Another Thread on Morality

[The Sum of Awe]

I've said this many times, I've been arguing it for quite a while, and see a few people have agreed with this idea themselves on this forum. I know I wasn't the first who come up with it, but I did come up with it on my own, still don't want to acknowledge it but acknowledging it more and more everyday:

This was a debate with myself (X believes in morality, Me doesn't):

X:"Nazis were evil weren't they?"
Me:"I don't agree with the Nazis, nor do I like them but that doesn't mean they were evil."
X:"They killed thousands."
Me:"Why is killig evil?"
X:"Because it is morally wrong."
Me:"Says who?"
X:"Well, do you really want a guy coming into your house and killing you?"
Me:"No, but who says what I don't want and what I do want is the universal truth of what we should and shouldn't do?"
X:"Ninety-nine percent of people wouldn't want to get killed either, so it is wrong by law."
Me:"And yet, murderers are allowed to get killed without it being wrong?"
X:"Because they did something wrong..."
Me:"You're contradicting yourself. Why does the guy who wants to kill me get no say in wanting to kill me? I'm sure a majority of people would like to kill someone."
X:"Because the killer is not a majority."
Me:"So? As I said, I'm sure a vast majority of people have had murdering dreams or dreams to not go to work and get free money, why isn't that legal?"
X:"Because if nobody has jobs, there'd be no production and there'd be no electricity or anything."
Me:"So?"
X:"We'd all be suffering."
Me:"And?"
X:"That's bad"
Me:"Why?"
X:"There would be no happiness in the world if everyone could kill."
Me:"Why is happiness good?"
X:"Well, everyone wants to be happy, they want what they want, if they want pain it'll make them happy."
Me:"Okay? But because for the certain fact that people want different things and get happy for different things, it proves there can be happiness with anarchy or a world with no morality or ethics. All you'd gotta do is do what you want to do. If you want to smell good, take a shower. If you want to live, kill the murderer before he kills you, etc."

Couldn't think of anymore arguments further.


So... yeah, what determines killing, lying, stealing, etc. to be wrong? Unless there is a God saying "No killing!" there is only opinions on what is wrong and right, on what we ought to do.

And because they are opinions, why tell others what they ought to do?

 

[Quintessence]

As far as I know, there can be no such thing as a human society (or civilization) without that collective of humans setting down norms. That's why. You have to get along with other people unless you'd like to live as a hermit in an isolated hut at the top of a mountain. These norms are there not necessarily because there is some absolute or objective right or wrong. They're there because we require ordering structures in order to have societies and civilizations. They're contractual agreements, a social consensus. They're not laws.

 

[wmjbyatt]

Well, if we're willing to be ethical relativists for a minute (which I, for one, am), it's pretty easy to say that we can define a morality wherein that which disturbs the social peace is wrong.

Consider it thusly: instead of viewing society-at-large as a collective entity, view it as a single entity that happens to have many constituent parts (much as we, individually, are single entities with many constituent parts). This entity then has an intrinsic self-interest in self-perpetuation (much like most every entity), which it manifests by building rules (moral coda) which bind its constituent parts into a certain realm of activity that allows the social organism to exist.

Bada-bing.

 

[Super Universe]

A psychiatrist interviewed Charles Manson in prison, he rambled on and on about how he was sentenced to life behind bars while society damages the environment and blah, blah, blah...

Just because society is imperfect doesn't mean that it's an excuse for someone to intentionally do wrong.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

A psychiatrist interviewed Charles Manson in prison, he rambled on and on about how he was sentenced to life behind bars while society damages the environment and blah, blah, blah...

Just because society is imperfect doesn't mean that it's an excuse for someone to intentionally do wrong.

What is imperfect and what is wrong? It varies among definitions, you cannot call someone 'wrong' or tell them they're doing 'evil' or 'bad' things, just because you find them incredibly bad.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Well, if we're willing to be ethical relativists for a minute (which I, for one, am), it's pretty easy to say that we can define a morality wherein that which disturbs the social peace is wrong.

Consider it thusly: instead of viewing society-at-large as a collective entity, view it as a single entity that happens to have many constituent parts (much as we, individually, are single entities with many constituent parts). This entity then has an intrinsic self-interest in self-perpetuation (much like most every entity), which it manifests by building rules (moral coda) which bind its constituent parts into a certain realm of activity that allows the social organism to exist.

Bada-bing.

And? I do not see why the organism has to exist, and why it can't.

 

[9Westy9]

I'd agree. Good and evil, right and wrong are subjective. Subjective in the sense that you decide (despite free choice not existing ) what you believe right and wrong to be

 

[Gjallarhorn]

I have one objection to make: you say X "believes in morality". It's not something you believe or not. Morality is. The question of whether it is subjective or objective is the issue, and the answer is obvious.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I have one objection to make: you say X "believes in morality". It's not something you believe or not. Morality is. The question of whether it is subjective or objective is the issue, and the answer is obvious.

What I meant by that is believes in an official morality, I explained this in chat

 

[Gjallarhorn]

What I meant by that is believes in an official morality, I explained this in chat

And I explained that you should phrase it differently. Glad to see that was ignored...

 

[The Sum of Awe]

And I explained that you should phrase it differently. Glad to see that was ignored...

Indeed, but I honestly didn't think twice about precise ways of saying what is on my mind while typing it. So?

 

[CarlinKnew]

And because they are opinions, why tell others what they ought to do?

Why not? What's wrong with expressing an opinion that you feel strongly about? If you don't like murder, you can say that you think murder is wrong, and you can assert your opinion to others because you don't want to live on a murderous society. Why does there need to be more than that?

 

[Me Myself]

So... yeah, what determines killing, lying, stealing, etc. to be wrong?

We do!

And because they are opinions, why tell others what they ought to do?

Because I want most people to behappy, so I try to think which moral laws or principles can help to that and promote them.

Are you telling me it is moraly wrong for me to promote my morality?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Why not? What's wrong with expressing an opinion that you feel strongly about? If you don't like murder, you can say that you think murder is wrong, and you can assert your opinion to others because you don't want to live on a murderous society. Why does there need to be more than that?

Then you put people to prison for going against what you want, you exclude their wants. Sometimes they even put them to death.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

We do!



Because I want most people to behappy, so I try to think which moral laws or principles can help to that and promote them.

Are you telling me it is moraly wrong for me to promote my morality?

Why does what you want have to be universal?

Not morally wrong for you to promote your morality, but I see it more like fighting an imaginary friend; unnecessary and pointless.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Basically, telling a person not to murder is telling a man to not do what he wants to, what he thinks is morally right. What are you doing yourself? You are saying "My morals are correct 100% because I think they are." and excluding him for his opinions.

 

[Father Heathen]

Ethics are for mutual benefit and rational self-interest (cause and effect, action and reaction, etc.), and reason and compassion (assuming the mind is sound) naturally lead us toward morality (unless corrupted by fear, ignorance, indoctrination, etc.)

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Ethics are for mutual benefit and rational self-interest (cause and effect, action and reaction, etc.), and reason and compassion (assuming the mind is sound) naturally lead us toward morality (unless corrupted by fear, ignorance, indoctrination, etc.)

I see a lot of subjective words in this: sound, morality, ethics, corrupted...

 

[Father Heathen]

I see a lot of subjective words in this: sound, morality, ethics, corrupted...

Go on.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Ethics are for mutual benefit and rational self-interest (cause and effect, action and reaction, etc.), and reason and compassion (assuming the mind is sound) naturally lead us toward morality (unless corrupted by fear, ignorance, indoctrination, etc.)

Fact of the matter is, none of those things matter.