Morality

[filthy tugboat]

Yes it does.

Illegal things are "wrong" legal things are "right".

Are they? Even the law does not make such a bold claim or at least, not in Australia.

Regardless of whether or not they are followed, consequences will arise on behalf of the judge.

This is sounding more like a utility than a moral system. Something is done that is illegal, there are consequences that are generally unfavorable for the individual in question. It's not right or wrong here.

Legality is a judgement of what is "right" and "just". Whether or not you disagree with the notion it is a fact in the real world and is something the individual has no control of.

How does this make it encompass morality? How does this even make it a moral system?

Even if they think its all "wrong".

Your original statement suggested that if something is legal, nobody can judge it morally. Do you think legality encompasses morality, if something is considered illegal then it must necessarily also be considered immoral? Why? Why do you think the law is absolutely right?

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Originally Law was more a case of those with power forcing people to do what they wanted; whereas law in modern society is ESPOUSED to be an attempt to create an objective mechanism by which to attempt to implement a system of justice which was supposedly the result of moral and philosophical examinations of society by learned individuals based on their own personal understandings of pre-existing law structures and commonly held societal norms, particularly those that were enshrined in institutions such as religions. Of course... that statement has a whole range of areas where it could (and HAS) deviated from a true purely morally based system more towards how it was originally used.

 

[Sleeppy]

That is why we are skeptical. Too many people have made claims in which they something is impossible, like complexity. But in order for you to know for sure, you must be omniscient, which no human is. And so we are skeptical about how valid this person's claim is.

Since no one is all-knowing, we devised a way to test how valid their claim is. That is science. And the thing about science is that it is self-correcting. It accounts for our lack of perfect knowledge. That is why we use it. If you go and experience a miracle, you must be all-knowing to know for a fact that it was a miracle, and not something else. Just because you cannot think of anything else does not make you right. That is why we employ science, because it tells us the truth.

One last thing. I referred to science as an "it," and many people do. Please do not be confused by that. I do not literally think science is a "thing;" it is a process. That is what I mean when I refer to science as an "it". The process known as science weeds out the inaccuracies and false statements. If not at first, then definitely later. It just takes time.

I agree on most points. Although, our science is according to our interpretation of and through our senses. It's also incomplete. I don't think our science is all there is. There could be several sciences following a chain of command.

The virgin birth - Is it really fair to say that science is against it? I don't think so. It may be perfectly in tune with our science, and/or with another overpowering science. How would our understanding of our science be sufficient to say, 'God's Spirit is incapable of creating Jesus in Mary's womb..' unless it had that instance, or the materials of that instance, and the proper understanding to validate it?

 

[Orias]

Are they? Even the law does not make such a bold claim or at least, not in Australia.

Well it does, thats why "illegal" and "legal" exist.

If law did not make such claims then it would cease to function as "law".

This is sounding more like a utility than a moral system. Something is done that is illegal, there are consequences that are generally unfavorable for the individual in question. It's not right or wrong here.

Moral systems consist of utilities.

And in terms what the consequences are concerning the individual it will always be a matter of "right" or "wrong".

Which is why under the death penalty there are many different ways to be put done, all concerning matters of what is morally righteous.

How does this make it encompass morality? How does this even make it a moral system?

To answer that question I will ask you how/why "legal" exists in the first place.

Your original statement suggested that if something is legal, nobody can judge it morally. Do you think legality encompasses morality, if something is considered illegal then it must necessarily also be considered immoral? Why? Why do you think the law is absolutely right?

My original statement suggested that if everything is legal, then moral judgement is irrelevant because it has most likely already been made.

But concerning your questions, legality encompasses morality in strides. Not all illegal things are immoral, and only certain laws are absolute.

After I do like the saying "Laws (rules) are meant to be broken".

I think I could of answered a little better, but we shall wait and see how you respond.

 

[filthy tugboat]

Well it does,

Does it? Reasserting the same statement doesn't support the point.

thats why "illegal" and "legal" exist.

No, "legal" and "illegal" exist because they are not the same as "right" and "wrong" and do not necessarily mean the same thing.

If law did not make such claims then it would cease to function as "law".

No, it wouldn't. The function of law is to maintain a set standard of behaviors in a society, not to tell people hat is right and what is wrong.

Moral systems consist of utilities.

Some do.

And in terms what the consequences are concerning the individual it will always be a matter of "right" or "wrong".

Will it though? I thought it was a matter of "legal" or "illegal". The law certainly uses the term "legal" and "illaegal" it seems only you are using the terms "right" and "wrong".

Which is why under the death penalty there are many different ways to be put done, all concerning matters of what is morally righteous.

This is no longer concerning "legal" and "illegal" though, now you are talking about method's to avoid gratuitous suffering.

To answer that question I will ask you how/why "legal" exists in the first place.

"Legal" exists in the first place because an institution or government has been given or maintains power and dictates rules that influence how people behave. In some countries, the power is given and controlled(partially) by the people -a democracy- in some others the power is maintained through force -a dictatorship- in some others it's handed down through a family bloodline -a monarchy- and there are other forms of government. What is legal and what is illegal exists to control (to a certain degree) what people do.

My original statement suggested that if everything is legal, then moral judgement is irrelevant because it has most likely already been made.

How does the fact that a moral judgement has been made previously make that judgement irrelevant?

But concerning your questions, legality encompasses morality in strides. Not all illegal things are immoral, and only certain laws are absolute.

If anything morality encompasses legality. If I were to take the points you've made the conclusion would be that morality encompasses legality. But in truth, legality is a separate issue all together. Legal systems are set to moderate behavior within a community or a society, they do not suggest what is right or wrong in any moral sense, they regulate behavior to achieve specific outcomes. Moral system's are not set to reach specific outcomes, they exist to regulate conduct based on self defined concepts of "right" and "wrong".

 

[Qymaen]

Disregard any government laws. It's all legal.

Scenario 1:

Tom wants to have intercourse with a very young girl. She and her guardians give their consent. Is this acceptable for him to do?

Despite my own hatred of pedophilia, this is ok if consent is given completely willingly absent of any pressuring forces.

Scenario 2:

Jim, from his home, can see kids playing outside his window. He decides to masturbate. No one can see him. Is this acceptable for him to do?

For all we know he could be fantasizing about his girlfriend, boyfriend, whatever.

Scenario 3:

Kayla notices that her dog is quite fond of her leg. She decides to have sex with her dog. Is this acceptable for her to do?

No. I doubt you could get 100% consent from a dog, a creature unable to speak, write, or communicate effectively and efficiently with a human.

Scenario 4:

Jim and Kayla have just given birth to a baby girl. They kill her and bury her in the yard. Is this acceptable for them to do?

No. I ain't opposed to abortions, but you've given birth to an innocent, helpless creature. It'd be like killing a deaf and blind person with terminal cancer.

Scenario 5:

Mike likes to eat dog meat. He raises them and eats them. Is this acceptable for him to do?

Yes. It's just like raising and eating pigs, cows, etc.

Scenario 6:

Ashley loves her poodle, even more than her daughter. Her poodle receives more attention, but her daughter has all of her basic necessities. Is this acceptable for her to do?

As long as Ashley doesn't starve or intentionally "neglect" her child then I see no problem with this from a legal standpoint. However basic necessities should include "healthy and safe interaction with one's parent (s)".

 

[Daviso452]

I agree on most points. Although, our science is according to our interpretation of and through our senses. It's also incomplete. I don't think our science is all there is. There could be several sciences following a chain of command.

The virgin birth - Is it really fair to say that science is against it? I don't think so. It may be perfectly in tune with our science, and/or with another overpowering science. How would our understanding of our science be sufficient to say, 'God's Spirit is incapable of creating Jesus in Mary's womb..' unless it had that instance, or the materials of that instance, and the proper understanding to validate it?

Science is not necessarily against it, but it is something that goes against our current understanding of the human anatomy, and until we have found a way in which the virgin birth could happen, it is reasonable to believe that events were left out. Many historians do believe that she was not a virgin, but instead withheld the fact from her husband.

Yes, it is possible for god to do it, but god is not proven to exist, and so he cannot be used as an argument for the virgin birth.

I never said that we know everything, and there may be a process better than science from which we can gather information. We do not currently know of such a process, and so we shall continue using science.

However, if you do know of such a process, please share.

 

[9Westy9]

The illegality of smoking marijuana. The Legal precedence of holding someone in a mental health institute of any variety after attempting suicide.

These are two examples that are not about morality. Especially if, in the marijuana case it is grown by the individual and smoked by the individual in question.

Aren't these based on morality though? If my friend is smoking marijuana and I see it's causing harm then I feel morally obliged to help the person get over the addiction. In the second case it's the same, I'd rather he wasn't there but I believe it's better for him

 

[Sleeppy]

Science is not necessarily against it, but it is something that goes against our current understanding of the human anatomy, and until we have found a way in which the virgin birth could happen, it is reasonable to believe that events were left out. Many historians do believe that she was not a virgin, but instead withheld the fact from her husband.

Yes, it is possible for god to do it, but god is not proven to exist, and so he cannot be used as an argument for the virgin birth.

I never said that we know everything, and there may be a process better than science from which we can gather information. We do not currently know of such a process, and so we shall continue using science.

However, if you do know of such a process, please share.

Do you believe science is capable of answering everything?

 

[Daviso452]

Do you believe science is capable of answering everything?

You must be a little careful on how you word things. Science is not some thing that just spews out knowledge. Nor is any science ever 100%. Nothing is ever certain. Not even Newton's laws.

Science is a process in which we observe occurrences, make an inference as to why, then we test it. If our explanation was correct, the data should support it. If not, then you figure out why.

Science is a process where you observe, test, and verify. If something is true, then it should be consistent. As a child, you see things drop (observation). You think all things drop (inference). You pick up a toy, and let go, and it falls (test). Science is how we make sure what we experience is real.

The reason why science and religion clash the most is because science uses things that we know and have been proved. Many times, religion just says "this is fact" without any reasoning behind it. Religion expect people to just believe on faith. Faith is not reasonable because it does not consider the fact that we can experience false things. Many just believe what they experience without question. And that is where science and religion disagree.

Science is not perfect. We can never know 100% that something is true, because there is always the possibility of an unknown variable. For instance, Einstein's theory said nothing could go faster than light, but CERN recently proved that wrong. And so we must leave room for possible error.

If you know of a process that receives more accurate results than the process known as science, please share.

 

[Shades-o-Blue]

Disregard any government laws. It's all legal.

Scenario 1:

Tom wants to have intercourse with a very young girl. She and her guardians give their consent. Is this acceptable for him to do?

Scenario 2:

Jim, from his home, can see kids playing outside his window. He decides to masturbate. No one can see him. Is this acceptable for him to do?

Scenario 3:

Kayla notices that her dog is quite fond of her leg. She decides to have sex with her dog. Is this acceptable for her to do?

Scenario 4:

Jim and Kayla have just given birth to a baby girl. They kill her and bury her in the yard. Is this acceptable for them to do?

Scenario 5:

Mike likes to eat dog meat. He raises them and eats them. Is this acceptable for him to do?

Scenario 6:

Ashley loves her poodle, even more than her daughter. Her poodle receives more attention, but her daughter has all of her basic necessities. Is this acceptable for her to do?

based on my spiritual convictions, I'd say no to all 6 scenarios.

 

[filthy tugboat]

Aren't these based on morality though?

I don't think so, no.

If my friend is smoking marijuana and I see it's causing harm then I feel morally obliged to help the person get over the addiction.

A large portion of people that smoke marijuana are not addicted, about 87% of frequent smokers. It is largely a non-addictive substance. You can feel whatever you like, that doesn't make a legal ban on marijuana a moral judgement.

In the second case it's the same, I'd rather he wasn't there but I believe it's better for him

Again, you can believe whatever you like, the legal precedent is not a moral judgement.

 

[Daviso452]

Aren't these based on morality though? If my friend is smoking marijuana and I see it's causing harm then I feel morally obliged to help the person get over the addiction. In the second case it's the same, I'd rather he wasn't there but I believe it's better for him

But then where is the freedom? Would you rather him be free or safe?

 

[Shades-o-Blue]

But then where is the freedom? Would you rather him be free or safe?

The freedom is found in encouraging his friend to quit, not forcing his friend to quit.

 

[Daviso452]

The freedom is found in encouraging his friend to quit, not forcing his friend to quit.

Agreed.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

It should be pointed out that the Roman Catholic church supposedly view excommunication to be a form of encouraging or inviting behavioural change! So perhaps we might want to narrow down what we mean by such things lol

 

[Daviso452]

It should be pointed out that the Roman Catholic church supposedly view excommunication to be a form of encouraging or inviting behavioural change! So perhaps we might want to narrow down what we mean by such things lol

Agreed.

 

[Sleeppy]

You must be a little careful on how you word things. Science is not some thing that just spews out knowledge. Nor is any science ever 100%. Nothing is ever certain. Not even Newton's laws.

Science is a process in which we observe occurrences, make an inference as to why, then we test it. If our explanation was correct, the data should support it. If not, then you figure out why.

Science is a process where you observe, test, and verify. If something is true, then it should be consistent. As a child, you see things drop (observation). You think all things drop (inference). You pick up a toy, and let go, and it falls (test). Science is how we make sure what we experience is real.

The reason why science and religion clash the most is because science uses things that we know and have been proved. Many times, religion just says "this is fact" without any reasoning behind it. Religion expect people to just believe on faith. Faith is not reasonable because it does not consider the fact that we can experience false things. Many just believe what they experience without question. And that is where science and religion disagree.

Science is not perfect. We can never know 100% that something is true, because there is always the possibility of an unknown variable. For instance, Einstein's theory said nothing could go faster than light, but CERN recently proved that wrong. And so we must leave room for possible error.

If you know of a process that receives more accurate results than the process known as science, please share.

Capable. Do you believe it is/will be capable of answering everything?

 

[9Westy9]

I don't think so, no.

A large portion of people that smoke marijuana are not addicted, about 87% of frequent smokers. It is largely a non-addictive substance. You can feel whatever you like, that doesn't make a legal ban on marijuana a moral judgement.

Again, you can believe whatever you like, the legal precedent is not a moral judgement.

I see. Point taken.

 

[Orias]

Does it? Reasserting the same statement doesn't support the point.

Ok, I'll quote myself, and then you tell me the point of the above statement.

Well it does, thats why "illegal" and "legal" exist.

If law did not make such claims then it would cease to function as "law".

No , "legal" and "illegal" exist because they are not the same as "right" and "wrong" and do not necessarily mean the same thing.

Your argument is necessity, instead of what is.

I realize they can frequently function as opposites, but I am not arguing necessity I am arguing what is.

"Illegal" exists because it is "wrong" and benefits what is proposed as "right".

No, it wouldn't. The function of law is to maintain a set standard of behaviors in a society, not to tell people hat is right and what is wrong.

Ok.

"Thou shalt not kill".

Killing is illegal.

Do I agree with this statement, I don't know do I think its wrong? I don't know, but most people do. Governments can only kill governments, not people

Some do.

There you go again making that same mistake.

All do, its like how we are made of atoms and molecules.

Will it though? I thought it was a matter of "legal" or "illegal". The law certainly uses the term "legal" and "illaegal" it seems only you are using the terms "right" and "wrong".

you do know this thread is about morality right?

:biglaugh:

This is no longer concerning "legal" and "illegal" though, now you are talking about method's to avoid gratuitous suffering.

People vote based off of what they think is "just", "right" and "wrong", if suffering was a matter of concern there would be no death penalty.

"Legal" exists in the first place because an institution or government has been given or maintains power and dictates rules that influence how people behave. In some countries, the power is given and controlled(partially) by the people -a democracy- in some others the power is maintained through force -a dictatorship- in some others it's handed down through a family bloodline -a monarchy- and there are other forms of government. What is legal and what is illegal exists to control (to a certain degree) what people do.

Good you understand that.

Now tell me what isn't right about this statement?

Like that "right" and "wrong" are tools used to control people?

How does the fact that a moral judgement has been made previously make that judgement irrelevant?

Your right, its just one man making everything "legal".

This is a lab don't you know?

"Legal" and "illegal" are as tangible as "right" and "wrong", if these topics were really a matter of concern I think the human race would of solved it by now.

But the again, we know how to maintain the right way (mostly).

If anything morality encompasses legality. If I were to take the points you've made the conclusion would be that morality encompasses legality. But in truth, legality is a separate issue all together. Legal systems are set to moderate behavior within a community or a society, they do not suggest what is right or wrong in any moral sense, they regulate behavior to achieve specific outcomes. Moral system's are not set to reach specific outcomes, they exist to regulate conduct based on self defined concepts of "right" and "wrong".

They do though, because they are based off judgement.


"Right" and "wrong", "good" for you "bad" for you.

Governmental institutions exists because of the moral ones, the institutions that used "God" and writing and reading as a means of influence and control the average minded.

"Separation of Church and State" does not separate man from faith and being a politician.