Morality

[Orias]

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

Alright I understand what you mean.

But moral exists because of us, not because of dogs. And what you say brings up another point on animals having the potential to be "spiritual".

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

You're right.

Law is a moral system because if consists of individual institutions designed to procreate and evolve a social standard and way of life. In some terms, evolution is more a thing of self preservation not necessarily in a physical way but in a way that insists on the human psyche.

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.

Exactly, law exists to preserve itself. Just like government, just like people.

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.

Yes they do, morality is the judgement of "good" and "bad" behavior, with judgement is when law is passed.

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.

Alright give an example.

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

Nature?

 

[filthy tugboat]

Alright I understand what you mean.

But moral exists because of us, not because of dogs.

What? Could you please explain what you mean? How does "moral" exist because of us? If other animals adhere to moral system's, it is probable that moral system's have existed long before humans did.

And what you say brings up another point on animals having the potential to be "spiritual".

What is "spiritual"? How does it relate to animals?

You're right.

Law is a moral system because if consists of individual institutions designed to procreate and evolve a social standard and way of life.

How does that make it a moral system? What separates Law and morality is that law exists as a means to a specific end. Law isn't about right or wrong in any moral sense, it's set social standards determine what is considered legal and illegal.

In some terms, evolution is more a thing of self preservation not necessarily in a physical way but in a way that insists on the human psyche.

Is it? How so?

Exactly, law exists to preserve itself. Just like government, just like people.

You just said "Exactly" to my post and then completely contradicted it.

Yes they do, morality is the judgement of "good" and "bad" behavior, with judgement is when law is passed.

Law doesn't judge "good" and "bad" in a moral sense though, at most it does it in a utility but more often then not it doesn't even do that, it judges legal and illegal.

Alright give an example.

The moral principle that humans should be able to consume whatever they want. There are many laws restricting drugs. Another one is the right to exact personal revenge. Illegal but some contend it is a moral option to exact revenge for a perceived crime or personal injustice.

 

[Daviso452]

Alright I understand what you mean.

But moral exists because of us, not because of dogs. And what you say brings up another point on animals having the potential to be "spiritual".

Morality does not stem from spirituality. The concept of "objective morals" is a concept invented by man which, IMO, is false. However, morals themselves have been part of the animal kingdom long before the dawn of man.

 

[Orias]

Morality does not stem from spirituality.

It doesn't, that I agree with.

The point of him bringing another species just reminded me of an irrelevant topic.

What? Could you please explain what you mean? How does "moral" exist because of us? If other animals adhere to moral system's, it is probable that moral system's have existed long before humans did.

Humans define morals, it can be one those things that exists regardless of us, but I disagree with it.

What is "spiritual"? How does it relate to animals?

Aren't we animals?

How does that make it a moral system? What separates Law and morality is that law exists as a means to a specific end. Law isn't about right or wrong in any moral sense, it's set social standards determine what is considered legal and illegal.

How does right or wrong not exist in any sense?

Is it? How so?

The world perceived is a wall that we continue to build.

What we know is left to what we can unlock within us.

The barrier between right and wrong is separate in many ways, but in the end it is, right and wrong. Whether or not legality enforces it, it is part of what enforces legality law.

A human right of sorts, and one that should be of high moral concern.

You just said "Exactly" to my post and then completely contradicted it.

When one has control, they often monitor and advance themselves.

It is part of self evolution, self containment.

"Stoking the fire".

The moral principle that humans should be able to consume whatever they want. There are many laws restricting drugs. Another one is the right to exact personal revenge. Illegal but some contend it is a moral option to exact revenge for a perceived crime or personal injustice.

I see your point.

But that is the point of legality and morality, preventing things from getting too personal.

 

[filthy tugboat]

Humans define morals, it can be one those things that exists regardless of us, but I disagree with it.

It does exist regardless of us. How do humans define morals? We certainly talk a lot about morals and we have moral values that no other animals appear to have(same in reverse, some animal species have moral systems that we do not) but how does that mean we define morals in any absolute sense.

Aren't we animals?

Yep, what is spirituality? How does it relate to any and all animals?

How does right or wrong not exist in any sense?

I didn't say that, I said law doesn't relate to right and wrong in any moral sense, at most it refers to them as a utility or not at all. Legal and illegal are different to right and wrong.

The world perceived is a wall that we continue to build.

What we know is left to what we can unlock within us.

The barrier between right and wrong is separate in many ways, but in the end it is, right and wrong. Whether or not legality enforces it, it is part of what enforces legality law.

Is it? How so? this is addressed to both claims.

When one has control, they often monitor and advance themselves.

It is part of self evolution, self containment.

"Stoking the fire".

Your point?

I see your point.

But that is the point of legality and morality, preventing things from getting too personal.

Certainly not of morality, morality is all about personal. Legality is the opposite, legality is about impersonal judgement, judgement of the facts surrounding the event and the law itself. Morality on the other hand is all about perspective, motives everything. Morality is personal, Legality is not.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Ignoring the responses, my answer to the OP would simply be..who gets to define 'acceptable'? That's really the rub isn't it?

If the individual, then the answers to all would be yes (or no, depending on the individuals valuations). If some 'other' entity (god or government) then one would have to defer judgement.

From my POV only an individual can define 'acceptable' (even if that definition is based on deference to the 'other')

 

[Orias]

It does exist regardless of us. How do humans define morals? We certainly talk a lot about morals and we have moral values that no other animals appear to have(same in reverse, some animal species have moral systems that we do not) but how does that mean we define morals in any absolute sense.

Explain how morality would exist if humans did not.

"Morality", the word you speak.

Yep, what is spirituality? How does it relate to any and all animals?

That which you cannot touch.

The way others think.

Think of that which you do not know.

I didn't say that, I said law doesn't relate to right and wrong in any moral sense, at most it refers to them as a utility or not at all. Legal and illegal are different to right and wrong.

I know but I was asking you a question, excuse my improper grammar.

Ok they are not the same they are or as you essentially described can be "synonyms".

Isn't it bad to break the law?

Is it? How so? this is addressed to both claims.

Tell me what law enforces your perspective and tell me what law enforces mine. Basically, what makes you right, and what makes me wrong?

When you understand legal and moral, you understand that people associate "illegal" with bad, because "illegal" behavior results in action done in persecution to the offender. In other words, things that you would not do willfully.

Your point?

Self preservation is the main one.

Certainly not of morality, morality is all about personal. Legality is the opposite, legality is about impersonal judgement, judgement of the facts surrounding the event and the law itself. Morality on the other hand is all about perspective, motives everything. Morality is personal, Legality is not.

I don't know about how things operate politically down under.

But the United States most definitely enforces morals simply because of its Judeo-Christian roots, which is perceived by the majority as "right".

Whether or not you use legality by definition, realistically legal judgement can be swayed by a simple "moral" judgement.

Jail is bad, because it is.


Its almost as if "legal" tells you that jail is "immoral", because they tend to consist of rapists and murderers as well as minor drug offenders.

Common belief is law, in all that can essentially entail it. Unless your a law-yer.

Heheh.

But in all seriousness, I concede...this has become more stressful than enjoyable.

Best regards and Xeper.

 

[filthy tugboat]

Explain how morality would exist if humans did not.

I'm not the one that made the claim, the burden is on you.

"Morality", the word you speak.

Oh, I assumed you meant morality as in, the thing being described by the word rather than the describing word itself. It could exist as a different word being spoken by other intelligent life forms within the universe, whether or not it is, I am unsure. The thing being described by the term "morality" certainly exists without humans.

That which you cannot touch.

The way others think.

Think of that which you do not know.

So it's personal? Everything that I don't know, everything that others think and everything i cannot touch are "spiritual" but what is "spiritual" to me, may not be "spiritual" to someone else. Certainly an uncommon definition.

I know but I was asking you a question, excuse my improper grammar.

Ok they are not the same they are or as you essentially described can be "synonyms".

If a word is a synonym, it means that it has the same definition.

Isn't it bad to break the law?

I don't think it is necessarily so, which standard of bad is being used? It could be bad in the utility sense as breaking the law increases your chances of having undesirable consequences on you.

Tell me what law enforces your perspective and tell me what law enforces mine

What is your perspective?

Basically, what makes you right, and what makes me wrong?

Right and wrong about what? In this matter? No law could do that given we are discussing the nature of laws and their relationship to morality. If a law existed that decreed such a thing(something that by logic cannot happen), the question would still exist and be unanswered because now the question extends to that law itself as well as the relationship between law and morality.

When you understand legal and moral, you understand that people associate "illegal" with bad, because "illegal" behavior results in action done in persecution to the offender. In other words, things that you would not do willfully.

I know plenty of people that willfully break the law, I know and support plenty of causes that are either illegal or seek to change the law. If "Law" equals "moral" in an absolute sense then law could never be changed reasonably lest it become "immoral" which then defeats the entire premise that it was absolutely "moral" in the first place.

Self preservation is the main one.

Is law or morality self preserving? No, they are functions that are used, not always for self preservation but often with that in mind.

I don't know about how things operate politically down under.

But the United States most definitely enforces morals simply because of its Judeo-Christian roots, which is perceived by the majority as "right".

Whether or not you use legality by definition, realistically legal judgement can be swayed by a simple "moral" judgement.

What people think about the law and morality is irrelevant, other people's opinion are not a sound logical argument in and of themselves.

Jail is bad, because it is.

This appears to be circular and subsequently, self defeating.

But in all seriousness, I concede...this has become more stressful than enjoyable.

Best regards and Xeper.

You're welcome to do whatever you wish, it was fun while it lasted have a good day/night.

 

[Orias]

I would also just like to add that all of these claims you have denied you haven't done a real good job supporting, while I on the other hand have gone to different and numerous lengths to get an understanding to you.

Sometimes in debate it is better to focus on oneself, unless the point was to get in the last word. Then I mind as well call you one of my ex-girlfriends, considering most of the points you made were made with about as much clarity and logic as mine. As far as logic and use of meaning applies to the individual, anything you say requires as much burden as anything I say.

Circles are a two way street, even if they are only observed going one way.

 

[Orias]

I'm not the one that made the claim, the burden is on you.

Yes but I did ask you a question, so by you not answering it your really avoiding it, a tactic you have been pretty keen on using in this debate.

The thing being described by the term "morality" certainly exists without humans.

And how do you know this?

So it's personal? Everything that I don't know, everything that others think and everything i cannot touch are "spiritual" but what is "spiritual" to me, may not be "spiritual" to someone else. Certainly an uncommon definition.

What is good to me, may be bad to you.

"Uncommon", lets call if different.

If a word is a synonym, it means that it has the same definition.

Actually synonyms are based off of meanings more than definitions, since a definition only partially defines the way in which a person uses a word.

I don't think it is necessarily so, which standard of bad is being used? It could be bad in the utility sense as breaking the law increases your chances of having undesirable consequences on you.

This was a point I've been trying to make a while ago, though I'm not sure how this response is rebuking anything.

What is your perspective?

Thanks for answering the question.

See, we are both doing the same thing.

Right and wrong about what? In this matter? No law could do that given we are discussing the nature of laws and their relationship to morality. If a law existed that decreed such a thing(something that by logic cannot happen), the question would still exist and be unanswered because now the question extends to that law itself as well as the relationship between law and morality.

Then why are you so certain that you are more correct in your assertions than me?

I know plenty of people that willfully break the law, I know and support plenty of causes that are either illegal or seek to change the law. If "Law" equals "moral" in an absolute sense then law could never be changed reasonably lest it become "immoral" which then defeats the entire premise that it was absolutely "moral" in the first place.

Ah, so you do condone criminal activity. This is a bit revealing, literally. You are not seeing law and morality for what I see it as because you are too busy trying to change what law means to you.

Secondly, no one used "in an absolute sense", in fact you were the one who brought up coincidence.

Is law or morality self preserving? No, they are functions that are used, not always for self preservation but often with that in mind.

And where is your support?

You lack as much justification as me, so we mind as well stop.

What people think about the law and morality is irrelevant, other people's opinion are not a sound logical argument in and of themselves.

Does this apply to you?

This appears to be circular and subsequently, self defeating.

No my point was made, undesirable consequences are bad, therefore breaking the law is bad (if you get caught of course).

You should learn to recognize such double edged swords when you bring them into battle.

Why do you think I tried to concede?

 

[filthy tugboat]

Yes but I did ask you a question, so by you not answering it your really avoiding it, a tactic you have been pretty keen on using in this debate.

You asked me a question as a means of dodging my own request for you to support your claims. I am not required to show why you are wrong if you haven't even attempted to show that you are right. I will anyway just to keep this going though.

I already did explain in a small way how morality exists in other species but I suppose I could expand. Morality, as we've already agreed is defined as such;

mo·ral·i·ty (m-rl-t, mô-)
n. pl. mo·ral·i·ties
1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct.
3. Virtuous conduct.
4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.

Essentially, definition 2 is ideal for it's relation to moral systems. Examples of the presence of moral systems throughout the animal kingdom are in abundance. Chimpanzees are a great example, in almost every chimpanzee community, food sharing is a frequent practice and is used as a means to essentially begin and uphold friendship and accompaniment(ref). This behavior is an indication that most chimps do follow a moral system and subsequently that morality exists beyond human interpretation. Here is a useful quote;

in the practice of food sharing among chimpanzees we find a social practice bounded within a moral context of sharing, reciprocity, and equality. This ideal food situation reflects the putting into practice, the realization, of a moral system of regulation among chimpanzees.

What is good to me, may be bad to you.

Indeed, morality is a subjective thing.

Actually synonyms are based off of meanings more than definitions, since a definition only partially defines the way in which a person uses a word.

If something is synonymous with something else it has the exact same meaning/application in that context. Synonym's in grammar are interchangeable.

This was a point I've been trying to make a while ago, though I'm not sure how this response is rebuking anything.

The problem with using the term 'bad' is that a lot of people make the equivocation between 'bad' as a form of immorality and 'bad' as a utility. Which may have caused confusion in some of our earlier posts. I may have disagreed at some point but mistaken your meaning.

Thanks for answering the question.

See, we are both doing the same thing.

How can I answer your question if I don't understand what is being asked?

If you want me to answer your question, what is your perspective?

Then why are you so certain that you are more correct in your assertions than me?

Because they are my assertions and with or without the support provided I know the support behind mine, I don't know the support behind yours. I have tried to explain my position and expand upon any uncertainties you've brought to attention. you have not asked for me to support most of my assertions so I assumed you didn't need it, if you want that support, please quote what I've asserted that needs clarification.

Ah, so you do condone criminal activity.

Depending on the activity.

This is a bit revealing, literally.

My personal convictions have little to do with the debate, it's what I am arguing and how I am arguing it that is important.

You are not seeing law and morality for what I see it as

Correct.

because you are too busy trying to change what law means to you.

Am I? Could you back up this claim?

Secondly, no one used "in an absolute sense", in fact you were the one who brought up coincidence.

You inferred it when you argued that legal is 'moral' and illegal is 'immoral'. If something IS moral/immoral at all times and of all places then you are arguing that legality is morality in an absolute sense.

And where is your support?

You lack as much justification as me, so we mind as well stop.

You haven't asked for support on most of the things I have said, the places you asked for support I gave it, if it was inadequate, I am sorry, feel free to quote anything I've written and i would be happy to support it.

Does this apply to you?

Yep, personal opinion whether as a group or as an individual does not constitute an argument, you have to show why people's contentions on whether law is a moral system should be considered seriously, something you should be able to do without bringing the opinions into it in the first place.

No my point was made, undesirable consequences are bad, therefore breaking the law is bad (if you get caught of course).

As long as we agree that this is only in the utility sense, then I am inclined to agree.

You should learn to recognize such double edged swords when you bring them into battle.

I don't know what you mean by this? Are you trying to suggest that the term 'bad' is a double edged sword? is that because people often commit a logical fallacy by equivocating 'bad' as in immoral with 'bad' as in the utility? If this is what you mean, it isn't a double edged sword for anyone who knows how to wield it properly.

Why do you think I tried to concede?

because you weren't enjoying it anymore?

 

[Orias]

You asked me a question as a means of dodging my own request for you to support your claims. I am not required to show why you are wrong if you haven't even attempted to show that you are right. I will anyway just to keep this going though.

You have been doing the same thing really.

It helps to read the entire thing before your starting breaking up the posts, because then you may end up contradicting yourself. Though it happens to the best of us.

The burden is on me yet you haven't explained how morality exists in complete separation from law.

If that is indeed your argument, otherwise the show was pretty amusing and I should of seen it coming.

Though I do remember a bit of the main point, being that law and morality can exist separately yet often coincide due to the fact that their definitions are interchangeable.

Simply because they both possess self maintaing (as well as social stabilizing) factors. Morality is a set of rules under a conduct of expressive authority, law is as expressive in its authorization as it is in what it teaches in their schools.

Law says do this, morality says this is bad. It can be like...brothers that get in some scraps here and there.

They share the same blood but exist as individuals.

This behavior is an indication that most chimps do follow a moral system and subsequently that morality exists beyond human interpretation.

I've seen better examples, like chimps exchanging food for sex and gathering around each other to watch a brawl.

Separate from that point though, this does not reinforce that chimpanzees do have "morals', they just have what is common among them, which is something that can be more closely related to morals...culture.

You have a strong point considering the 2.7% difference in our genomes, but they do not say "morality", they act on what is threatening and endangering to their clan and individual self preservation.

I don't believe immoral chimps exist.

If something is synonymous with something else it has the exact same meaning/application in that context. Synonym's in grammar are interchangeable.

This is incorrect.

It is what is interpreted to have similar or comparable meaning from one concept to another, which is more often applied symbolically.

The problem with using the term 'bad' is that a lot of people make the equivocation between 'bad' as a form of immorality and 'bad' as a utility. Which may have caused confusion in some of our earlier posts. I may have disagreed at some point but mistaken your meaning.

That was another point you made me forget during this troll of a debate.

I realize such labels exist in separation for a reason, but they often coincide under circumstance and even differing perception.

Excuse me for thinking as a "common" person.

Because they are my assertions and with or without the support provided I know the support behind mine, I don't know the support behind yours. I have tried to explain my position and expand upon any uncertainties you've brought to attention. you have not asked for me to support most of my assertions so I assumed you didn't need it, if you want that support, please quote what I've asserted that needs clarification.

I don't need it, what I am failing to understand is what your failing to understand.

That being the main point, but I think I clarified most of it on the above posts.

My personal convictions have little to do with the debate, it's what I am arguing and how I am arguing it that is important.

Alright.

Well you said you support some illicit activities so I was just wondering.

Am I? Could you back up this claim?

You haven't completely separated it from influencing morality and vice versa, if that was again what you were trying to do.

You inferred it when you argued that legal is 'moral' and illegal is 'immoral'. If something IS moral/immoral at all times and of all places then you are arguing that legality is morality in an absolute sense.

I think we covered this already.

I use "" to emphasize common usage. If you look back it may be a little more obvious.

You haven't asked for support on most of the things I have said, the places you asked for support I gave it, if it was inadequate, I am sorry, feel free to quote anything I've written and i would be happy to support it.

I understand most of your points and how they are defined literally.

But what is more common is for people to make moral and lawful judgements based off their political affair and what is deemed "tolerable".

If they coincide they are bound to influence each other, regardless of how separate they are on the occasion. This does not make it absolute however, unless I decided to argue law in its most natural and almost psychological ways.

Though I realize there are things known as "laws" that exist outside of what I perceive as law.

Yep, personal opinion whether as a group or as an individual does not constitute an argument, you have to show why people's contentions on whether law is a moral system should be considered seriously, something you should be able to do without bringing the opinions into it in the first place.

Your asking for my opinion, its not like there is any governing law that says that they can't exist together.

Though your right, law and "moral" would exist without the large numbers and individuals that consist of the masses.

Though if we didn't exist at all I think the picture would be a bit different, assuming that I could picture such a thing.

As long as we agree that this is only in the utility sense, then I am inclined to agree.

What other way could it be?

I don't know what you mean by this? Are you trying to suggest that the term 'bad' is a double edged sword? is that because people often commit a logical fallacy by equivocating 'bad' as in immoral with 'bad' as in the utility? If this is what you mean, it isn't a double edged sword for anyone who knows how to wield it properly.

Sure it is, if there is someone wielding one against you (who also knows how to wield it properly).

because you weren't enjoying it anymore?

Because we started accusing each other of doing this and that, when really what we were debating was "essentially" (heh) something we agreed on.

Law is moral under circumstance, just as donation is "moral" under perspective.

Though I have to admit I may have lead myself a bit astray

 

[filthy tugboat]

You have been doing the same thing really.

Have I? Feel free to quote me where I have shunked a question where the burden of proof lies on me as the claimant.

It helps to read the entire thing before your starting breaking up the posts, because then you may end up contradicting yourself. Though it happens to the best of us.

Did I contradict myself?

The burden is on me yet you haven't explained how morality exists in complete separation from law.

Even that burden isn't on me, it hasn't been shown that morality and law are together in the first place, that was another claim by you that has no support.

Though I do remember a bit of the main point, being that law and morality can exist separately yet often coincide due to the fact that their definitions are interchangeable.

It's not that they coincide, law originated from moral precepts but in itself is not a form of morality, it does not issue moral judgments and does not claim to be a moral system.

Simply because they both possess self maintaing (as well as social stabilizing) factors. Morality is a set of rules under a conduct of expressive authority, law is as expressive in its authorization as it is in what it teaches in their schools.

How is morality a set of rules under expressive authority?

Law says do this, morality says this is bad. It can be like...brothers that get in some scraps here and there.

They are different though and separate, you just acknowledged that separation.

I've seen better examples, like chimps exchanging food for sex and gathering around each other to watch a brawl.

How does that express a moral system?

Separate from that point though, this does not reinforce that chimpanzees do have "morals', they just have what is common among them, which is something that can be more closely related to morals...culture.

They don't have morals but they do have something that can be more closely related to morals... More closely related to morals than morals? Wait what? That doesn't make sense. The experts recognize it as morality and it fits the definition of moral system. You assertion that it is culture and not morality is as yet, unsupported.

You have a strong point considering the 2.7% difference in our genomes, but they do not say "morality", they act on what is threatening and endangering to their clan and individual self preservation.

I don't believe immoral chimps exist.

What do you mean by 'immoral'? Your moral opinion does not consider that chimps have the capability to identify or recognize immorality? Fair enough, you are welcome to your opinion.

That was another point you made me forget during this troll of a debate.

I realize such labels exist in separation for a reason, but they often coincide under circumstance and even differing perception.

Excuse me for thinking as a "common" person.

You are excused.

You haven't completely separated it from influencing morality and vice versa, if that was again what you were trying to do.

It doesn't influence 'morality' it can influence people's moral opinions, as can absolutely everything that happens to us. In some cases law is a moral system, religions generally promote their ideal moral system as laws, as do some governments(mostly theocratic). However governmental laws in America or Australia or most 1st world countries are not a form of morals, they specifically restrict themselves to the utilitarian sense. What is legal and illegal is not moral and immoral, the government doesn't suggest that it is. It is a set of restrictions on behavior with the goal of social cohesion.

I think we covered this already.

I use "" to emphasize common usage. If you look back it may be a little more obvious.

The quotation marks are not what I was referring to, it was your words.

I understand most of your points and how they are defined literally.

But what is more common is for people to make moral and lawful judgements based off their political affair and what is deemed "tolerable".

Indeed, a lot of people do this, I don't see how it makes law a moral system though. Subjective opinions do not really do anything to change this because we are talking about objective morals.

What other way could it be?

Some might imply the moral sense.

 

[Orias]

Have I? Feel free to quote me where I have shunked a question where the burden of proof lies on me as the claimant.

Its pretty easy to do that, especially after considering the number of pages that this has been going on for.

"I have made no claims", after five pages of posts and each post consisting of broken down and even perhaps incoherent points is a pretty easy position to undertake.

Especially considering when a person thinks they are right, so we will leave the finger pointing out now

Did I contradict myself?

Yes

What people think about the law and morality is irrelevant, other people's opinion are not a sound logical argument in and of themselves.

I understand you p.o.v, simply because it is one that I once held, but this applies to you.

So what it is, is what people think it is.

This can be exemplified by definitions and how people apply it to what is and what isn't 'law".

If morals exist in chimps regardless of us then morality must some law of life.

Which returns to my point about self preservation.

I know plenty of people that willfully break the law, I know and support plenty of causes that are either illegal or seek to change the law. If "Law" equals "moral" in an absolute sense then law could never be changed reasonably lest it become "immoral" which then defeats the entire premise that it was absolutely "moral" in the first place.

This can be somewhat related to the quote above.

Even that burden isn't on me, it hasn't been shown that morality and law are together in the first place, that was another claim by you that has no support.

I have given plenty of examples.

One of them being that law exists because people think it is necessary or "moral".

Regardless of whether or not we think it could or could not exist without us, it does exist now and so we do. Therefore the conclusion being that morality and law are of human affairs.

I do understand however though that at one point it was thought that the argument was that they exist in absolute coincidence, but I disagree with that being the case.

The best way I could think of as showing them being together is like my brother example, they share the same blood but serve as individuals under different occasion.

It's not that they coincide, law originated from moral precepts but in itself is not a form of morality, it does not issue moral judgments and does not claim to be a moral system.

I think that it can and it can't.

A judge that decides on the death penalty is most definitely making a moral judgement especially on the behalf of those who agree with this judgement.

They do coincide, even you brought it up. Though the argument then was pretty different, heh.

How is morality a set of rules under expressive authority?

"Moral" people believe in "moral" things, they express and teach this thing. In a way it becomes a rule, in some cases it is law.

That which is expressive impacts the way in which we perceive it from an original standpoint.

If a rock spoke to you, it would change the way you think about it. Or at least it would to me.

They are different though and separate, you just acknowledged that separation.

My "heart" is separate from my "mind" yet they coincide.

They exist in parallel opposition, they define two separate things that in the end define one thing.

Life.

How does that express a moral system?

How did the example you gave express one?

I can't find it in the previous posts.

They don't have morals but they do have something that can be more closely related to morals... More closely related to morals than morals? Wait what? That doesn't make sense. The experts recognize it as morality and it fits the definition of moral system. You assertion that it is culture and not morality is as yet, unsupported.

I see it more as culture because not all groups of the same species do the same things and behave in the same way, making action subject to the population and clan. I guess the same goes with morality.

Any "expert" could tell you this.

What do you mean by 'immoral'? Your moral opinion does not consider that chimps have the capability to identify or recognize immorality? Fair enough, you are welcome to your opinion.

Well that was part of the point, the main one reinforcing that morality is something invoked by man, which makes anything deemed "moral" a judgement as well as "law".

It doesn't influence 'morality' it can influence people's moral opinions, as can absolutely everything that happens to us. In some cases law is a moral system, religions generally promote their ideal moral system as laws, as do some governments(mostly theocratic). However governmental laws in America or Australia or most 1st world countries are not a form of morals, they specifically restrict themselves to the utilitarian sense. What is legal and illegal is not moral and immoral, the government doesn't suggest that it is. It is a set of restrictions on behavior with the goal of social cohesion.

Yes I understand that, but to me that sounds more like denying that your brood ever existed.

The laws that exist, do in fact exist to preserve the sanctity of "non-deviance".

Illegal things are labeled deviant thus making them criminals, law breakers, and bad people.

But like I said, if enough people believe in the same thing then something within the structure of self preservation will change.

The smoking and drinking laws can be a good example of this.

Another and even more in depth example would the legalization of women and african american rights.

The quotation marks are not what I was referring to, it was your words.

I realize that, which is why I said that quotes refer common usage.

"Law" and "morality" do not exist in a total sense, but then again nothing really does exist in a total sense because it is limited to how sensual we chose to be.

Indeed, a lot of people do this, I don't see how it makes law a moral system though. Subjective opinions do not really do anything to change this because we are talking about objective morals.

Are we?

Some might imply the moral sense.

Which is just another utility

 

[filthy tugboat]

Especially considering when a person thinks they are right, so we will leave the finger pointing out now

This sounds like a good idea.

Yes

This one I really want to get to the bottom of, i would quite like to resolve any apparent contradictions.

I understand you p.o.v, simply because it is one that I once held, but this applies to you.

So what it is, is what people think it is.

This can be exemplified by definitions and how people apply it to what is and what isn't 'law".

The law is the law, whether people think of it as authoritative or not is irrelevant. This is what I meant when I said that we were discussing "objective morals". If Law and morality go hand in hand then law would be an objective moral system, it is a code that is written down and intentionally held outside of subjective interpretation. The purpose of this discussion surrounds the notion of an objective moral system.

If morals exist in chimps regardless of us then morality must some law of life.

Not necessarily, it is something found in two species(probably more but probably not all forms of life).

This can be somewhat related to the quote above.

What I wrote was in response to this comment;

When you understand legal and moral, you understand that people associate "illegal" with bad, because "illegal" behavior results in action done in persecution to the offender. In other words, things that you would not do willfully.

I wasn't trying to suggest that the people I know and their opinions should have more consideration than the people you know and their opinions. I was telling you that not everybody follows the same though pattern, "illegal" doesn't mean "bad" to everyone, hell most people don't consider minor speeding crimes "bad" a lot of them even hate the law for being so strict on it. I hope I cleared that up.

I have given plenty of examples.

One of them being that law exists because people think it is necessary or "moral".

The best way I could think of as showing them being together is like my brother example, they share the same blood but serve as individuals under different occasion.

The blood shared is only the perception of some individuals though. They are intrinsically different and serve different purposes but some people confuse the two, some people try to promote morals as laws and some people consider laws to be moral. This is only a perspective, an opinion. and one that is not held by everyone.

I think that it can and it can't.

A judge that decides on the death penalty is most definitely making a moral judgement especially on the behalf of those who agree with this judgement.

How is he making a moral judgement? Generally isn't this decision made by a Jury? Either way, the individual is judged according to the law, set principles and precepts that are followed to determine guilt. How is sentencing someone to death any more of a moral judgement than sending someone to jail or issuing them a fine?

"Moral" people believe in "moral" things, they express and teach this thing. In a way it becomes a rule, in some cases it is law.

What are "Moral people"? What are "Moral things"? I know of moral opinions. I know we've been through the whole, "we're not talking about absolute morality" bit but this sure looks like a statement expressing absolute morals. If morality is subjective, how can there be "moral people" in any other sense then people that are subjective considered moral? or perhaps I read it entirely wrong and you just mean people who are concerned with morality?

My "heart" is separate from my "mind" yet they coincide.

They exist in parallel opposition, they define two separate things that in the end define one thing.

Life.

They don't exist in parallel opposition. So when looking at it through specific perspectives, morals and laws define the same thing, "behavioral conditioning"? You could look at it from different perspectives where they don't define the same thing though, like the one I've been trying to present.

Well that was part of the point, the main one reinforcing that morality is something invoked by man, which makes anything deemed "moral" a judgement as well as "law".

Indeed, when people say something is moral or immoral, they are expressing a judgement. I don't know what this has to do with law though?

Illegal things are labeled deviant thus making them criminals, law breakers, and bad people.

What standard are you using to determine "bad people"? Illegal? Is that it? Are Jews bad people because the law in Germany from 1931-1945 condemned them? Some people view people that do illegal things as "bad people". How does that make them "bad people"? Some people think all gay people are "bad people". Some people think all African Americans are "bad people. Why should such considerations be taken seriously?

Which is just another utility

Is it? I don't think so. If something is a utility is about usefulness. So if something is bad in the utilitarian sense, it is not helpful. It produces results that are counterproductive to the desires of the individuals concerned. If something is bad in the moral sense it can be good in the utilitarian sense. In this case the moral sense is subjective, I could view lying as bad but by doing it I could gain a lot of things that I want.

This is the difference between the utilitarian and the moral view of "good" and "bad".

 

[Orias]

The law is the law, whether people think of it as authoritative or not is irrelevant.



If Law and morality go hand in hand then law would be an objective moral system, it is a code that is written down and intentionally held outside of subjective interpretation.


The purpose of this discussion surrounds the notion of an objective moral system.

They go hand and hand as in they can function as one but more often function as two.

It does not make morality objectified, just the law in which justifies an incorrect behavior, the more common occasion being that law prevents and incorrect behavior.

Physical law is objective, gravity and entropy. Human law is subject to trial, interpretation. What people believe in as "right" and "wrong" behavior.

Not necessarily, it is something found in two species(probably more but probably not all forms of life).

Well you described law as being objective so from this standpoint life lives in accord to what is "correct", or so some would say.

I think the only absolute correct way is that which is most preserving to the self.

I wasn't trying to suggest that the people I know and their opinions should have more consideration than the people you know and their opinions. I was telling you that not everybody follows the same though pattern, "illegal" doesn't mean "bad" to everyone, hell most people don't consider minor speeding crimes "bad" a lot of them even hate the law for being so strict on it. I hope I cleared that up.

I completely understand that, but you don't go to jail for doing that (most of the time). I was thinking about concepts that pertain more to the subjective side of thought. Like embezzlement, or "statutory rap", perhaps we could throw some murder cases in there and such.

The blood shared is only the perception of some individuals though. They are intrinsically different and serve different purposes but some people confuse the two, some people try to promote morals as laws and some people consider laws to be moral. This is only a perspective, an opinion. and one that is not held by everyone.

That doesn't make it wrong though.

There are some things that I still need to break down in order to understand their purpose and function towards the "one" machine.

There is a difference between an objective tree that we see and an objective tree that once was.

How is he making a moral judgement? Generally isn't this decision made by a Jury? Either way, the individual is judged according to the law, set principles and precepts that are followed to determine guilt. How is sentencing someone to death any more of a moral judgement than sending someone to jail or issuing them a fine?

Well dealing with other peoples life is a matter of moral concern, and greatly differs from sending one to jail and issuing them a fine simply because law exists to preserve life (or at least the good kind, the obedient kind), or at least human (governmental) law is supposed to.

What are "Moral people"? What are "Moral things"? I know of moral opinions. I know we've been through the whole, "we're not talking about absolute morality" bit but this sure looks like a statement expressing absolute morals. If morality is subjective, how can there be "moral people" in any other sense then people that are subjective considered moral? or perhaps I read it entirely wrong and you just mean people who are concerned with morality?

Labels exist in application to us, metaphors.

"The pen is mightier than the sword", "the apple doesn't fall far from the tree", etc. etc.

People make moral judgements based on whether or not they would invoke such an action. People that would not do what is "immoral" may consider themselves a "moral" person.

They don't exist in parallel opposition. So when looking at it through specific perspectives, morals and laws define the same thing, "behavioral conditioning"? You could look at it from different perspectives where they don't define the same thing though, like the one I've been trying to present.

Well they do exist in parallel opposition, they are parallel (not the same but going the same way) and they are in opposition of each other (they claim different things but act based on one, what is "correct").

Indeed, when people say something is moral or immoral, they are expressing a judgement. I don't know what this has to do with law though?

Law requires judgement therefore subjecting law to what people see as "objective".

What standard are you using to determine "bad people"? Illegal? Is that it? Are Jews bad people because the law in Germany from 1931-1945 condemned them? Some people view people that do illegal things as "bad people". How does that make them "bad people"? Some people think all gay people are "bad people". Some people think all African Americans are "bad people. Why should such considerations be taken seriously?

Sorry, again I was thinking about rapists and murderers.

You're right though, a person can be deviant and not be "bad". I was just thinking in terms of how deviance is associated with manipulation.

Not many people see "manipulation" and "deviance" as a good thing.

Is it? I don't think so. If something is a utility is about usefulness. So if something is bad in the utilitarian sense, it is not helpful. It produces results that are counterproductive to the desires of the individuals concerned. If something is bad in the moral sense it can be good in the utilitarian sense. In this case the moral sense is subjective, I could view lying as bad but by doing it I could gain a lot of things that I want.

Exactly, so if I am using it in a sense that you don't want it would only pertain to you. That is something that not a lot of people understand and is a key philosophy in Satanism.

We create things with our hands, but we create more things with our minds. I should say build from what we have, we don't really create anything, just produce concepts and such.

This is the difference between the utilitarian and the moral view of "good" and "bad".

Well the "utilitarians" can claim to use one thing and say it is more productive, but it only pertains to their own walls and not anyone else's.

 

[filthy tugboat]

They go hand and hand as in they can function as one but more often function as two.

It does not make morality objectified, just the law in which justifies an incorrect behavior, the more common occasion being that law prevents and incorrect behavior.

Physical law is objective, gravity and entropy. Human law is subject to trial, interpretation. What people believe in as "right" and "wrong" behavior.

Trial is certainly subjective, interpretation, not so much. The laws are written in a way that makes individual interpretation irrelevant, everyone reaches the same conclusion. The second part has only to do with the creation and abolishment of laws, not the keeping of them.

Well you described law as being objective so from this standpoint life lives in accord to what is "correct", or so some would say.

I think the only absolute correct way is that which is most preserving to the self.

Is there an "absolute correct way" at all? I see no reason to think there is.

I completely understand that, but you don't go to jail for doing that (most of the time). I was thinking about concepts that pertain more to the subjective side of thought. Like embezzlement, or "statutory rap", perhaps we could throw some murder cases in there and such.

The law extends to more than serious offenses. Are people that commit minor crimes, like speeding within 5 mph of the speed limit, bad people? Are people that smoke marijuana bad people? You advocate that they are and that the law says as much as well. Where does it say that in the law? What legal precedent suggests that people who break the law are bad people?

That doesn't make it wrong though.

I didn't say it does make it wrong, I am just highlighting how little it actually supports your argument.

Labels exist in application to us, metaphors.

"The pen is mightier than the sword", "the apple doesn't fall far from the tree", etc. etc.or

People make moral judgements based on whether or not they would invoke such an action. People that would not do what is "immoral" may consider themselves a "moral" person.

OK so the subjective view of themselves and the teaching and promotion of their own moral opinion. How does this impact the notion that morality is under expressive authority?

Well they do exist in parallel opposition, they are parallel (not the same but going the same way) and they are in opposition of each other (they claim different things but act based on one, what is "correct").

I still oppose this, Law sets out what is 'correct'. Morality does not have a set standard or a specific way of life, not even individually, morality is subjective and situational.

Law requires judgement therefore subjecting law to what people see as "objective".

In the execution of law yes, the laws themselves, no.

Sorry, again I was thinking about rapists and murderers.

You're right though, a person can be deviant and not be "bad". I was just thinking in terms of how deviance is associated with manipulation.

Not many people see "manipulation" and "deviance" as a good thing.

Again, irrelevant. "Legal" is not equivalent to moral, they are nowhere near the same thing.

 

[Orias]

Trial is certainly subjective, interpretation, not so much. The laws are written in a way that makes individual interpretation irrelevant, everyone reaches the same conclusion.

Which is?

Interpretation is most definitely subjective, unless you mean that everyone perceives then sure its only subject to how they do it.

If laws are written in a way that makes individual perception irrelevant then what is the same conclusion?

The second part has only to do with the creation and abolishment of laws, not the keeping of them.

What does this mean?

Is there an "absolute correct way" at all? I see no reason to think there is.

Well there is life outside of yourself, and all of it is trying to life so I don't really see what the point of this is.

The law extends to more than serious offenses. Are people that commit minor crimes, like speeding within 5 mph of the speed limit, bad people? Are people that smoke marijuana bad people? You advocate that they are and that the law says as much as well. Where does it say that in the law? What legal precedent suggests that people who break the law are bad people?

It does, but then again law extends to beyond what you can comprehend, it even extends to some things you disagree with so I don't know what your arguing really.

I should ask the same though, what legal precendent doesn't suggest that people who break the law are bad people?

Obviously people who break the law have "bad" things done to them. So a bad person must want bad things done to them.

I didn't say it does make it wrong, I am just highlighting how little it actually supports your argument.

Alright how little does it support my argument?

Your goat is standing on my lawn, so I would like to know really how it makes your lawn any more supportive of the goat.

OK so the subjective view of themselves and the teaching and promotion of their own moral opinion.

What?

How does this impact the notion that morality is under expressive authority?

More importantly, how does it not express any authority?

I still oppose this, Law sets out what is 'correct'. Morality does not have a set standard or a specific way of life, not even individually, morality is subjective and situational.

You still have to tell me how law is not subjective and not situational.

In the execution of law yes, the laws themselves, no.

Actually yes to both, since they both require judgement and opinion and they need to be acted out, reinforced and supported by a majority of the governing body.

Unless of course these laws we are speaking of have always existed.

Again, irrelevant. "Legal" is not equivalent to moral, they are nowhere near the same thing.

Where in my quoted statement did you get any of this?

You lack any support in terms of thinking that I am equivocating law and morality, I am simply using them interchangeably, AGAIN.

And on a side note I'd like to know why you seem to be so dodgy, I'm not finding any of this to be sincere since I am the only one answering your one sided questions.

 

[Orias]

I would also like to add that my point about you using words in a "utilitarian sense" seems to have been ignored, if anything that is a main rebuttal.

You are only using law and moral in ways that pertain to your argument, you even said it (again we are doing the same thing).

So I'm not really understanding the point anymore, since when it has become obvious that two people in debate are essentially cherry picking then these two people should realize that in effort to support their own argument they are in fact supporting each other's arguments.

In that definition excludes "coincidence", and when used definitively it means some completely other than what is perceived as "certain".

Definition only serves as "what is" less than half of the time, because by definition is something that has to be tied down without translation and language barriers, as well as sincere and direct trains of thought.

No one is arguing "absolute", or "more logical", just what is. That legality and morality often coincide (and are bound to coincide on touchier subjects that require judgement).

This can be exemplified individually, if an individual breaks a minor law but has the mindset that there was no breaking of the rules then the judgement being cast against them becomes a subject of more personal involvement, thus leading to what is perceived as right and wrong, "just" and "injust".

"You broke the law", says who?

"You are immoral", says who?

We do :yes:

 

[Orias]

I would also like to add the notion of "God's Law", and whoever/whatever choses to enforce it and describe it.

So as you may know and have often recognized "God's Law" can found in the commandments which are the essential building blocks of "legal" and "illegal".

I think this can be self explanatory.