Where do you get your morality?

[Storm]

Warren, you realize that I'm not saying one needs God to be moral, right?

 

[blackout]

Where do you get your morality?

A Cracker Jack box?

 

[Warren Clark]

No, not everyone does. That is the clinical definition of psychopathy.


Then you ignore a great amount of human history. Every culture has been able to convince itself that some other group was unworthy of basic humanity. That is how we justify wars, poverty and so on.
We have a biologically limited ability to empathize with the rest of our species, it's known as Dunbar's number.

Again yyou ignore most of human experience. Rape in particular is a very commonly accepted behavior, especially marital rape.

wa:do

Marital rape is accepted?
I don't think its "accepted". I think that people are ignorant of the subject.
There are the religiously insane that try to back it up with religion but that is a minority.

I mean one thing is for sure. Everyone's interest is the preservation of life.
Its why we keep homocidal-maniacs locked up.
Its why primitive humans give sacrifices.
Its why we have a judicial system.
As did every civilization have some form of one before us.

The moral objective in life is to preserve life.
That is the only moral objective.

Then you get into the seven deadly sins which are said to limit or cease life preservation.

 

[Storm]

The moral objective in life is to preserve life.
That is the only moral objective.

But it's not. Euthanasia, and hari kari both show that.

 

[idav]

Haven't watched the vid yet, but I can't agree that morality is objective.

Even with a God, it's only objective with proof. Since proof is a fool's game in that context....

Morality can be based on objective evidences.

 

[Storm]

Morality can be based on objective evidences.

Well, I don't think that's quite the same thing, but please elaborate.

 

[idav]

Well, I don't think that's quite the same thing, but please elaborate.

As an example we know that people need to be nurtured growing up to be mentally healthy. If kids are neglected and locked up all the time it would not be a good thing for them. Now it would just depend on what the goal is. If my goal is to raise a healthy kid or to destroy the kids psyche then I would know how to use objective means of attaining that goal. Just saying that god told me to do it this way wouldn't be an objective reason for having a certain morality.

 

[Storm]

As an example we know that people need to be nurtured growing up to be mentally healthy. If kids are neglected and locked up all the time it would not be a good thing for them. Now it would just depend on what the goal is. If my goal is to raise a healthy kid or to destroy the kids psyche then I would know how to use objective means of attaining that goal.

Agreed. That said the "goal" is the morality, don't you think?

Just saying that god told me to do it this way wouldn't be an objective reason for having a certain morality.

I think you're misreading me. I'm not arguing that God provides objective morality.

If God could be proven? Maybe, still arguable. But it can't, so moot point.

 

[idav]

Agreed. That said the "goal" is the morality, don't you think?

Yes I think so. I don't think the problem really is having a different goal for the most part. People just have strange ways of trying to achieve and don't always use objective means which is why I bring up god. Though it would be no different with a vegan killing a kid with bad nutrition. We all want health I think so I wouldn't try and argue that misery and pain can somehow be moral.

 

[Storm]

Yes I think so. I don't think the problem really is having a different goal for the most part. People just have strange ways of trying to achieve and don't always use objective means which is why I bring up god. Though it would be no different with a vegan killing a kid with bad nutrition. We all want health I think so I wouldn't try and argue that misery and pain can somehow be moral.

Misery and pain are not always physical.

Warren said that the only objective morality is preserving life. I disagree, even that isn't objective. Where do you stand?

Please tell me the morals you think are objective.

 

[idav]

Misery and pain are not always physical.

Warren said that the only objective morality is preserving life. I disagree, even that isn't objective. Where do you stand?

Please tell me the morals you think are objective.

It can be argued that not preserving life would go against the purpose of living in the first place. Would you agree that a person who wants to destroy their own life is not the result of a healthy mind? Instinct wants us to preserve ourselves otherwise something is broken.

 

[Storm]

It can be argued that not preserving life would go against the purpose of living in the first place. Would you agree that a person who wants to destroy their own life is not the result of a healthy mind? Instinct wants us to preserve ourselves otherwise something is broken.

Not in all cases, no.

In cases of terminal illness, I think suicide is a mentally healthy option.

Then there's the Japanese ethos that dishonor is far worse than death, which is just as valid.

 

[idav]

Not in all cases, no.

In cases of terminal illness, I think suicide is a mentally healthy option.

Then there's the Japanese ethos that dishonor is far worse than death, which is just as valid.

Someone wants to kill themselves because they don't want a terminal illness because they prefer life and health.

Having the ethos that it's cool to kill yourself doesn't make it right. It goes against the basic instincts of living organisms even if they have been dishonored lol.

 

[Storm]

Someone wants to kill themselves because they don't want a terminal illness because they prefer life and health.

But it shows that preserving life isn't an example of an objective moral principle. There are exceptions to every rule.

Having the ethos that it's cool to kill yourself doesn't make it right. It goes against the basic instincts of living organisms even if they have been dishonored lol.

Instinct doesn't imply morality. Rape is instinctive, morality is overcoming said instinct.

IOW, it's subjective, proving my argument.

 

[idav]

But it shows that preserving life isn't an example of an objective moral principle. There are exceptions to every rule.

It is a bad example because it is a terminal illness. It proves how much people want health and don't want pain and misery. I say people don't want to die. You say there are exception like when they have only a week to live. That is fine but doesn't change my point. What about a person who wants a terminal illness, wouldn't that be a sign of being unhealthy?

Instinct doesn't imply morality. Rape is instinctive, morality is overcoming said instinct.

IOW, it's subjective, proving my argument.

No, no rape is not instinctive. Getting off is instinctive which is completely different. Choosing moralities on what you do with your junk is another matter but should be guided on the principles I've already mentioned.

 

[painted wolf]

Marital rape is accepted?

Across most of human experience, yes it is.

I don't think its "accepted". I think that people are ignorant of the subject.
There are the religiously insane that try to back it up with religion but that is a minority.

It was accepted that a man can not rape his wife (it is her duty to provide him with sex) in some states in the USA until 1993 it only became a crime starting in 1976 with one state. I hardly think people were ignorant of the subject when it had been specifically written into law that husbands are exempt to the rape laws.
Today 33 out of the 50 states consider marital rape a "lessor crime" and need to tack on assault or something "serious" to have it prosecuted.

There are several countries that have outlawed marital rape but have never prosecuted anyone for the crime... for various excuses like "it's to hard to prove".

There are still plenty of countries that refuse to consider it a crime at all.

I mean one thing is for sure. Everyone's interest is the preservation of life.
Its why we keep homocidal-maniacs locked up.
Its why primitive humans give sacrifices.
Its why we have a judicial system.
As did every civilization have some form of one before us.

Actually the judicial system was designed to prevent spiraling escalation of retaliation for wrongs. "Taking the law into your own hands" was a guaranteed way to upset social cohesion as well as usurping the authority of the alpha.

The moral objective in life is to preserve life.
That is the only moral objective.

Hardly... If so, then we wouldn't discuss issues such as abortion, euthanasia, war, poverty and on and on.

Then you get into the seven deadly sins which are said to limit or cease life preservation.

I wouldn't know much about that. But this is clearly where subjectivity comes into the mix.

wa:do

 

[Warren Clark]

You both bring up perfect points which support the statement "the moral objective is to preserve life".

But it's not. Euthanasia, and hari kari both show that.

Euthenasia and Hari Kari are both ways to end life with out chronic suffering as with any form of suicide.
Most would say living in torment isn't living at all.

Across most of human experience, yes it is.

It was accepted that a man can not rape his wife (it is her duty to provide him with sex) in some states in the USA until 1993 it only became a crime starting in 1976 with one state. I hardly think people were ignorant of the subject when it had been specifically written into law that husbands are exempt to the rape laws.
Today 33 out of the 50 states consider marital rape a "lessor crime" and need to tack on assault or something "serious" to have it prosecuted.

There are several countries that have outlawed marital rape but have never prosecuted anyone for the crime... for various excuses like "it's to hard to prove".

There are still plenty of countries that refuse to consider it a crime at all.

Like I said, this doesn't mean its generally "accepted" only ignored out of ignorance.
Presumably indocterinated by religious beliefs as many have witnessed.

As you said, in 1976 it was made illegal.
Of it being a "lesser crime", there are many feminists as you and I, who are out to promote awareness of the subject.

I am one of the biggest advocators for the protection and empowerment of women and children.
I would put children seperately with their own "power" (I forget the legal term) where they have equal rights as citizens. I can't stand child abusers. Whether its physical or verbal.

Actually the judicial system was designed to prevent spiraling escalation of retaliation for wrongs. "Taking the law into your own hands" was a guaranteed way to upset social cohesion as well as usurping the authority of the alpha.

In turn preventing harm to citizens of the given society.
Every society is governed by specific rules in order to protect its people.

If any society was an Anarchy then people would be killing eachother within their own protection.
In turn creating militias and mobs that would in turn form there own governmental rule.

Hardly... If so, then we wouldn't discuss issues such as abortion, euthanasia, war, poverty and on and on.

Abortion - Some people in their minds see a fetus to be a living human being, so they look to preserve their life. (Ironically, they still eat chickens and their eggs)
Others don't see it as a living human being (reasonably to an extent).

Euthanasisa - Many people would say living as a vegetable or in torment isn't living at all.

War - this is exactly what I mean by self/life preservation. WWI and II.
Auschwitz for example.

I am reading the perfect example.
Man's Search for Meaning by Dr. Victor E. Frankl

Many people don't agree that we should have ever been involved in most wars.
Such as the "cold war" (which I believe we are still in) and the "operation" in the middle east.
You know our uncanny fear of a nuclear apocolypse.
Unfortunately, people like Sadam Hussein indocterinate ignorance into people saying we are a threat to their "humanity".
I say fudge them, they aren't worth listening to. Acknowledging terrorists and idiots only gives them the power they want.

I wouldn't know much about that. But this is clearly where subjectivity comes into the mix.

wa:do

The idea is this...

1. Lust
To be honest I personally wouldn't call this "deadly". Its only listed because the religious rebuke it.
And then there are those nasty men that rape and kill women for the thrill of it.

2. Gluttony
Its already been proven that overindulgence causes obesity which is fatal in the long run.

3. Greed
This leads to theft/robbery and possible death.

4. Sloth
It brings the thoughts of "no use living" mentality that brings people to the brink of suicide.
The idea is to keep fighting to survive. 0.o

5. Wrath
This is often what causes "passionate" murder.

6. Envy
This can lead to the point of killing someone.
Such as if someone's partner left them for someone else and a murder was committed out of envy.

7. Pride
This is a feeling of near invinsibility.
Pru showed this through out an episode of Charmed.
She entered a hostage situation unarmed... luckily she wasn't shot.

You are 100% right... this is the beginning of subjectivity.

 

[Warren Clark]

Warren, you realize that I'm not saying one needs God to be moral, right?

Yeah I know.

I am just saying everybody has a common goal in life.
Its usually finding reason to survive/surving.

their are three parts to morality.
Intentions/Means/The Result
Everybody's common intention is to live.

 

[Caladan]

Where do you get your morality?

Articles in men's magazines and the souq. ironically this is where all prophets get their morality as well.

 

[Desert Snake]

Articles in men's magazines and the souq. ironically this is where all prophets get their morality as well.

What about womens magazines?