THE VERY BIG QUESTION OF MORALITY

by **FlightoftheCosmicHippo** » February 7th, 2006, 1:15 am

Hi,
I've been reading your discussion and there's many differences not just the one. You see theres more than one kind of murderer out their.So to say all murderers don't respect/accept that all people are individuals & deserve the right to (self-preservation) is not true.

You see the degrees of a murderer very from being a psycho path to being calculating & percise when killing someone.Or it could just be dumb luck cause you were drinking when you hit someone & and that makes you a cold-blooded killer too.

And the worst of all are the ones we train to be the perfect killing machine. Are trained not to feel bad about doing it & that it's not wrong cause it's for the greater good. Please don't get me wrong I do believe in (self-preservation)but I also believe that at one point in everyones lives they've thought out how to get rid off someone in thier lifes.That they thought the world wouldn't miss.

So in some cases we all have a little bit of a killer in use, it's just wheather or not we act on it. As for morals your righ there all subject to whats happening at the time.Believe me everything has two sides to it,I spent my life trying to live in balance it sucks being a libra.Hope I didn't drag it out to far.

by **manlian** » February 7th, 2006, 4:24 am

As far as morality being subjective, I would agree that it is.

The whole subjectivity debate raises the old conundrum of morality only being objective if there exists a moral arbiter that transcends our own varied individual and cultural predilections for morality - a kind of 'universal yardstick' for good action.

Obviously God fulfills this role for many people, though there are also secular philosophies that advocate objective morality.

by **SubmissMe** » February 7th, 2006, 9:24 am

Like it or not, morals DO show more than approval or disapproval of a subject. If morals were just opinions then us arguing on if murder is right or wrong would get us nowhere. Sure we can break down the argument into different types of murder, different circumstances but ultimatly we still have to answer the big question.

Do morals come from God? Do they bugger. If someone thinks our morals come from God then they have to admit this raises millions of other questions:

How come our morals differ from person to person?
How come morals change with time?
Does God even exist?

These are all very pretty little discussions (especially the one about God) but not why we're here. Now just by asking the first two questions, up comes another good point.

Its obvious to see that acceptable morals change with time. It was acceptable in ancient Greece to kill a man for honour. That's changed today with the introduction of human rights and less wars and so on............
Also we find that morals depend on a whole host of variables. Things like class, age, gender, geographical location each play a part. A poor romanian family who's father needs to steal bread to feed his family (ah the old cliche) has different views on stealing than a fat American male who eats food every 30 minutes.

So it's clear that morals change with time and morals change from person to person. I don't usually like giving my view on a subject (I much prefer to play Devil's Advocate) but here goes:

I think we fall into the trap of assuming we have one set of morals and this is how we live our lives. Consider that we actually have more than one set of morals. When you break it down, I think the conclusion is that morals are just social codes and conventions that help us to fit in with others and socialise. We have one set of morals we use to make friends, live day to day lives and so on. This is the set of morals we usually use to dictate our lives.
But we also have more base morals. We wouldn't usually kill a man on the street in defence but out in the sahara desert going days without food we would kill him in order to stay alive. Our more animalistic instincts take over as we adopt these morals in order to survive.

Think of morals as codes. Just match the code to suit the situation. In this way morals are something more than just approval or disapproval of a situation (as Ayer proposes) but equally morals are not the metaphysical mumbo-jumbo Plato would propose. They're in the middle.

I apologise for the long post, and I hope this causes a bit of a debate. Jack, I hope i've answered something along the way and I've made careful consideration not to fall into my own criticisms.

So lets here from the regulars here as well as some new faces, I hope i've irritated some people into a response with my views of morality and of metaphysics. :)
[/list]

by **manlian** » February 7th, 2006, 10:02 am

I agree with much of what you're saying, it ties into my previous remark of morals facilitating social interaction and generally making societal relations work.

As far as subjectivity goes, I don't see how morals can be rescued from subjectivity unless you insert some kind of overarching framework, like a God or something.

As an atheist I realize copying and pasting God into an argument does raise a load of questions. These are not questions I would bother to answer as although I mainly comply with social conduct I don't conform to any system of morality, and hence don't feel compelled to offer support for it.

I come from Northern Ireland, and as you can probably imagine its a bit of an ethical quagmire. Moral ambiguity and subjectivity can be observed first hand here, in that some people think an act is heroic, while others think its abhorrent. So actually

If morals were just opinions then us arguing on if murder is right or wrong would get us nowhere

this happens all the time to me.

Why do you think morals are not subjective? It seems to me that they are lent a spurious appearence of objectivity by communal and social consensus (like many things), but if there were no subjective minds there would be no morals. Morals don't exist in the same categorical way as, say, your desk does - they require interpretation and this surely gives them over to subjectivity.

by **Jack** » February 7th, 2006, 8:28 pm

SubmissMe: We are saying the same thing in somewhat different ways. Discussion around the subject of morality are essentially good in that they question things which normally go unquestioned, and are mostly valid indicators of whether or not individuals will interact well(and in so doing form cohesive groups[societies]).

To me, the statements "God exists.", and "There is no God." mean the same thing. Since everything comes from God, morals come from God. The reason morals differ is because groups/people have different views of God, and different people are at different mental/biological levels.

Most(if not all) morals exist to protect the things we treasure. Ex: To most people it is immoral to sleep with a person that involved in a relationship that is not with you if that individuals relationship is exclusive.

FlightoftheCosmicHippo: A murderer is someone who intentionally performs an action that results in the taking of the life of an individual without that individuals expressed permission or without the action being in defense of their own life or someone elses. Under this definition, the person who gets drunk and then gets behind the wheel of an automobile or gets into a fight and ends up killing someone is a murderer. A person is not a murder who steps out of a door and ends up knocking someone into the street on accident and the individual who gets knocked into the street dies as the result. The difference is in the intent.

Make no mistake, we are all animals. There are two sets of laws(morals, whatever): the law of the jungle, and the law of society. The law of society takes precedence because it's on a higher evolutionary level than the law of the jungle, but when people do not follow the law of society they must be responded to from the law of the jungle(hence the death sentence).

manlian: Even desks need cognitive interpretations. I think what you meant to say is that morals do not exist in any objective sense(as in there is no physical item which can be pointed to as an example of a "moral").

edited to remove displays of insanity.

by **manlian** » February 8th, 2006, 2:51 am

Even desks need cognitive interpretations. I think what you meant to say is that morals do not exist in any objective sense(as in there is no physical item which can be pointed to as an example of a "moral").

Yeah, my phrasing/example was maybe a bit careless. I was generally getting at the whole 'matters of fact' and 'matters of value' distinction.

by **FlightoftheCosmicHippo** » February 8th, 2006, 4:09 am

Jack:I agree with you there are two sets of laws (society and jungle).And yes society does take precedence cause it's a higher level then the jungle.But sometimes thats a bad thing that societys law is such a higher evolutionary level.Example the death penalty,law of the jungle put you on death row a good thing cause you counldn't follow societies law.Ok now instead of putting you to death, societies laws keep you thier for years & years before it's ever used.That is enless you live in Texas.

Question,you say morals come from God & the reason morals differ is cause of people/groups veiws of god differ.Ok I get that God/Morals it's said that if you commit suicide you will not goto to heaven,ok.So why would people that believe in God allow a law to be passed allowing one man to help another man kill himself.Didn't God say thou shoult not kill.

Morally it's an immoral situation woundn't you say.

by **FlightoftheCosmicHippo** » February 8th, 2006, 5:36 am

SubmissMe:I don't know if God exists personally & some of the reading I've done lately doesn't help to convince me either.Why would God take soil(which she didn't won't to give) from mother earth to make man.If he's the creature why would he have needed the soil.

It's said he created a couple of woman before getting it right with eve.It's also been said that the garden of eden was not entirely earthly.And when he sent them away from eden it was to earth.So if God truely exists I'm starting to get the impression that he had no master plan in thought when he created life.Cause they weren't created at frist to live on earth,that was an after thought.

Come to think of it adam could have been the 2nd or 3rd try before he got it write.This could be his 2nr time around with making mankind.They've found ice patches or deposit in varise places on mars along with canal ways.So what's to say he didn't making life thier first.Hey just a thought.

Myself I'm a firm believer that you can have life without a negative & postive energy.2 halves make the whole. Everything in this universe has energy in it.Basically the concept of Yin &Yang 8)

by **SubmissMe** » February 8th, 2006, 8:59 am

I hate to be a downer but I don't actually believe in ANYTHING metaphysical.

For me it seems obvious that God is a human creation, like Santa but for adults.

I hope i'm wrong because I'd rather have eternity in paradise than eternity in a coffin. Thing is I just can't see there being a God, so when people say we get our morals from God I find it hard not to laugh.

by **FlightoftheCosmicHippo** » February 8th, 2006, 11:29 am

It's cool no downer for me. Actually I got a laugh out of it.my little bro told me that exact same thing lastnight.Just had to laugh.

So mind if I ask since you don't believe in Santa,then how do you look at life i.e(philosophical,analogically,or just laid back).Cause I don't get the impersion your one of the just going through life following what the masses do.

For me it seems obvios that God is a human creation,like Santa but for adults

by **manlian** » February 8th, 2006, 11:43 am

SubmissMe wrote:I hate to be a downer but I don't actually believe in ANYTHING metaphysical.

For me it seems obvious that God is a human creation, like Santa but for adults.

In all practical senses I'm the same.

However I do think it would be hubris not to account for the fact that there are inherent limits to our own cognition, understanding and experience. This allows for the possibility of 'tiers of existence' beyond our own, maybe inhabited by God(s), aliens, whatever.

My only problem with this avenue of thought is that it is necessarily pure-speculation, engenders all kinds of chimeras and I wouldn't structure my life, behaviour or choices around any of these (IMO extremely remote) possibilities.

To cut a long story short I'm not unsympathetic to some forms of deism. However the idea that there is an omnipotent, benevolent, omni-present (etc) God who created the universe, is presiding over it and cares about each individual human just warrants derision.

by **SubmissMe** » February 8th, 2006, 1:17 pm

There's a term in medicine called diagnosing a zebra. It referrs to when a doctor diagnoses a patient for a disease nobody's heard of in years when its far more likely that it's a common disease displaying uncommon symptoms.

Basically If ya press your ear to their chest and heer hooves then go ahead and say horsey, not zebra. In other words the most simple explaination is probably the best.

So for me God seems just one of those inventions we can blame our problems on, use to solve the mysteries of the cosmos and blah blah blah......

by **Jack** » February 8th, 2006, 6:07 pm

SubmissMe: If you believe in nothing metaphysical, then there is no eternity in a coffin, or in a paradise, or in hell for you. Once your brain dies, there is nothing else. You can take comfort in that at least.

Ever hear the sentence "You're missing the point."?

I agree with manlian on the point of a benevolent entity watching out for each individual. That's insipid, even if it would be nice.

God. No God. In a mathmatical equation God would be a variable which could be removed due to nothing being altered if you leave it or remove it. It solves nothing. Just because you blame It, doesn't make it true. All problems come from existence. Which comes from the void. If you blame existence, God, the void, or yourself nothing is solved. Solutions come from actions. If I step on a nail and say "I hate it when I do that." or "I hate people who leave nails pointing out from some surface." or "I hate God for creating everything." or "I hate the void because nails came from there." nothing is solved. Only by watching out for nails sticking out from objects(or making sure no nails are sticking out from objects, or... or... etc) can you solve the problem of stepping on nails.

FlightoftheCosmicHippo wrote:Question,you say morals come from God & the reason morals differ is cause of people/groups veiws of god differ.Ok I get that God/Morals it's said that if you commit suicide you will not goto to heaven,ok.So why would people that believe in God allow a law to be passed allowing one man to help another man kill himself.Didn't God say thou shoult not kill.

Morally it's an immoral situation woundn't you say.

I agree that for people who choose to follow such religiously instituted laws(or otherwise) and still choose to follow laws other than those there are conflicts and as such immoral actions in one or more systems can and will occur.

by **manlian** » February 9th, 2006, 6:00 am

SubmissMe wrote:There's a term in medicine called diagnosing a zebra. It referrs to when a doctor diagnoses a patient for a disease nobody's heard of in years when its far more likely that it's a common disease displaying uncommon symptoms.

Basically If ya press your ear to their chest and heer hooves then go ahead and say horsey, not zebra. In other words the most simple explaination is probably the best.

Well, to be fair I don't think that's analogous to what I was saying.

For me the limitations of the human mind in apprehending a comparatively vast Universe is basically a statement of fact, though when it comes to managing our lives I would argue for empiricism, ergo I wouldn't disagree with the medical profession having a healthy dose of Occam's razor.

I just don't think the two instances are the same, as uncovering the mechanics of the universe is different from diagnosing patients. In one case the model of empiricism works fine (usually), in the other it's probably wise to acknowledge the limitations of our own paradigm and keep an open mind.

Of course, as the saying goes, "I have an open mind, but my brain hasn't fallen out".

by **SubmissMe** » February 9th, 2006, 3:21 pm

Jack, I get what you're saying but I wasn't referring to people blaming God for stepping on nails. I was referring to the bigger picture - life, the universe and everything sorta thing.

by **Jack** » February 9th, 2006, 3:29 pm

by **aeroue** » February 9th, 2006, 4:28 pm

How could you take God out of the equation?

If God exists by definition he is necessary for anything to happen.
No God, no creation, no nail to stand on.
Assuming it is a creator God as I assume you meant the classical theistic God.

-It sounds like you are saying whether or not god exists is irrelevant, or did I misinterpret...

by **Jack** » February 9th, 2006, 9:36 pm

aeroue wrote:If God exists by definition God is necessary for anything to happen.
No God, no creation, no nail to stand on.
Assuming it is a creator God as I assume you meant the classical theistic God.

If there is no God by definition one is not neccessary for anything to happen. No God, creation, nail to stand on.

by **Mallic** » February 9th, 2006, 11:38 pm

aeroue wrote:How could you take God out of the equation?

If God exists by definition he is necessary for anything to happen.
No God, no creation, no nail to stand on.
Assuming it is a creator God as I assume you meant the classical theistic God.

-It sounds like you are saying whether or not god exists is irrelevant, or did I misinterpret...

Whether god exsists IS irrelevant, and anyway, god does not have to make EVERY little thing happen. If you push a ball down a hill, you don't have to KEEP pushing it for it to keep rolling.

by **aeroue** » February 10th, 2006, 5:17 pm

But without the push, there would have been nothing...

So how is God irrelevant?

It simply is not logical to say that that which is the root of everything is insignificant.

I see what you are saying but supposing God exists you are wrong, because if he does but he didn't there would be nothing.

Anyway we seem to be straying from morality.

By the way, you DO have to push the ball AGAIN, when it gets to the BOTTOM. :P

by **SubmissMe** » February 11th, 2006, 10:42 am

Well it seemed inevitable that someone posed the idea that morality gomes from God. Thus we discuss if god exists.

Consider this, suppose God does exist. That still doesn't mean that morals come from God.

To be honest, God's existence doesn't matter here.

by **Jack** » February 11th, 2006, 5:30 pm

aeroue: Who says creation has reached the bottom of the hill yet? God is irrelevant because after that first instant God is unneccesary unless we want to start another creation, or recreate this one.

SubmissMe: I thought I already went through this.... If there is a God, then everything came from that God. It's still an irrelevant question to ask though because it clarifies nothing.

by **SubmissMe** » February 12th, 2006, 8:30 am

Just verifying the point bro :wink:

by **CuriousG** » March 18th, 2006, 2:02 pm

You need to answer two things to measure absolute morality.

1) What is the ideal world?

2) What would the world be like if every person holds to a given moral code?

The closer, #2 is to #1, the more moral the code is. Of course, in the real world things get a lot more messy, this is only useful for random musings.

by **charon2187** » March 18th, 2006, 2:22 pm

:evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: Repeat after me: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ABSOLUTE MORALITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:

Thinking otherwise is shortsighted and dangerous

by **goldragon_70** » March 18th, 2006, 4:35 pm

charon2187 wrote::evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: Repeat after me: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ABSOLUTE MORALITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:

Thinking otherwise is shortsighted and dangerous

agreed

by **CuriousG** » March 18th, 2006, 4:52 pm

goldragon_70 wrote:
charon2187 wrote::evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: Repeat after me: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ABSOLUTE MORALITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:

Thinking otherwise is shortsighted and dangerous

agreed

Only because people disagree about what the best of all possible worlds is, and are not perfect enough to act all the time in a way to attain it even if they did.

I guess I'll amend my earlier statement and call it a litmus for "personal" absolute morality.

by **charon2187** » March 18th, 2006, 4:54 pm

:oops:Sorry about that, you struck a rather sensitive nerve. :oops:

by **Dog** » December 2nd, 2006, 11:41 am

SubmissMe wrote:Calling all philosophers, I need some help.

I am doing an important essay on AJ Ayer and his views on morality in the book Language Truth and Logic, see chapter 6.

Basically Ayer argues that the statement "stealing is wrong" means no more than saying "stealing, BOO! " in other words morality is just a reflection of feelings towards a particular subject.

Is he right? Or do our morals come from more than just feelings? Any views or analogies would be much appreciated and probably used in my Thesis.

Looking forward to all views.

What we have here is an over schooled idiot! If your quote of him is correct he is capable of being worse than Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. If you have no respect for private property, you will show no respect for the individual's most precious possesion, his life. Moral eqivocators are evil pure and simple. No on has a 'right' to anything belonging to another wheter it be their property, the fruits of their labor, or their life and liberty. Such relativistic morals are the root of distruction.

by **sarnoga** » December 2nd, 2006, 2:30 pm

Morality is simply a means by which some people try to control others. Morality is nothing but a mere fantasy that people have invented to try to artificially create in others the belief that they have obligations to do or not do certain things.

Any discussion of morality that does not recognize this is simply one more attempt at the use of "morality" for manipulation of others.

Sarngoa

by **Dog** » December 2nd, 2006, 3:19 pm

sarnoga wrote:
Morality is simply a means by which some people try to control others.
Morality is nothing but a mere fantasy that people have invented to try to artificially create in others the belief that they have obligations to do or not do certain things.

Any discussion of morality that does not recognize this is simply one more attempt at the use of "morality" for manipulation of others.
Sarngoa

That is the most arrogant form of utter bull put forth by a person born to climb the gallows.

Control would not be necessary if all would live in respect for others (MORALLY)

The ones sneering at morality have lies, murders, and treasons in their hearts. They are the ones for whom all must be on guard. They will slay you in your sleep if not locked out of your house. There are no human beings alive that can be left without control. To be so shallow as to dismiss morality as artificial is to be of poor character. You might want to decry others as "Imposing their moralty upon you." but in reality it is you imposing your immorality upon others.

Save your bull sir, I have no need of it, I sold all my sacred cows.

by **sarnoga** » December 3rd, 2006, 1:37 am

Dog wrote:

That is the most arrogant form of utter bull put forth by a person born to climb the gallows.

Sorry, I tried to respond to that but I couldn't stop laughing.

Dog wrote:
Control would not be necessary if all would live in respect for others (MORALLY)

Ahhh, so you admit that morality is all about control. Sounds like you are also saying that if others would behave as you desire there would be no need of morality.

Dog wrote:
The ones sneering at morality have lies, murders, and treasons in their hearts. They are the ones for whom all must be on guard. They will slay you in your sleep if not locked out of your house. There are no human beings alive that can be left without control.

Once again you admit that its all about control. You might as well just say you don't trust those who don't share your values. In fact you are only half a step away from saying all those who don't share your morality must be slain. Reminds me a bit of Hitler and GW Bush. Facists, Communists, Capitalists, Totalitarians and tyrants of every sort have murdered, starved and tortured millions. One of the tools they used to to get thier populations to help them was morality. It may not have been your brand of morality but it was morality all the same. To say what you have said, that "there are no human beings alive that can be left without control" is the height of arrogance. And who should be the one in control, you? The Pope? Pol Pot? Timothy Leary? And who controls them?

Dog wrote:To be so shallow as to dismiss morality as artificial is to be of poor character. You might want to decry others as "Imposing their moralty upon you." but in reality it is you imposing your immorality upon others.

Immorality is as artificial as morality. It is nothing but a device of human creation for some people to use to control others. There is simply actions and the result of those actions. To say that one act is moral and another is not is simply to say that one has an obligation to do the one and an obligation not to do the other. However there are no obligations because you have no power to create an obligation in another, nor does anyone else.

You may feel obligated to, for example, keep your word. But that is not really an obligation because you can abandon it any time you please. Some people may keep their word because they are still sold on the idea of morality and feel obligated to do so. Others, without leaning on some created morality still keep thier word because the habit of keeping thier word has the result that others will rely on thier word and that is a result that they desire. If they didn't keep thier word others would not trust thier word and that would be most inconvienient to many people.

You just don't need a morality that says its "wrong" to lie. The fact is that lying is an action that for many people has undesireable results and therefore either they dont do it or they do it sparingly. On the other hand, many people decide that lying has desireable results and do it quite often. Politicians come to mind when I think of that as do those who lie to others and tell them they are morally obligated to behave a certain way.

Dog wrote:Save your bull sir, I have no need of it, I sold all my sacred cows.

That last is such an articulate argument that I hardly know what to say. (snicker)

Sarnoga

by **Dog** » December 3rd, 2006, 7:09 am

Sir:
Your tedious maunderings about control and morality are the hot air of an empty soul. You espouse a philosophy meant only to allow you complete freedom sans responsibility. The load of crap you have dumped here is the underpinning of the Nazi and Communist Holocausts.

by **willingsub** » December 3rd, 2006, 8:26 am

Dog wrote:hot air

Well, I agree someone here is full of himself :roll:

Actually the question Ayer (as quoted by submissme) tried to answer is a valid one: what is morality? What is the source of it? What makes certain actions right or wrong? What are the foundations of such morality? Is one set of moral rules 'right' while all the others are wrong, and why would that be so?

Or in shorthand: what kind of statement is a moral statement?

Moral statements were once regarded more or less factual statements. Right was in accordance with the will of God, wrong was not in accordance with the will of God, and priests (and ultimately the pope) were the judges of what was or wasn't in accordance with the will of God. (mind, there have been other views of morality in other places than Europe and in other times than the Middle Ages, but this will serve as an example)

In modern times that view doesn't suffice anymore. Few people would now consider every person who doesn't belong to a certain religion to be an immoral or amoral person. While a non-religious person has no reason to act in accordance with the will of a god he doesn't believe in, non-religious persons don't nessecarily lack morals. Also, while absolute relativity seems like a dangerous road, most people also recognise there can be different valid moral systems. I can agree that a moral system in which people aren't permitted to have exta-marital sex is valid, while I can also be a moral person who can, within my moral standards, have extra-marital sex.

So it seems a moral statement cannot be a factual statement, which opens the question of what else it can be. Ayers poses a possible answer: maybe moral statements are in fact emotional statements. Then right would be what we like, and wrong would be what we dislike.

While this may seem very unsatisfactory, Ayer may have a point. If morals don't stem from divinity, they must stem from humanity. I do however think that Ayer takes too radical a stance and fails to really take into account society. Wright or wrong aren't good or bad because we each, individually feel that way, but because we, as a society, feel that way. That is why it is possible that in ancient Greece homosexuality was not morally wrong, but was morally wrong in Victorian England.

I still don't think this is all of the answer. This leaves much room for relativism, while I believe some practises (take for instance mutilating a young girls genitals) are plain wrong no matter how a certain society feels about it. But Ayers opinion about morals is thought-provoking to say the least.

If your quote of him is correct he is capable of being worse than Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.

Next time you start ranting, you may consider doing your homework first. Making assumptions about one's philosophical stance based on one (correct) quote without looking at the background of that particular quote is worse than ignorant. And by the way, ever heard of Godwins Law? You are another very sad example.

by **sarnoga** » December 3rd, 2006, 11:30 am

Dog wrote:Sir:
Your tedious maunderings about control and morality are the hot air of an empty soul. You espouse a philosophy meant only to allow you complete freedom sans responsibility. The load of crap you have dumped here is the underpinning of the Nazi and Communist Holocausts.

Actually the Nazi and Communist Holocausts were perpetrated against those deemed immoral by the state.

If you have a disagreement with my position you might try backing it up with a real argument (if you can) rather than ad hominem.

Sarnoga

by **Dog** » December 4th, 2006, 9:49 am

The first sophomore wrote
And by the way, ever heard of Godwin’s Law? You are another very sad example.

So we see the opposition to moral relativism somehow become an example of an obtuse “Law” proposed by a Usenet poster. The existence of two examples of state defined morality would guarantee the mention of those states in a discussion of morality. When academic argument centers upon morality and whether it is from man or from a deity, those opting for atheistic morality jump to government supplied definitions, and as states devolve from republics to democracies to tyrannies, morality devolves with them.

The second sophomore wrote:
Actually the Nazi and Communist Holocausts were perpetrated against those deemed immoral by the state.

Which is why arguing that morality is man made is a part and parcel of evil. If you allow for atheistic man made morality you allow for mob rule morality.

Neither of the sophomores realize that by arguing as they do they promote the idea that all morals are man made and thus all may be changed to fit anyone’s agenda. From such spring killing fields and burned vacation homes, spiked trees and bombs in abortion clinics.

No action showing hatred for you neighbor is ever morally correct.

The one primary reason men seek to make morality mutable is to have sex. Once the over inflated organ deflates and he has his relief he finds all manner of other behavior allowed as well. (I have not a clue as to why women go along with this).

Man is not capable of promulgating morality except to serve himself. The persistent notion that any superior man exists is vanity. Therefore only deitisticly supplied morals are allowable.

by **Jack** » December 4th, 2006, 10:45 pm

charon2187: Are you omniscient? Do you possess an exact knowledge of reality or morality? I think the answer to these questions is no, and yet yes you do in some small way. Have you ever assaulted someone who did nothing to warrant it? If you did, how did that feel? If not, why not? Have you ever taken something that belonged to someone else? If so, how did that make you feel if you did? If you didn't, why not? If there is no absolute morality, you can make up your own whenever you want and there's nothing to feel bad about if you don't want to(aka - one persons sociopathy is another persons national identity).

Dog: Your arguements are good, just... cloudy.

willingsub&sarnoga: I have some better questions for you.. Where does my freedom end and yours begin? What are freedom, and liberty? What is control? What is it's purpose, it's function?

I have argued that my freedom, my liberty, my right to choose ends where yours begins. What does that mean? It means that if I choose I should be morally and legally free to do whatever I want wherever I want so long as no other beings' freedom, liberty, and right to choose are violated. If I want to walk around naked in public, I should be free to do so wherever I want. Even if it offends you. Especially if it offends you. You have the right to be offended by my nudity as I have the right to be offended by your choice in clothing whatever it may be. What I don't have the right, freedom, liberty, or choice to do is walk around naked in your house(violation of the right/freedom to own property), to force you to stay and watch me walk around naked(freedom of choice in location/mobility), to touch you or force you to touch me if it is your choice that physical contact doesn't occur(freedom of person and in effects).

by **sarnoga** » December 5th, 2006, 6:07 pm

Ahh finally a somewhat reasoned response. It is unfortunate, however, that you were unable to exert enough control over your words to make it without resorting to name calling. On the other hand, if you want to resort to schoolyard tactics such as name calling that certainly is your priviledge to do so.

Anyway, lets see where that response of yours takes us.

Dog wrote:
Neither of the sophomores realize that by arguing as they do they promote the idea that all morals are man made and thus all may be changed to fit anyone’s agenda.

Perhaps I was not as clear in what I wrote as I intended. I was not just promoting the idea that all morals are man made and thus may be changed to fit anyones agenda. I was attempting to say that outright in clear language. My appologies if I failed to do so.

Dog wrote:
No action showing hatred for you neighbor is ever morally correct.

Sorry to tell you, but I have to agree with you. I would also add to that that no action showing hatred for your neighbor is ever morally incorrect. But since morals amount to nothing but man's attempt to control his fellow man it really doesn't matter. It's meaningless to speak of such things in terms of morals.

Dog wrote:
The one primary reason men seek to make morality mutable is to have sex. Once the over inflated organ deflates and he has his relief he finds all manner of other behavior allowed as well. (I have not a clue as to why women go along with this).

I cannot agree with your perspective on this. Reworded a bit, however, would bring it closer to the truth. One of the uses to which people put the idea of morality is to attempt to control the sexual behaviour of others.

Dog wrote:
Man is not capable of promulgating morality except to serve himself.

That is what I have been trying to say all along.

Dog wrote:
The persistent notion that any superior man exists is vanity. Therefore only deitisticly supplied morals are allowable.

Ahhh, now you have finally come to the heart of the matter. However, that has some implications that are problematic. As I have stated in previous posts, though perhaps not clearly enough, a moral imperative is simply an obligation to behave a certain way. That is, an obligation to do or not do certain acts. Herein lies the problem and I believe, the heart of the disagreement you have with my position.

I have argued that all supposed morals are created by mankind. And since no man may obligate another because as you pointed out, "The persistant notion that any superior man exists is vanity." (there are other reasons also, but that gets to the point as good as any) morals are therefore a nullity. They are nothing more than one persons attempt to control another for, as you put it, "to serve himself".

You have countered by putting forth the proposition that all morals must have thier origin in a deity. I would agree that only a deity would be in a position to obligate mankind. With that in mind your agrument makes a certain amount of sence, though it raises more questions and problems than it answers or resolves.

The first question it raises is of course the existance of such a deity. Don't bother to try to draw me into a debate on that topic. I will not take the bait. People have opinions on that on both sides and in the middle. Those opinions can rarely, if ever, be changed by argument or discussion. But it is a truth that people will not feel obligated to a deity they do not acknowlage exists.

For our purposes right now, let us suppose that a deity exists which is both capable of obligating mankind to a certain moral code and desires to do so. Where do you go from there? One must then try to determine what exactly is this moral code being imposed by the deity.

While some people claim that the deity has spoken to them directly and handed down this moral code, that answer is unsatisfactory for me, and probably for the majority of the the population of the world, unless of course, they are the one the deity has spoken to.

Over the face of the entire world there are many deities that are and have been recognized. They seem to have many characteristics, not all compatable with each other.

It seems that everyone knows the will of the deity, but nobody seems to be able to reach a consensus on what that will is. The result is that everyone argues that the deity has obligated everyone else to follow thier particular moral code. That puts us right back where we started with the exception that now each man or woman claims that thier version of what is moral and immoral is backed by the power of the deity. From thence wars are born, or at least men are given a tool to enlist others to fight thier wars for them.

Over the milleniums more people have been slaughtered in the name of one deity or another than for any other reason under the sun.

What we are brought back to is that if you argue that all morals must have thier origins in a deity, and we can't all agree on what morals that deity has commanded, or even which deity should be listened to, someone must resolve that dispute.

The traditional time honored way of resolving that was put forth by monarchs and thier supporters and harks back to biblical or pre-biblical times. In later days it has been given a name and is called "The Divine Right of Kings."

Simply put it stands for the proposition that Monarchs rule by divine right and therefore thier words should be obeyed as the word of the deity. That argument was most useful to kings as it allowed them to issue laws that supposedly carried the same weight as moral obligations set forth by the deity.

The theory of the divine right of kings fell into disfavor in the western world during the renaissance and again later during the course of the American and French revolutions. The revolutionarys were unwilling to admit that thier rebellion against the tyrants that opressed them was the moral equivalent of a rebellion against whatever deity had put those kings in power.

(interesting reading on this subject is the essay Vindiciae contra tyrannos, author unknown (1579) The title in english is "A Defense of Liberty against Tyrants")

While G.W. Bush seems to be trying to ressurect the theory of the divine right of kings, That is a topic for another thread. To digress just a bit the most recent version of that theory is alive and well in democracys across the globe. It is held in high esteem by those who hold positions of power. The current version, however, holds that this power comes from the people rather than from the deity and since they were put in power by the people they have a mandate from the people to to issue forth laws that carry the weight of moral obligation.

This theory fails however for the same reason you pointed out.

Dog wrote:
The persistent notion that any superior man exists is vanity. Therefore only deitisticly supplied morals are allowable.

No person is in the position to put forth a moral code that can obligate others.

No person is in the position to dictate what moral code is mandated by a deity.

If that power does not reside in any individual then it cannot reside in the people collectively. The whole can be no more than the sum of its parts. Just because two people set forth the same moral code does not give it any more ability to obligate. If a million people all set forth the same moral code it still does not give them the ability to obligate another who does not willingly suscribe. The same is true if there are two hundred million.

What it does, however, if there are that many is possibly give them the ability to impose thier will upon others through the use of force or the threat of force. And that is what we have in the world today. We have countless diverse multitudes all trying to use this artificial idea of morals to impose thier will upon others. And if that fails they are willing to use force and violence to impose that will and use the idea of morality to enlist others to engage in violence on thier behalf. Morality, however, in and of itself is meaningless, nothing but a timeless tool of control that the unscrupulous attempt to use to manipulate others.

Not that you will listen to me, but if you want to become involved in a discussion of the issue of morals I would suggest that you be less dogmatic. (pun intended)

Just for you I think I will close this overly long post with a quote from the king james version of the bible.

"Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision." Philippians 3:2

Sarnoga

by **sarnoga** » December 5th, 2006, 7:05 pm

Jack wrote:
willingsub&sarnoga: I have some better questions for you.. Where does my freedom end and yours begin? What are freedom, and liberty? What is control? What is it's purpose, it's function?

Freedom and liberty and how they interact with the issue of control is a very interesting topic indeed.

Jack wrote:
I have argued that my freedom, my liberty, my right to choose ends where yours begins. What does that mean? It means that if I choose I should be morally and legally free to do whatever I want wherever I want so long as no other beings' freedom, liberty, and right to choose are violated. If I want to walk around naked in public, I should be free to do so wherever I want. Even if it offends you. Especially if it offends you. You have the right to be offended by my nudity as I have the right to be offended by your choice in clothing whatever it may be. What I don't have the right, freedom, liberty, or choice to do is walk around naked in your house(violation of the right/freedom to own property), to force you to stay and watch me walk around naked(freedom of choice in location/mobility), to touch you or force you to touch me if it is your choice that physical contact doesn't occur(freedom of person and in effects).

From the way you describe it, your view on those issues is not much different from mine. I would, however, not drag morality into it for reasons that should be apparent from my previous post.

And while I would love to engage in a discussion with you on the topic of freedom and liberty, for the same reason, I would prefer to do so in another thread should you choose to start one.

Sarnoga

by **willingsub** » December 6th, 2006, 8:59 am

Dog wrote:The first sophomore wrote

Why do you feel the need for this kind of ad hominems? Are you that insecure? Pity.

So we see the opposition to moral relativism somehow become an example of an obtuse “Law” proposed by a Usenet poster. The existence of two examples of state defined morality would guarantee the mention of those states in a discussion of morality. When academic argument centers upon morality and whether it is from man or from a deity, those opting for atheistic morality jump to government supplied definitions, and as states devolve from republics to democracies to tyrannies, morality devolves with them.

Too bad you jump to conclusions instead of reading what others actually have (and have not) written. Ayers statement doesn't mention state defined morality. Neither does my post. It seems like youi are the only one jumping to government supplied definitions of morality.

About Godwins law: if you had merely mentioned Hitler, Mao and Stalin as examples of where state defined morality may lead, You wouldn't have gotten argument from me. That is however not what you did. What you actually did, was trying to discredit someone by comparing him (without solid ground for it, I might ad) with modern monsters. It's no different from crying "witch, I saw her dancing with the devil!" in the Middle Ages.

About your reaction to my post: you obviously missed so much of what I actualy wrote, I hardly know where to start correcting your misconceptions, or even if doing so wouldn't be a waste of time. Still I will give it a try.

the opposition to moral relativis

If you had actually read my post, you might have noticed the fact that I am not a fan of moral relativism myself. I clearly identify the room for moral relativism left by theories that view moral statements as nothing more than emotional statements as a problem. While that doesn't make Ayer a Hitler, and doesn't mean that there is nothing to be learned from Ayers view, it is exactly the problem of moral relativism that leads me to dismiss Ayers statement as the ultimate answer of what morality is.

those opting for atheistic morality

I am not an atheist, neither do I propose any form of atheistic morality. I do however point out a rather obvious problem with basing morality solely on divine law: people don't all share the same religion. If I don't believe in your god, why should your morality be my concern? And if you don't believe in my god, why should my morality apply to you? Basing morality on divinity doesn't solve the problem of moral relativism, it creates either moral relativism (the morality of your god doesn't apply to me) or religious intolerance (you are a bad person if you don't follow my religion). By basing morality on divinity you close the road to a shared basic morality.

Whether morality acually does or doesn't come from a deity isn't the point. The point is there is at least the need for an additional basis to make morality more than a theoretic exercise, to really have a pluriform society with shared values instead of a pluriform society torn at the seams. It's no use to society if you refrain from stealing because you are a christian if the guy next door is not a christian.

jump to government supplied definitions, and as states devolve from republics to democracies to tyrannies, morality devolves with them.

So you disapprove of government supplied definitions of morality. Good. So do I. Luckily there are more options then just religious morality and government morality. The actions of a govenrment, the legislation it creates, should be a reflection of morals instead of government creating morality.

Neither of the sophomores realize that by arguing as they do they promote the idea that all morals are man made and thus all may be changed to fit anyone’s agenda. From such spring killing fields and burned vacation homes, spiked trees and bombs in abortion clinics.

Again, read. I explicitely recognize the danger of moral relativism. You mention an interesting example though: what do you suspect the bombers of abortion clinics base their morality on? Atheistic morals? Governmental morality? Or perhaps the morality they believe they are held to by a deity?

Which is why arguing that morality is man made is a part and parcel of evil. If you allow for atheistic man made morality you allow for mob rule morality.

The difference between man made and deity ordained morality isn't what makes mob rule morality possible. If you speak of the Nazi and Communist holocausts, you might as well include for instance the Inquisition or the crusades. The persecution of those deemed immoral by authority is not reserved to non-religious ideologies.

No action showing hatred for you neighbor is ever morally correct.

Finally we are getting somewhere. Please compare the following statements:

- Love your neighbour as you love yourself.
- It's irrational to hurt others because you cannot desire a world in which everybody is allowed to hurt others.
- If it harms none, do as you wil.
- My freedom ends where my actions infringe on your freedom.

The first statement is christian. The second statement is Kantian, a morality based on rationality. The third statement is pagan, based on a different religion. The fourth statement is non-religious liberal. Here we can see the beginning of a shared morality, a common ground. Though the belief systems these statements stem from are radically different, they all agree that acting in a way that hurts your neighbour is bad, morally wrong. Of course different people may still have different opinions of which actions do or do not hurt others. But a common ground to base society on is still there. Once you dismiss the possibility of basing morality on anything but your personal religion, that common ground will be lost.

The one primary reason men seek to make morality mutable is to have sex. Once the over inflated organ deflates and he has his relief he finds all manner of other behavior allowed as well. (I have not a clue as to why women go along with this).

The simplicity of this makes me smile. What makes you think a person needs an inflatable organ to enjoy sex? I personally like my freedom to have a different kind of sex life than the one promoted by contemporary christian faith. I think there is nothing morally wrong with going to swingers clubs and having sex with other people than your spouse. I'm a woman.

What is much more important to me (and to my husband) though, is the freedom to raise our future children according to our standards instead of the standards laid down by a religion we don't adhere to.

In my country, the Netherlands, there is a debate on the freedom of education. At the moment we have the freedom to have schools based on a certain religion (or other life view), provided all children still get the same basic education. I can choose to send my children to a catholic school, or an anthroposophic school, or an atheist school etc. The reason for doing that is precisely the difference in morals present in a school environment. That freedom may cease to exist. If it does, my husband and I would readily emigrate to a country where we can take full responsibility ourselves on the way to raise and educate our children, even though that would almost certainly mean moving to a country with less sexual liberties than the Netherlands.

The persistent notion that any superior man exists is vanity.

True.

[/quote]Therefore only deitisticly supplied morals are allowable.[/quote]

And this is where you go wrong. This is certainly not the only possible conclusion to draw from your true statement. Your implicit opinion that man made moralities necessarily fail to successfully adres the issue of non-superiority remains to be proven. Furthermore, deistically supplied morals are also affected by that same non-superiority. In our lifetimes, there has never been a voice from the heavens to explain morals. Instead we have to (assuming there are one or more deities) rely on human messengers. Human messengers who are fallible, just like the rest of us.

by **yaar** » January 4th, 2008, 2:21 am

I'm guessing that your paper has long since been written and turned in, but I feel like giving my views on the subject. I steadfastly deny that there is any sort of "absolute" truth or morality. I believe that ultimately, right and wrong are completely relative concepts, differing from person to person. These personal beliefs, however, are greatly influenced by our surrounding: namely your parents/upbringing and the society/culture you live in. While your parents and our culture may set right and wrong boundaries, but the individual is free to tweak these throughout his life. A mix of cultural and individual relativism, if you will.

by **SamiBoy** » April 3rd, 2008, 6:59 pm

Morals are not what creates society, society creates morals.

Take the word "Humbug" for example. If morals created society, then in order for society to be the right one the morals must stay the same.

Back in Houdini's day, they thought they had a great society, and "Humbug"
was taboo.

However now it is no longer taboo, and people think we have a great society.

Since the morals changed one society must have not been so great.

If society did not reject the f-word, or the s-word. Then they would not be taboo.

However they do, so they are. Society banned them, the words themselves did not create society for creating morals.

by **Alien4420** » June 16th, 2009, 10:18 am

yaar wrote:I'm guessing that your paper has long since been written and turned in, but I feel like giving my views on the subject. I steadfastly deny that there is any sort of "absolute" truth or morality. I believe that ultimately, right and wrong are completely relative concepts, differing from person to person. These personal beliefs, however, are greatly influenced by our surrounding: namely your parents/upbringing and the society/culture you live in. While your parents and our culture may set right and wrong boundaries, but the individual is free to tweak these throughout his life. A mix of cultural and individual relativism, if you will.

OK, I'll bite and probably regret it.

An opposite position would point out that there is a certain commonality between different moral systems, e.g., the golden rule or categorical imperative. Also that some taboos are universal, e.g., every society has some form of the incest taboo. Also that morality seems to be built into us and to be seen as well, along with immorality, in other species, in simpler form.

FWIW, my own sense is that morality is sort of like social structure itself in that it's neither absolute nor arbitrary. The capacity for it is inherited, perhaps to greater or lesser degree in any given individual, and the specifics of the moral behavior are learned. The moral behaviors that are favored by a given society are then subject to the selection pressures of social evolution. They have an arbitrary or historical component, but they can also change on the basis of experience, according to inherited psychodynamic mechanisms.

by **stephiebaby** » November 3rd, 2009, 2:50 am

"Basically Ayer argues that the statement "stealing is wrong" means no more than saying "stealing, BOO! " in other words morality is just a reflection of feelings towards a particular subject.

Is he right? Or do our morals come from more than just feelings? Any views or analogies would be much appreciated and probably used in my Thesis"

Morality is a consequence, and necessity, of social living. We say stealing is wrong because we do not want our things stolen. We make a pact with our neighbours, our society that stealing is bad for our own protection. The same with murder, drink driving, any law. That is what the judeo/christian ten commandments basically are, guidelines for social living. But in religion morality is fixed as the word of god, or at least fixed in the interpretation of whoever is in charge at the time, and for people with short lifespans and limited technological advancements it is easy to see why they could not conceive of a changing world. Now we use laws and knowledge to make our pacts with our neighbours, as these can change to suit new knowledge and social needs. The only thing that has changed is our recognition of change and the need to grow as a species.

The proof that there is no actual human morality is in cross cultural studies. Morality is defined by the individual culture, and there has been a wide variety of cultures throughout history. Everything has been moral somewhere, at some time. And some things can be both moral and immoral. Many christians would consider incest immoral, however their religion says humanity was formed from incest, twice.

I think Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals may be of use to you?

"Where Morals Come From: Race memory stored in the collective consciousness from a more civilized time. "

Someone needs to spend more time studying history, there have not been more civilised times. We may descend into another dark age, but until then we are living more civilised than any human population ever has.

"John is drowning.

You ought to save John.

Are these two statements interlinked? Does the second statement directly follow the first?"

Of course not. There is no point attempting to save john unless you can save john. Also if John is a psychopath you just threw off a boat to save yourself, he'll probably kill you if you save him.
Morality is fluid and circumstantial.

"Morals in my opinion are bull, just a cunning ploy people came up with to justify their decisions.

But at the same time they are useful and needed in society."

Morals are quite useless in society, and often harmful. Knowledge based law is a much better idea. Morality gives us slavery, knowledge gives us equality. Morality gives us homophobia, knowledge gives us acceptence. Morality tries to supress knowledge in schools, law stands on the side of reason and stops religious oppression.

"as it can be considered moral to educate the mind, to not follow stupidity. "

Adjustable social morals today do say educate, religious morals do not.

"Morals are truly in question, however, when situations that require decisions must be made. If you drive along the road and see a wrecked car, what are your choices? Frankly, it's either to ignore it, or stop and help if you can."

If that is your question then I feel sorry for you. The question is, "Is there any danger in helping". Not only is this my personal morality, it is also my trained responsibility and it fits the social self preservation theory. I'd want someone to help me so I should encourage that behaviour.

"But soon, how likely is it that the "ignorant" driver will soon feel intense guilt for what he has done? "

I doubt this kind of person would feel much guilt. Either they wouldn't care, or they would simply forget they saw it, or they would justify their actions possibly by convincing themselves it was an old crash or there was nothing they could do. They could also think it's all god's plan.

"There was little he could do if he stopped, except fetch a tow truck. If the man inside was dying, what could he do? The cold, logical answer is: Very little. "

PLEASE go and get your first aid qualifications so you can learn to think differently. There is much you can do. You can save lives in this situation, sometimes by doing very little. A person with a minor head wound can die if their head falls forward cutting off the airway. By just moving their head back you can save their life. The idea that there was nothing to be done is one way the person would simply justify their actions, and feel no guilt.

"Being a man of God/Allah/Buddha/etc., etc... is a good thing in my opinion, but that doesn't make you moral"

No, it often makes one xenophobic and judgemental, or immoral. Religion is the greatest justifier for immorality.

"following some diety of choice can cause you to do moral actions, like I hope I got across in the first place. So don't get me wrong; following your God if you have one does go hand-in-hand with morality"

Following a diety can cause moral actions, but only if you personally interpret the diety that way. Usually dieties isolate people and encourage immoral behaviour towards anyone outside their group. Selective morality.

"Also that morality seems to be built into us "

The wide variety in social morality disproves this, and so does the existence of socipaths who lack any "normal" sense of morality. Their "morality" is, anything they do is right, anyone who tries to stop them is wrong. Morality is something we agree to, it is not built into us.

by **Alien4420** » November 3rd, 2009, 6:34 am

stephiebaby wrote:Morality is a consequence, and necessity, of social living. We say stealing is wrong because we do not want our things stolen.

[ . . . ]

The proof that there is no actual human morality is in cross cultural studies. Morality is defined by the individual culture, and there has been a wide variety of cultures throughout history.

[ . . . ]

Morals are quite useless in society, and often harmful. Knowledge based law is a much better idea. Morality gives us slavery, knowledge gives us equality. Morality gives us homophobia, knowledge gives us acceptence. Morality tries to supress knowledge in schools, law stands on the side of reason and stops religious oppression.

I think you're contradicting your own thesis, with which I happen to agree, by making what is in effect a contemporary moral judgment regarding slavery and homosexuality. Slavery was part of the economic system in pre-capitalist agriculture societies, an extension, really, of the domestication of animals to human beings. To the extent that it was replaced by serfdom and then mercantilism and capitalism, it was because the newer institutions proved more practical or efficient. Similarly, elective homosexuality was discouraged in cases in which it was likely to divert resources from children in resource-scarce pre or early industrial societies.

stephiebaby wrote:"Also that morality seems to be built into us "

The wide variety in social morality disproves this, and so does the existence of socipaths who lack any "normal" sense of morality. Their "morality" is, anything they do is right, anyone who tries to stop them is wrong. Morality is something we agree to, it is not built into us.

Social animals demonstrate both moral and amoral behaviors. There's no reason to believe that we haven't inherited the brain mechanisms for such behaviors, indeed, the fact that we feel guilt, an emotion, suggests to me strongly that we have. That's not the same as saying that we inherit a specific morality, e.g., some dogs are trained to beg, and some dogs are trained not to; so even some beasts have a capacity to adopt varying moral systems. Also, the fact that some people are sociopaths doesn't mean that morality isn't built in to the rest of us, or that the sociopaths don't inherit the same moral mechanisms as others, but receive different moral programming (or no moral programming at all?) in childhood.

by **stephiebaby** » November 3rd, 2009, 12:40 pm

"I think you're contradicting your own thesis, with which I happen to agree, by making what is in effect a contemporary moral judgment regarding slavery and homosexuality."

Really? How did we get to the comtempory moral judgement? And where from? We got here from the religious morality, and through social evolution, part of which was replacing susperstition with knowledge. Because laws are fluid and changed with knowledge, we have improved upon the basic social agreements of don't kill, don't steal, and included things like, black people are people, women are people, homosexuality is not evil, slavery is wrong, everyone deserves the right of freedom of choice. These things are both part of the social agreement and the development of knowledge.

"Slavery was part of the economic system in pre-capitalist agriculture societies, an extension, really, of the domestication of animals to human beings. To the extent that it was replaced by serfdom and then mercantilism and capitalism, it was because the newer institutions proved more practical or efficient."

Do you really think paying free people is more practical and efficient? If so how do you explain sweat shops, foreign child labour and the sex slave industry? Slavery is much more efficent and practical. As for the industrial changes, at which point did actual slavery stop? Was it when people got paid next to nothing for long hours? Or was it when people got fixed hours, decent pay, health benefits, superannuation?

"Similarly, elective homosexuality was discouraged in cases in which it was likely to divert resources from children in resource-scarce pre or early industrial societies. "

Elective homosexuality? There is no such thing, and there wasn't pre christianity. Also homosexuality was widely practiced in pre industrial societies.

"Social animals demonstrate both moral and amoral behaviors. There's no reason to believe that we haven't inherited the brain mechanisms for such behaviors, indeed, the fact that we feel guilt, an emotion, suggests to me strongly that we have"

Guilt is subjective and we don't all feel it. You need to include the entire species, not just yourself, or even the majority.

"That's not the same as saying that we inherit a specific morality, e.g., some dogs are trained to beg, and some dogs are trained not to; so even some beasts have a capacity to adopt varying moral systems."

Begging, shaking, sitting, rolling over, fetching, these are all just actions a dog is trained to perform, they have no attached morality. A dog which is trained to fetch is not more moral than a dog which is trained to beg.
But you are right, we do not inherit a species specific morality, there is not such thing.

"Also, the fact that some people are sociopaths doesn't mean that morality isn't built in to the rest of us, or that the sociopaths don't inherit the same moral mechanisms as others, but receive different moral programming (or no moral programming at all?) in childhood."

You can't exclude some segments of the population because they don't fit an idea. These people exist and must be included. Also while many sociopaths may have experienced trauma or moral ambiguity as children, there is no evidence that this is the case for all. The religiously inspired idea that all children are born innocent straight from god does not match observations in the real world any more than the old idea that mothers cannot kill their children. And think about it, if we were all born with the same basic morality, why would there be so many different ideas of morality, or any need for morality or laws? It is the social agreements which bind us, which we instill in our children, that gives us a shared morality. Some choose to live outside those agreements, some are pushed in that direction through circumstances, and some just ignore the concept altogether because they have no idea what it is as they are born sociopaths.

by **Alien4420** » November 3rd, 2009, 3:21 pm

stephiebaby wrote:Really? How did we get to the comtempory moral judgement? And where from? We got here from the religious morality, and through social evolution, part of which was replacing susperstition with knowledge. Because laws are fluid and changed with knowledge, we have improved upon the basic social agreements of don't kill, don't steal, and included things like, black people are people, women are people, homosexuality is not evil, slavery is wrong, everyone deserves the right of freedom of choice. These things are both part of the social agreement and the development of knowledge.

To some extent, I agree: moral systems tend to become more sophisticated as knowledge increases, e.g., our understanding of genetics allows us to create a more finely-tuned incest taboo than more primitive cultures. What I think you're overlooking, though, is that moral needs also change as society evolves. For example, safe and effective birth control and abortion make possible a different moral framework for premarital and extramarital sex, as, properly used, unwanted pregnancies can be avoided.

Do you really think paying free people is more practical and efficient? If so how do you explain sweat shops, foreign child labour and the sex slave industry? Slavery is much more efficent and practical. As for the industrial changes, at which point did actual slavery stop? Was it when people got paid next to nothing for long hours? Or was it when people got fixed hours, decent pay, health benefits, superannuation?

If slavery is more economically efficient, why was the North so much wealthier than the South? Slavery was efficient in early agricultural societies, in which specialization had not yet proceeded as far as it has today. But market employment allows for a better match between worker and task, and market economies rapidly became so much more efficient than economies that relied heavily on slavery that they overwhelmed them economically and militarily.

Arguably, we're still dependent on slavery for some of our production, since it's widely practiced in countries like India and illegally practiced here. But the only way in which those practices occur is because some countries remain at an earlier stage of development, and so have much lower economic outputs than they would if their social and economic systems were more completely modernized.

Arguably too, slavery in prostitution is a consequence of the illegality of prostitution rather than efficiency. Among other things, since prostitution is illegal, it's impossible to establish a system of safeguards to protect sex workers from exploitation.

Elective homosexuality? There is no such thing, and there wasn't pre christianity. Also homosexuality was widely practiced in pre industrial societies.

Sure there's such a thing as elective homosexuality. It's practiced in prison, aboard ship, in all-male boarding schools, and when guys get drunk. We're a fairly bisexual species. Most societies have a set of rules, written or unwritten, which dictate when homosexuality can be practiced, and when it's stigmatized. In Saudi Arabia, for example, young men practice it because of strong taboos that prevent heterosexual dating and premarital sex. And in some cultures a distinction is drawn between receptive and penetrative sex, e.g., Mexico. I used the term "elective" to distinguish that kind of homosexual activity from the homosexuality practiced by those who are by preference gay. But arguably, the division of people into straight and homosexual people is a Western social construct. We've known since Kinsey that people sit on a continuum, from entirely straight to entirely gay.

Guilt is subjective and we don't all feel it. You need to include the entire species, not just yourself, or even the majority.

Emotions seem to be a consequence of primitive motivational cicuitry and chemistry. I don't think we can feel an emotion if it isn't genetic. Whether we happen to feel that emotion at a given moment is, of course, heavily influenced by upbringing.

Begging, shaking, sitting, rolling over, fetching, these are all just actions a dog is trained to perform, they have no attached morality. A dog which is trained to fetch is not more moral than a dog which is trained to beg. But you are right, we do not inherit a species specific morality, there is not such thing.

Guilt in dogs that have done something they know they're not supposed to is readily apparent in submissive body language. A cat, by way of contrast, isn't a member of a social species and will get away with what it can and show no evidence of remorse. Many evolutionary biologists believe at this point that morality has its origins in animal behavior. I'm not particularly convinced, though, by arguments that suggest it's entirely nature or nurture. Clearly, our upbringing plays a role.

You can't exclude some segments of the population because they don't fit an idea. These people exist and must be included. Also while many sociopaths may have experienced trauma or moral ambiguity as children, there is no evidence that this is the case for all. The religiously inspired idea that all children are born innocent straight from god does not match observations in the real world any more than the old idea that mothers cannot kill their children. And think about it, if we were all born with the same basic morality, why would there be so many different ideas of morality, or any need for morality or laws? It is the social agreements which bind us, which we instill in our children, that gives us a shared morality. Some choose to live outside those agreements, some are pushed in that direction through circumstances, and some just ignore the concept altogether because they have no idea what it is as they are born sociopaths.

I don't know what creates sociopaths and wouldn't want to depend on studies of childhood environment, which in my experience are often too unsophisticated to detect the subtler underpinnings of adult behavior. It seems to me entirely possible that it's a combination of nature and nurture, and that that combination varies from person to person. Which, I think, isn't all that different from what you said above. But the fact that some lack a given mechanism doesn't mean we as a species don't inherit such a mechanism. It may not develop in some, while others may not inherit it, in the same manner that people with Aspberberger's don't inherit a faculty that the rest of us do. Just as we can say that people inherit genes for pigment though pigmentation varies and albinos lack it entirely, I think we can say that there may be human alleles that code for basic moral mechanisms, even if some individuals don't inherit functional copies.

by **stephiebaby** » November 4th, 2009, 7:05 am

"What I think you're overlooking, though, is that moral needs also change as society evolves. For example, safe and effective birth control and abortion make possible a different moral framework for premarital and extramarital sex, as, properly used, unwanted pregnancies can be avoided."

Yes the moral needs change as a society evolves, that is what knowledge does. You are also forgetting feminism as a major influence in more sexual freedom, the male ego was no longer in charge of virginity.

"If slavery is more economically efficient, why was the North so much wealthier than the South?"

You might want to consider the world outside the US, slavery is quite common, it's not an American thing. As to the economic difference, I'm not that informed on US history, but I would guess there were many reasons for the discrepency.

"Slavery was efficient in early agricultural societies"

Um, did you miss my previous examples from modern industrialised societies? The fact it still occurs shows it works. People have to decide not to exploit people, economics wont do it, not without armed revolution.

"and illegally practiced here. But the only way in which those practices occur is because some countries remain at an earlier stage of development"

It happens because it is efficient to exploit people. And there are plenty of businesses which legally exploit people. Exploitation pays quite well. A fair go is another of those social agreements.

"Arguably too, slavery in prostitution is a consequence of the illegality of prostitution rather than efficiency."

It's legal here, and it doesn't stop the slave trade. Legalisation may help, but it won't stop it. Slaves are cheap. You don't have to pay them, there are no benefits or health plan. Efficient.

"Sure there's such a thing as elective homosexuality. It's practiced in prison, aboard ship, in all-male boarding schools, and when guys get drunk. We're a fairly bisexual species"

Make up your mind, is it bisexuality or elective homosexuality? "elective" homosexuality looks like the idea that homosexuality is a choice not biology. Also the examples you mentioned quite often relied on rape, which is not elective.

"Emotions seem to be a consequence of primitive motivational cicuitry and chemistry. I don't think we can feel an emotion if it isn't genetic. Whether we happen to feel that emotion at a given moment is, of course, heavily influenced by upbringing."

Emotions/psychological states can be cultural. There are tribal communities with no concept of depression. (sorry I can't give an example, it's from an old psych lecturer who specialised in cross cultural psychological studies). But there are people who lack certain emotions, and not just from upbringing. Brain structure/damage can have all kinds of effects. And people aren't stamp out in a factory, we are not all made to spec. Humanity has a wide range and in all areas there are those who are outside the "normal" range. Height, IQ, emotional capacity,etc.

"I don't know what creates sociopaths and wouldn't want to depend on studies of childhood environment, which in my experience are often too unsophisticated to detect the subtler underpinnings of adult behavior."

Yes, it is difficult to get a full picture of someones childhood, however there are often indications of issues, and when they are absent and there is no evidnece of any abuse, we need to look elsewhere. Brain structure is starting to answer some of those questions. We like the idea that everyone is born innocnet and nice, and bad people are made bad. But sometimes bad people are just born bad.

"It seems to me entirely possible that it's a combination of nature and nurture, and that that combination varies from person to person."

It is probably all nature, all nurture, or a combination of the two.

"But the fact that some lack a given mechanism doesn't mean we as a species don't inherit such a mechanism."

Yes it does. It means only a certain percentage of the species will have that capacity, but it would not be a species specific trait. You can't say people are shorter than 2 metres by ignoring all the tall people, and you can't say people inherit morality or emotions or empathy by ignoring those who don't have those traits.

"I think we can say that there may be human alleles that code for basic moral mechanisms, even if some individuals don't inherit functional copies"

No, we can't. Individuals and cultures indicate the opposite to me. But no one said we have to agree.

by **Alien4420** » November 5th, 2009, 8:53 pm

stephiebaby wrote:"What I think you're overlooking, though, is that moral needs also change as society evolves. For example, safe and effective birth control and abortion make possible a different moral framework for premarital and extramarital sex, as, properly used, unwanted pregnancies can be avoided."

Yes the moral needs change as a society evolves, that is what knowledge does. You are also forgetting feminism as a major influence in more sexual freedom, the male ego was no longer in charge of virginity.

Also a consequence of changing technology and culture, I think. Contemporary feminism would have made little sense in a society in which child rearing and household management were a full time occupation. And in societies in which the pair bond was necessary for economic survival, the taboo against premarital sex was a crucial one.

stephiebaby wrote:

"If slavery is more economically efficient, why was the North so much wealthier than the South?"

You might want to consider the world outside the US, slavery is quite common, it's not an American thing. As to the economic difference, I'm not that informed on US history, but I would guess there were many reasons for the discrepency.

How common is it, really? It does occur, but even in the societies in which it's most prevalent, e.g., India, only a minority of mostly low-caste workers are slaves. And the productivity of those slaves is for the most part much lower than it is in advanced societies, or the more advanced sector of those countries' economies. In India, for example, kiln workers, carpet weavers, bidi rollers, agricultural workers are among the applications in which bonded workers are most frequently employed. All are extremely primitive, in that modern equipment can produce as much with a tiny fraction of the labor. And because the workers are so unproductive, they have to be worked to the point of endurance and given a pittance. The productivity of those workers is extremely low compared to the productivity of workers in comparable fields in modern market economies.

stephiebaby wrote:"Arguably too, slavery in prostitution is a consequence of the illegality of prostitution rather than efficiency."

It's legal here, and it doesn't stop the slave trade. Legalisation may help, but it won't stop it. Slaves are cheap. You don't have to pay them, there are no benefits or health plan. Efficient.

You're thinking of the wealth of the business owner. But from an economic perspective, one has to consider the wealth per capita. If it takes 100 slaves and 1 businessman to produce a widget and 3 market employees and 1 businessman to produce a widget, the market economy is more productive by a factor of 25.

stephiebaby wrote:"Sure there's such a thing as elective homosexuality. It's practiced in prison, aboard ship, in all-male boarding schools, and when guys get drunk. We're a fairly bisexual species"

Make up your mind, is it bisexuality or elective homosexuality? "elective" homosexuality looks like the idea that homosexuality is a choice not biology. Also the examples you mentioned quite often relied on rape, which is not elective.

Sometimes it relies on rape, sometimes not.

Main Entry: ho·mo·sex·u·al·i·ty
Pronunciation: \ˌhō-mə-ˌsek-shə-ˈwa-lə-tē\
Function: noun
Date: 1892
1 : the quality or state of being homosexual
2 : erotic activity with another of the same sex

I used the word in the second sense.

stephiebaby wrote:Emotions/psychological states can be cultural. There are tribal communities with no concept of depression. (sorry I can't give an example, it's from an old psych lecturer who specialised in cross cultural psychological studies). But there are people who lack certain emotions, and not just from upbringing. Brain structure/damage can have all kinds of effects. And people aren't stamp out in a factory, we are not all made to spec. Humanity has a wide range and in all areas there are those who are outside the "normal" range. Height, IQ, emotional capacity,etc.

Depression isn't an emotion, but rather a mental state that's characterized in part by certain emotions -- hopelessness, sadness, etc. And those are universals. They occur under different social circumstances, sure, but almost all people experience them (there are exceptions, e.g., mentally ill people with anhedonia). So do animals. In fact, as far as I know, there are no emotions peculiar to human beings.

"I don't know what creates sociopaths and wouldn't want to depend on studies of childhood environment, which in my experience are often too unsophisticated to detect the subtler underpinnings of adult behavior."

stephiebaby wrote:"It seems to me entirely possible that it's a combination of nature and nurture, and that that combination varies from person to person."

It is probably all nature, all nurture, or a combination of the two.

Twin studies suggest that it's a combination, e.g., if one identical twin is gay the other twin has a 50% chance of being gay, which is far higher than it would be if it were random (the rate is lower for fraternal twins) but not 100%. Also, people change sexual orientation with the files on this site, which makes me think that a contribution from nurture is highly likely.

stephiebaby wrote:"But the fact that some lack a given mechanism doesn't mean we as a species don't inherit such a mechanism."

Yes it does. It means only a certain percentage of the species will have that capacity, but it would not be a species specific trait. You can't say people are shorter than 2 metres by ignoring all the tall people, and you can't say people inherit morality or emotions or empathy by ignoring those who don't have those traits.

You can, however, say that the human species has two arms and two legs, although some people lose them or are born without. And that's how I'd characterize what for want of a better term might be called the moral faculty. Maybe some people are born without the capacity for guilt or empathy -- well, we know that people with Aspberger's can't empathize -- and maybe some people are raised in such a way that they don't exercise these faculties. But the brain mechanisms and instincts that underlie them are in my opinion as much a part of our species as arms and legs.

stephiebaby wrote:
"I think we can say that there may be human alleles that code for basic moral mechanisms, even if some individuals don't inherit functional copies"

No, we can't. Individuals and cultures indicate the opposite to me. But no one said we have to agree.

As I think I mentioned, moral behavior and empathy are observed in lower animals. I don't see any reason to suppose that we've lost all the applicable genes.

by **stephiebaby** » November 10th, 2009, 1:05 am

"How common is it, really?"

Slavery is one of the most common elements of humanity. It has occurred all over the world, all throughout history. Yes caste systems are one way of doing it, but capturing enemies is another very common way. As is just picking off strays from isolated communities. Addiction has been used, and of course religion is the greatest tool of enslavement as it requires so little work, the slaves enslave themselves and willingly enslave their children, all at no cost. As for India being the most prevalent place for slavery, you might want to look into the situation in Africa, nothing as civilised as a caste system.

"e.g., India, only a minority of mostly low-caste workers are slaves. "

Everyone in a caste system is a slave, some just have pretty cages. But as above, there are many forms of slavery.

"And the productivity of those slaves is for the most part much lower than it is in advanced societies"

And yet slavery still occurs in these advanced societies, why? Because disposable labour is efficient. And many companies outsource to poorer countries where people will work for next to nothing, wages and conditions many in advanced societies would consider slavery. Some companies have even been caught using what amounts to child slavery sweat shops. Also don't forget that the advanced socities you refer to have made slavery illegal, it didn't dissappear through economic competition, it was outlawed.

"The productivity of those workers is extremely low compared to the productivity of workers in comparable fields in modern market economies. "

You've switched from efficiency to productivity, why? Also don't limit yourself to technologically influenced jobs, remember one of the most prevelent slave jobs in advanced socieites, prostitution. Does your productivity argument still work? Also how much more productive would industrial jobs be if the workers didn't get weekends, holidays or breaks, and got a lash of the whip anytime they slackened off? I'm betting people will work harder to save their lives than they will for a pay packet, set hours and a comfy chair, beer and tv to go home to? What do you think?

"You're thinking of the wealth of the business owner. But from an economic perspective, one has to consider the wealth per capita. If it takes 100 slaves and 1 businessman to produce a widget and 3 market employees and 1 businessman to produce a widget, the market economy is more productive by a factor of 25. "

Yes, I'm thinking of effeciency, not producticity or wealth per capita. Straight out efficiency, and more per business or project than as a society, but the principles still apply to the larger scale. Disposable labour is much more efficient than free, paid labour. Especially once you add health benefits, regulated hours, overtime rates. If this wasn't the case, then there would be no slavery.

"Sometimes it relies on rape, sometimes not. "

I know sometimes it doesn't involve rape, but quite often it does. In boarding schools and ships the rape can often be disguised as ritual, initiation, an almost caste system of lower ranked individuals having to serve higher ranked ones. But any form of coersion is still rape. Also despite the stereotype that men are uncontrolable sex machines, we do not have to rape any woman who is uncovered, and we don't immediately start having sex with each other if there are no women around. The myth of men needing to have sex with each other in all male environments probably comes from two places. Bi guys who need to give themselves permission to be bi, and bi or gay guys using peer pressure to coerce others into cooperating. You do know that guys and girls can be friends and not have sex don't you? Just another popular sexual stereotype which is also used as an excuse, but for people who want to have affairs.

"2 : erotic activity with another of the same sex

I used the word in the second sense."

I would say if it's not coerced then it's either homosexuality or bisexuality, not "elective homosexuality". The term "elective homosexuality" really does sound like a term from people who think sexuality is a choice, or bisexual people who can't admit their bisexuality.

"Depression isn't an emotion, but rather a mental state that's characterized in part by certain emotions -- hopelessness, sadness, etc. And those are universals."

I would doubt hopelessness is universal. If it was, then depression would be to, they go hand in hand. One could not be hopeless and not depressed. Also anyone who understood hopeless, even deep sadness, would have some concept of depression.

"So do animals. In fact, as far as I know, there are no emotions peculiar to human beings."

Be very careful when talking about emotions and animals. It's very common for people to put a little to much of themselves into the animals they are observing, like cat or dog owners who think their pet is a child. You see it on docos all the time, the presenters personify the animals to try and put human value to certain behaviours. And animals are not all one species, I think you'll find the emotional range and depth to be as varied as the species themselves.

"It is probably all nature, all nurture, or a combination of the two.

Twin studies suggest that it's a combination"

Sexuality is not quite sociopaths. These individuals would indicate it can be nature, nurture, or a combination of both. I guess time and medical improvements will add light to the subject, but we already know sociopaths can be made, and there are very strong indications that they can be born. Considering the range of human behaviour, I would be very surprised if all sociopaths needed some kind of outside influence.

"Also, people change sexual orientation with the files on this site"

Do they? Or do they just use files on this site to give themselves permission? I would suggest one must be bi to download and listen to those files in the first place. Also you'll find people all over this site saying hypnosis can't make you do anything you don't want to do in the first place, which would support my idea.

"You can, however, say that the human species has two arms and two legs, although some people lose them or are born without."

Those who lost them had them to begin with. Of those who are born without, I wonder how many have no residual bones, joints or muscles which show what was meant to be there and how that information (or lack of) compares to brain structure, emotions and intelligence?

"And that's how I'd characterize what for want of a better term might be called the moral faculty."

I prefer the bell curve approach. It certainly seems to match reality. It covers the entire species and it accounts for the large middle ground. And it fits everything I've learned and encountered in my life.

"But the brain mechanisms and instincts that underlie them are in my opinion as much a part of our species as arms and legs."

I wonder if this is your opinion because of your knowledge on the subject, or if it is because this idea is the more comfortable of the two? In this indifferent universe I am always skeptical of ideas which are too comfortable/comforting. It would be much better if really bad people could only be made, because it would mean in an idealic environment there would be no crime, no murder. It would also match the god need, babies being pure and innocentc and only we can turn them bad (praise god, blame ourselves). Obviously this doesn't disprove your idea, it is just a thought about keeping desires seperate from observations.

"As I think I mentioned, moral behavior and empathy are observed in lower animals. I don't see any reason to suppose that we've lost all the applicable genes."

Some animals, to some degree. But the most important animal in this discussion is us. No species comes close to us in intellectual capacity, and I've yet to see any that come close to us in emotional capacity. The biological and lifestyle difference are so massive that unique emotional capacities is inevitable.

THE VERY BIG QUESTION OF MORALITY

The difference between me and a cold-blooded murderer.

Re: THE VERY BIG QUESTION OF MORALITY

What level of fool become a mentor?

Re: What level of fool become a mentor?

Re: What level of fool become a mentor?

Two count'em two sophomores

Re: Two count'em two sophomores

Re: Two count'em two sophomores

Who is online