Morality

[Orias]

You say it as if there is objective morality.

I should of said "it is because "moral" people believe the same thing.

Hehe

 

[9Westy9]

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

in this case, safe.

 

[Orias]

in this case, safe.

How does one learn safety if they do not know how explore freedom?

I think, if one wills freedom then one should enable them instead of trying to protect them from their own ignorance.


Then again, most people can learn from what others attempt to teach, but there is always us hard learners

 

[filthy tugboat]

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

It means you didn't explain yourself, you just repeated the claim. You offered no means of support to back up your statement.

Your argument is necessity, instead of what is.

What is and necessity are essentially the same, if something is necessary then it is what is.

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

Another unsupported claim. Are you arguing "what is"? Can you show that you are arguing "what is"?

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

You have yet to show any support, evidence or reason, that what you are saying is true, you are just repeating the claims made. I will feel free to dismiss these claims as baseless unless evidence or reason is provided that supports them.

Ok.

"Thou shalt not kill".

A quote from a religious text.

Killing is illegal.

What? Since when? Murder is illegal but killing certainly isn't.

Do I agree with this statement, I don't know do I think its wrong? I don't know, but most people do.

How does this mean law is a moral system? Most people think that some of what is "illegal" is also "wrong", therefore law is a moral system? No. The conclusion does not follow from the premises. People's moral considerations do not determine whether the law is a moral system.

Governments can only kill governments, not people

What? This isn't even true. Is it relevant?

There you go again making that same mistake.

What mistake?

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

Do you think that we are not?

you do know this thread is about morality right? :biglaugh:

I do, you don't seem to know what morality is in comparison to law though.

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.

Why not? Of course suffering is a matter of concern, why do you think they removed the electric chair as a form of death penalty? People can vote how ever they want, they do not control the full function of the law. The law is in no position to judge what is right and what is wrong in any meaningful sense. They judge "illegal" and "legal" based on specific criteria with the ultimate goal of maintaining specific behavioral patterns in society.

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?

It's incorrect. "Right" and "wrong" are not tools used to control people.

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

??

This is a lab don't you know?

No actually, I didn't.

"Legal" and "illegal" are as tangible as "right" and "wrong",

Which is to say, not very tangible at all.

if these topics were really a matter of concern I think the human race would of solved it by now.

Your notions of what "the human race would have solved by now," are irrelevant, they clearly have not been solved, so your contentions on the matter are necessarily false.

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

What is the right way? Do we know how to maintain it? How long has it been maintained for?

They do though, because they are based off judgement.

You might have to clarify what you were referencing when you said "they do though".

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

Two very different concepts. Is it good for me to rush into traffic in order to save a child who wandered onto the road? No, is it moral? I think so. If you view morality as only a utility then you have out ruled altruism all together.

Governmental institutions exists because of the moral ones,

Why? You might have to give some evidence or some well explained reasoning for this.

the institutions that used "God" and writing and reading as a means of influence and control the average minded.

How are these institutions "moral ones"?

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

Correct, relevance?

 

[Orias]

Law dictates and enforces as much as morality, you even said that it is not necessary for the two to coincide together but they do.

Morality is simply behaving "correctly" in human society and law reinforces this through education and well...laws.

Law dictates what is taught in school, school teaches one how to behave in society, thus making the moral effort to raise and prosper.

But again, moral is subject to the interpreter.

Maybe this is what you were looking for at first, but then again maybe you want to ask more questions?

 

[filthy tugboat]

Law dictates and enforces as much as morality, you even said that it is not necessary for the two to coincide together but they do.

Does morality dictate and enforce? No. They can coincide, some laws and legal principles can promote or be apart of a moral system, in it's entirety however, the law is not a moral system and doesn't claim to be.

Morality is simply behaving "correctly" in human society

No it isn't. I've explained what morality is and the concept of "correctly" as used here is only under the concept of law, not morality at all. It looks like you have made an equivocation between law and moral without adequately explaining it.

and law reinforces this through education and well...laws.

No, law reinforces legal precepts and principles, it does not enforce, encompass or even interfere with or proclaim morality. They are two separate entities.

Law dictates what is taught in school, school teaches one how to behave in society, thus making the moral effort to raise and prosper.

What? The school's teach the law, not morality. You are assuming your own conclusion while trying to explain it. It's becoming quite circular.

But again, moral is subject to the interpreter.

Yes, while law is objective.

Maybe this is what you were looking for at first, but then again maybe you want to ask more questions?

I do actually, yes, thank you.

 

[Daviso452]

I should of said "it is because "moral" people believe the same thing.

Hehe

Morals differ from culture to culture. A moral person in one culture (Hitler in WW2 Germany) could be seen as completely evil in other cultures (most cultures today).

 

[nnmartin]

I think that some morals are the same everywhere though.

most people have some kind of internal judge that let's them know if they are right or wrong.

 

[filthy tugboat]

I think that some morals are the same everywhere though.

Not necessarily the same, but there are certainly similar trends that are traceable to most societies throughout history. Strangely enough, the persistent moral trends also generally benefit all of the societies. It's almost as if morals were developed and refined throughout the ages and they were refined with the goal of survival and increased well being.

most people have some kind of internal judge that let's them know if they are right or wrong.

We certainly have intrinsic moral values that are similar for most humans, I don't know is this is a "guide" that let's us know some kind of absolute "right" or absolute "wrong". I think it sort of tagged a long with evolution, as we grew as a species, the intrinsic moral and intellectual traits that were successful remained within our genome while the others were essentially trimmed off by natural selection and only show up as outliers, a small minority. Some moral reactions are essentially a reflex, they come natural to most humans and weren't necessarily developed as each individual life grew.

 

[Daviso452]

I think that some morals are the same everywhere though.

most people have some kind of internal judge that let's them know if they are right or wrong.

I have evidence of cultures considering it moral to kill, such as Nazi Germany and ancient Mayan. Even medieval European. They had different morals about killing than we do. Do you have any evidence that we all have the same moral values? Yes, some may be similar. But then it still goes back to the fact morals in of themselves are subjective. Human morals are different from Wolf morals, for example.

 

[Orias]

Morals differ from culture to culture. A moral person in one culture (Hitler in WW2 Germany) could be seen as completely evil in other cultures (most cultures today).

A key point to my own personal philosophy. Sometimes cultures develop a characteristic that the mass majority of the culture labels in scorn.

Does morality dictate and enforce? No. They can coincide, some laws and legal principles can promote or be apart of a moral system, in it's entirety however, the law is not a moral system and doesn't claim to be.

It does though, in some ways regarding the principals of certain religions. Law did come from somewhere, it seems to be something that man has done since his development, in all sorts of ways.

No it isn't. I've explained what morality is and the concept of "correctly" as used here is only under the concept of law, not morality at all. It looks like you have made an equivocation between law and moral without adequately explaining it.

All you have to do is look it up.

No, law reinforces legal precepts and principles, it does not enforce, encompass or even interfere with or proclaim morality. They are two separate entities.

So its just a matter of occasion then? Coincidence, as you would say.

Please...

What do they proclaim?

They are separate entities, but what stops them from being one under circumstance, like this one?

What? The school's teach the law, not morality. You are assuming your own conclusion while trying to explain it. It's becoming quite circular.

History is definitely a circular thing.

Yes, while law is objective.

Says who?

Do you mean human law? Ha.

I do actually, yes, thank you.

Government is a major part of the influence on people's moral judgements, sooner or later they learn and correct themselves (if they have some form of "democracy" of course), this is simply because at one point in human nature morality was the government and the people that ruled enforced it.

Things may be different to you now, but that is because of what it was then.

I did just drag government into a moral concern, so really all we have left to do now is judge it.

 

[Orias]

Morals differ from culture to culture. A moral person in one culture (Hitler in WW2 Germany) could be seen as completely evil in other cultures (most cultures today).

But for arguments safe I would like to add in there that cultures are objectified, thus making their moral objective to the culture and those who partake it.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Cultures are the result of amassing a huge number of people each with their subjective perspectives, the result of adding these together selects not the most objective position but rather the most commonly held (which CAN be more objective, but does not have to be)

The idea of universal objective morality is one that is championed by ideas such as the bill of human rights and Immanual Kant's work; however it is an extremely limited concept.

 

[filthy tugboat]

It does though, in some ways regarding the principals of certain religions.

Religions enforce certain moral principles but religions are not a form of morality. Morality does not enforce moral principles, Morality itself is not "enforced" some people can enforce moral views but those are the people, some system's of government or religion can enforce moral views but they aren't a form of morality.

Law did come from somewhere, it seems to be something that man has done since his development, in all sorts of ways.

Indeed,How does this mean that law is a moral system?

All you have to do is look it up.

Yep, I don't see how it supports your argument.

So its just a matter of occasion then? Coincidence, as you would say.

Please...

What do they proclaim?

They are separate entities, but what stops them from being one under circumstance, like this one?

I don't really know what you mean.

History is definitely a circular thing.

Indeed but circular logical is fallacious, if a conclusion is assumed in the argument and used to prove the conclusion, that argument is fallacious and can be discarded.

Says who?

Do you mean human law? Ha.

Law is an objective system, it's principles exist without and are not subject to interpretation. I'm not saying they are objectively "right" but they are an objective system.

Government is a major part of the influence on people's moral judgements, sooner or later they learn and correct themselves (if they have some form of "democracy" of course),

Absolutely everything that happens to us is an influence on our moral principles and judgement, our life experience in total is a large part of what makes us who we are.

this is simply because at one point in human nature morality was the government and the people that ruled enforced it.

How was morality the government? This doesn't even make sense. A government is a ruling body, morality is a subjective set of principles defining conduct.

 

[fishy]

Do you mean human law? Ha.

What other laws are there?

 

[Orias]

Religions enforce certain moral principles but religions are not a form of morality. Morality does not enforce moral principles, Morality itself is not "enforced" some people can enforce moral views but those are the people, some system's of government or religion can enforce moral views but they aren't a form of morality.

Well being that humans are the only ones capable of being "moral" sure, they aren't a form of morality but they are viewed morally.

Some people think it is morally righteous to have law, both "governmental" and "one nation under god".

Indeed,How does this mean that law is a moral system?

Because it exists to preserve itself.

"Moral" things exist in regard to what is most preserving to us, "humans".

Yep, I don't see how it supports your argument.

Well you said that it wasn't part of defining correct social argument, I said that it was as much as it was as you defined it.

I don't really know what you mean.

They don't exist because of coincidence, they exist because they are supportive of the same structure.

Indeed but circular logical is fallacious, if a conclusion is assumed in the argument and used to prove the conclusion, that argument is fallacious and can be discarded.

Indeed.

Law is an objective system, it's principles exist without and are not subject to interpretation. I'm not saying they are objectively "right" but they are an objective system.

This is a little better.

They do exist objectively as long as that which is objectifying is self preserving.

Absolutely everything that happens to us is an influence on our moral principles and judgement, our life experience in total is a large part of what makes us who we are.

How was morality the government? This doesn't even make sense. A government is a ruling body, morality is a subjective set of principles defining conduct.

Government is a ruling body that consists of subjective cogs and gears.

Government itself is not sentient, but the people that it consists of are, thus making their moral principals an influential part of the ruling body.

I shouldn't of just out right said that morality was the government, but that the government was run by it in a self preserving and lesson teaching way.

 

[Orias]

What other laws are there?

Hmmm...

Well that depends on if you think the physical laws of the universe are that humanly standards.

I was thinking more of what we attempt to impose on nature. But that is a whole different conversation in itself

 

[CynthiaCypher]

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?

You should do no harm. Every example you give except possibly 5 does harm to self or others

 

[filthy tugboat]

Well being that humans are the only ones capable of being "moral" sure, they aren't a form of morality but they are viewed morally.

Are they the only animal capable of being "moral"? No. Many other species have behavioral patterns reactions to unfavorable behavior and such.

Some people think it is morally righteous to have law, both "governmental" and "one nation under god".

Those people are welcome to think whatever they want, that doesn't make law a moral system.

Because it exists to preserve itself.

Does law exist to preserve itself? No, it exists to monitor and enforce certain kinds of behavior. It is preserved by the people that have control the law.

Well you said that it wasn't part of defining correct social argument, I said that it was as much as it was as you defined it.

The law seeks to determine "correct" behavior, it sets a standard and enforces it for those that live in that country. Moral systems do no such thing.

They don't exist because of coincidence, they exist because they are supportive of the same structure.

Are they necessarily supportive of the same structure? There are many moral systems that oppose legal principles and precepts. I contend that they are not necessarily supportive of the same structure.

 

[fishy]

Hmmm...

Well that depends on if you think the physical laws of the universe are that humanly standards.

I was thinking more of what we attempt to impose on nature. But that is a whole different conversation in itself

Well we describe certain phenomena as physical laws, but it really is just a description. Who enforces these laws