Another Thread on Morality

[The Sum of Awe]

Loud noises, especially constant, are not good for your health. Objectively the loud truck is not as good as a quiet truck the obligations, responsibilities, who is involved get into variables and subjectivity. Similar to apples being better than cigarettes... It's objective unless the person has some funky health characteristics.

The life support stuff is a whole different animal.

Okay, all of this aside. Why is health the basis of morality?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Because morality is simply the belief.
There is nothing in the definition that even implies morality has to be accepted by anyone other than the one holding the belief.

Thus everyone has a set of morals.
Problems arise when moral sets clash.

Understandings of morality, even the definition you'd find on Google, are discussing a subject in itself, rather than beliefs. Even if that were not true, that doesn't cancel out that morality is an opinion, it would simply be an agreement with the obvious (obvious if it were in the definition), but there is disagreement in this thread which therefore is discussed.

 

[Sees]

Okay, all of this aside. Why is health the basis of morality?

It's one aspect - helpful, healthful, beneficial, etc. holistic. Good = Wholesome = Holy

It's all connected. People have made them more complicated and interjected foreign concepts that don't fit - making simple things confusing.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

It's one aspect - helpful, healthful, beneficial, etc. holistic. Good = Wholesome = Holy

It's all connected. People have made them more complicated and interjected foreign concepts that don't fit - making simple things confusing.

But still why are those things considered the basis or morality?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

All morality is subjective, including religious morality. Some religious people have deluded themselves into thinking that their subjective opinions about morality are somehow objective because they get it from a book that men wrote or proclamations from men of religious authority.

Societies are built on basic rules of morality to enable them to function. That's why we have laws. The most basic are not to murder and to respect the property of others. Otherwise, there would be chaos and society would crumble overnight. We all have to agree to certain rules that limit certain actions in order to facilitate the functioning of our society. Evolution has also built in certain things into us that make this a bit easier, as we are social animals. Most of us don't like the idea of killing another member of our species and that action tends to result in a lot of psychological damage, unless one is a psychopath.

Then there are societies such as the Third Reich where the state is opposed to the personal freedom of others and functions as a organic being fighting for its own survival itself. So you have the state deeming some as being enemies of the state that must be eradicated. In the Third Reich, it was the Jews, communists, liberals, anti-Nazis, etc. - anyone who wasn't able to be assimilated into the state's perceptions.

On an individual level, we each must choose what action is right or wrong for ourselves. It also depends on the worldview you hold. Some people have more authoritarian worldviews and so do not value individual freedom and will fight against it in some ways. Others value individual freedom and will fight against authoritarianism. But both must factor in the proper maintenance of a society. Only a small minority of people would actually want violence and mayhem to run wild. They usually commit crimes and end up in jail or dead. So we also have to factor in our personal well-being. Do you want to pursue a life that could land you in jail with your freedom taken from you, or even dead? If not, then you have to choose a path of action in life that includes basic respect for the law.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

No disagreement there!

 

[McBell]

Understandings of morality, even the definition you'd find on Google, are discussing a subject in itself, rather than beliefs. Even if that were not true, that doesn't cancel out that morality is an opinion, it would simply be an agreement with the obvious (obvious if it were in the definition), but there is disagreement in this thread which therefore is discussed.

So what is it you are wanting to debate?

Based upon your OP I thought you wanted to debate the existence of morals.
I have shown that morals do exist.
I have even shown that everyone has morals.

However, I am now wondering if perhaps I missed something or if perhaps the thread drifted from the Op or if maybe I misunderstood the OP.....:help:

 

[The Sum of Awe]

So what is it you are wanting to debate?

Based upon your OP I thought you wanted to debate the existence of morals.
I have shown that morals do exist.
I have even shown that everyone has morals.

However, I am now wondering if perhaps I missed something or if perhaps the thread drifted from the Op or if maybe I misunderstood the OP.....:help:

It doesn't surprise me that what the OP had in mind for debate has been derailed, as it is over a year old. I believe it was resurrected to discuss the objectivity of it, not the existence of it.

Also, I'd like to just say that the OP has taken it a little to far by the lack of belief in morals, but I do believe I believed in them, like presently, however back then I often found that the only true reality was that of objectivity, today I don't, but that's most likely the reason why the OP stated they have no existence. I don't think I ever denied their presence in opinion.

So... pretty much same concept, except I am wording it differently now because I no longer believe that things have to be objective in order to qualify for existence.

 

[Straw Dog]

There is no common goal, and some have replied to my subjectivism argument with moral relativism, that I'm pushing it as far as subjective rather than, as Luis termed it (in what I consider a useful word), circumstantial, and replying that these goals have certain methods of achieving them, and circulating each goal has some sort of objective code.

There is a common struggle among all life forms. Every living being is prone to harm. Understanding and identifying with this common struggle informs the basis for ethical consideration and action. Morality is more of a process of deliberation and consensus building based around empathic capacities rather than a static code of conduct. The goals for different ethical dogmas may be diverse, but usually involve self-regulation and social intelligence.