is Kantian theory, founded by Immanuel Kant in late 1700s.

The issues with each of these standpoints are as follows.
Utilitarian theory or
Utilitarianism
Founded by Jeremy Bentham in an introduction to the principles of morals and legislation.
Axiom 1: people move from pain towards pleasure, ‘psychological hedonism’.
Axiom 2: you take into account the pain/pleasure of others in your decision making.
The GHP greatest happiness principle, an action is moral if it increases happiness for the majority of people.
Premise 1: morality depends on the consequences.
However there are some acts that are just wrong.
Premise 2: pleasure=happiness.
You can define happiness in other ways.
Bentham (1748-1832) created the hedonic calculus, for a moral decision you assign a numeric value (+2/-2 etc) and calculate how much pleasure or pain is produced.

Problems of This are as follows;
How do you quantify pleasure?
Can you trust yourself to make a fair or accurate assessment of the situation?
Most people rationalise but rationalise is simply, rational lies.
Problems with Act-Utilitarianism
Problems of consequences what happens if circumstances change? E.g. coal power stations used to be brilliant inventions everyone had jobs and it created energy for locomotives, however nowadays we know that the environmental consequences of these power stations are disastrous and people would frown upon them if some were created now.
Problem of the definition of society, how do you define the greatest number of people? So this is the local vs. global consequences do you include your family, country all life on this planet, because as you calculate the moral action it could be different for a great number of people than for a small number of people.
It’s not realistic utilitarianism demands too much for people to cope with.
There is also the problem of sadists, as the people you wish to be happy might not want ultimate happiness for others, utilitarianism assumes a “moral consensus”.

So John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) adapted some ideas of Utilitarianism there are higher and lower pleasures, “better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied”. Lower pleasures might include food, toilets and sex higher pleasures would include going to the opera, reading and intellectual pursuits. This is trying to distinguish humans from apes, so the quality of pleasure is important

Kantian Ethics

Immanuel Kant 1724-1804
Your rationality makes you different from animals, Kant says that the ideal person is like Mr Spock, we have a duty, Kant wrote much of his ideas during the French revolution, not realistic though, he is also considered to be a transcendental idealist, not flexible uses deontological ethics. Right and wrong dependant on the internal motives of the moral agents (you and me).

Axiom 1: our sense of duty is non-negotiable.
Axiom 2: your sense of duty precedes your consciousness.
Axiom 3: your sense of moral duty works along rational principles that can be uncovered.

The groundwork of the metaphysic of morals. (Metaphysics=physics which can’t be proved).
The categorical imperative
Formulation 1; universability act only in such a way that you could make your universal maxim for all of humanity to follow.
If your act impinges on the intention of the moral agent, it’s wrong.
Formulation 2; the end in itself formulation always treat people as a means, not an end. In doing so you recognise their status as rational autonomous beings.
So Kant is difficult to understand, deontological theorist, intrinsic morality, wasn’t interested in the consequences, interested in intent, different from animals, humans should be like Mr Spock, an idealist, rationality, you can use your will to do the right thing, “implicit moral compass”, categorical imperative, what could everyone do if you did it.
Kant provides the purest but not the clearest moral system.

So advantages of Kant;
Believes everyone has the ability to do the right thing, freewill, avoids issue of consequences, easier to operate would work in a perfect society, it’s a good ideal.

So disadvantages of Kant;
Ignores consequences, sadists don’t’ really work, sometimes it’s not practical, conflict of duties, not morally responsible for your actions, not flexible about right and wrong, could slip into rule utilitarianism, we all have different moral compass so universability wouldn’t work, we don’t always act rationally, twistable, is duty the only thing that is moral? Understanding of consequences beneath duty.
Kant also says that humans are rational whereas animals act on instinct, he’s an idealist.

Differences between categorical imperative and golden rule;
CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE.
Act only on a maxim that you can at the same time, will that it will become a universal law, focuses on intent.
GOLDEN RULE
Do unto others as they’d do unto you, focuses on consequences, isn’t moral only looks at behaviour.

Kant example;
The German occupiers expect you to round up and interrogate those of your fellow countrymen suspected of being members of the underground. They believe you are more likely to get useful intelligence from them than if they were to do it.
Kant would say refuse the job on the principle that it would hurt other people, which is a deontological perspective. A teleological perspective would say accept the job and make the suffering reduced.

PS, i apologise for the grammar it's my revision notes for philosophy, so you could argue that moral issues fall into one of these two theories, but of course in philosophy, they like to complicate things, there are other theories, but i don't have much information on them.

EDIT: i should also add, that in my course it's not required for me to know all the Kantian formulations (as they can get very complicated) but that's the bare bones of the theories.
EDIT: EDIT: I'd like to point out that, i was wrong about the golden rule thing, i was misreading it, but i think you're right i should have left that out. sorry.
It's been a long day.

Hold on folks, i'd just like to point out that the 'Golden rule"-do unto others as they would do unto you- is not strictly speaking, a basis for moral understanding.
That's not the Golden Rule.

thanks for ignoring the rest of my post.

Errr you're welcome?

That's not the Golden Rule.

thanks for ignoring the rest of my post.

On the glorious teachings of Socialism

thanks for ignoring the rest of my post.
Not at all. Didn't take me but a moment.

Errr you're welcome?
What's funny is that I actually played out the Golden Rule in my response to him.

If I made such a glaring and fundamental error about one of the most basic concepts in moral philosophy, I'd want somebody to point it out so I could fix the mistake and quit embarrassing myself. I certainly wouldn't expect anybody to bother reading my opinions on more complex philosophical subjects if I'd just shown them that I fail at even the simplest concepts.

So that's exactly how I responded. :D

What's funny is that I actually played out the Golden Rule in my response to him.

If I made such a glaring and fundamental error about one of the most basic concepts in moral philosophy, I'd want somebody to point it out so I could fix the mistake and quit embarrassing myself. I certainly wouldn't expect anybody to bother reading my opinions on more complex philosophical subjects if I'd just shown them that I fail at even the simplest concepts.

So that's exactly how I responded. :D

Heh whilst I jus' whipped on in there and took all the credit for another's actions!

Hold on folks, i'd just like to point out that the 'Golden rule"-do unto others as they would do unto you- is not strictly speaking, a basis for moral understanding.
The golden rule refers to human behaviour, focuses on consequences, isn’t moral only looks at behaviour.
For example, following the golden rule, if someone hit you, you would hit them back, fine, if one country invades another, should another country invade them, which would lead to another country invading them and so on... e.g. Mahatma Ghandi "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind".

Um, no you wouldn't. Following the Golden Rule means that, if you don't want to be hit, you don't hit others. It compels you to consider how you would feel if someone did something to you (either for ill or for good) and do only those things you would want to have done to you.

"An eye for an eye" is not only different from the Golden Rule, but is also often fundamentally opposed to it.

As a Christian (not a "religious" person, thanks. I see "religion" as the whole idea of having to work for salvation etc) I'd say that folk who aren't Christians or "religious" in any way get their moral code from exactly the same place as everyone else gets it: it's called a conscience. We all have it, and we all have an in-built knowledge of what's wrong or right based on it.

Just I happen to believe that it was God that put it there, as opposed to it being a result of evolution or what have you.

Um, no you wouldn't. Following the Golden Rule means that, if you don't want to be hit, you don't hit others. It compels you to consider how you would feel if someone did something to you (either for ill or for good) and do only those things you would want to have done to you.

"An eye for an eye" is not only different from the Golden Rule, but is also often fundamentally opposed to it.

Okay i should add, that the Golden rule is often accepted as a moral philosophy but "strictly speaking" it wouldn't work well. (according to my philosophy teacher).

"it compels you to consider how you would feel if someone did something to you and do only those things you would want to have done to you."

yes but, it would be easy to manipulate, what if you have no feelings? (the sadist issue), i'm not saying the "golden rule" is a bad moral idea, it's just not a very useful one.

Okay i should add, that the Golden rule is often accepted as a moral philosophy but "strictly speaking" it wouldn't work well. (according to my philosophy teacher).

"it compels you to consider how you would feel if someone did something to you and do only those things you would want to have done to you."

yes but, it would be easy to manipulate, what if you have no feelings? (the sadist issue), i'm not saying the "golden rule" is a bad moral idea, it's just not a very useful one.


I disagree, totally. Given that morality is personal can you explain why treating others how you would wish to be treated is not very useful? Also factoring that the majority would not want others to cause them harm?

how would the majority not want to cause harm? (i can see what you're saying)
What if you do something horrible, the majority by "the golden rule" would do something horrible to you, which wouldn't help anyone. so it's useless as a theory.
Also morality may be personal but your moral decisions will affect other people at some point.
At a behavioural level maybe it's useful but morally speaking it just doesn't hold water.

Huh what?

I think you are mistaking what the golden rule is.

What is deemed moral or immoral comes not from society at large but from each individual. Given that, if part of my moral code includes the golden rule(treat others how you wish to be treated) then I would not wish to be harmed, and nor would the majority of us, then it follows you have a society that on the whole would not wish to cause harm to each other.

Please explain how this is useless, and how it does not morally hold water.

It's really a deeper question than it appears.

Take a look at the default assumption: The Moral Code is the work of God, and God alone.

This would mean that it's entirely arbitrary- just on a level beyond us. If God has no higher moral authority to work from, then "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery" really has no more moral authority than "Thou Shalt Not Paint the South Wall of thy Dwellings Blue or Green."

Which would mean, in turn, that if God is selecting arbitrary behavioural constraints on us, and saying "these are immoral, solely because I say so" then God is himself/herself/itself immoral, because there is no higher authority making these decisions moral ones.

Which means, then, there is no moral code, just an arbitrary reward/punishment scheme set out for various patterns of behavour.

Now on the other end of the scheme, if there was no God, and all morality was based on Human choices, same thing- in the end, it's arbitrary and there is no morality at all.

One might conclude, then there is no morality, but this excludes other possibilites: Morality might be emergent given the nature of the universe, and the nature of our experience of it.

What?

Well, for starters, we all know what "up" is, yes? "Up" is not an arbitrary definition, and it can't be a strictly Human choice, because by incredible coincidence everyone on earth agrees with "Up" and looks in the same direction when told "Look up!". But, it seems silly to say "God created Up", because we can't even conceive of a universe that has 3 dimensions, but lacks an Up until the booming voice of God tells us what Up is. And while we all understand it is real, we cannot go out and fill a bag with it. Up, it seems, is a feature inherrent in the construction of the universe, and our perception of it.

The same goes for Color. We see "Blue" and "Red" but these do not exist outside of our perceptions. They are not "real" features of the universe, which only has varying wavelengths of photons. If you lengthen the wavelength of a photon, you don't make it "redder" in any sense outside of Human perception. On the other hand, we can't say we arbitrarily invented Blue, because there is universal agreement on the quality of Blue-ness, nor does it make sense to say "God created Blue". And although we can all agree that there is "Blue", much like with morals, we disagree over the exact borders. (Even a color blind person understands that some quality called Blue exists.)

So, perhaps there are concepts which are real and non-arbitrary, but are indirect artifacts of the universe, created by the interaction of the real universe and our perception of it, like Up, Blue, and Evil. Morality might easily be a Human perception of certain underlying principles of the universe, intrinsic to the architecture of the universe. Like "Up" we cannot have a universe without it, like "blue" we know it exists but disagree over the finer details.

Okay i should add, that the Golden rule is often accepted as a moral philosophy but "strictly speaking" it wouldn't work well. (according to my philosophy teacher).

"it compels you to consider how you would feel if someone did something to you and do only those things you would want to have done to you."

yes but, it would be easy to manipulate, what if you have no feelings? (the sadist issue), i'm not saying the "golden rule" is a bad moral idea, it's just not a very useful one.

Sociopaths are a pretty small subset of humanity, and generally aren't going to follow any particular moral code anyways. So "people who have no feelings" are hardly the basis on which to judge a moral code.

It is our empathy that generally compels us to interact in a moral manner in the first place. The Golden Rule just puts that fact into words.

how would the majority not want to cause harm? (i can see what you're saying)

It isn't so much that the majority wouldn't want to cause harm. It's that the majority would not want others to harm them. Given that, if they act by the Golden Rule, they would not harm others.

What if you do something horrible, the majority by "the golden rule" would do something horrible to you, which wouldn't help anyone. so it's useless as a theory.

Once again, you are confusing "an eye for an eye" with the Golden Rule. They are not the same.

If you harmed someone, would you want them to reciprocate or to allow you to make amends? Most people would prefer the latter. As such, under the Golden Rule, most people would try to allow others to make amends, rather than immediately reciprocating.

Huh what?

I think you are mistaking what the golden rule is.

What is deemed moral or immoral comes not from society at large but from each individual. Given that, if part of my moral code includes the golden rule(treat others how you wish to be treated) then I would not wish to be harmed, and nor would the majority of us, then it follows you have a society that on the whole would not wish to cause harm to each other.

Please explain how this is useless, and how it does not morally hold water.

hold on, just thinking about that. i am wrong. damn. i misread it,

"Differences between categorical imperative and golden rule;
CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE.
Act only on a maxim that you can at the same time, will that it will become a universal law, focuses on intent.
GOLDEN RULE
Do unto others as they’d do unto you, focuses on consequences, isn’t moral only looks at behaviour."

hmmm. i can only apologise to folks for misleading them, i suppose it's because i never really focused on the "Golden rule".
again sorry.

What is your moral code/are your moral standards based on?The Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have done unto you.

And I remember that every rule must have exceptions, seeing as allowing criminal behavior run rampant because I don't want to be incarcerated would not benefit anyone.

Sociopaths are a pretty small subset of humanity, and generally aren't going to follow any particular moral code anyways. So "people who have no feelings" are hardly the basis on which to judge a moral code.

It is our empathy that generally compels us to interact in a moral manner in the first place. The Golden Rule just puts that fact into words.



It isn't so much that the majority wouldn't want to cause harm. It's that the majority would not want others to harm them. Given that, if they act by the Golden Rule, they would not harm others.



Once again, you are confusing "an eye for an eye" with the Golden Rule. They are not the same.

If you harmed someone, would you want them to reciprocate or to allow you to make amends? Most people would prefer the latter. As such, under the Golden Rule, most people would try to allow others to make amends, rather than immediately reciprocating.

yeah um, i can only apologise for that.
I misread it, i remember my philosophy telling me "remember the Golden rule, looks the same as Kant but, there are very distinct differences.
I suppose it was because i didn't think it through, then it didn't help when other people tried to goad me instead of making me realise my mistake.
so in short you're right.

I have an inner sense of connectedness with my fellow human beings as well as, to a lesser extent, with my fellow animals. I would use the term empathy to describe this. My morality extends from this and naturally aligns with the golden rule.

I have some sub-clauses in there about fairness and justice, which are rooted in objectively viewing everyone as an individual. I root for/side with the bullied instead of the bully, probably extending from my experience as a child of being an young intellectual and a younger brother. It would be fair to say that a good bit of my morality was set in place by interacting with my family as a child.

I would say that I am also a byproduct of my society, through education both passive and active, which tends to try to curb certain natural tendencies, like ethnocentrism, and enhance others, like submission to legal authority.

Unfortunately for the original questioner, I've seen shockingly little in my life that suggests (self titled/so-called) Christians derive/divine their morality from any other source. The racism/bloodthirstiness of the OT Yahweh character or the "give all your money to the poor" ethic espoused by the NT Jesus character are seen as contrary to normal morality in modern society and summarily discarded.

Atheistic Sweden and Japan are, subjectively, very moral societies even when compared to the more "Christian" United States. Russia perhaps might be seen as a counter-example, never been there myself.

I have an inner sense of connectedness with my fellow human beings as well as, to a lesser extent, with my fellow animals. I would use the term empathy to describe this. My morality extends from this and naturally aligns with the golden rule.

I have some sub-clauses in there about fairness and justice, which are rooted in objectively viewing everyone as an individual. I root for/side with the bullied instead of the bully, probably extending from my experience as a child of being an young intellectual and a younger brother. It would be fair to say that a good bit of my morality was set in place by interacting with my family as a child.

I would say that I am also a byproduct of my society, through education both passive and active, which tends to try to curb certain natural tendencies, like ethnocentrism, and enhance others, like submission to legal authority.

Unfortunately for the original questioner, I've seen shockingly little in my life that suggests (self titled/so-called) Christians derive/divine their morality from any other source. The racism/bloodthirstiness of the OT Yahweh character or the "give all your money to the poor" ethic espoused by the NT Jesus character are seen as contrary to normal morality in modern society and summarily discarded.

Atheistic Sweden and Japan are, subjectively, very moral societies even when compared to the more "Christian" United States. Russia perhaps might be seen as a counter-example, never been there myself.

Oh Russia, i heard they let in a whole load of cults, instead of having a major state religion during the soviet reign.
take for example a doomsday cult in russia, who holed up in a cave, (i heard that from BBC somewhere).

The Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have done unto you.

And I remember that every rule must have exceptions, seeing as allowing criminal behavior run rampant because I don't want to be incarcerated would not benefit anyone.

Plus, do we dare ask how an extreme masochist would interpret the Golden Rule?

Plus, do we dare ask how an extreme masochist would interpret the Golden Rule?

Sounds like it could make some fun home videos...

Plus, do we dare ask how an extreme masochist would interpret the Golden Rule?

interesting actually now that i tried to say the "golden rule" is not very good, i've thought of some ideas.
Like for example what one person expects another to do the other might not notice it, or disregard it.
How can doing what other people do to you be moral? what if you get away with murder, other people try to kill you but fail, does it stop there?
what i mean is one interpretation of what is good for you is different from another, so a conflict might arise.
also what if the first thing that happens to you is someone tries to kill you, you'd think by the rule "you must do unto others" means you should kill others?

okay maybe they're a little far fetched i'll try another one.
It tends to ignore the long term consequences, just because you do something that might appear good to another person when it damages them long term could be a bad thing, like giving charity then finding out that the charity was actually a funding unit for terrorist activity.
Or giving someone else a ciggarette, even though it's bad for them, would you hold one back if you had one and didn't smoke (i know it's a bit twisted but stay with me), or that oh no what should i do? go to the pub spend £20 on booze come out happy after entertaining others, or give it to charity? the do unto others thing seems to pale a bit, it looks good, and can be good, but it can be twisted, just something to bear in mind.

i
How can doing what other people do to you be moral? what if you get away with murder, other people try to kill you but fail, does it stop there?
what i mean is one interpretation of what is good for you is different from another, so a conflict might arise.

Again, it isn't about doing what other people do to you. It is about doing to others what you would want them to do to you. If you would want them to leave you alone, you leave them alone. If you would want them to help you if you were hurt, you help others who are hurt. If you would want them to consider your feelings, you consider theirs. And so on....

also what if the first thing that happens to you is someone tries to kill you, you'd think by the rule "you must do unto others" means you should kill others?

No. You'd think, "Did I like it when someone tried to kill me? Nope. Do I want someone else to try and kill me? Nope. That means I shouldn't try and kill others."

Plus, do we dare ask how an extreme masochist would interpret the Golden Rule?Exactly. "Does the Golden Rule apply to masochists?" is one of my all-time favorite questions.

Masochist to sadist: Beat me! Hurt me!

Sadist: No! I refuse!

getting what i want with the absolute minimum amount of harm to others.

1) I prefer ethics to morals.

2) I learned right and wrong from my family and the society/community I grew up in. No churches were involved.

3) I'm not exactly sure what is meant by "moral code." Is it like the Tax Code?

Whatever, I use (not follow) a system (not code) of ethics (not morals). My ethics are based on the Golden Rule, a pragmatic "enlightened self-interest" concept, and a personal practice of mental discipline that requires me to remind myself periodically that I'm not the only, nor the most important, person in the world.

I'd return the question to religious people:

Is it really the case that you don't kill people solely because God says it's wrong - is that really your only reason?
It's a bit more complicated than that, but yes, ultimately all morality comes from God.

Why is your reason for not killing people? And don't pretend that being moral for no good reason whatsoever is superior to being moral because God told you to. It isn't.

You think just because I don't believe there's a magic man out there who made the world and let us suffer I can't distinguish between right and wrong? That I have no morals? Right.
No, I believe you have no good reason to have any morals. You may act morally, but it is only out of habit, out of inertia.

You know who ACTUALLY teaches you morals? Or at least, who's supposed to? Your parents. Your guardians. Your friends. Please don't blame the problems of others on those who aren't superstitious. It offends me. And I apologize for sounding angry, because I am.
So your morality is based on what your parents and friends tell you to do?

It's a bit more complicated than that, but yes, ultimately all morality comes from God.

Why is your reason for not killing people? And don't pretend that being moral for no good reason whatsoever is superior to being moral because God told you to. It isn't.
I can't speak for Barringtonia, but speaking for myself, I have no idea what reason or code would stop me from killing people because I have no urge to kill people, therefore I do not need to be stopped from doing it. I do not need a reason not to do something that I have no [edit] reason to do and no desire to do.

Are you saying that you do need a reason not to kill people, or that you do need to be stopped from doing it?

No, I believe you have no good reason to have any morals. You may act morally, but it is only out of habit, out of inertia.
I can't speak for Darendale, but again speaking for myself, I find this comment rather insulting. Also, what do you care why a person acts morally? As long as you get the desired result (moral/ethical behavior), what difference does it make how or why you got it?

So your morality is based on what your parents and friends tell you to do?
And again not speaking for Darendale, but only for myself, no, my concepts of right and wrong are based on what I have seen them do, not what I have heard them say. Some very close elder members of my family have been examples of the right thing to do. Others have been examples of the wrong thing to do, including examples of liars and hypocrites.

Two things, basically: a right to property over the things I produce, and the non-initiation of violence. Those two things are basically enough to make a perfect world, I just need to properly justify them.

Curious that your 'moral' code needs only two principles - one that can be harmful to those around you, and one that causes those around you to not be able to do you harm.

A little self-serving, perhaps?

It's a bit more complicated than that, but yes, ultimately all morality comes from God.


Could you give an example of this, a moral dilemna/choice that you have faced and how you ascertained what "God" wanted you to do? Preferrably your example would elucidate how a non-believer would/could not have come to a moral choice through empathy/golden rule/enlightened self interest/humanistic principles etc.

Any other theists care to offer one?

QFT. I was not meaning to imply that religion is necessary for morality. I just want to know what people who believe differently than I do base their moral code on.

Well then a little tip, people who beleive differently than you object to being called "infidels".

My moral code seems to have developed from a complex mix of old school chivalry, tales of Robin Hood (right is more important than legal) and the Dao of Peter Parker (With great power comes great responsability).

What is your moral code/are your moral standards based on?

Serious replies only, please.

*Thinks hard*

Okay, okay. I've got it! Be...excellent...to eachother!

...Damn...

[/keanu reeves]

In all seriousness, my moral code runs on my five precepts: honesty, decency, humility, justice and moderation. I strive to be honest (this should be self explanatory), polite (insofar that I treat others the way I want to be treated), humble (not in denying self worth but shunning hubris), just (to be fair in all things) and moderate (to show practicality and shun extremes) in my everyday life. And so far this mantra has served me well.

It also allows me to say Ubergeek things like "For great justice!" :D

I'd return the question to religious people:

Is it really the case that you don't kill people solely because God says it's wrong - is that really your only reason?

Of course it isn't.
I disagree. If you don't believe there's some reason why the moral rules are important, why do you follow them?

I disagree. If you don't believe there's some reason why the moral rules are important, why do you follow them?

Does "important" automatically equate to "God said so"?

With politics: utilitarianism, pragmatism and the notion of human rights.

Going about my daily life: my self interests, my emotions (I feel sympathy for someone so that I want to help them), and occasional my instincts.

Follow science; discard superstition
Be diligent; not indolent
Be united, help each other; make no gains at other's expense.
Be honest and trustworthy; do not sacrifice ethics for personal gain.
Be disciplined (as in self-discipline); not chaotic and lawless
Live comfortably, but not luxuriously and materialistic.

I like those.

I consider my moral code to be based on how Dawkins explained it - a natural progression of behavior. I follow a fair few, if not all of those above, to be honest, but I haven't thought of them in that form.

I tend to just treat each day as it comes - help all those you can, find help for those you can't.

Curious that your 'moral' code needs only two principles - one that can be harmful to those around you, and one that causes those around you to not be able to do you harm.
My property right doesn't cause harm to anyone. At the very worst it doesn't help anyone, but that's a different story.

Does "important" automatically equate to "God said so"?
No, but for believers "God said so" probably equates to "important".

For morality to be important, there has to be a reason it's important. If you thik it's important for a reason other than "God said so", I'm curious to hear what that is.

My moral code is based upon empathy and observation. Certian actions cause people to react in positive or negative manners, positive reactions imply happiness while negative reactions imply unpleasant emotions, I like being happy and don't like being angry/distressed/etc., therefor I should do things that make people respond positively and not things that make people respond negatively.

I shouldn't, however, go out of my way to make people happy if it would cause me to be, for lack of a better word, sad. Giving someone my car just to cheer them up doesn't make any sense after all. Giving a starving man food is a different scenario entirely since he needs that food more than I do.

I then apply this to a broader scale when thinking about government. How can I make the largest number of people truely happy while disrupting the lives of as few people as possible? It then follows that, since there are very few rich people and a lot of poor people, taking the money and property from the rich and allowing it to be used by the poor would be a large step towards my goal.

It's a bit more complicated than that, but yes, ultimately all morality comes from God.

Why is your reason for not killing people? And don't pretend that being moral for no good reason whatsoever is superior to being moral because God told you to. It isn't.

You need a reason to not kill people?

That's fucking scary.

No, but for believers "God said so" probably equates to "important".

For morality to be important, there has to be a reason it's important. If you thik it's important for a reason other than "God said so", I'm curious to hear what that is.
Not only do I think there's another reason, I will take it a step further:

I think that only the most batshit insane wackos actually believe that "God said so" is all that is required for morality.

I've used it a million times before, but here's Bottle's Favorite Question For Theists!

Let's say God speaks directly to you. It is God, no doubt about it, speaking directly and clearly to you. God says, "I want you to torture a kitten to death. It is moral that you should do this thing."

Now, regardless of whether or not you do it, do you feel totally okay about this? Or do you get a twinge in your gut? Do you obey without any hesitation or question, or does part of you think, "Um, torturing a kitten is pretty fucked up and icky. Is God really asking me to do this? This doesn't sound good..."

Okay, now, same question, but replace "kitten" with "human infant."

On the internet I've had several people bluster about how they would obey God without a qualm. But in person, I've never seen a theist handle the question without a flinch. This is because most theists are not batshit crazy psychopaths. They are people with consciences and empathy...AND INTERNAL MORAL COMPASSES. They know that it would feel wrong to torture an infant to death. Even if God asked them to do it. They have a sense of morality that exists independent of God.

The golden rule is generally a good idea, if you understand it definitely doesn't apply in all circumstances.
Like this:
You are talking to a friend. You suddenly have a desire to go get a beer. Since you would like it if your friend gave you a beer, you go get your friend a beer. This would be good if your friend was not a recovering alcoholic. Seen in that light, you're an asshole.
It works in reverse too:
Your ex-alcoholic friend would probably consider it a favor if you took his beer from him before he got the chance to drink it. This does not mean he should go and take your beer. If he does, HE'S an asshole, and probably an ex-ex-alcoholic as well.

It's a bit more complicated than that, but yes, ultimately all morality comes from God.

Why is your reason for not killing people? And don't pretend that being moral for no good reason whatsoever is superior to being moral because God told you to. It isn't.

Jean Piaget - and I apologise that he's not in the Bible, merely a child psychologist, you know, an expert in these things - looked for morality in children, those who neither had had much time to be exposed to religious morality nor were they mentally advanced enough to understand taught morality.

He chose the game of marbles.

He found several stages of development among small children. In the first phase, marbles were simply an object of motor skills, and infants engaged in standard behaviors of tasting them, burying them, piling them up, etc. Next, some of these behaviors became ritualized and repeated, as if associated with particular thoughts of the infants performing them.

Within two years, small children old enough to speak were making some effort to imitate the rules of the game as practiced by their elders. They did not have the mental equipment yet to remember or understand all these rules. Paradoxically, they considered the rules sacred, yet each child played only against himself even when with others, and there was no true competitive play under collective rules.

Later, children mastered the rules of marbles in competition with one another. A keen sense of fairness arose that influenced the creation and use of the rules. Finally, though fairness remained paramount, older children came to regard the rules as their collective creation, a contract they form to be able to play with one another.

Thus, the rules evolved to define the conditions for cooperation and the penalties for defection, and may be amended or replaced by other formulations serving the same purpose.

For many people - and you might be able to guess those against - his research proves conclusively that humans are rules-creating animals and that God is not required as the explanation either of marbles or of morality.

The golden rule is generally a good idea, if you understand it definitely doesn't apply in all circumstances.
Like this:
You are talking to a friend. You suddenly have a desire to go get a beer. Since you would like it if your friend gave you a beer, you go get your friend a beer. This would be good if your friend was not a recovering alcoholic. Seen in that light, you're an asshole.
It works in reverse too:
Your ex-alcoholic friend would probably consider it a favor if you took his beer from him before he got the chance to drink it. This does not mean he should go and take your beer. If he does, HE'S an asshole, and probably an ex-ex-alcoholic as well.
You just have to understand that the Rule includes the context.

I would not like a man to run up and shove me while I'm crossing the street. But I ran up and shoved a man who was crossing the street once...because a car was coming and it didn't look like it was stopping in time. The context was critical. (Of course, as it turned out the car would have stopped in time, and my would-be heroic moment was a total waste.)

I wouldn't want my buddy to take my beer away, because I'm not an alcoholic. If I were an alcoholic, I'd want him to take my beer away. So I apply the full context of the situation.

You need a reason to not kill people?

That's fucking scary.

I'm not sure he means just randomly plucking someone of the street, because the reprocussions are fucking massive. Suppose, instead, you are on the fifth floor of a building. The building is coming down pretty fast and you see a small child and an elevator. If the elevator (which is still operational, by the way) can only hold one person (by some design flaw), do you send yourself down or do you let the child go down and leave yourself to die?

I'm not sure he means just randomly plucking someone of the street, because the reprocussions are fucking massive. Suppose, instead, you are on the fifth floor of a building. The building is coming down pretty fast and you see a small child and an elevator. If the elevator (which is still operational, by the way) can only hold one person (by some design flaw), do you send yourself down or do you let the child go down and leave yourself to die?
That's an amazingly convoluted way of asking, "Would you kill somebody to save your own life?" It's also an intensely boring hypothetical that has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

This was inspired by the thread "Another question for Christians" by Dyakovo. I have heard many atheists, agnostics, skeptics, infidels, and other non-Christians argue their "theologies".

On second thought, I guess "anti-theology" would be a more accurate term to apply to atheists, agnostics, skeptics, and infidels.

But anyhow, I have a question for all of you non-Christians out there:

What is your moral code/are your moral standards based on?

Serious replies only, please.

EDIT: Please do not take offense at my poor choice of words for the title of this thread. Some posters have expressed concerns of "trolling", but this thread is not meant to be a troll, flame, or a bait to either of those. I merely wish serious discussion of this topic.

Basic human empathy.

That's an amazingly convoluted way of asking, "Would you kill somebody to save your own life?" It's also an intensely boring hypothetical that has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Or you could just answer the question. You've been arguing this entire time that despite your personal convictions that you are still a moral person. Yet the examples you've brought up don't exactly classify under morality, simply "not being a douchebag/idiot" (Of course you won't kill anyone of the street, you'll be arrested, convicted, and incarcerated). What I'm asking you is when you have nothing (or very little) to win and a lot to lose by acting moral, would you still be moral?

What I'm asking you is when you have nothing (or very little) to win and a lot to lose by acting moral, would you still be moral?
Question: why is it moral to commit suicide in order to save the kid? Would it be moral for the kid to commit suicide in order to save me?

Or you could just answer the question. You've been arguing this entire time that despite your personal convictions that you are still a moral person. Yet the examples you've brought up don't exactly classify under morality, simply "not being a douchebag/idiot" (Of course you won't kill anyone of the street, you'll be arrested, convicted, and incarcerated). What I'm asking you is when you have nothing (or very little) to win and a lot to lose by acting moral, would you still be moral?

Women and children get priority, otherwise that hypothetical elevator is first come first served. If someone else tries to get the kid out of the elevator I take him the fuck down. Good enough for you?

Question: why is it moral to commit suicide in order to save the kid? Would it be moral for the kid to commit suicide in order to save me?

Women and children first. Thats the way it goes.

If you follow a moral code simply out of fear of punishment, either legally or spiritually, you don't really have a moral code. You also have the mentality of a six-year-old.

This is correct - except children are at least trying to move on and form their own social contracts with those around them whereas those who think they're simply following a moral code aren't even looking to think for themselves.

I'd place them more at around 4 years old.

Question: why is it moral to commit suicide in order to save the kid? Would it be moral for the kid to commit suicide in order to save me?

Sacrificing oneself to save another is, IMO, more moral than saving yourself. However, neither action is really wrong.

/answering a question that was directed to someone else

Question: why is it moral to commit suicide in order to save the kid? Would it be moral for the kid to commit suicide in order to save me?

Morality is about putting the needs of others before your own. The child can neither help himself, nor have a clear understanding of what morality is (children typically don't). You make the choice for the both of you. Do you end his life or do you end your own? Do you serve your own needs and desires, or do you serve someone else's, particularly one who is defenseless?

Morality is about putting the needs of others before your own.
According to what definition?

According to what definition?

According to the implied definition across all human cultures. When one acts moral, you put your own needs and desires aside for the greater good, whether that be helping an old lady or saving the child at cost to yourself.

I'm not sure he means just randomly plucking someone of the street, because the reprocussions are fucking massive. Suppose, instead, you are on the fifth floor of a building. The building is coming down pretty fast and you see a small child and an elevator. If the elevator (which is still operational, by the way) can only hold one person (by some design flaw), do you send yourself down or do you let the child go down and leave yourself to die?

This question is so ludicruous, its not even funny.

An elevator that is operational, but can only support one person?

And the entire building is 'coming down pretty fast' and the elevator is still working?

According to the implied definition across all human cultures. When one acts moral, you put your own needs and desires aside for the greater good, whether that be helping an old lady or saving the child at cost to yourself.
And I could call that immoral, and then we'd be sitting here and not get anywhere. I could say that self-denial can't possibly be the basis for moral behaviour, because without the self there is nothing to take a moral action. If sacrifice is morality, then the most moral action is to kill yourself right now. Someone else would inherit what you own, someone else would be able to breathe a bit of extra oxygen and eat a bit of extra food.

But chances are that you don't, that you think that for your sacrifice to mean anything there must first be something more to sacrifice. And that implies that you try and improve yourself, earn more wealth, grow food, plant trees, who knows. But for you to be able to do that, you must first be self-aware and for a period at least refrain from sacrificing yourself. So self-sacrifice is not always good, and putting the needs of others above your own is not always good either.

I can tell you right now that I'm not at all certain I'd kill myself so some child can live. As far as I can tell, I'm just as valuable, if not more, to the greater good - not to mention myself.

And I could call that immoral, and then we'd be sitting here and not get anywhere. I could say that self-denial can't possibly be the basis for moral behaviour, because without the self there is nothing to take a moral action. If sacrifice is morality, then the most moral action is to kill yourself right now. Someone else would inherit what you own, someone else would be able to breathe a bit of extra oxygen and eat a bit of extra food.

But chances are that you don't, that you think that for your sacrifice to mean anything there must first be something more to sacrifice. And that implies that you try and improve yourself, earn more wealth, grow food, plant trees, who knows. But for you to be able to do that, you must first be self-aware and for a period at least refrain from sacrificing yourself. So self-sacrifice is not always good, and putting the needs of others above your own is not always good either.

I can tell you right now that I'm not at all certain I'd kill myself so some child can live. As far as I can tell, I'm just as valuable, if not more, to the greater good - not to mention myself.

Sacrifice isn't the ultimate moral action unless it's in proper context. You could do far more by living a moral life, self sacrifice being one of them if the situation calls for it. And if the situation about the child doesn't strike you as a moral dilema, consider one where it's self sacrifice versus something that would be clearly be a far greater benefit to the population as opposed to your own life. But, just so you know, the question I originally proposed was not so much to debate the fundamentals of morality as it was to spin Bottle on her head, who spends a lot of time telling people how moral she is.

Aber müss ich jetzt gehen. Guten Nacht, Herr NL, und hoffentlich, mein Grammatik war rechts deise mal! (Denn mein deutsche Grammatik ist immer falsch)

I believe I meant to write what I wrote.

The Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have done unto you.

And I remember that every rule must have exceptions, seeing as allowing criminal behavior run rampant because I don't want to be incarcerated would not benefit anyone.

Excellent posts! You both win the thread! :D

I take it from the same place 'religious' people do, my from conscience. Religion is a reflection of 'our' morality, not some divine entities'. I mean seriously, do you think the ancient Hebrews thought murder and theft were good things before they got the 10 commandments, that before they got them the Hebrews went round randomly murdering each other for the fun of it?

I don't feel the need to bow the knee to a bunch of conmen and huckterists thanks.

I didn't mean for you to think I said you SHOULD kneel before a bunch of conmen or hucksters.

baby-killing, mostly.

Sarcasm, right?

First of all, let clear your terminology.

an "anti-theist" would be a person who strictly objects to the mere concept of gods, in any form.
This is not the same as simply not believing that such things exist.

An atheist can be an atheist, and not be "anti-religion".

I only meant to use the phrase "anti-theology" to point out that atheists do not believe in the existence of God; I wasn't trying to say atheists were anti-religion or ANTI-theists.

My ethical and moral standards is based on:
rationality, compassion (sympathy) for fellow humans, respect for individuals, awareness of social issues, survival of my own person and of humanity.

I feel no need for sacred texts of any sort. I need my brain.



Well, the title of this thread is actually ok... maybe it would have been better to avoid the use of "infidel" in your OP text, if you really wanted not to offend non-believers and non-Christian believers, don't you think?

Well then a little tip, people who beleive differently than you object to being called "infidels".

Thanks, both of you, for your tips regarding the term "infidel", which have been noted and the OP edited accordingly.
And no, I did not already know that infidels objected to being called such.

baby-killing, mostly.
Sarcasm, right?

nope

My moral code is based on my desire to emulate the lives of Jesus Christ and Andy Kaufman. *nod*

Andy Kaufman? All right, then, what are you waiting for? Start lip-synching "Here I come to save the day" from the Mighty Mouse theme song!

Then after that, go to Memphis, Tennessee and wrestle Jerry Lawler! :D

nope

WHAT? You actually go around killing babies?

I don't believe you. I asked for SERIOUS posts in this thread, not facetious junk. :headbang:

WHAT? You actually go around killing babies?

I don't believe you. I asked for SERIOUS posts in this thread, not facetious junk. :headbang:

baby-killing has an ancient and noble history behind it - we were slaughtering delicious newborns back when your god was not even a twinkle in the eye of your other god.

baby-killing has an ancient and noble history behind it - we were slaughtering delicious newborns back when your god was not even a twinkle in the eye of your other god.

Actually, El (also known as Yahweh, Jehovah, etc.) liked babies, especially en brochette. Before Moses caught him and converted him to Judaism, he had a real appetite for young'uns.

...Of course you won't kill anyone of the street, you'll be arrested, convicted, and incarcerated...

Wow. That's your reason?

It's a bit more complicated than that, but yes, ultimately all morality comes from God.


I think you're wrong. People evolve moral systems that have never heard of your 'god'... or any god.


Why is your reason for not killing people?


Mine? A general benevolence towards other lifeforms, coupled with a desire to treat others kind of how I like to be treated.


And don't pretend that being moral for no good reason whatsoever is superior to being moral because God told you to. It isn't.


"no good reason"? That's rather a loaded phrasing - personally, I think my reasons are very good.

And - not killing people because I am generally well-disposed to humanity... yep, that IS superior to not killing people JUST BECAUSE 'god said no'.

After all, that implies that, if 'god' didn't say no... you'd go a-murdering.

My property right doesn't cause harm to anyone. At the very worst it doesn't help anyone, but that's a different story.

Not really. If you hold all the food in the area, withholding it is causing harm. It stands to reason you wouldn't want others to be able to hurt you (in you 'moral' code), because that kind of approach means you'll NEED that kind of protection.

I've noticed that those who are the strictest advocates of libertarianism, and other forms of exploitative capitalism, are all very gung-ho about using economic pressure to make others suffer, but don't like it when people decide to take other 'not-so-strictly-economical' approaches to redressing the balance.

What is your moral code/are your moral standards based on?


Personal experience, sympathies, sensibilities, hopes, and reason.
Huh, whatthefuck does that mean ...?

interesting actually now that i tried to say the "golden rule" is not very good, i've thought of some ideas.
Like for example what one person expects another to do the other might not notice it, or disregard it.
How can doing what other people do to you be moral?

You still have it arse about tit I'm afraid. The Golden rule is not 'Do unto others as they do unto you' that is, as has already been said, more akin to an eye for an eye. The Golden rule is more like 'Treat others how you would wish others to treat you'

Can you see the difference there?

Or you could just answer the question.

How about instead I explain to you why your example is a waste?

See, I was talking about how I don't want to kill people, and I don't require reasons to keep me from killing people.

You created a (pretty weak) hypothetical in which I would HAVE to kill somebody if I were going to survive.

Can you see how that's total crap when it comes to the topic at hand?

It's like asking somebody if they would steal to feed their starving family. Most people would, but that doesn't mean they want to steal or that they think stealing is morally right. It means that they are prepared to choose the lesser OF TWO EVILS.

You created a situation that is absolutely no different than asking, "If somebody put a gun to your head and ordered you to kill a child, would you do it?" There's already a thread about that type of moral quandary right now. It's about morality and choice. Go check it out. It should answer any remaining questions you have.


You've been arguing this entire time that despite your personal convictions that you are still a moral person. Yet the examples you've brought up don't exactly classify under morality, simply "not being a douchebag/idiot" (Of course you won't kill anyone of the street, you'll be arrested, convicted, and incarcerated). What I'm asking you is when you have nothing (or very little) to win and a lot to lose by acting moral, would you still be moral?
No, that's not what you're asking. At least, not unless you're prepared to argue that saving the life of another human is "nothing to win." For me, saving somebody's life would be a pretty major win.

A valid hypothetical of the type you are talking about would be, say, "If you could steal a million dollars and know that you wouldn't be caught, would you do it?"

Exactly. "Does the Golden Rule apply to masochists?" is one of my all-time favorite questions.

The golden rule, being a rule of morality means that it is personal, so if you do not want to follow it you do not have to.

1) I prefer ethics to morals.

2) I learned right and wrong from my family and the society/community I grew up in. No churches were involved.

3) I'm not exactly sure what is meant by "moral code." Is it like the Tax Code?

Whatever, I use (not follow) a system (not code) of ethics (not morals). My ethics are based on the Golden Rule, a pragmatic "enlightened self-interest" concept, and a personal practice of mental discipline that requires me to remind myself periodically that I'm not the only, nor the most important, person in the world.

That sort of makes sense. Morality is what your personal view of good and bad is, ethics is doing what is good.
So your personal view of morality certainly does have a lot to do with ethics, but you can't really apply ethics without morality.

The golden rule is generally a good idea, if you understand it definitely doesn't apply in all circumstances.
Like this:
You are talking to a friend. You suddenly have a desire to go get a beer. Since you would like it if your friend gave you a beer, you go get your friend a beer. This would be good if your friend was not a recovering alcoholic. Seen in that light, you're an asshole.
It works in reverse too:
Your ex-alcoholic friend would probably consider it a favor if you took his beer from him before he got the chance to drink it. This does not mean he should go and take your beer. If he does, HE'S an asshole, and probably an ex-ex-alcoholic as well.

Again that sorta makes sense. But if you think 'If I was a recovering acohloic, would I want my friend to buy me a beer?' then you truly use the golden rule. You don't buy your freind a beer and so you are not an arsehole.

The golden rule, being a rule of morality means that it is personal, so if you do not want to follow it you do not have to.Indeed, but extreme masochists shouldn't use it as their moral basis, seeing as it would probably cause more harm than good if they followed it :p

Women and children first. Thats the way it goes.

Why?

According to the implied definition across all human cultures. When one acts moral, you put your own needs and desires aside for the greater good, whether that be helping an old lady or saving the child at cost to yourself.

Nope, morality is nothing more than your own personal view of what is good or bad. Ethics is about doing the right thing, you can of course act immorally (contrary to your own moral code) and be ethically correct at the same time.

Indeed, but extreme masochists shouldn't use it as their moral basis, seeing as it would probably cause more harm than good if they followed it :p
The thing is, even masochists are quite able to understand the importance of consent.

I don't want to get too much into the S&M angle of things, but there's a reason why safe words exist. A masochist is somebody who enjoys pain, but most masochists have limits and rules about how and when they can enjoy pain.

I'm not really a masochist, but I am somebody who enjoys the pain from getting piercings and tattoos. Yet even though I enjoy getting piercings, I would NEVER want somebody piercing me against my wishes. I would NEVER want to be tattooed without my consent. So when I apply the Golden Rule, I always keep the full context in mind.

So when I apply the Golden Rule, I always keep the full context in mind.

Indeed, and such context seems to be lacking in a number of examples or scenarios presented so far in this thread.

The thing is, even masochists are quite able to understand the importance of consent.

I don't want to get too much into the S&M angle of things, but there's a reason why safe words exist. A masochist is somebody who enjoys pain, but most masochists have limits and rules about how and when they can enjoy pain.

I'm not really a masochist, but I am somebody who enjoys the pain from getting piercings and tattoos. Yet even though I enjoy getting piercings, I would NEVER want somebody piercing me against my wishes. I would NEVER want to be tattooed without my consent. So when I apply the Golden Rule, I always keep the full context in mind.True, but allow me to elaborate the example: If someone enjoys giving you tattoos and piercings, partly because they get a kick out of dealing out pain (assuming consent is always given), but hates the idea having it done to them, they technically couldn't if they followed the golden rule, as they would be doing unto others as they would rather not have done unto them. Which is why it's only a rule.

True, but allow me to elaborate the example: If someone enjoys giving you tattoos and piercings, partly because they get a kick out of dealing out pain (assuming consent is always given), but hates the idea having it done to them, they technically couldn't if they followed the golden rule, as they would be doing unto others as they would rather not have done unto them. Which is why it's only a rule.

Heh of course, and as I have already said morality is only concerned with the individuals sense of right and wrong. So there will be some people who do not subscribe to the golden rule.

True, but allow me to elaborate the example: If someone enjoys giving you tattoos and piercings, partly because they get a kick out of dealing out pain (assuming consent is always given), but hates the idea having it done to them, they technically couldn't if they followed the golden rule, as they would be doing unto others as they would rather not have done unto them. Which is why it's only a rule.
That's true. I have to admit, though, I would never get a tattoo from a person who hadn't got one of their own. I wouldn't be comfortable being tattooed by somebody who did know how it felt, or who knew but hated it. Something about that feels off to me...not sure quite why. It might be at least partly due to my belief in the Golden Rule, in that I am less comfortable with people who don't follow it.

Heh of course, and as I have already said morality is only concerned with the individuals sense of right and wrong. So there will be some people who do not subscribe to the golden rule.Indeed. They are evil and heartless :mad:

That's true. I have to admit, though, I would never get a tattoo from a person who hadn't got one of their own. I wouldn't be comfortable being tattooed by somebody who did know how it felt, or who knew but hated it. Something about that feels off to me...not sure quite why. It might be at least partly due to my belief in the Golden Rule, in that I am less comfortable with people who don't follow it.Well, here's another example: One of my girlfriends was very much into getting spanked, whereas I absolutely hate it. On the other hand, I do enjoy handing them out. If I'd followed the rule, our sex life would have been a lot less kinky than it turned out to be.

Well, here's another example: One of my girlfriends was very much into getting spanked, whereas I absolutely hate it. On the other hand, I do enjoy handing them out. If I'd followed the rule, our sex life would have been a lot less kinky than it turned out to be.
Hahaha, fair enough.

This post covers what morality is, how it's been ignored, group psychology (my rough grasp of this is from a little of what i've learned from psychology), a few examples of moral choices. Trying to discover what morality is, and if we really have a choice in our decisions.

What is morality?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality
hmmmm.
So it's a personal code of conduct, to "help" other people in the best way.
It might be viewed as a way to restrict peoples freedom to do things, e.g. smoking although bad for you, it's still your choice (whether coerced or not) to smoke.
Alternatively it could be viewed as too weak, as in the past it has been ignored, or overrun with bureaucracy, to take an extreme example Auschwitz where the Nazis mass murdered people, but the people in the occupations, were so focused on getting their part of the job done, they didn't see the ultimate end result. Effectively dehumanising their work, like a part of a machine.
So during this where was morality?
These people helping carry out the murder, might once have been perfectly "normal" people. So what i'm saying is how far should you measure the consequences of your actions?

What is good for people now(intentions)? Or what is good for people later(consequences)? If it is a mixture of both, which one takes precendence over the other.

Group psychology in some tests made, people (in general, as the experiment was performed in public) where watched, to see who would gain more help. When two different women, one typically 'attractive', the other dressed up to be seen as 'unattractive', the results show when both where struggling to take their baggage up a flight of stairs in a train station, people's responses to help the attractive one were far quicker, (as soon as 15 seconds), whereas the unatractive one (soonest 50 seconds). Of course this was only two people so a criticsm of this is it's not representative of the population as a whole. Also there are many background factors that could affect the results. The advantage of this is it's given an example of how some people behave.
(one person who helped the attractive one, said "oh i help all sorts of people, beggars, old grannies where i can", but typically people who helped the unattractive one where less "high and mighty").
This points to the idea that your genes and environment affect your decisions more than you control them.

Perhaps a better (rough) example can be given, where say, you're bleeding pretty badly on a street in a city.
A group of people might pass by and not help you, whereas a lone person might be more willing to help you.(according to what i've been told by my teachers).
What i'm trying to get at is where is this 'morality' during these events? Is it really just to make ourselves feel better, and/or help other people while doing so.

What kind of role does morality play in our day to day lives? To help everyone? to help others as they'd do to you? to help noone?

Also many influences might affect our moral decisions, like the group psycholgy i roughly outlined, so do we really have a choice in how our morality is formed? Should people be punished in the same way, even when they have different understandings of how things should work?

Take a short example of say, a beggar robbing someone for money, he kills him as a result of punching him in the face, (as the person has a delicate heart condition), and runs away with the money.
How far should this beggar be punished? he clearly had no money and needed it to survive, he didn't intend to kill the man.

What i mean is should morality be objective (everyone should follow certain rules no matter what), or subjective (depending on the situation, you can bend the rules, like with the beggar because he had alot of pressures, but surely he knew not to attack people?

PS. My analysis of these concepts is not perfect, this i know, but as a human i cannot be perfect. I am hoping to find what others think.

Indeed. They are evil and heartless :mad:

Well, here's another example: One of my girlfriends was very much into getting spanked, whereas I absolutely hate it. On the other hand, I do enjoy handing them out. If I'd followed the rule, our sex life would have been a lot less kinky than it turned out to be.

Not really, again context comes into play. Instead of asking would I like to get spanked during sex. Ask would I like my partner to fulfill my sexual desires.

I can only assume that you would answer yes, and so using the golden rule you should also fulfill your partners sexual desires.

Mine is a mixture of the talmud, the bible (the real one, not the one with those christian additions :D), ayn rand's atlas shrugged, frank herbert's dosadi experiment and my upbringing. Mostly modified randian though.

That sort of makes sense. Morality is what your personal view of good and bad is, ethics is doing what is good.
So your personal view of morality certainly does have a lot to do with ethics, but you can't really apply ethics without morality.
Not necessarily. Or rather, not always to the same degree. Someone else in this thread -- was it Bottle? -- mentioned human beings having "inner moral compasses" that guide them to judge right from wrong independent of divine instruction. Someone else mentioned Jean Piaget's experiments with young children creating social order in play by inventing rules that supported beneficial cooperation and punished selfish disruption, without benefit of adult guidance. Now people can argue forever about exactly what are those internal mechanisms that cause that to happen, but leaving that aside for now...

I think we can accept that people have such internal mechanisms, and that they have them to varying degrees, ranging from the extreme of the sociopath who has little or no such mechanisms, to the selfless individual who sacrifices his own welfare for the sake of others, maybe even when he doesn't really have to, as well as countless degrees of variation between them. Also, morals are invisible. It is impossible to know why a person chooses to do one thing and not another. Is it because one is right and the other wrong, or is it because one comes with a reward and the other with a punishment?

Ethics, however, tend to be less flexible and more observable than morality. You may not know how moral a person is by their behavior in any given situation, but you can easily tell how ethical they are by their behavior. Because of this, ethics becomes a more reliable predictor of a person's behavior than morality.

For instance, we may agree that a thief is not a moral person overall. He clearly does not care if his stealing harms someone else, and he clearly places his selfish desires above both the needs and rights of other people. And yet, even so, even lacking that degree of morality, a thief may yet abide by a system of ethics that limit his behavior. He may follow strict prohibitions against violence or participating in other kinds of crimes such as drugs or prostitution because of what they do to people. He may limit the targets he steals from based on how much he thinks they will suffer by it. And so on.

Clearly then, this thief has SOME personal morality, but to be honest, we cannot know what it is or how far it extends, especially since it doesn't extend as far as someone who is not a thief. But here is what we can know -- we can know where this thief draws the line. By observing this thief's behavior and seeing how consistent or inconsistent his self-limitations are, we can judge whether he has any ethics, and if he does, then he is someone we can trust, at least in some ways, to some extent, even though he is not a moral person.

I was raised to value ethics very highly. My mom's saying about it is: You can know a person's character by what they will not do.

I like ethics because you always know where you stand with an ethical person, even if they are not moral. EDIT: Also, I tend to care a lot more about what a person does than why they do it. I do not care if a person is immoral or has a different idea of morality than me. I only care about how he behaves towards me, and as a system that guides behavior, ethics counts more to me than morality.

Not necessarily. Or rather, not always to the same degree. Someone else in this thread -- was it Bottle? .....<snip>

Ohh yeah I agree. The point I'm making and one that some don't seem to realise is that morality is wholly personal, it is only that which each individual believes is wrong or right.

So, to take your example, it make no sense to say that a psychopath or a thief has no morality, of course they do, it is just different from yours and I.

If then I was such a man, I could act contrary to my morality(i.e. by not stealing) while still be acting in an ethically sound manner.

All in all then I agree, ethics is more important than morality to see what kind of person a umm person is.

As an answer the the initial question, I probably pick up some the background noise from Christianity, because it's around me in the society and what not, but mostly I'd say my morals are just things that I do in a certain way because that's how I'd like to be treated in return. I don't want to be murdered, hence I don't kill. It can get more complicated than that when empathy is involved yadda yadda, but maybe Plato was right, justice is just minding your own business.

Not really, again context comes into play. Instead of asking would I like to get spanked during sex. Ask would I like my partner to fulfill my sexual desires.

I can only assume that you would answer yes, and so using the golden rule you should also fulfill your partners sexual desires.Again, depends on context. If you look at it from the perspective that I'm doing unto her as I'd rather not have done unto me, then it violates the rule. The Golden Rule contradicts itself, which is another reason its only a rule.

Again, depends on context. If you look at it from the perspective that I'm doing unto her as I'd rather not have done unto me, then it violates the rule. The Golden Rule contradicts itself, which is another reason its only a rule.

Naaa I disagree. If you focus on the act instead of the intent, then sure it makes no sense. But in this case the intent is what you should be thinking about. The intent to fulfill your partners sexual desire vs your want to have your's fulfield.

If you want her to fulfill your sexual desires, then you'll have to do the same for her. That is the golden rule in action my friend.

You need a reason to not kill people?

That's fucking scary.
Isn't that the whole point of morality, to give you a reason to behave a certain way that might not directly benefit you?

Isn't that the whole point of morality, to give you a reason to behave a certain way that might not directly benefit you?
I think the point is that, if a person feels that killing people would benefit them so that they need an actual opposing reason not to do it (either punishment or counter-benefit), then that is a scarey person because it means that they are walking around with the inherent potential to start killing people. It is certainly not someone I would want to live next door to.

As I said in answer to the poster's original question of what reason do I have not to kill people: I have no reason not to kill people, because I have no urge or desire to kill people. Having no reason to do it nor any desire to do it, means I don't need a reason not to do it. Since I will never ask myself if I should just go ahead and kill this person, I never need to remind myself of reasons why I shouldn't.

Isn't that the whole point of morality, to give you a reason to behave a certain way that might not directly benefit you?

I don't think that's a good definition of morality, since you don't need morality for that sort of thing anyhow. There are perfectly pragmatic reasons for me to do things that don't immediately or directly benefit me. In addition, doing the moral thing often does benefit me, and doing the immoral thing often has immediate negative effects.

Not only do I think there's another reason, I will take it a step further:

I think that only the most batshit insane wackos actually believe that "God said so" is all that is required for morality.

I've used it a million times before, but here's Bottle's Favorite Question For Theists!
Here's the problem. I'm not a theist. In fact, I think theism is idiotic.

But, I don't understand what other source for morality people think there is. Religious folks make perfect sense when they talk about morality because the morality has an identifiable source - their god.

When atheists (all people who are not theists) talk about morality, I have no idea what they're talking about, because they don't appear to have any basis for their morality. Let's go through this in detail:
I think that only the most batshit insane wackos actually believe that "God said so" is all that is required for morality.
I might go so far as to say that "God said so" is not only sufficient, but necessary. I don't understand what you think morality is if it doesn't have some relevant source.
Let's say God speaks directly to you. It is God, no doubt about it, speaking directly and clearly to you. God says, "I want you to torture a kitten to death. It is moral that you should do this thing."
I suspect a theist should be fine up to this point. God makes the rules; morality can be whatever he wants. There's no requirement that morality not be arbitrary.
Now, regardless of whether or not you do it, do you feel totally okay about this? Or do you get a twinge in your gut? Do you obey without any hesitation or question, or does part of you think, "Um, torturing a kitten is pretty fucked up and icky. Is God really asking me to do this? This doesn't sound good..."
I get the twinge. Why? Because I don't want to torture a kitten to death. It would be really icky (and I'm not good with icky things) and unpleasant and probably give me nightmares.

But isn't that just my personal preferences talking? Regardless of whether I like doing moral things, aren't they still moral?
Okay, now, same question, but replace "kitten" with "human infant."

On the internet I've had several people bluster about how they would obey God without a qualm.
I certainly wouldn't. First of all, I don't believe in a god, but beyond that I just really don't want to torture a kitten (I'd probably do better with an infant - they're less cute - though it's still not something I want to do).
But in person, I've never seen a theist handle the question without a flinch. This is because most theists are not batshit crazy psychopaths. They are people with consciences and empathy...AND INTERNAL MORAL COMPASSES.
But isn't that just a personal preference?

Firstly, what's the difference between feeling strongly that you don't want to do something and feeling strongly that doing it would be morally wrong? I know when I don't want to do something (like torture the kitten), but does that mean I think it would be wrong to torture the kitten? I'd stop someone on my presence from torturing the kitten, and I'd dislike people I knew had tortured kittens before (because they'd be creepy), but does that mean I think it's wrong?

And even so, just because I think it's wrong, do I have reaosn to believe that I am correct? I might feel the torture is wrong, but if I think about it I don't really know it to be true.
They know that it would feel wrong to torture an infant to death. Even if God asked them to do it. They have a sense of morality that exists independent of God.
But they don't have any reason to trust it.

Morality needs an outside source. Otherwise it doesn't make any sense.

I think the point is that, if a person feels that killing people would benefit them so that they need an actual opposing reason not to do it (either punishment or counter-benefit), then that is a scarey person because it means that they are walking around with the inherent potential to start killing people. It is certainly not someone I would want to live next door to.
There's no point having a rule against killing people if no one was going to regardless. The rule would be frivolous.

What would be scary would be the guy who actually does kill people. Someone who doesn't kill people despite wanting to is demonstrably moral every moment he's not killing. Someone who doesn't have any interest in killing is always behaving in a morally neutral way on the subject.

The inherent killer is more moral, and you think he's scarier?

Isn't that the whole point of morality, to give you a reason to behave a certain way that might not directly benefit you?

Like... NOT killing people?

You need a good 'reason' to get to that conclusion?

Like... NOT killing people?

You need a good 'reason' to get to that conclusion?

what about the really nasty people you might hear about, the dictators, if you didn't want to kill people you might be apprehensive in overthrowing them.(i don't want to support any government overthrowing, but with dictators, is that surely not a good reason like say, Robert Mugabe or Fidel Castro?)

But in essence i would agree that killing people is something to avoid.

what about the really nasty people you might hear about, the dictators, if you didn't want to kill people you might be apprehensive in overthrowing them.(i don't want to support any government overthrowing, but with dictators, is that surely not a good reason like say, Robert Mugabe or Fidel Castro?)

But in essence i would agree that killing people is something to avoid.

I can see that there can be good in killing - if you have a good reason.

I can't get my head around the idea that one needs to find a good reason NOT to kill. Big difference.

Isn't that the whole point of morality, to give you a reason to behave a certain way that might not directly benefit you?

Naaa man, the point of morlaity is to highlight what you personally feel is wrong or right. You are talking about ethics.

really, the best moral code is to just get really stoned, you dont want to hurt anybody when your high, you just want to share your cookies with them and watch a movie.

I don't think that's a good definition of morality, since you don't need morality for that sort of thing anyhow. There are perfectly pragmatic reasons for me to do things that don't immediately or directly benefit me. In addition, doing the moral thing often does benefit me, and doing the immoral thing often has immediate negative effects.

Indeed. When a person perform what they see as a moral act, then the rewards in feeling good about them selves are huge. And so when a person commits what they feel is an immoral act the punishment in guilt is also huge.

I wish people would understand this. Religion is not the source of morality, and I say this as a hugely religious man. My moral code comes not from God, but from being a human with empathy for my fellow man. Of course it could be argued that since God is the creator, then ultimately morality comes from God. Yet if God created us with free will(perhaps a different debate) then what we choose to view as right or wrong(morality) is our free choice.

I don't understand what you think morality is if it doesn't have some relevant source.

Then let me explain. Morality is what you think is right or wrong. Do you believe that stealing from another is right or wrong?


I get the twinge. Why? Because I don't want to torture a kitten to death. It would be really icky (and I'm not good with icky things) and unpleasant and probably give me nightmares.

So as an Atheist, you can't really believe that this 'icky feeling' comes to you direct from God? So what is it about your life that makes you feel icky about tortureing kittens?


But isn't that just my personal preferences talking? Regardless of whether I like doing moral things, aren't they still moral?

But that is exactly what morality is. What you feel is wrong, others may feel is right. That does not make them immoral, it means that your morality is different. What you are trying to grasp I think is ethics.


But isn't that just a personal preference?

Again, that is what morality is. Morality is not some code of good behavior, but only that which you as an individual consider to be good or bad. Your personal preference IS your morality.


Firstly, what's the difference between feeling strongly that you don't want to do something and feeling strongly that doing it would be morally wrong? I know when I don't want to do something (like torture the kitten), but does that mean I think it would be wrong to torture the kitten?

I'd stop someone on my presence from torturing the kitten, and I'd dislike people I knew had tortured kittens before (because they'd be creepy), but does that mean I think it's wrong?

Yes, that is exactly what it means, on both counts.


And even so, just because I think it's wrong, do I have reaosn to believe that I am correct? I might feel the torture is wrong, but if I think about it I don't really know it to be true.

Thats for you to figure out. I will say though that the majority of people do seem to share a morality. Which is a massive indication to me that morality has no religious source. The sphere of dealing with the question of is your morality correct is ethics.


Morality needs an outside source. Otherwise it doesn't make any sense.

Not really, seeing as morality deals only with the individuals personal POV, it is very internal, wouldn't you say?

There's no point having a rule against killing people if no one was going to regardless. The rule would be frivolous.

What would be scary would be the guy who actually does kill people. Someone who doesn't kill people despite wanting to is demonstrably moral every moment he's not killing. Someone who doesn't have any interest in killing is always behaving in a morally neutral way on the subject.

The inherent killer is more moral, and you think he's scarier?

I disagree. The man that wants to kill and does not is acting in an immoral manor. True he may be acting in an ethicly correct way, but if he is acting against his morality then he is acting immorally.

There's no point having a rule against killing people if no one was going to regardless. The rule would be frivolous.

What would be scary would be the guy who actually does kill people. Someone who doesn't kill people despite wanting to is demonstrably moral every moment he's not killing. Someone who doesn't have any interest in killing is always behaving in a morally neutral way on the subject.

The inherent killer is more moral, and you think he's scarier?
Your argument is based on an assumption so shaky that it renders the argument pretty nearly nonsensical.

The assumption is that the reason the wannabe killer holds back is a moral one. See, when it comes to morality, the "why" matters. Why is this person who so desires to kill people not doing so? Is it because he believes it is wrong? Or is it because he fears retribution? The second possibility is not a moral stance.

Morality is about delineating right from wrong. You can think killing people is the most right thing to do in the world, or you can not give a shit about whether it is right or wrong, but still not do it because you fear that others will punish you for it. And you can have that fear, selfishly, even if you think they would be wrong to punish you for killing people.

So the mere fact that a person who wants to kill people does not do so is not proof that he is a moral person. To show that he has morals, you would have to establish why he refrains from killing.

Also, I take exception to your assertion that the person who does not want to kill people is morally "neutral." That won't work for the same reason your assertion that a wannabe killer who doesn't kill is moral. You have to show why the non-killer doesn't want to kill people. The reason may be morally neutral, or it may be moral.

Unless you show the reason, you cannot make any assertions as to whether people's actions are moral, immoral, or amoral.

But none of that changes (or even addresses) my assertion that a person who has no desire to kill is less scary to be around than a person who does want to kill but suppresses that desire.

Originally Posted by Redwulf
"Women and children first. Thats the way it goes."


Why?

1) They tend to be lighter and smaller so you can squeeze more of them on the lifeboat.

2) In terms of "person-years" saved you save more Human life saving a child than saving an adult.

3) In terms of biology, males are always the more expendable.

4) With bigger lung capacity and more upper body strength, the average male is more likely to survive on his own.

That's a start.

1) They tend to be lighter and smaller so you can squeeze more of them on the lifeboat.

2) In terms of "person-years" saved you save more Human life saving a child than saving an adult.

3) In terms of biology, males are always the more expendable.

4) With bigger lung capacity and more upper body strength, the average male is more likely to survive on his own.

That's a start.

That is a great start, but is not really ethically sound. What if the president of the president of the USA wanted to get in the lift?

What if the man that man that sacrifices his life fir the sake of the child was destined to find the cure for cancer in two years time?

What if the saved child grew up to be the biggest serial killer in human history?

Ahhh Ethics and morality a minefield for the brain!

That is a great start, but is not really ethically sound. What if the president of the president of the USA wanted to get in the lift?

What if the man that man that sacrifices his life fir the sake of the child was destined to find the cure for cancer in two years time?

What if the saved child grew up to be the biggest serial killer in human history?

Ahhh Ethics and morality a minefield for the brain!
Ethics and morality cannot be based on what-if considerations.

As you pointed out yourself, morality is a set of premises about right and wrong, and ethics is a system of deciding on what behaviors to do or not do. They are both inherently personal to the individual using them. I follow MY morals and MY ethics. They have nothing to do with the people around me. They are about me, not about other people.

So if my morals say that killing is wrong, but my ethics require me to kill someone in order to achieve a good (such as defense of someone else's life, for example), then I create an internal conflict that I must resolve somehow. Either I will do the killing and live with having done something I felt was immoral, or I will not do the killing and live with having done something I felt was unethical. Either way, I won't be happy with my choice.

On the other hand, if I can choose a course of action that agrees with both my morals and my ethics, then I will be happy with my choice. If it turns out later that the result of my choice leads to bad effects in another context, that may create a new regret, but it will not be either a moral or an ethical regret.

Now as to this elevator scenario: If I were in that situation and I stopped to consider all your what-if's before shoving the screaming little brat into the goddamned elevator already, I would be failing to follow either my morals or my ethics. I would be either doubting them or ignoring them to look for some other way to make my decison, so nothing I might choose to do based on those what-if considerations would be either a moral or an ethical choice.

I don't think that's a good definition of morality, since you don't need morality for that sort of thing anyhow. There are perfectly pragmatic reasons for me to do things that don't immediately or directly benefit me. In addition, doing the moral thing often does benefit me, and doing the immoral thing often has immediate negative effects.
It can't be pragmatic if it doesn't benefit you. It need not benefit you immediately, or directly, but it's still benefit.

That's the definition of pragmatism.

Like... NOT killing people?

You need a good 'reason' to get to that conclusion?
I need a reason to get to any conclusion.

Logic doesn't rest.

Seriously. Gut feeling count for it 9/10. Or what I can get away with

Then let me explain. Morality is what you think is right or wrong. Do you believe that stealing from another is right or wrong?
Since I have no basis for such a belief, I would assert that I believe neither.
But that is exactly what morality is. What you feel is wrong, others may feel is right. That does not make them immoral, it means that your morality is different. What you are trying to grasp I think is ethics.
How would I know what to feel if I didn't have some basis from which to start?
Again, that is what morality is. Morality is not some code of good behavior, but only that which you as an individual consider to be good or bad. Your personal preference IS your morality.
So you're asserting that morality is necessarily relative, and comes from within. Why do you think that?
Yes, that is exactly what it means, on both counts.
That's it? My distaste renders activity immoral?

You've just rendered discussions about morality pointless.
Thats for you to figure out. I will say though that the majority of people do seem to share a morality. Which is a massive indication to me that morality has no religious source.
You've already defined it that way. You couldn't help but reach that concusion given your starting point (I also don't understand why that was your starting point).

The sphere of dealing with the question of is your morality correct is ethics.
Would you believe I have a degree in Ethics?

But isn't morality necessarily correct? That's what morality is, isn't it? Morality determines what's right and wrong.
Not really, seeing as morality deals only with the individuals personal POV, it is very internal, wouldn't you say?
You've defined morality as trivial. As you've described it, it doesn't matter to anyone. If people have free will, they will as as they wish to act, and your description of morality is equivalent to people's preferences. You've made the choice between peanut butter and jelly have moral relevance. Plus, you've made it impossible for someone with free will to behave immorally.

Not really. If you hold all the food in the area, withholding it is causing harm. It stands to reason you wouldn't want others to be able to hurt you (in you 'moral' code), because that kind of approach means you'll NEED that kind of protection.
An alternative way of looking at it would be to say that you at some point NEED some property of another person. Private property rights mean that you'll have to be nice to the other person, because you can only get it if they agree to it. So it's a guarantee for people to act nicer to each other.

In a system in which there are no private property rights, you are free to take whatever you need from anyone, and they have no more right to stop you than you do to take it. So you never have to be nice to other people.

The real plus point is that my system can within itself sustain any form of voluntary economic association. People can get into groups and act like families, with the group as a whole holding property, but people within it sharing it freely. But they can also be by themselves and not be tied down by other people if they don't want to. It's the most flexible and, perhaps surprisingly, the most inclusive option I know of.

And by the way, the lack of food is causing harm. I'm merely not ending it by distributing mine. Unless I went out there first and did something to destroy all the other food, the famine isn't my fault.

What is your moral code/are your moral standards based on?

This sums it up nicely:
being nice.

Well, not really, mostly like not being an asshole, which at times is completely different than being nice.

Excellent thread!

The tone is set by this clarification by the Original Poster:

QFT. I was not meaning to imply that religion is necessary for morality. I just want to know what people who believe differently than I do base their moral code on.

It would have been easy to strike back, or quibble about the original meaning. Instead, Ohshucks adjusted the wording to be better understood. :)

============

Of course my morality is an old part of me, developed in the interaction between my family and I as a small child (and yes, largely 'taught' to me) and only very gradually modified since.

I would never deny that religious upbringing is one way of "teaching" morality, and that the moral lessons persist even if the faith is abandoned. My agnostic upbringing (agnostic in the sense of "allowing for the existence of God without believing it") included moral principles from religions my parents had abandoned.

I have the Golden Rule, of course. I agree that it is not enough in itself to define moral behaviour (the masochist case is not just an exception to the rule: we don't always behave in our own best interests, so how are others to know how we "want to be treated"?)

I say we don't always behave in our own best interests, because if that was not so, a person would never feel remorse, or admit to any bad intention.

The other problem with the Golden Rule is the idea of "others." We do not expect the exact same treatment from every individual, except in the case of Rights (eg "don't kill me" or "don't enslave me.") Nor are all relationships reciprocal in detail (I don't expect, and don't want, anyone to answer me in the precise words I would use myself, that would be boring.)

I see a distinction between how I treat strangers, how I treat members of my monkeysphere, and how I treat close friends or family. I treat strangers how I would want strangers to treat me ... etc. To "make friends" I must violate these catagories, begin treating a stranger as one would treat a friend ... to go around treating everyone as a friend (or even family) might well violate their sense of decorum, or make them feel inadequate to not be able to trust me as I seem to trust them.

In my more cynical moments, I think I only behave morally to preserve my reputation. (Old fashioned concept that one!) It is not in my own interests to harm others, or to lie. On the other hand, it may be in my interests to behave no better to someone than they behave to me, even if that means doing them harm or lying to them.

In that is the risk that I have ascribed bad intentions to their behavior because it has harmed or misled me. So, to moderate this risk, I try not to act from anger.

Ultimately, I must judge my own actions in the long term, which means admitting that in the past I have behaved immorally by my later standards, and in all probability will behave immorally by my (further-)future standards.

*snip*

And by the way, the lack of food is causing harm. I'm merely not ending it by distributing mine. Unless I went out there first and did something to destroy all the other food, the famine isn't my fault.

Suppose that one person "owned" the entire planet, and denied everyone else the use of it (the prerogative of ownership, after all.)

The entire human race would starve -- unless your prerogative of ownership extended to thowing them all into the ocean.

That would still be fine by the moral code you have laid down. Surely any such person (who "owned" the entire planet) would be expected to exercise compassion not dictated by your two principles? Or would you assume some self-interest (not laid down by your principles) would dictate that they support some people, for instance to keep them company?

The idea that religion is the sole basis for having a "moral code", or for knowing something is "wrong" or "right", "bad" or "good" is ridiculous.

Well said.

Despite the fact that religious texts always have "rules" and "guidelines" for right and wrong, that is not where morals come from. People are capable of doing good things without having to believe that it's the will of God that they do so.

Despite the fact that religious texts always have "rules" and "guidelines" for right and wrong, that is not where morals come from. People are capable of doing good things without having to believe that it's the will of God that they do so.

Well then, where does morality come from?

I mean, I agree that religion is not necessary to be moral. But consider this:

If you've been raised in a religious country, even if you are an atheist or agnostic, you're still affected by the culture and morals of that country. I'm an agnostic, bordering on atheist, my ethics and values have a strong Judeo-Christian slant because I was raised in a Judeo-Christian country. The difference between my attitude and that of a lot of Christians I know is that I actually thought about the bases of those ethics and values.

*snip, though it's good*

Suppose that one person "owned" the entire planet, and denied everyone else the use of it (the prerogative of ownership, after all.)
Wouldn't you say that's rather unlikely? I mean, the whole idea of the property economy is that people associate with each other because they want to, not because they have to - that they don't owe each other anything. There'd be no voluntary association if there is a monopoly on everything of that magnitude.

Does that mean I was perhaps a tad too simplistic in my description? Perhaps.

Wouldn't you say that's rather unlikely? I mean, the whole idea of the property economy is that people associate with each other because they want to, not because they have to - that they don't owe each other anything.

Well, at what point does "refusing to associate" become impractical?

I would say that point was passed when we gave up the commons. In the Amazon rainforest it may be possible for an individual with no property to refuse to associate with other people, but in our modern societies the only way out is to buy your way out, and that's just a semantic trick. Buy land, buy a horse or an ox, buy a spinning wheel and set up to live on your own, or with other seperatists ... but the deal is already done, the association with others is still compelled if one is to get to that point.

I'm saying that this idealized "voluntary association" is nothing of the kind, if one wants to survive. Some choice that is, associate or starve!

For that matter, I can't see why you bring it up, other than to show some amoral reason why a perfect monopoly cannot happen. I would say that all material inequality is a lesser degree of the "one person owns everything, therefore others comply with their wishes or die" scenario.

I mean, the whole idea of the property economy is that people associate with each other because they want to, not because they have to

No... the whole idea of the property economy is that people own things, and that ownership must be enforced by force. Consensual social relations can only occur within this framework.

That's the point of the example (at least as I interpreted it), and it applies, if to a less extreme degree, to our society as well.

Excellent thread!

Thank you! :)

I was wondering what had happened to you; I hadn't seen you around in a while. I was beginning to think you had just vanished from the face of NSG.

:D

Thank you! :)

I was going to reply to every good post in the thread, but I got up to post 90-something, and my reply was probably going to be too long to fit on a standard page. So I thought "screw it, good posts can do without my reply. I'll just compliment the entire thread." :)

I was wondering what had happened to you; I hadn't seen you around in a while. I was beginning to think you had just vanished from the face of NSG.

It was Duck Season!
No, Wabbit Season!

Shh, no-one tell Ohshucks what it says in my sig ...

I was going to reply to every good post in the thread, but I got up to post 90-something, and my reply was probably going to be too long to fit on a standard page. So I thought "screw it, good posts can do without my reply. I'll just compliment the entire thread." :)



It was Duck Season!
No, Wabbit Season!

Shh, no-one tell Ohshucks what it says in my sig ...

Or was it Nobel Hobos season? :confused:

Basic human empathy.

"Basic" doesn't add anything to the concept ... unless you mean that empathy is inherent in being human. Which is an idea I like!

=============

Women and children first. Thats the way it goes.

Again, "that's the way it goes" detracts rather than adds to the meaning. It suggests that you believe that, but can't say why.

=============

Despite my critical tone, both these posts made me think of something.

Tribal survival has been important to individual survival for a long long time. Evolutionary time! Would it be surprising if an instinct to protect a woman's life at the expense of a man's had developed ? ... not to the point of corrupting the 'blank slate' beyond what socialization could overwrite, but strongly enough to be considered an "objective basis" for such a moral belief?

After all, a tribe can lose all but one of its menfolk, and be quite unaffected in its capacity to produce new generations. It can even lose a generation of children, though losing all the children and youth up into the twenties would probably be genetically fatal.

Yes, men are an asset to any tribe too. But its ability to breed back up after a near-extinction is dependent on the womenfolk, including the girl children. Scenarios like the "building falling down, only one place in the elevator" invoke the instinct which we generally suppress nowadays. Holding doors open for people because they're female is unnecessary, it's not really protecting their survival, but the scenario is more like the atavistic "entire tribe is threatened" stimulus, as is any situation of serious violence against women.

The downsides of such an instinct would include a tendency to over-protect women and girls. AKA patriarchy. If women are physically protected all the time, they don't get practice at defending themselves and are more at risk within "the tribe" -- or the remnant of the tribe, family and chosen friends.

I'm just putting this out there. If anyone has examples from the other primates, or wants to make a case for other 'moral' principles being based in instinct, go right ahead.

Of course, I'm OK with being told I'm full of shit, too!

Well, at what point does "refusing to associate" become impractical?
Well, neither of us has ever seen it in anything like a developed economy. It's not like there actually are real monopolies around (except for government departments). I don't have to work for Pizza Hut, I can work for Domino's or any other pizza place. Or I work at the supermarket. Or I get into construction.

You don't have to associate with anyone. You may have to associate (as far as that is possible) with something, namely "capitalism" but that's a problem no system solves with nearly as much elegance as a private property economy, since any such association can be only for a limited time. Once you're able to find others who think like you and your pooled resources are enough, you can buy a piece of land somewhere and live there in a different way. I don't think that would be possible in a system where the exclusive use of property can't be guaranteed.

I would say that all material inequality is a lesser degree of the "one person owns everything, therefore others comply with their wishes or die" scenario.
Not necessarily. You could have a very rich person who needs insulin, but someone else owns all of it. There may well be material inequality, but that doesn't determine the bargaining power of both parties. It depends on the good in question, and it is basically always possible to find some niche in which one has the ability to provide more value than someone else. In simpler terms: there are as many ways to make money as there are people.

That's why I think the example was flawed. Someone may well have a monopoly in one or two sectors, but not a complete one that even approaches owning the entire planet.

No... the whole idea of the property economy is that people own things, and that ownership must be enforced by force. Consensual social relations can only occur within this framework.
If that is all he wanted to say, then I certainly wouldn't disagree. Any other framework doesn't allow the level of autonomy necessary to make for truly consensual social relations, because one gets tied down in a web of obligations and everyone else's positive rights.

My personal moral code, devoid of any attempt at validity, logic, or sensibility, is simply thus:

Don't hurt others. Try not to inconvenience others. If it comes to utter self-destruction, try to minimize the damage it doest o everyone around you. I'm steadily working on distancing myself from those around me, so that ultiamtely when the alcohol takes its toll I've got a mimimum number of peope grieving.

Judge me not.

My personal moral code, devoid of any attempt at validity, logic, or sensibility, is simply thus:

Don't hurt others. Try not to inconvenience others. If it comes to utter self-destruction, try to minimize the damage it doest o everyone around you. I'm steadily working on distancing myself from those around me, so that ultiamtely when the alcohol takes its toll I've got a mimimum number of peope grieving.

Alcohol takes a long time to kill you. Unless you massively overdose one day, it will seriously damage your brain before it kills you.

If I'm not mistaken, you're too young to be planning for passing away of heart disease. Get yourself some lysergic acid diethylamide, be sensible (drink lightly, eat well, sleep well) for a few days, go camping and find a nice spot, settle in for a day, and do a trip. Yes, I just advocated an illegal activity, which is a bit ironic in a thread about morality...
But it's justified I think. Google "LSD medical tests alcoholism" or take my word for it.
I can't remember you ever posting a harsh word against anyone, and you have occasional flashes of brilliance. If you are leaving the world, I want you to tell your story first. I want a Zarasthustra moment, not a sullen silence and a pathetic death.

Go take a long, hard think about what you just said. It reads like a suicide note, and I want you to think about what your life is really worth. If all you are caring about right now is your significant others, chances are they are the problem. Mmm?

You know, as Nobel Hobos I quite often post drunk. But I'm a happy drunk generally. When I'm so drunk that half my typing is typos (and I correct it all, perfectionist you know, it can be misleading) I sometimes turn nasty. But I'm never a sad drunk; no matter how far my inhibitions are lowered, I never feel like indulging in self-pity ... it just reeks of the pit. I'd as soon go there as shove my head in a bucket of sewage.

In fact, the prophylactic for self-pity is self-abuse. If you insist on drinking heavily, make sure you're enjoying it because it's a dumb way to die.

Judge me not.

Screw that. You posted to NSG, so you asked for it. ;)

(NL, reply coming. I wanted to reply to this before DM passes out.)

That is a great start, but is not really ethically sound. What if the president of the president of the USA wanted to get in the lift?

What if the man that man that sacrifices his life fir the sake of the child was destined to find the cure for cancer in two years time?

What if the saved child grew up to be the biggest serial killer in human history?

Ahhh Ethics and morality a minefield for the brain!

What if the President of the US DID want to get in the lift? His bodyguards might be able to force his way in, but that's nothing to do with morals... and, frankly, just because he's got an important job, doesn't necessarily grab me as a good reason to favour him over anyone else.

If it's the current president, I suspect a lot of people would be less-than-tempted to bump seats to let him in, to be honest.

As for the cure for cancer... well, if they all die, no one gets out. If we stand around deciding who is most likely to MAYBE cure cancer, well, we all die. Logic says, you go with the best chances for survival... which is women and children... and maybe a couple of men if you've space.

I need a reason to get to any conclusion.

Logic doesn't rest.

In the case of your 'argument', it doesn't exist.

We have default settings... the way we behave when there is no additional reason given. Apparently, you think your default is random violence, if you honestly need a REASON not to hurt people.

An alternative way of looking at it would be to say that you at some point NEED some property of another person. Private property rights mean that you'll have to be nice to the other person, because you can only get it if they agree to it. So it's a guarantee for people to act nicer to each other.


I keep wondering if you are really for real. It seems no one would be naive enough to believe that the rest of the world is going to treat me nicely just because I'm 'nice' to them.

From the perspective of reality, the way that people SEEM to get what they want, is by MAKING other people give it to them. More people make their fortunes from force, than from being polite, I suspect.


In a system in which there are no private property rights, you are free to take whatever you need from anyone, and they have no more right to stop you than you do to take it.


Claptrap. As I'm sure you really know. Even in the absence of private property rights, there can still be property rights, just not private ones.


The real plus point is that my system can within itself sustain any form of voluntary economic association. People can get into groups and act like families, with the group as a whole holding property, but people within it sharing it freely.


People sharing is good. But - hardly a plus point of libertarianism. Or, perhaps, a point of libertarianism at all.

But they can also be by themselves and not be tied down by other people if they don't want to.


Which is bad. This assertion that a man is an island is frankly pathetic. Everytime someone suggests it, we should immediately contact some foreign power and tell them we are happy to not defend that particular person's territory, if someone else should care to take it.

See how quick they stop pissing and whining when their shit is actually on the line.


It's the most flexible and, perhaps surprisingly, the most inclusive option I know of.


Inclusive, in that it allows you to exclude people?

Neu Leonstein, this is the English language. English language, this is Neu Leonstein. I'm sure you've met each other, I'm just making sure you actually get formally introduced.

And by the way, the lack of food is causing harm. I'm merely not ending it by distributing mine. Unless I went out there first and did something to destroy all the other food, the famine isn't my fault.

If you own 'all the food' you ARE the 'lack of food'.

Wouldn't you say that's rather unlikely? I mean, the whole idea of the property economy is that people associate with each other because they want to, not because they have to - that they don't owe each other anything.

What a load of rubbish. People associate with SOME other people because they want to. Most of our associations in every day life, or because someone needs something we can do, or provide... or we need something they can do, or provide.

Unless you are lucky enough to be drinking buddies with your grocer....

Well, at what point does "refusing to associate" become impractical?Well, neither of us has ever seen it in anything like a developed economy. It's not like there actually are real monopolies around (except for government departments). I don't have to work for Pizza Hut, I can work for Domino's or any other pizza place. Or I work at the supermarket. Or I get into construction.

Er, I don't think you got my point.

Grant the existence of an individual, with a degree of self-awareness and not legally bound to the wishes of any other person (ie, a free adult, let us suppose one who has recently quit a job so they are not contractually bound that way).

Now, you say this person associates with others only by choice. They are not bound to associate economically with any other person.

I say this is not generally true. They could stay in their room, until their saving expire and they can't pay the rent. They could eat from garbage cans ... you get the idea. This individual could lead a very miserable life, without associating with any other person.

Now, take away the city. Imagine this individual is more scrupulous about "associating with other people." They can't eat out of garbage bins, they can't salvage cardboard boxes. They have to throw away their loomed clothing, since they only ever got it by association with other people.

They now go live (illegally, but that shouldn't matter to them) in some part of the "commons," land which is not owned by any other individual. They very likely starve.

This is why I made a disclaimer for the Amazon rainforest. There are a few other niches of land which could support an individual with no property (including money) and no association with any other individual.

Again, I have posited an almost absurdly extreme case. But ... it is the logical consequence of the "atomism" of arguing society by the individual, as you have often done.

You don't have to associate with anyone. You may have to associate (as far as that is possible)

No, you mean "you may have to associate with someone, but no specific person." We're looking at it from the POV of the individual, remember?

There's no need to invoke "society" under the guise of "capitalism." Your parenthesised qualification acknowledges this.

I assert that capitalism, by measuring all value by a numerical term (its cash value) makes associating with one person much the same as associating with another. So "association with someone" isn't so different from "associating with anyone."

... with something, namely "capitalism" but that's a problem no system solves with nearly as much elegance as a private property economy, since any such association can be only for a limited time.

Oh, great. Once I can buy my way out without suffering hardship, then I have freedom of association.

Once you're able to find others who think like you and your pooled resources are enough, you can buy a piece of land somewhere and live there in a different way. I don't think that would be possible in a system where the exclusive use of property can't be guaranteed.

It would be possible, though perhaps not secure.
On the other hand, the "buy a piece of land" step wouldn't be necessary.
The feudal system, where the Lord owns the land, and the Serf works it, need not lead only to private freehold.
The world has never been as crowded as it is now, and it is becoming more so by the year. I argue that this process is a driver of inequality, because even in a post-industrial economy (where individuals do not need land to feed themselves) ... we need a place to park our bodies.

Simply, land is only as good as the use made of it. I would measure a person's right to land by the use they can make of it, thus eliminating "property speculation."

I would say that all material inequality is a lesser degree of the "one person owns everything, therefore others comply with their wishes or die" scenario.
Not necessarily. You could have a very rich person who needs insulin, but someone else owns all of it.

Ah! Your turn to make reductio ad absurdum.

My hypothetical monopoly was based on a limited resource, dry land.
Yours is based on a commodity, and moreover a commodity which is of no use to the hypothetical monopolist, apart from its sale value.

As such, the monopolist would ask a very high price for the commodity (insulin), but having all the potential customers die would make the commodity worthless, except for their personal use.

Furthermore, more insulin could be produced unless they had some legal monopoly on its production.

There may well be material inequality, but that doesn't determine the bargaining power of both parties.

But it does! Because of the universal nature of money, the bargainer with more money has more options than the bargainer with less. Yes, the industrialist needs the labour of the skilled factory worker ... but they also have better legal advice. They have escape options, selling an asset (the business.) They have the limitation of liability which is written into the definition of a business. And above all that, they are are in the better bargaining position by being fewer than the workers.

Because they are less numerous and with a better defined common interest (profit) they can collude in secret with other industrialists, whereas the worker is one among many, subject to competition from other workers but also from kids fresh out of school, who will take a lower wage. Their common interest is much more diverse (the self-respect of 'having a job', enough income to live on, moving up the ladder, or the gravy train) ... who you decry (not here, but in other threads) for colluding publicly, in a democratic and open manner. By unionizing.

I grant you, the trend is towards more small businesses where once there were employees. Yet at the other end, the employer end, of the scale, the trend is towards more and more monolithic corporations. Collusions between thousands or tens-of-thousands of individuals for their collective gain. How can you judge such "attempts at monopoly" by the same standard as "one individual making a bargain with another"?

When you start advocating for SMALL business, including contract business where one worker has many employers (roughly the situation I am in) I will accept that the "atomised" model may work. But I've yet to hear you make that distinction, to you all ownership is equally legitimate.

It depends on the good in question, and it is basically always possible to find some niche in which one has the ability to provide more value than someone else.

And one should feel good about that? I can wipe out toilets better than one-arm Joe, who beat me at chess the other day because I accidentally ate my King?

In simpler terms: there are as many ways to make money as there are people.

Laughable. If I had the body of Steven Hawking, and the brain of Paris Hilton, I could get rich?

That's why I think the example was flawed. Someone may well have a monopoly in one or two sectors, but not a complete one that even approaches owning the entire planet.

It wasn't really an example. It was a reductio ad absurdum. An extreme case, intended to test the principle.

I was hoping you would say "yeah, that would be bad, and in that unlikely event we would need some other moral principle" ... so I could work backwards from there and find your sticking-point, the point at which your principle would cease to apply.

But, you won't play, so ... meh.

We could talk about your "not initiate violence" principle, which seems eminently sensible. :)

I'll be back in about 12-14 hours, it will be Saturday and I have no plans.

Ethics and morality cannot be based on what-if considerations.

As you pointed out yourself, morality is a set of premises about right and wrong, and ethics is a system of deciding on what behaviors to do or not do. They are both inherently personal to the individual using them. I follow MY morals and MY ethics. They have nothing to do with the people around me. They are about me, not about other people.

So if my morals say that killing is wrong, but my ethics require me to kill someone in order to achieve a good (such as defense of someone else's life, for example), then I create an internal conflict that I must resolve somehow. Either I will do the killing and live with having done something I felt was immoral, or I will not do the killing and live with having done something I felt was unethical. Either way, I won't be happy with my choice.

On the other hand, if I can choose a course of action that agrees with both my morals and my ethics, then I will be happy with my choice. If it turns out later that the result of my choice leads to bad effects in another context, that may create a new regret, but it will not be either a moral or an ethical regret.

Now as to this elevator scenario: If I were in that situation and I stopped to consider all your what-if's before shoving the screaming little brat into the goddamned elevator already, I would be failing to follow either my morals or my ethics. I would be either doubting them or ignoring them to look for some other way to make my decison, so nothing I might choose to do based on those what-if considerations would be either a moral or an ethical choice.

Heh you are wrong you know. Ethics must be based on what if considerations. I think people here are using the two terms interchangeably while not really understanding either of them.

Morality - Is only your own personal sense of what is right or wrong. If you have a gut feeling that torturing kittens is wrong and you don't understand where this feeling comes from, that is still your morality.

Ethics - Deals with doing what is right. The question of what is right is a complex one, but ordinarily boils down to what is the greater good for the greater amount of people. So it must deal with what-if scenarios, or it becomes invalid.

It is true that morality can have nowt to do with others around you, ethics though has every thing to do with others, by it's very definition, it must.

Since I have no basis for such a belief, I would assert that I believe neither.

What rubbish, of course you have an opinion on that. Other wise what you say is that you would have no feelings either way if you come home from work to find you had been burgled.


How would I know what to feel if I didn't have some basis from which to start?

Gut feeling, intuition, life's lessons, your upbringing, your culture. All of these have given you your moral outlook, would you not say that is a basis?


So you're asserting that morality is necessarily relative, and comes from within. Why do you think that?

That is like asking asking why the definition of the word bannana is yellow bent fruit. Because that is what morality is(philosophically speaking)


That's it? My distaste renders activity immoral?

Yes, if you find an act distasteful, that is your morality speaking to you


You've just rendered discussions about morality pointless.

How so?

But isn't morality necessarily correct? That's what morality is, isn't it? Morality determines what's right and wrong.

Yes morlaity determines what YOU feel is right or wrong, ethics deals with correct actions.


You've defined morality as trivial. As you've described it, it doesn't matter to anyone. If people have free will, they will as as they wish to act, and your description of morality is equivalent to people's preferences. You've made the choice between peanut butter and jelly have moral relevance. Plus, you've made it impossible for someone with free will to behave immorally.

Not at all, how can you say what you feel to be right or wrong is trivial? Many people share the same moral ideas and so many people try to live to the same ethical standard, this does not seem trivial to me.

Acting immorally is only acting against your moral standards. You can call a socialpathic murderer immoral, and yes to you he is immoral, to him though he is not.

The same man can be said by all of us to be unethical, and by the majority of us to be immoral. If this man though choose not to murder his next victim, then he can be said to be acting against his moral principles and is thus immoral(although the majority of us would call this action a moral act)

Peanut butter and jelly(jam) is not a moral issue has it has nowt to do with right or wrong, unless of course you are talking about offering a man known to have a peanut allergie a peanut butter sandwhich.

I have not made anything for anybody, I have just defined two words for you.

What if the President of the US DID want to get in the lift? His bodyguards might be able to force his way in, but that's nothing to do with morals... and, frankly, just because he's got an important job, doesn't necessarily grab me as a good reason to favour him over anyone else.

If it's the current president, I suspect a lot of people would be less-than-tempted to bump seats to let him in, to be honest.

As for the cure for cancer... well, if they all die, no one gets out. If we stand around deciding who is most likely to MAYBE cure cancer, well, we all die. Logic says, you go with the best chances for survival... which is women and children... and maybe a couple of men if you've space.


Yeah I take all that on board but seeing as this is a discussion on morality and ethics, I the scenarios I put to you had this in mind.

To my mind it is ethically correct to let the boy die in favour of the scientist who cures cancer, as this would help the greater amount of people.

Women and children first is a fine and noble ideal, but in the context of this discussion, it could be shown may not always be the correct way.

Here's the problem. I'm not a theist. In fact, I think theism is idiotic.

But, I don't understand what other source for morality people think there is. Religious folks make perfect sense when they talk about morality because the morality has an identifiable source - their god.

When atheists (all people who are not theists) talk about morality, I have no idea what they're talking about, because they don't appear to have any basis for their morality. Let's go through this in detail:

Several different answers to that question have been provided on this very thread.

If you don't understand them then feel free to ask for clarification, but it's pretty silly to insist that atheists don't appear to have any basis for their morality when they are telling you exactly what it is.


I might go so far as to say that "God said so" is not only sufficient, but necessary. I don't understand what you think morality is if it doesn't have some relevant source.

But, as my example highlights, most religious people have a sense of morality that is independent of God. Obviously God is NOT necessary for their moral system, and they're God-believers!


I suspect a theist should be fine up to this point. God makes the rules; morality can be whatever he wants. There's no requirement that morality not be arbitrary.

I get the twinge. Why? Because I don't want to torture a kitten to death. It would be really icky (and I'm not good with icky things) and unpleasant and probably give me nightmares.

Why would that be?


But isn't that just my personal preferences talking? Regardless of whether I like doing moral things, aren't they still moral?

This is true. A lot of people would be grossed out by performing open heart surgery, but the fact that it's gross doesn't mean it's immoral.

However, most people can also tell the difference between a twist in their gut that says "Eew that's gross" and a twist in their gut that means "Fuck, this is just wrong."


I certainly wouldn't. First of all, I don't believe in a god, but beyond that I just really don't want to torture a kitten (I'd probably do better with an infant - they're less cute - though it's still not something I want to do).

But isn't that just a personal preference?

When you get right down to it, morality is a personal preference. There is no objective moral system. There are many objectively-real ideas, objects, forces, and events which may influence how we construct our moral codes, but at the end of the day it's all subjective.


Firstly, what's the difference between feeling strongly that you don't want to do something and feeling strongly that doing it would be morally wrong?

I honestly don't know how to describe the difference to you. To me, that's like asking what the difference is between feeling jealous and feeling greedy. They're different emotions.

There are lots of times when I don't want to do something but I know I need to. (For instance, I am at work this morning. The sun is not yet up. This blows.) I am able to reconcile my personal wants with my concept of responsibility and moral obligation.

Maybe you can compare how you'd feel about torturing a kitten to how you'd feel about torturing a human infant? Most people feel a bit different about the two.


I know when I don't want to do something (like torture the kitten), but does that mean I think it would be wrong to torture the kitten? I'd stop someone on my presence from torturing the kitten, and I'd dislike people I knew had tortured kittens before (because they'd be creepy), but does that mean I think it's wrong?

I cannot answer that question for you.


And even so, just because I think it's wrong, do I have reaosn to believe that I am correct? I might feel the torture is wrong, but if I think about it I don't really know it to be true.

You "know it" as much as anybody can know it. Morality is subjective. You simply have to know your own mind about it. Which, now that I think of it, isn't necessarily a simple process...


But they don't have any reason to trust it.

Morality needs an outside source. Otherwise it doesn't make any sense.There is no objective morality. There are many "outside sources," like various faiths, cultures, traditional, and physical events, which can give you some information to help you make your decisions, but none of these sources will be able to tell you which morality is right.

That is a great start, but is not really ethically sound. What if the president of the president of the USA wanted to get in the lift?

I think our current president is pretty much the definition of "expendable."

I think our current president is pretty much the definition of "expendable."

Huh I'll not disagree with you on that score!:D So ethically then the best thing to do in this example is push the prez in the lift, grab the boy out of it, and watch the cable go spring, and bye bye prez?

3) In terms of biology, males are always the more expendable.

Actually, in terms of biology children are the most expendable. See, children might yet die before reaching physical maturity, in which case they won't reproduce and (biologically speaking) they did not succeed. An individual who has already reached physical maturity doesn't have to face years of uncertainty before being capable of reproduction.

This is why, for instance, females of some species will abandon their young during times of famine. She banks on her own proven fertility instead of gambling on the future fertility of young which may not even survive to maturity.

Heh you are wrong you know. Ethics must be based on what if considerations. I think people here are using the two terms interchangeably while not really understanding either of them.

Morality - Is only your own personal sense of what is right or wrong. If you have a gut feeling that torturing kittens is wrong and you don't understand where this feeling comes from, that is still your morality.

Ethics - Deals with doing what is right. The question of what is right is a complex one, but ordinarily boils down to what is the greater good for the greater amount of people. So it must deal with what-if scenarios, or it becomes invalid.

It is true that morality can have nowt to do with others around you, ethics though has every thing to do with others, by it's very definition, it must.
I disagree -- unless you are thinking of some rather flexible system of ethics. But remember that ethics can only be so flexible before they stop being ethics at all. Keep in mind that my criterion for judging a person's ethics is where they draw the line of things they will not do. If they keep moving that line for every single situation, then they may as well not bother drawing it.

For instance, my morality says that truth is one of the greatest goods in life, and a person should always strive to be truthful in all things. However, my ethics often allow me to move the lying line around a bit, if telling a lie or manipulating the truth would be more beneficial than being strictly truthful (such as lying about the whereabouts of a person if asked by someone who I know is out to kill them, or lying about my opinion of a person if I know that telling the truth in that situation is not necessary and would cause harm or conflict). But all those lies have to be "lies I can live with," meaning that they cannot be so far off both my morals and my ethics as to throw them off balance with each other. So my ethics on truthfulness can be flexible up to a point. I can bend one ethic to support another (bend truthfulness to support conflict prevention).

On the other hand, there are situations or issues on which I can have no flexibility whatsoever. My personal prohibition against violence is one such. There is no circumstance in which I could imagine violence being the preferred or "good" choice. I can easily imagine situations in which I might be faced with having to commit violence, and such a decision would cause such overwhelming internal conflict that all outside considerations would mean nothing to me. I cannot with any confidence say what I would do or how it would affect my life if, for instance, in order to save the child in the elevator scenario, I would have to commit violence against another adult. My preference would be to find a completely different way to solve the problem (like taking the stairs), because I cannot reconcile the moral/ethical conflict it would create.

Another hypothetical would be if I were in a situation where I was being pressured to submit to a political or religious regime I did not believe in or support. For myself, I know that I would rather die than compromise the truth about myself. But what if the would-be oppressors were threatening my family? Obviously, one cannot know for absolutely certain what one would do then, but I have a strong feeling that my first choice would be to bend the truthfulness ethic again and lie to the oppressors in order to attack them later, but failing that, I honestly do believe it might bring about the end of my entire bloodline. Because I cannot and will not compromise on some things. If I did, I may as well just kill myself because I would already have destroyed my whole idea of myself.

So the bottom line is, I do not either want to kill people or want to save people for the sake of those people. Both my morality and my ethics are entirely about me. Although I have a morality and an ethic that seeks to create benefit and/or avoid harm to others, I do not really care about those others. I only do that because it fits with the definition I have of who and what I am as a human being.

I am a person who believes in win-win situations, who strives for honesty and self-awareness, who believes that giving benefit out into the world is beneficial to me personally, as it creates a world I enjoy living in, and who believes life is about balance and reciprocity. All my morality and all my ethics reflect those beliefs. Nothing that anybody else does affects that.

Now let's postulate a person of different views, one who believes that for someone to win, someone else must lose, who sees the world as a resource to be exploited, and views life as a competition. That person can also have a morality and ethics, and they can be just as firm and consistent as mine, but they will be quite different in application. Nothing that I do or need will change the way that person relates to me, just as nothing in them will change the way I relate to them.

This is because the mental order created by morality and ethics is brought to the situation by the person. No matter where or how the person created it, the situation itself does not create it. So no matter what "what-if" situation you present, I will always react one way, and the second hypothetical person will always react another way.

Do you see what I'm trying to say in this admittedly rather confused post? Because of what my ethics are, no matter what "what-if" scenario you posit, I will always give the same kind of answer. My ethics are, therefore, not reactive to the situation, to the "what-if." This suggests that they were not formulated on what-if's, either.

We have default settings... the way we behave when there is no additional reason given.
Everyone's default setting is inaction.
Apparently, you think your default is random violence, if you honestly need a REASON not to hurt people.
No, but if I'm going to exclude hurting people from my set of possible actions, I need a reason to do that.

And so do you.

-snip-
-snip-
You both seem to be asserting that morality is intuitive.

But that's my problem. I don't think intuitive knoweldge is possible. If you know something, you must have learned it somewhere.

I could have asked a bunch of specific questions like "How does Peepelonia know that the peanut butter question is of moral significance only in some cases?", or "How can Bottle claim to understand the difference between jealousy and greed if she can't describe that difference?", but in the end it would all come back to intuitive knowledge.

Which doesn't exist.

As such, you need some other basis on which to start your morality, and a divine basis strikes me as the only one that makes any sense.

Llewdor, I think the your problem is that you insist that morality has to be rational, it doesn't. It's just a word to describe your approval and disapproval of certain actions, and you're approved method and outlook on life. It can be based on the irrational, like emotion, or even more irrational - God ;).

I agree that it is almost impossible to believe in an objective universal morality, without some sort of supernatural power, but morality is not necessarily supernatural.

You both seem to be asserting that morality is intuitive.

But that's my problem. I don't think intuitive knoweldge is possible. If you know something, you must have learned it somewhere.

I don't see any conflict there. I believe morality is both intuitive and learned.


I could have asked a bunch of specific questions like "How does Peepelonia know that the peanut butter question is of moral significance only in some cases?", or "How can Bottle claim to understand the difference between jealousy and greed if she can't describe that difference?", but in the end it would all come back to intuitive knowledge.

Which doesn't exist.

Sure it does. Indeed, I'd say that most people know at least one or two things they can't articulate, and if you are saying that any concept I can't articulate is "intuitive" then that would mean that everybody has at least one or two piece of intuitive knowledge.


As such, you need some other basis on which to start your morality,

I don't require an outside source to tell me which foods to like, yet I have favorite foods.

Why?

See above re: old school chivalry being a major influence on my moral code.

Then let me explain. Morality is what you think is right or wrong. Do you believe that stealing from another is right or wrong?


Insufficient data to make a conclusion. Stealing what from whom to do what with it?

That is a great start, but is not really ethically sound. What if the president of the president of the USA wanted to get in the lift?

Fuck him. Even if it happens to a president I like. Women and children first. Your job does not get you a pass. Now if it happens to be a woman president . . . but she still doesn't get to eject another woman/a child from the elevator.

Again, "that's the way it goes" detracts rather than adds to the meaning. It suggests that you believe that, but can't say why.

That's because it's too deeply ingrained in my system. By this point it's become an instinctive gut reaction.

What if the President of the US DID want to get in the lift? His bodyguards might be able to force his way in, but that's nothing to do with morals... and, frankly, just because he's got an important job, doesn't necessarily grab me as a good reason to favour him over anyone else.

If it's the current president, I suspect a lot of people would be less-than-tempted to bump seats to let him in, to be honest.

As for the cure for cancer... well, if they all die, no one gets out. If we stand around deciding who is most likely to MAYBE cure cancer, well, we all die. Logic says, you go with the best chances for survival... which is women and children... and maybe a couple of men if you've space.

Children first, they can not defend themselves. Women second because of my deeply ingrained chivalry. Women with living children, then women who are known to be pregnant, after that any other women. Men who have children are next on the list of priorities, then married men. Unmarried men unfortunately get the short end of the stick.

Sure it does. Indeed, I'd say that most people know at least one or two things they can't articulate, and if you are saying that any concept I can't articulate is "intuitive" then that would mean that everybody has at least one or two piece of intuitive knowledge.
I would assert it means that those people are mistaken, and don't actually possess that knowledge.

If you can't articulate it, I have no reason to believe you know it, and neither do you.
I don't require an outside source to tell me which foods to like, yet I have favorite foods.
You have to experience the foods, though. And then you can extrapolate based on relevantly similar foods. Plus, you can explain what it is about the foods you don't like that makes you not like them. For example, I dislike lentils because of their mealy texture. And I know from experience both that lentils have a mealy texture and that a mealy texture is something I dislike.

There's no intuition there.

Children first, they can not defend themselves.
I agree with "children first" but ...

Why does their ability to defend themselves matter in that scenario? The survivors of falling buildings are generally trapped in some small space, arguably the child stands a better chance than an adult ... it's not like you can "defend yourself" against falling masonry.

I would say "children first" because of the greater number of years of future life they would lose by dying.

Women second because of my deeply ingrained chivalry. Women with living children, then women who are known to be pregnant, after that any other women. Men who have children are next on the list of priorities, then married men. Unmarried men unfortunately get the short end of the stick.

All fair enough, except the "married/unmarried" distinction. Because they are somehow closer to fathering a child? Because being married "proves" that someone loves them? Why not just pick the younger man to save regardless?

If you can't articulate it, I have no reason to believe you know it, and neither do you.

how do you know that the sun will rise tomorrow?

If you can't articulate it, I have no reason to believe you know it, and neither do you.

What does blue look like?

how do you know that the sun will rise tomorrow?
I don't.
What does blue look like?
That's a much better question. I can define blue as the colour people see when exposed to electro-magnetic radiation in a specific frequency range. But what does it look like?

Regardless of whether I come up with an explanation, I certainly have no idea what blue looks like to you, because I have no frame of reference inside your head. I can, however, cause you to experience blueness by exposing you to that light I described above, and you'll honestly agree that the thing we're seeing is blue.

I cannot, however, elicit moral responses from you in the same way.

But, you appear to have found an example of an experience that takes place entirely inside one's head, without any shared frame of reference, thus defying description.

If you can't articulate it, I have no reason to believe you know it, and neither do you.

how do you ride a bike?

I don't.

if you take on inductive scepticism whole-heartedly, how do you live your life? planning for the future is literally illogical, mr. logic man.

how do you ride a bike?
Balance atop it and pedal. That one's easy.

if you take on inductive scepticism whole-heartedly, how do you live your life? planning for the future is literally illogical, mr. logic man.
Believing you know any future events with certainty is illogical. You can still plan for probabilities and likelihoods, especially if you're aware of your assumptions (like assuming that your perception of the physical world is largely accurate, or even that the physical world exists, or that the laws that govern the physical world are constant).

Balance atop it and pedal. That one's easy.

explain to me this 'balancing'

Believing you know any future events with certainty is illogical. You can still plan for probabilities and likelihoods, especially if you're aware of your assumptions (like assuming that your perception of the physical world is largely accurate, or even that the physical world exists, or that the laws that govern the physical world are constant).

who said anything about certainty?

explain to me this 'balancing'
Keep the bicycle beneath you such that you don't fall off. When moving, this gets easier because you can roll the bicycle back and forth to keep it directly between your centre of mass and the ground.

This one really isn't that hard. How to ride a bicycle is learnable from a book.

who said anything about certainty?
You did when you mentioned knowledge (specifically, knowledge of tomorrow's sunrise).

Knowledge requires certainty.

Knowledge requires certainty.

no it doesn't. but fine, this argument will take too much threadjacking for here anyways.

Insufficient data to make a conclusion. Stealing what from whom to do what with it?
If you need such information, then the answer is no, you don't think stealing is wrong in and of itself.

Yeah I take all that on board but seeing as this is a discussion on morality and ethics, I the scenarios I put to you had this in mind.

To my mind it is ethically correct to let the boy die in favour of the scientist who cures cancer, as this would help the greater amount of people.


And, when you invent your 'future-seeing-machine', I'll be sure to take it on board. Until then, prescience isn't a viable marker of ethics or morals.

Everyone's default setting is inaction.

No, but if I'm going to exclude hurting people from my set of possible actions, I need a reason to do that.

And so do you.

Not at all. I don't default to murder.

Apparently, you think you need a good reason NOT to kill. Apparently, I think I'd need a good reason TO kill.

Either our defaults are different, or one of us is being a little flippant. And I don't think it's me.

I keep wondering if you are really for real. It seems no one would be naive enough to believe that the rest of the world is going to treat me nicely just because I'm 'nice' to them.
Not only because I am, but also because I have something to offer. But ultimately the goal is to have a system in which no one feels they can legitimately take that of others and do well because of it. Once the other is established as inviolable, you can arrange yourself with them rather than against them.

From the perspective of reality, the way that people SEEM to get what they want, is by MAKING other people give it to them. More people make their fortunes from force, than from being polite, I suspect.
Certainly, but I consider that immoral.

Even in the absence of private property rights, there can still be property rights, just not private ones.
That only matters if I'm not part of the group that owns something collectively, and then I don't see the difference on any other level either.

If I am part of the group, then we both have equal right to use the thing in question and my statement holds.

People sharing is good. But - hardly a plus point of libertarianism. Or, perhaps, a point of libertarianism at all.
That depends entirely on what you consider libertarianism to be. Soheran is a libertarian, and I'm pretty sure he's not opposed to sharing. Neither am I, for that matter.

What we both have in common is that we believe in the existence of the individual as an actor worthy of being granted the right to choose between different actions, without his or her perception of the world being made irrelevant by another's threat of force.

So libertarianism is about choice, and we just disagree on what offers a more reasonable approximation of what constitutes "true" freedom of choice.

Which is bad.
Justification?

This assertion that a man is an island is frankly pathetic. Everytime someone suggests it, we should immediately contact some foreign power and tell them we are happy to not defend that particular person's territory, if someone else should care to take it.
You know, an island can be part of a whole chain of other islands. That doesn't deny the island-ness of the island in the least.

It is possible that the individual builds an anime battle droid and is safe from others wanting to take him and his. It is rather more likely that he makes a deal with others. All I want is that he does so with both parties actually having a say in what this deal will look like. What we have now is a "take it or leave it" approach which can also involve the government actually being the aggressor and which realistically doesn't even allow the choice of leaving it.

We could probably sit down and discuss the issue, and come to the conclusion that the current system is better than being left to your own devices. But that doesn't make it a good deal, a moral deal (the morality of it being determined to a huge degree on how it came about) or something not worth actually haggling about.

Inclusive, in that it allows you to exclude people?
As I said, it's counter-intuitive - but the ability to exclude others means that the system within itself has a much greater tolerance for alternative lifestyles and organisations.

It is actually quite hard and somewhat self-contradictory to maintain an alternative community within a socialist world of any kind, because to maintain a level of geographic seperation and to make sure the "communal" notion of property isn't misused by outsiders requires to basically come up with a sort of proxy for a property right that really runs counter to a lot of the argument for socialism.

On the other hand, setting the same thing up in vice versa is easy. Your commune has the property right on a block of land, and the capitalist world outside has no option but to respect that. What you do there is nobody's business but your own (provided you don't start pumping out dangerous pollution, but that's a different story).

If you own 'all the food' you ARE the 'lack of food'.
Wait, so if there is no food on the planet but my one potato chip, then I am the lack of food?

That's the sort of twisted reasoning that has given rise to the word "post-scarcity".

What a load of rubbish. People associate with SOME other people because they want to. Most of our associations in every day life, or because someone needs something we can do, or provide... or we need something they can do, or provide.
And if you don't want to, you don't do it. Fact of the matter is that you want something voluntarily and you choose to associate with someone else for that reason. There's nothing involuntary about the association - especially if you consider that in real life there is usually more than one person who can do something you want, which was my point. I would almost bet with you that other than government departments, there is not a single monopoly you deal with in your economic life. Except perhaps the remnants of state-owned utilities and so on which have been judged natural monopolies and are thus heavily regulated. But again, that is a slightly different issue and an exception rather than the rule.

Again, I have posited an almost absurdly extreme case. But ... it is the logical consequence of the "atomism" of arguing society by the individual, as you have often done.
But what does "impractical" mean? I mean, a person could really, really hate everyone else and simply prefer to starve to death to ever associating with anyone else - which is a freedom that only such an "atomic" view can provide.

In any less extreme case, this view leaves us with the option of choosing the people we associate with. Any other view, meaning one which implies that others have rights or entitlements which I must actively enforce, necessarily takes away the choice of who to associate with. If people have a right to healthcare, then the sick person with no money must have my money if I am a moral person, regardless of how much I don't want to have anything to do with them. Thus my freedom is reduced.

Moreover, I think it's a profoundly positive, optimistic (or to quote Ayn Rand: "heroic") view of people that can do wonders for your outlook on life.

There's no need to invoke "society" under the guise of "capitalism." Your parenthesised qualification acknowledges this.
Granted. But I don't think this is any different in any other system. If you flat-out refuse to associate with anyone at all, you will most likely die. And any association with any individual is necessarily an association with society as well.

But under my system, choosing non-association and death wouldn't make you an immoral person. To the extent to which you can consider suicide moral, I guess.

I assert that capitalism, by measuring all value by a numerical term (its cash value) makes associating with one person much the same as associating with another. So "association with someone" isn't so different from "associating with anyone."
And I plainly reject that assertion. Firstly I don't think that the cash value is just a numerical term, because it's really a representation of something else which is rather more subjective. And secondly, I don't think that the really big, really vital decisions in life are really made without some level of personal relationship. I can choose to go to Pizza Hut instead of Domino's just for the price, but if your career really matters to you, it's unlikely that you choose one employer over another just for the financial benefits. Future prospects, whether you like the company, whether you like your boss and co-workers - all that sort of stuff matters a great deal.

Oh, great. Once I can buy my way out without suffering hardship, then I have freedom of association.
It's hardly perfect, but it's better than what any other system can offer.

The world has never been as crowded as it is now, and it is becoming more so by the year. I argue that this process is a driver of inequality, because even in a post-industrial economy (where individuals do not need land to feed themselves) ... we need a place to park our bodies.
But competition prevents the inequality from getting out of hand. Landowners compete for tenants or workers, potential buyers compete for the land. The big difference between the feudal system and the capitalist system was that the serf generally wasn't allowed to just switch lords and that other forces than the market determined the lords' behaviour. It stands to reason that if a serf gets to choose his lord freely, and the lord is motivated by maximising the number and quality of the serfs on his land, a lord would do better by offering more freedoms and better condition than his neighbour.

Simply, land is only as good as the use made of it. I would measure a person's right to land by the use they can make of it, thus eliminating "property speculation."
"I" meaning who?

But it does! Because of the universal nature of money, the bargainer with more money has more options than the bargainer with less. Yes, the industrialist needs the labour of the skilled factory worker ... but they also have better legal advice. They have escape options, selling an asset (the business.) They have the limitation of liability which is written into the definition of a business. And above all that, they are are in the better bargaining position by being fewer than the workers.
And none of that would change the basic fact that the industrialist needs that labour, and the labourer can go somewhere else. The industrialist operates under the motivation of wanting to continue a successful business, just as the labourer wants to run a successful "labour-supply business" as it were. The two need to do different things to achieve it, but the option of selling assets or invoking limited liability is no more a credible strategy than the option of committing sempukku on your desk.

Because they are less numerous and with a better defined common interest (profit) they can collude in secret with other industrialists, whereas the worker is one among many, subject to competition from other workers but also from kids fresh out of school, who will take a lower wage.
Of course, collusion is a decidedly anti-market, anti-competitive and anti-capitalist sort of behaviour.

Their common interest is much more diverse (the self-respect of 'having a job', enough income to live on, moving up the ladder, or the gravy train) ... who you decry (not here, but in other threads) for colluding publicly, in a democratic and open manner. By unionizing.
I was asking only for consistency in how to treat collusion.

Yet at the other end, the employer end, of the scale, the trend is towards more and more monolithic corporations.
Proof?

Collusions between thousands or tens-of-thousands of individuals for their collective gain. How can you judge such "attempts at monopoly" by the same standard as "one individual making a bargain with another"?
As far as the labour market is concerned, the corporation basically becomes one agent. It's a model, of course, but if analysed the implications generally hold as far as the real world is concerned.

When you start advocating for SMALL business, including contract business where one worker has many employers (roughly the situation I am in) I will accept that the "atomised" model may work.
I advocate for the employer and employee being accepted as being two trading parties, as a buyer and a seller. That can go either way - in fact, in most markets it's more likely for a seller to have many buyers than vice versa. I don't feel I have to advocate this particular situation...if people want it, they will do it. I just want them to have the freedom to do so.

But I've yet to hear you make that distinction, to you all ownership is equally legitimate.
No it isn't. If I gain something through violence rather than trade or creating it myself, I don't think that constitutes ownership, while in the real world it often seems to do.

And one should feel good about that? I can wipe out toilets better than one-arm Joe, who beat me at chess the other day because I accidentally ate my King?
It's rather preferable to not being able to feel good about yourself at all. And besides, if you're good at wiping toilets then there's the business you should start. In 20 years you can take it public and retire on a few billion dollars.

Laughable. If I had the body of Steven Hawking, and the brain of Paris Hilton, I could get rich?
Well, first of all Hawking is disabled, which makes it a bit more complicated. Basically some sort of disability seems the only way a person could actually become completely useless, as it were, and thus completely unable to earn a living.

But to the real question: can anyone become rich? I think that once you have something you do better than anyone else, that's a great starting point. Many talents are such that you'd have to be a business genius and live for a long time to really become rich - so maybe "rich" isn't the right word. You can certainly carve out a life with it.

But for most people the problem is finding others who are willing to pay for whatever they're really good at. Given the sheer number of people in the world, it seems basically impossible that there should be a talent or skill that would have absolutely no demand for it. So the limit is an information problem, rather than one of principle.

But, you won't play, so ... meh.
The real problem is that a moral system that tolerates exceptions invites people to fight about whether or not they apply right now. You never find an exception that isn't basically chosen arbitrarily, which makes it open to debate. And debate about a moral, political and economic system is usually carried out with clubs, swords or guns.

Apart from that being bad in itself, it's also unlikely to lead to any answers, or indeed to leave any moral system intact.

So what I'm ultimately after is something with no gaps, no exceptions, no interpretations and no subjective morals or ethics. Maybe that's what attracts me to objectivism, even though most people would think I have rather less honourable motives.

We could talk about your "not initiate violence" principle, which seems eminently sensible. :)
Why?

I have found it much harder to explain it to myself, since I basically never get challenged when it's mentioned. There is only the utilitarians which basically either make up some rule, declaring that it will raise happiness, or otherwise just plain don't care (and the thing with utilitarians is that you can't talk to them about anything, since their answer is always the same and never justified). And Eureka Australis, I guess, but he doesn't really count.

But without understanding it fully, you again invite exceptions and subjectivities which in this case more than most turn the whole thing into the absurd.

This was inspired by the thread "Another question for Christians" by Dyakovo. I have heard many atheists, agnostics, skeptics, and other non-Christians argue their "theologies".

On second thought, I guess "anti-theology" would be a more accurate term to apply to atheists, agnostics, and skeptics.

But anyhow, I have a question for all of you non-Christians out there:

What is your moral code/are your moral standards based on?

Serious replies only, please.

EDIT: Please do not take offense at my poor choice of words for the title of this thread. Some posters have expressed concerns of "trolling", but this thread is not meant to be a troll, flame, or a bait to either of those. I merely wish serious discussion of this topic.

My personal moral code is, wherever possible, do unto others etc...
Incidentally, it is HIGHLY likely that religion was invented to justify 'moral codes' to those of limited intellect, rather than religion being the 'origin' of morality. :fluffle:

I think our current president is pretty much the definition of "expendable."

I believe i'll second that.

Not only because I am, but also because I have something to offer. But ultimately the goal is to have a system in which no one feels they can legitimately take that of others and do well because of it. Once the other is established as inviolable, you can arrange yourself with them rather than against them.


So, you admit that your little pie-in-the-sky is totally real-world impractical then?

Politics, religion, moral codes... whatever - nothing has ever made 'the other' inviolable. The nearest you can get is 'might is right'. Ad it's only 'right' as long as you hold the balance of the 'might'.


Certainly, but I consider that immoral.


Unfortunately, reality doesn't care if it upsets your delicate sensibilities.


That only matters if I'm not part of the group that owns something collectively, and then I don't see the difference on any other level either.

If I am part of the group, then we both have equal right to use the thing in question and my statement holds.


Only if you assume that there is no logic or rationality within the collective.


That depends entirely on what you consider libertarianism to be. Soheran is a libertarian, and I'm pretty sure he's not opposed to sharing. Neither am I, for that matter.


Your insistence that your claim trumps the claim of anyone else makes a liar of your argument.


What we both have in common is that we believe in the existence of the individual as an actor worthy of being granted the right to choose between different actions, without his or her perception of the world being made irrelevant by another's threat of force.


It's okay to abuse or misuse the rest of humanity by any means OTHER than force - seems to be about the bulk of your argument.

If you can force someone to do something through economic means, it's the same as forcing them to do it by breaking their arms.

I've pointed it out before - those who like a system where they get to exert power over those stronger than themselves by some arbitrary mechanism, always seem to be opposed to any system of redress that ignores the arbitrary, and addresses the strength.


So libertarianism is about choice, and we just disagree on what offers a more reasonable approximation of what constitutes "true" freedom of choice.


Rubbish. Libertarianism is about egocentric protectionism, and a desire for 'rights', without responsibility.


It is possible that the individual builds an anime battle droid and is safe from others wanting to take him and his. It is rather more likely that he makes a deal with others. All I want is that he does so with both parties actually having a say in what this deal will look like. What we have now is a "take it or leave it" approach which can also involve the government actually being the aggressor and which realistically doesn't even allow the choice of leaving it.


I don't see the problem here.

If you don't like sharing in a society, you are perfectly welcome to go take yourself a canoe-ride to whichever empty space you can find to set up your tinpot monocracy. I don't see a problem there. If you don't want to be held responsible as part of the society, it's better off without you.

And there's my objection - people that call themselves 'libertarians' and want to claim 'freedom'... but rest safe in the knowledge that their society protects them from aggressors - both inside and out.


We could probably sit down and discuss the issue, and come to the conclusion that the current system is better than being left to your own devices. But that doesn't make it a good deal, a moral deal (the morality of it being determined to a huge degree on how it came about) or something not worth actually haggling about.


The current system is better than everyone looking out for number one. The simple fact our nations(s) exist(s) bears testament to it.


As I said, it's counter-intuitive - but the ability to exclude others means that the system within itself has a much greater tolerance for alternative lifestyles and organisations.


Rubbish. The ability to exclude others means the system is not inclusive. Nothing more.


It is actually quite hard and somewhat self-contradictory to maintain an alternative community within a socialist world of any kind, because to maintain a level of geographic seperation and to make sure the "communal" notion of property isn't misused by outsiders requires to basically come up with a sort of proxy for a property right that really runs counter to a lot of the argument for socialism.


Pile of crap.It is easy to maintain alternative communities within a socialist world, the questuion is whether such communities SHOULD be maintained. If you have a community that shares ALL resources, then 'alternative' communities within that society do become more troublesome, because such people demand allotment of resources - which is intrinsically unfair on everyone NOT in their community.

Not impossible - I'm sure it is a simple matter to work out a rationing system whereby a strict amount of resource based on proportion of population could be divined.


On the other hand, setting the same thing up in vice versa is easy. Your commune has the property right on a block of land, and the capitalist world outside has no option but to respect that.


So - US law doesn't require communes to pay tazes?


Wait, so if there is no food on the planet but my one potato chip, then I am the lack of food?

That's the sort of twisted reasoning that has given rise to the word "post-scarcity".


It's not twisted reasoning - you just attempt to reduce it to the absurd to try to make it appear so.

But it still holds, if there is only one potato chip (why that should be...?) and you claim it as your sovereign property, you ARE the scarcity for the rest of the world - you have taken up far more than your proportional 'share' of the pooled resources of the planet.


And if you don't want to, you don't do it. Fact of the matter is that you want something voluntarily and you choose to associate with someone else for that reason. There's nothing involuntary about the association - especially if you consider that in real life there is usually more than one person who can do something you want, which was my point. I would almost bet with you that other than government departments, there is not a single monopoly you deal with in your economic life. Except perhaps the remnants of state-owned utilities and so on which have been judged natural monopolies and are thus heavily regulated. But again, that is a slightly different issue and an exception rather than the rule.

If there is one foodstore within a driving distance, there is a monopoly, to all intents and purposes.

The nearest you can get is 'might is right'. Ad it's only 'right' as long as you hold the balance of the 'might'.
So you deny the notion of morality mattering at all. Which leads me to ask the question why you're in this thread attempting to argue with me.

Unfortunately, reality doesn't care if it upsets your delicate sensibilities.
Which is no argument that bears any relation to the correctness of what I'm saying.

Only if you assume that there is no logic or rationality within the collective.
I'm sure there'd be a lot of rationality going on. It's just that reason is a fundamentally individual tool, and I don't think a human being can deny itself to the point of ceasing to look out for number one and really see itself as nothing more but one of many.

Your insistence that your claim trumps the claim of anyone else makes a liar of your argument.
Why? Sharing is merely the act of giving others access to something. I can do that with or without property rights (though the latter starts to make a bit of a mockery of it).

If you can force someone to do something through economic means, it's the same as forcing them to do it by breaking their arms.
Proof? Anything beyond a one-sentence assertion?

Rubbish. Libertarianism is about egocentric protectionism, and a desire for 'rights', without responsibility.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

What exactly do you think you're doing? I mean, you can't argue against me if you don't listen to what I'm saying. You're arguing against something else that has little to nothing to do with me.

If you don't like sharing in a society, you are perfectly welcome to go take yourself a canoe-ride to whichever empty space you can find to set up your tinpot monocracy. I don't see a problem there. If you don't want to be held responsible as part of the society, it's better off without you.
The real question is though what exactly society is. If I refuse to deal with everyone but one other person, then I am dealing with society but not with, say, the poor or the state.

So who is the person who decides that society is better off without me? Indeed, who is the person who decides that I have to take a canoe, rather than just stay where I am and deal with my one friend?

And there's my objection - people that call themselves 'libertarians' and want to claim 'freedom'... but rest safe in the knowledge that their society protects them from aggressors - both inside and out.
Society doesn't protect me, police does. And I can deal with the police in a very rational manner, with two parties sorting out some sort of deal. I can't deal with this society you envision, because it's not an agent of any sort.

The current system is better than everyone looking out for number one. The simple fact our nations(s) exist(s) bears testament to it.
Just because something exist doesn't mean that it should. People get very nationalistic too, but that doesn't mean that should be the case.

Rubbish. The ability to exclude others means the system is not inclusive. Nothing more.
Again, you're ignoring what I'm saying. And I think you're doing it knowingly.

Pile of crap.It is easy to maintain alternative communities within a socialist world, the questuion is whether such communities SHOULD be maintained. If you have a community that shares ALL resources, then 'alternative' communities within that society do become more troublesome, because such people demand allotment of resources - which is intrinsically unfair on everyone NOT in their community.
The fact that you can allow yourself to ask whether someone else should be allowed to do what he wants sort of illustrates my point. A socialist basically must have a problem with leaving others to do as they wish on economic matters, a capitalist cannot have such a problem.

Not impossible - I'm sure it is a simple matter to work out a rationing system whereby a strict amount of resource based on proportion of population could be divined.
A rationing system of resources being associated with people. Couldn't that pass as a definition of a property right?

So - US law doesn't require communes to pay tazes?
What makes you think that matters? From above it's obvious that you're well aware that I'm not arguing for the status quo. So why would you bring up the US?

But it still holds, if there is only one potato chip (why that should be...?) and you claim it as your sovereign property, you ARE the scarcity for the rest of the world - you have taken up far more than your proportional 'share' of the pooled resources of the planet.
No, if I am the scarcity, then if I were gone there would be no scarcity. That's plainly not the case. That chip wouldn't stop everyone from starving to death. Scarcity exists regardless of property rights, by virtue of the usable universe being limited. This limit is a material fact of life, objectively true. Scarcity is merely this limit being acknowledged within our judgement of what constitutes a resource of some sort.

If there is one foodstore within a driving distance, there is a monopoly, to all intents and purposes.
So, have you ever been anywhere were this was the case? Could you honestly tell me that this is common? Would you say that a foodstore is the only source of nourishment? Would you say that moving away is not an option? Would you say that no one else could open a foodstore?

Look, for the most part, the idea of a monopoly is a construct of theoretical economics. It must be acknowledged, and steps towards it can be the worthwhile subject of regulation, but even in the almost unregulated times of the Industrial Revolution monopolies that weren't created and maintained by law were extremely rare in developed economies.

And even though the choice gets less and less attractive (to the point where we can rightly argue about whether it's a real choice at all) the more absurdly extreme the scenario gets - the free market is based on voluntary choice.

So, have you ever been anywhere were this was the case? Could you honestly tell me that this is common? Would you say that a foodstore is the only source of nourishment? Would you say that moving away is not an option? Would you say that no one else could open a foodstore?

Look, for the most part, the idea of a monopoly is a construct of theoretical economics. It must be acknowledged, and steps towards it can be the worthwhile subject of regulation, but even in the almost unregulated times of the Industrial Revolution monopolies that weren't created and maintained by law were extremely rare in developed economies.

And even though the choice gets less and less attractive (to the point where we can rightly argue about whether it's a real choice at all) the more absurdly extreme the scenario gets - the free market is based on voluntary choice.
Your comments here certainly show that you live in a very small, idealised world far removed from reality.
If you actually left your home and travelled more, you'd be surprised to find that it is indeed quite common to have just one major source of supplies in a town.

My mother lives in a (by NZ standards) relatively good-sized town - population 5000, serving a district of ~15000. It has 1 supermarket. The next nearest supermarket is over 100km away. The nearest one after that is a further 70km away.
That is, from the town she lives in. If you lived out in the district you could (and some do) live 120km (30 of which is unsealed road) away from her town and it's one supermarket. meaning 220 to the next supermarket.
Sure there's 4 small shops (equivalent to 7/11s) along that 120km stretch but they only stock very basic supplies and their prices are 50% dearer than the supermarket.

Before we lived there, we lived in a settlement that had 9 families. It was a 40 minute drive along an unsealed road to the nearest town (and it's 1 mini-market). Before that, it was Great Barrier island - area 285 km², population 500, 2 hours by ferry and 1/2 hour by seaplane to Auckland.

Where I live at present is a 30 minute ferry ride into Hong Kong. We have a population of around 4000 and 4 little shops here selling basic foodstuffs - all at prices higher than the nearest supermarket (at least a 90 minute trip, as ferries only go every hour).

When I was in Tibet a couple of years ago, I hiked to a village. It took a 3 hour car trip on a revolting dangerous road (at one point we had to get out and run across a landslide that had wiped out the road, followed by the car roaring across) from the biggest town (ie. one with a supermarket) to a small settlement (3 small shops, a couple of hundred people), then another 2 hour drive, followed by a 4 hour hike over a mountain (getting to 4000m).

see? Not only is it possible to be in a situation where you don't have a choice where to shop it's actually not uncommon. For you to say otherwise smacks of a person not wanting admit they're wrong.

For you to say otherwise smacks of a person not wanting admit they're wrong.
The only thing that smacks me is that this is a very good illustration of the choice not to associate with other people. Living far away from others is just such a choice.

Andy Kaufman? All right, then, what are you waiting for? Start lip-synching "Here I come to save the day" from the Mighty Mouse theme song!

Then after that, go to Memphis, Tennessee and wrestle Jerry Lawler! :D

Well, I never wrestled Jerry Lawler, but I've been jackknife powerbombed by Kevin Nash. Does that count?

I would assert it means that those people are mistaken, and don't actually possess that knowledge.

If you can't articulate it, I have no reason to believe you know it, and neither do you.

Half right. YOU have no reason to believe I know it, that is true. But I know I know it, as much as I know that I know anything.


You have to experience the foods, though. And then you can extrapolate based on relevantly similar foods.

Just like morality. I have experience with a range of moral choices and questions which have come up during my life. From these, I can extrapolate and make more theoretical evaluations.

The first time I encounter a moral quandary, like the first time I try a new food, my reaction will be determined by the sum of all my past experiences as well as my personal quirks. My current tastes are partly due to my individual make-up, but also have been shaped consciously and unconsciously by my lifetime of experiences. Both will factor in to whether or not I like a new food, and both will factor in to how I judge a moral situation. My "gut" reaction is partly innate and partly shaped by my experiences.


Plus, you can explain what it is about the foods you don't like that makes you not like them. For example, I dislike lentils because of their mealy texture. And I know from experience both that lentils have a mealy texture and that a mealy texture is something I dislike.

I could not fully articulate to you why I detest broccoli. I could say "It tastes bad," but that's obviously a subjective judgment on my part.

But I am quite certain that I do detest broccoli. I look forward to your explanation of how I don't know that I detest broccoli because I can't articulate it to you.

Not at all. I don't default to murder.
Of course not. You default to inaction, just like everyone else.
Apparently, you think you need a good reason NOT to kill. Apparently, I think I'd need a good reason TO kill.
We all need a reason to kill if we're going to kill. That's the thing that would move us from our default inaction.

However, you would also need a reason to exclude killing from your range of possible actions. By default you're not acting at all, but based on stimulus you might act one way or another. To prevent those actions from including killing, you need a reason not to kill.
Either our defaults are different, or one of us is being a little flippant. And I don't think it's me.
Or one of us just doesn't understand how defaults work.

However, you would also need a reason to exclude killing from your range of possible actions. By default you're not acting at all, but based on stimulus you might act one way or another. To prevent those actions from including killing, you need a reason not to kill.

In a society where killing is allowed, you yourself are also at risk of being killed by someone who feels like it. For most humans that would be bad.

Half right. YOU have no reason to believe I know it, that is true. But I know I know it, as much as I know that I know anything.
But how do you know that you know it? When you consider this supposed knowledge, can you convince yourself that you know it?
Just like morality. I have experience with a range of moral choices and questions which have come up during my life. From these, I can extrapolate and make more theoretical evaluations.
But with food I can sense the food as I eat it. I can taste it and feel it's texture, and those sensations are either pleasant or they aren't.

Are you positing the existence of some moral sense?
The first time I encounter a moral quandary, like the first time I try a new food, my reaction will be determined by the sum of all my past experiences as well as my personal quirks.
How do you know it's a moral quandary? I can tell when I'm tasting new food because I have no memory of this flavour I'm currently experiencing.
I could not fully articulate to you why I detest broccoli. I could say "It tastes bad," but that's obviously a subjective judgment on my part.
Well, you could do better than that. Describe the flavour. Is it bitter? Does it remind you of kale (which you also dislike because of it's cool sharpness)?

Simply saying "it tastes bad" isn't terribly informative because there has to be some reason it tastes bad. What about the flavour do you dislike?

The same goes for moral questions. "It feels wrong" wouldn't be terribly informative.
But I am quite certain that I do detest broccoli. I look forward to your explanation of how I don't know that I detest broccoli because I can't articulate it to you.
You clearly haven't thought through your dislike of broccoli. If I did something to the broccoli such that you liked it, would you be able to tell what was different about the flavour? Is there a vegetable similar to broccoli you don't dislike? What about it's flavour is different from broccoli's flavour?

These are all akin to the questions you should be able to answer about morality, but I don't have any idea what sorts of questions to ask. Since you have moral opinions, you should.

But how do you know that you know it?
We know that we know things we know for the same reason we know that we don't know things we don't know, based on whether they are known, unknown, known knowns, unknown knowns, etc, etc, etc, Mr. Rumsfeld.

Or, short answer, we can be sure we know things we cannot articulate by the exact same mechanism that we can know that things are annoying.

...

When you consider this supposed knowledge, can you convince yourself that you know it?

But with food I can sense the food as I eat it. I can taste it and feel it's texture, and those sensations are either pleasant or they aren't.

Are you positing the existence of some moral sense?
I believe she is. Several people in this thread have posited exactly that, and have been doing so for several pages.

Of course not. You default to inaction, just like everyone else.


Inaction is the movement, not the tendency.

My inaction is non-violent. Yours, apparently.... is not.


We all need a reason to kill if we're going to kill. That's the thing that would move us from our default inaction.

However, you would also need a reason to exclude killing from your range of possible actions. By default you're not acting at all, but based on stimulus you might act one way or another. To prevent those actions from including killing, you need a reason not to kill.


I don't need a reason to exclude killing. It's what-we-call a 'default' that I don't resort to murder as a primary response. I need no extra incentive to NOT kill.


Or one of us just doesn't understand how defaults work.

Yeah, maybe. But I'm hoping you can learn.

The groundwork of the metaphysic of morals. (Metaphysics=physics which can’t be proved).
The categorical imperative
Formulation 1; universability act only in such a way that you could make your universal maxim for all of humanity to follow.
If your act impinges on the intention of the moral agent, it’s wrong.
Formulation 2; the end in itself formulation always treat people as a means, not an end. In doing so you recognise their status as rational autonomous beings.

Just one minor greivance: you flipped around the second formulation of categorical imperative.

Or, short answer, we can be sure we know things we cannot articulate by the exact same mechanism that we can know that things are annoying.

Well put. ;)


I believe she is. Several people in this thread have posited exactly that, and have been doing so for several pages.
Yeah, I'm not really sure why we're still haggling over that point, considering that I basically entered the thread on this note.

Yes, humans have a "moral sense" of some kind. No, it does not require the existence of any objective morality.

I think it's pretty similar to our sense of taste in one respect. When you taste something, it is the result of the physical world stimulating receptors on your tongue. Real molecules, which are objectively verifiable and observable, provoke a sensory response. However, your personal reaction to a taste is subjective. Whether it is a "good taste" or a "bad taste" will be partly determined by your physical limitations (i.e. all humans tend to find the taste of rancid meat "bad"), but will be largely determined by individual factors. Your taste preferences are largely shaped by your environment and experiences throughout your life, though there's also some personal quirks that different people have. Even identical twins often don't have the same favorite food!

Morality is part of our brain's response to input. The input may be objectively observable, but the response is as subjective as our taste preferences.

As is the case with morality, there are some "taste rules" that seem pretty universal among humans. But this doesn't mean there is some objective ideal of flavor which directs our preferences. It simply reflects the fact that there are pragmatic concerns involved in shaping our biology, and our biology is the source of our consciousness. Humans die if they eat certain things, so it makes perfect sense for all humans to share an aversion to those tastes. Likewise, humans share many fundamental needs to survive, and it makes perfect sense for our moral codes to be similar whenever it comes to ensuring that these fundamental needs are met.

Humans thrive as social animals. It's pretty tough to have a solid, thriving social group if murder is freely allowed within the group. The cost-benefit balance breaks down. So it makes perfect sense that human social groups all over the world have prohibitions against murder. No objective moral code is needed, just the physical realities of the world and the physical nature of our species.

Well put. ;)


Yeah, I'm not really sure why we're still haggling over that point, considering that I basically entered the thread on this note.


Brace yourself for repetition of this basic point ad infinitum. It is unfortunate that a few people show a tendency to make conversations be all about them and not about the topic, and cause debates to devolve into endless circles around the same statements. It is my sincere hope that Llewdor will not follow the same pattern that he did in two other recent threads, but if he does, we may as well consider this conversation killed. To save time, you may want to bookmark your post, so that you can simply paste it in as a response to all the times you will be asked to repeat your position.

I am sorry to complain about the poster, rather than the argument, but I have to be honest and say that I feel that Llewdor needlessly hijacked two other very interesting debates. I have said as much to him directly. I am saying it again here. I will not repeat it, ever again.

What do I base my moral code on?

Truthfully: freewill and conciousness.
I have a right to my freewill so long as I don't remove the freewill of another, my conciousness is to be used so that I can consider how my own actions affect my surroundings (including other beings), I have a right to disregard them, I have a right to try and influence/persuade them so long as I allow them the same rights that I myself have. Thus maintaining both balance and equality.
Does that make sense?
Do I need religion to give me morals? No.
I have my own being and judgement (not to mention understanding and interpretation of the universe) to guide me towards my particular morals.

Therefore according to my morals you do what you want to do so long as you do not interfere with someone else's freedoms.

Although i am not a christian i do believe in a higher and my personal moral code is based on a christian concept actually (though NOT a christian or affiliated with any religion for that matter) The golden rule and i combine this with the hindu concept of "karma" this has proved successful for me. I do not believe that you have to subscribe to any religion to have morals although i understand the basis for several religion everything from nordic paganism, to the quaran and the bible. I personally believe all religions have there good points except for Islam practiced in its extreme. This to me is pure evil, but i will not go any further into that.

Whatever I feel is right, I would imagine. Philosophy tends to scare me really; having always made arguments upon a factual basis, a discipline in which evidence is of little use strikes me as being much like builing castles in the sky.