Flash Flash Revolution: Community Forums

Flash Flash Revolution: Community Forums (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/index.php)
-   Critical Thinking (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/forumdisplay.php?f=33)
-   -   Morality. (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/showthread.php?t=104286)

Seefu Sefirosu 12-24-2008 04:52 AM

Morality.
 
I am presenting a clear-cut theory that is not based on science. I won't cite any sources, because this is stream of consciousness thought.

Just wanted to get that out there before-hand.

Here we go.


Moral code has long been a very important part of society. Taboo actions were and are met with harsh punishments, up to and including, in some cultures, torture and death. But who made up that moral code, and if we don't agree with it, why do we follow it?

I hypothesize that who made up whatever moral code you follow is irrelevant. If you were told their name, your life would not change, because you already know who that is (e.g. Jesus) or because the person is so radically insignificant now that you wouldn't care.

The important part is why we follow it.

There is a niche for every type and kind of moral code. Thus, we should be able to live the way we see fit. But most people in a society don't think about it, and thus don't realize what they're doing. For instance: Most of the laws in my country, I don't agree with. I wasn't consulted when they were made, and I signed no contract saying I'd agree to these laws (to my knowledge). Yet I still follow them. Why? Because of the consequences that follow (if I stay) and because of the options available (if I leave). If I stay and break the law, I will be imprisoned. If I leave, I may end up worse off than when I started. Caught between a rock and a hard place. I think this is why most people follow moral codes that they may not agree with. If they stay where they are, they will be punished for their difference; if they leave, they may be shunned entirely.

Input and replies encouraged.

Afrobean 12-24-2008 05:15 AM

Re: Morality.
 
It's called a social contract. You respect my personal freedoms, and in return, I respect your personal freedoms. The basis of all true morality is right there.

Laws and government are just an officially mandated method of paying back those who renege on the social contract I mentioned. Without laws to punish those who would trample upon others' rights, there would be no strong system to punish and hopefully reform those who are not pure of heart.

But of course, religious zealots and other miscellaneous fools need to try to control things and so you get laws not related to morality and that do not protect civil rights. But that's a consequence of democratic republic system we have; sometimes people will get power and use that power to make laws which are based on personal feelings rather than true morality.

MDMAngel 12-24-2008 09:38 AM

Re: Morality.
 
Certain morals exist in one place, and others in another...

They are set to certain cultures because it's part of the tradition that they want to preserve... and they certainly don't want to change it after being so accustomed to their culture.

Since you (I believe) are American, it is your CULTURE to think that way, since you DO have the right (viable) to veto. The thing is that the interest of one isn't the interest of all. Which leads us to the fact that a "Utopia" can not exist by letting certain things be legal. It may give certain people the feeling of being able to "do anything and get away with it", which can cause chaos and havoc within the society...

There, also, are a lot of corrupt people... and as long as there are a big number of those people, laws will be hard to change...

That's what I believe, at least...

QED Stepfiles 12-24-2008 12:51 PM

Re: Morality.
 
It doesn't really matter that you never explicitly agreed to the laws set in place in your country - you implicitly agreed to follow them by living in your country. You are given the benefits of safety and stability, and in return you are expected to contribute to that safety and stability (by following laws, paying taxes, etc.)

That fear of consequences that you cited is more of a mental manifestation of this "implied contract," in that you realize the benefits afforded to you by society, and realize that you do not want to let go of said benefits.

dore 12-24-2008 02:54 PM

Re: Morality.
 
For every law that we disagree with, there is a law that we enjoy taking advantage of (such as murder being illegal, I know I wouldn't enjoy getting murdered in my sleep), so that's why we follow laws and moral codes. You have to set standards, and whether you agree with them or not is irrelevant because the standards force everyone (in theory) to follow the same code of conduct and ergo create an ordered society.

(by ordered society I mean one where you don't have people running around killing each other for money just because they're greedy and there's no law saying they can't, not a Big Brother is watching you! ordered society)

Necros140606 12-24-2008 03:51 PM

Re: Morality.
 
interesting subject.

as has been said before, morality is a social contract which allows you to act so that you won't hurt other people's freedom. but that is also the result of the culture shared inside a certain gorup of people, so it's not absolute and can't be defined as "right" - it may, at best, feel right in relation to the societal standards which belongs to.

i'd also like to add, morality is nowadays strictly linked with more or less radical puritanism. it's not a correct view, and the significance might result distorted. this should be stressed as it is somewhat easy to get confused, and i istinctly find the morality idea pretty detestable myself in the first place because of this.

Seefu Sefirosu 12-24-2008 07:11 PM

Re: Morality.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Afrobean
It's called a social contract. You respect my personal freedoms, and in return, I respect your personal freedoms. The basis of all true morality is right there.

Laws and government are just an officially mandated method of paying back those who renege on the social contract I mentioned. Without laws to punish those who would trample upon others' rights, there would be no strong system to punish and hopefully reform those who are not pure of heart.

But of course, religious zealots and other miscellaneous fools need to try to control things and so you get laws not related to morality and that do not protect civil rights. But that's a consequence of democratic republic system we have; sometimes people will get power and use that power to make laws which are based on personal feelings rather than true morality.

Agreed with the social contract statement. But if laws were for that purpose, then why isn't that socal contract itself a law? Why do we need about thirty-five thousand laws to ensure one sentence?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MDMAngel
Certain morals exist in one place, and others in another...

They are set to certain cultures because it's part of the tradition that they want to preserve... and they certainly don't want to change it after being so accustomed to their culture.

Since you (I believe) are American, it is your CULTURE to think that way, since you DO have the right (viable) to veto. The thing is that the interest of one isn't the interest of all. Which leads us to the fact that a "Utopia" can not exist by letting certain things be legal. It may give certain people the feeling of being able to "do anything and get away with it", which can cause chaos and havoc within the society...

There, also, are a lot of corrupt people... and as long as there are a big number of those people, laws will be hard to change...

That's what I believe, at least...

I actually agree pretty much with all of that. Yes, I am American.

Quote:

Originally Posted by QED Stepfiles
It doesn't really matter that you never explicitly agreed to the laws set in place in your country - you implicitly agreed to follow them by living in your country. You are given the benefits of safety and stability, and in return you are expected to contribute to that safety and stability (by following laws, paying taxes, etc.)

That fear of consequences that you cited is more of a mental manifestation of this "implied contract," in that you realize the benefits afforded to you by society, and realize that you do not want to let go of said benefits.

I disagree with fear. I don't fear imprisonment. I simplly recognize it as undesirable. The rest of it, point noted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dore
For every law that we disagree with, there is a law that we enjoy taking advantage of (such as murder being illegal, I know I wouldn't enjoy getting murdered in my sleep), so that's why we follow laws and moral codes. You have to set standards, and whether you agree with them or not is irrelevant because the standards force everyone (in theory) to follow the same code of conduct and ergo create an ordered society.

(by ordered society I mean one where you don't have people running around killing each other for money just because they're greedy and there's no law saying they can't, not a Big Brother is watching you! ordered society)

Well, it's sort of like the police officer saying "Drop your weapon!" like, fifty times, and the unsub isn't listening. You can say "Drop your weapon" as many times as you like, but if it doesn't work, you have to try something else. I think the law system is like that. If people break the laws, even though you have prisons and such, you gotta try something else.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Necros140606
interesting subject.

as has been said before, morality is a social contract which allows you to act so that you won't hurt other people's freedom. but that is also the result of the culture shared inside a certain gorup of people, so it's not absolute and can't be defined as "right" - it may, at best, feel right in relation to the societal standards which belongs to.

i'd also like to add, morality is nowadays strictly linked with more or less radical puritanism. it's not a correct view, and the significance might result distorted. this should be stressed as it is somewhat easy to get confused, and i istinctly find the morality idea pretty detestable myself in the first place because of this.

Can someone from America, or another country than Italy, confirm this statement, please?

Not to say you're an idiot or something Necros, but I don't see that at all, at least, not where I live with the people I'm around. Maybe I'm just not looking hard enough? Could you give me an example?

QED Stepfiles 12-24-2008 07:32 PM

Re: Morality.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Seefu Sefirosu (Post 2931822)
Agreed with the social contract statement. But if laws were for that purpose, then why isn't that socal contract itself a law? Why do we need about thirty-five thousand laws to ensure one sentence?

How exactly do you propose we write this social contract in objective terms in one sentence? The idea of the social contract is just that - an idea - it takes much more than one sentence to articulate it in terms that are logically precise and unambiguous. In a sense, the law is an attempt to express this social contract concretely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MDMAngel
Certain morals exist in one place, and others in another...

They are set to certain cultures because it's part of the tradition that they want to preserve... and they certainly don't want to change it after being so accustomed to their culture.

Since you (I believe) are American, it is your CULTURE to think that way, since you DO have the right (viable) to veto. The thing is that the interest of one isn't the interest of all. Which leads us to the fact that a "Utopia" can not exist by letting certain things be legal. It may give certain people the feeling of being able to "do anything and get away with it", which can cause chaos and havoc within the society...

There, also, are a lot of corrupt people... and as long as there are a big number of those people, laws will be hard to change...

Ah, but I think we're glossing over a big point here; can we actually justifiably say that morality is culturally relative? Is there not one overarching, "true" sense of morality, or at least some things that we can say are universally immoral? For example, if some strange society had a system of laws that made it perfectly okay to go on murderous rampages through the street, even in the context of that society, would that action be considered "moral?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seefu Sefirosu (Post 2931822)
I disagree with fear. I don't fear imprisonment. I simplly recognize it as undesirable. The rest of it, point noted.

I think for the purposes of this discussion, the concept of "fear" and the concept of "not desiring something and thus acting in a way that would prevent that something from happening" are two things that can be used interchangeably.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Necros140606
i'd also like to add, morality is nowadays strictly linked with more or less radical puritanism. it's not a correct view, and the significance might result distorted. this should be stressed as it is somewhat easy to get confused, and i istinctly find the morality idea pretty detestable myself in the first place because of this

I'm not exactly sure where you are getting the connection between morality and "radical puritanism."

MDMAngel 12-24-2008 07:35 PM

Re: Morality.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by QED Stepfiles (Post 2931850)
Ah, but I think we're glossing over a big point here; can we actually justifiably say that morality is culturally relative? Is there not one overarching, "true" sense of morality, or at least some things that we can say are universally immoral? For example, if some strange society had a system of laws that made it perfectly okay to go on murderous rampages through the street, even in the context of that society, would that action be considered "moral?"

I'm sorry... I think I may have misinterpreted something... what are we talking about exactly? haha d:

(edit): Are we talking, arguing, debating, or are we discussing?

Seefu Sefirosu 12-24-2008 07:49 PM

Re: Morality.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by QED Stepfiles (Post 2931850)
How exactly do you propose we write this social contract in objective terms in one sentence? The idea of the social contract is just that - an idea - it takes much more than one sentence to articulate it in terms that are logically precise and unambiguous. In a sense, the law is an attempt to express this social contract concretely.


I think Afrobean did it just fine: You respect my personal freedoms, and in return, I respect your personal freedoms.


Also, MDMAngel, I'm just discussing...

It's sort of an amalgamation of all of those.

QED Stepfiles 12-25-2008 01:29 AM

Re: Morality.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Seefu Sefirosu (Post 2931862)
I think Afrobean did it just fine: You respect my personal freedoms, and in return, I respect your personal freedoms.

Whoa there... the problem is that this "law" isn't well defined at all. What count as "personal freedoms"? What counts as "respect"? Are there exceptions where said freedoms are forfeit for the good of society? Are there any special allowances given to people in special circumstances? What would happen if said personal freedoms are not respected?

Herein lies the problem - just saying "yea we'll respect personal freedoms of those around us" is completely ambiguous and, consequently, completely meaningless in the context of law. If you leave something as free to interpretation as that, you're just asking for trouble.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MDMAngel
I'm sorry... I think I may have misinterpreted something... what are we talking about exactly? haha d:

(edit): Are we talking, arguing, debating, or are we discussing?

Well... I think most of these threads start out as discussions, but once somebody says something that somebody else doesn't completely agree with, the thread invariably turns into more of a friendly debate (or sometimes, not so friendly, but hopefully that doesn't happen too much) =p. Such is the fate of a critical thinking thread...

And as far as I can tell, I think we're discussing to what extent we're obligated to follow the "moral code" that our society seems to have set out for us. We're also touching on the incentives for following this code, as well as the source of this code (or, indeed, whether this code is even well defined in the first place).

Seefu Sefirosu 12-25-2008 04:33 AM

Re: Morality.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by QED Stepfiles (Post 2932180)
Whoa there... the problem is that this "law" isn't well defined at all. What count as "personal freedoms"? What counts as "respect"? Are there exceptions where said freedoms are forfeit for the good of society? Are there any special allowances given to people in special circumstances? What would happen if said personal freedoms are not respected?

It appears that we have hit the two poles of the line: The point at which the law is too much of a burden, and the point at which there is something equivalent to anarchism. So the discussion now turns to, how much law is enough, and how much is not?

The current United States lawbooks are overloaded with laws that make no sense. The real problem with that is that we have two categories of laws that don't make sense:

1) Laws that are old and no longer apply to current times (e.g., you can't chain your alligator to a fire hydrant in some cities. While apparently this was a problem some time ago, it certainly doesn't appear to be now).

2) Laws that are actually current and still don't make sense (e.g. In a certain town in Colorado (Devin, Devon, something like that) you are prohibited from lending your vacuum cleaner to your neighbor; the entire Encyclopedia Britannica is banned in Texas because it contains a recipe for making beer that could be used at home; it's illegal to buy beer after midnight Sunday in Houston but perfectly all right any time Monday, which starts - that's right - right after midnight Sunday).

I suppose the point I'm attempting to make (as I've now lost my train of thought) is that while my idea was too little, that doesn't change that this is far too much.

Edit: My keyboard is slowly failing. In that last sentence, I meant "this is too much", not "his". Apologies.

Afrobean 12-25-2008 06:32 AM

Re: Morality.
 
Quote:

how much law is enough, and how much is not?
This is the driving principle behind politics. Not actually applied so much as of late, but if not for this question, politics would not exist.

As for an answer, I submit that the libertarian system has it right. Government does JUST enough to maintain order, to deny anarchy, but does nothing else. It's essentially anarchy minus the bad stuff. No silly laws about chaining your alligator, no silly laws about no sale of alcohol at certain times. They're even in favor of legalizing things such as marijuana. Really, is there anything immoral about drinking alcohol or using marijuana privately in one's own residence?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seefu Sefirosu (Post 2931822)
Agreed with the social contract statement. But if laws were for that purpose, then why isn't that socal contract itself a law? Why do we need about thirty-five thousand laws to ensure one sentence?

It's because the idea I presented is too gray. It's far too open to interpretation. One person might believe that they're not infringing on others by acting in a certain way, while others may disagree. For example, killing another person is pretty clear as wrong (it infringes upon the killed person's right to life), but what about self defense? What level of self defense is appropriate whereby it becomes justifiable kill someone from it? What about serial killers put to death by the state? What about accidental homicide? What about negligent accidental homicide?

The idea I presented is gray. The law is much more black-and-white. The law is open to interpretation itself, but in its scope, it is a lot more well defined.

ps what QED said

MDMAngel 12-25-2008 05:15 PM

Re: Morality.
 
Morals have been an issue of life for as long as there has been an established society, but they evolved over time... and, if I remember correctly, not all changes are good.

Complaining about morals won't change them. Morality, I suppose, defines socially acceptable behavior... but certain things aren't legal and are extremely taboo... and certain things that used to be taboo aren't any more.

I have a good example, but I'm ending here.

Seefu Sefirosu 12-26-2008 05:18 PM

Re: Morality.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Afrobean (Post 2932312)
This is the driving principle behind politics. Not actually applied so much as of late, but if not for this question, politics would not exist.

As for an answer, I submit that the libertarian system has it right. Government does JUST enough to maintain order, to deny anarchy, but does nothing else. It's essentially anarchy minus the bad stuff. No silly laws about chaining your alligator, no silly laws about no sale of alcohol at certain times. They're even in favor of legalizing things such as marijuana. Really, is there anything immoral about drinking alcohol or using marijuana privately in one's own residence?

Politics statement noted.

I like the libertarian argument, sans legalization of marijuana, but this is a completely separate discussion from drug legalization, so that ends there. At the moment, there are no laws against drinking alcohol in your own residence, regardless of age. You can be like, 12, but as long as you're in your own home, your guardian condones it, and you have no one else present, you're home free to get wasted.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Afrobean (Post 2932312)
It's because the idea I presented is too gray. It's far too open to interpretation. One person might believe that they're not infringing on others by acting in a certain way, while others may disagree. For example, killing another person is pretty clear as wrong (it infringes upon the killed person's right to life), but what about self defense? What level of self defense is appropriate whereby it becomes justifiable kill someone from it? What about serial killers put to death by the state? What about accidental homicide? What about negligent accidental homicide?

The idea I presented is gray. The law is much more black-and-white. The law is open to interpretation itself, but in its scope, it is a lot more well defined.

ps what QED said

Well, obviously, too gray, and all of those questions are up to the INDIVIDUAL'S interpretation: What is self-defense to one situation (running away) is completely stupid to do in another.

Derekkj 12-26-2008 07:47 PM

Re: Morality.
 
I wouldn't say that laws are moral code. Morality is subjective to individuals. Not everyone loves chocolate, for example... so not all people may agree that stealing is wrong. But the only person who's idea of morality matters is the leader. And if you live below the leader than you don't have to have their same moral code, you just have to follow their rules based on their moral code.

Seefu Sefirosu 12-27-2008 03:45 AM

Re: Morality.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Derekkj (Post 2933769)
I wouldn't say that laws are moral code. Morality is subjective to individuals. Not everyone loves chocolate, for example... so not all people may agree that stealing is wrong. But the only person who's idea of morality matters is the leader. And if you live below the leader than you don't have to have their same moral code, you just have to follow their rules based on their moral code.

Makes sense.... wait, what?

O hai, I c u thar, makin' no sense.

Okay, laws aren't moral code. Makes a bit of sense. Morality is subjective t individuals. True statement.

Not everyone loves chocolate, so not all people may agree that stealing is wrong?

O RLY?

I think the big problem in that statement is that at first (and still, even five minutes later) it appears that you are trying to say that people may not agree that stealing is wrong BECAUSE they don't all like chocolate. Which is wrong.

Plus, say that I say stealing is fine (which in some cases I do). Let us also say that my leader says stealing is wrong. Thus, were I to be imprisoned for said theft, would I not have to have my leader's morals? If I were to disagree, I'd be thrown in jail. After all, stealing is wrong, right?

MDMAngel 12-27-2008 09:53 AM

Re: Morality.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Seefu Sefirosu (Post 2934218)
Makes sense.... wait, what?

O hai, I c u thar, makin' no sense.

Okay, laws aren't moral code. Makes a bit of sense. Morality is subjective t individuals. True statement.

Not everyone loves chocolate, so not all people may agree that stealing is wrong?

O RLY?

I think the big problem in that statement is that at first (and still, even five minutes later) it appears that you are trying to say that people may not agree that stealing is wrong BECAUSE they don't all like chocolate. Which is wrong.

Plus, say that I say stealing is fine (which in some cases I do). Let us also say that my leader says stealing is wrong. Thus, were I to be imprisoned for said theft, would I not have to have my leader's morals? If I were to disagree, I'd be thrown in jail. After all, stealing is wrong, right?

I know what you're trying to say, but not everyone can be happy at once.

Afrobean 12-27-2008 10:00 AM

Re: Morality.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Seefu Sefirosu (Post 2933652)
Politics statement noted.

I like the libertarian argument, sans legalization of marijuana, but this is a completely separate discussion from drug legalization, so that ends there.

Actually, the topic is completely relevant insofar as relating morality to law. If using drugs is not immoral, why is it illegal? Is it immoral? How could it be immoral?

Quote:

At the moment, there are no laws against drinking alcohol in your own residence, regardless of age. You can be like, 12, but as long as you're in your own home, your guardian condones it, and you have no one else present, you're home free to get wasted.
Actually this varies from place to place. In some places, it is ok for a parent or legal guardian to let a minor drink alcohol in the privacy of their own home. In some places, it is ok for the parent to let their child have alcohol at place like a restaurant or a bar. But in some places, a child is not allowed to drink alcohol recreationally under any condition.

I think this wikipedia article is relevant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol..._United_States

But I know this chart appearing in said article is relevant:


I live in Michigan, so even if my parent gave me alcohol, it wouldn't be legal.

Quote:

Well, obviously, too gray, and all of those questions are up to the INDIVIDUAL'S interpretation: What is self-defense to one situation (running away) is completely stupid to do in another.
Morality is up to one's self, but the law is not. How would you feel if every person got to act as the Judge in any legal dispute they were involved in. How do you think they would pass Judgment upon the situation? This is why the Law defines things in a more objective and circumstantial manner.

Quote:

so not all people may agree that stealing is wrong.
Stealing breaks the social contract I mentioned. If a person is taking something which does not belong to them, they are not respecting the other person's right to property.

Morality is not as subjective as you make it seem. It requires a subjective interpretation, but a black and white statement can be made about specific instances based only on what I said alone, assuming you are familiar with the basic individual rights a person should be afforded.

Quote:

but not everyone can be happy at once.
In a perfectly run world, the only ones who would fail to be "happy" would be those who do not deserve it, those who break the social contract.

Derekkj 12-27-2008 11:04 AM

Re: Morality.
 
@Seefu: No no the chocolate comment was just an example of subjective opinions. Not all people agree with the same things. Not all people like chocolate, and it's just as likely that not all people agree with stealing. Yeah?

And you're thrown in jail because of the laws, not because it's "wrong". For a long long time there have been people with power and they're opinions are honestly the only ones that matter. So if big boy presidenté thinks that stealing is wrong, he lets you know that and tells you that you shouldn't work against that. If you say "well, I think it's okay, but there is a rule against it" and do it anyway, that's why you'd go to jail.

devonin 12-27-2008 11:44 AM

Re: Morality.
 
But doesn't that make the laws of the land generate at least indirectly from the people?

After all, you elect your president democratically, you elect your house and senate representatives democratically, and your local politicians are answerable to the desires of their consituancy. If the vast majority of Americans thought stealing was A-Ok it woudln't take long for laws against it to be repealed, since that same majority could and supposedly would fail to re-elect people who didn't accede to their wishes.

Derekkj 12-27-2008 06:59 PM

Re: Morality.
 
If the majority of the people who democratically voted for senators who had ideas about stealing being okay, because they are the ones who are able to propose laws, then yes stealing could be omitted as being against the law.
But then again, IMO, the democratic system is crumbling. Politics is a foggy field of marketing and liars.

devonin 12-27-2008 08:44 PM

Re: Morality.
 
You aren't supposed to vote for people who have ideas about things that you don't agree with. if you elect such a person, you are indicating that you support their ideas, so it's you saying it too.

Derekkj 12-29-2008 02:16 PM

Re: Morality.
 
But political leaders today typically lie to get elected.

devonin 12-29-2008 07:52 PM

Re: Morality.
 
Well someone's disillusioned about the political process before even being able to vote.

Specforces 12-31-2008 04:46 AM

Re: Morality.
 
Well, maybe when you realize the inherent meaninglessness to every single thing in "existence" you'll stop having to ask questions that we've all thought about eons ago in existences before your time.

devonin 12-31-2008 11:29 AM

Re: Morality.
 
If every thing in existence is meaningless, then the fact that these questions have been thought about before is meaningless, so your objection is also meaningless.

Specforces 12-31-2008 12:34 PM

Re: Morality.
 
Obviously

Seefu Sefirosu 12-31-2008 05:12 PM

Re: Morality.
 
That kinda killed that question.

devonin 12-31-2008 05:58 PM

Re: Morality.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Seefu Sefirosu (Post 2938641)
That kinda killed that question.

How so? He acknowledged that his objection was meaningless, so we discard it and continue as though he hadn't spoken at all.

somethingillremember 01-2-2009 12:10 AM

Re: Morality.
 
Going back to the original question, I don't think anyone really 'made up' a moral code. Organized it, yes, but the only people who could really be attributed to making our moral code are, at the moment, Mr.Evolution or God, depending on your view (or in mine, possibly both). As far as people who organized it, one well known person was Hammurabi, who made the Code of Hammurabi (http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/31800.html). If I'm not mistaken, it was the first recorded set of laws (that we know of) stating that a person must be punished equally according to the crime he committed (I might be wrong about the 'first' thing). In other words, if you cut off someone's hand, so must yours be cut off.

But even the people who made lists of laws weren't just making things up. They were going by what they saw as 'wrong' or 'right'. So where do our views of wrong and right come from?

One explanation is evolution. Our species has learned over time that there are benefits for saving each other. If two team up, they are stronger than one, and both members of this team gain something from the 'friendship' if you can call it that. Over time, the animals that made relationships were the ones that came out on top. So over time, it was ingrained into the brains of our species not to do certain things, like kill each other.

Another view is the "God" view. That there is some being who created us with these moral codes that we are supposed to follow.

There are also some who believe both, that God controlled evolution to work out so that we could become like we are today.

Being a Christian, I kind of lean towards the third one, however I view evolution as less of a 'definite' and more of a "the best explanation that we currently have". My views on morals and why we have them are quite a bit different from many others, and I'll probably end up going into that later, but at the moment, I want to post what I've got written here :P.

devonin 01-2-2009 10:22 AM

Re: Morality.
 
Quote:

I don't think anyone really 'made up' a moral code.
That really only covers the most basic moral imperatives like "Don't kill" maybe "Don't steal" but our culture has developed a much more robust code of behavior and social mores that seem much more fabricated than something that is some reflection of objective values from God.

In the evolutionary animal world, spending resources that could be used for the betterment of the strong and the young/developing to keep the sick and elderly alive is a counterproductive action, and yet as a culture we pride ourselves as morally superior for our efforts to care for the elderly, and that's just one example.

Seefu Sefirosu 01-2-2009 08:54 PM

Re: Morality.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by somethingillremember (Post 2939936)
Going back to the original question, I don't think anyone really 'made up' a moral code. Organized it, yes, but the only people who could really be attributed to making our moral code are, at the moment, Mr.Evolution or God, depending on your view (or in mine, possibly both). As far as people who organized it, one well known person was Hammurabi, who made the Code of Hammurabi (http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/31800.html). If I'm not mistaken, it was the first recorded set of laws (that we know of) stating that a person must be punished equally according to the crime he committed (I might be wrong about the 'first' thing). In other words, if you cut off someone's hand, so must yours be cut off.

But even the people who made lists of laws weren't just making things up. They were going by what they saw as 'wrong' or 'right'. So where do our views of wrong and right come from?

One explanation is evolution. Our species has learned over time that there are benefits for saving each other. If two team up, they are stronger than one, and both members of this team gain something from the 'friendship' if you can call it that. Over time, the animals that made relationships were the ones that came out on top. So over time, it was ingrained into the brains of our species not to do certain things, like kill each other.

Another view is the "God" view. That there is some being who created us with these moral codes that we are supposed to follow.

There are also some who believe both, that God controlled evolution to work out so that we could become like we are today.

Being a Christian, I kind of lean towards the third one, however I view evolution as less of a 'definite' and more of a "the best explanation that we currently have". My views on morals and why we have them are quite a bit different from many others, and I'll probably end up going into that later, but at the moment, I want to post what I've got written here :P.

Wait, wait, wait just a second. Explain how evolution has any effect on morals. Your explanation doesn't work for me, k. It simply doesn't fit: The fact that we're having this debate in a way proves you incorrect, or everyone would obviously agree that killing, in any sense, is wrong. Which doesn't work out, cause if somebody attacks me, intent to kill or not, my immediate intent is to immediately terminate the threat. And by terminate, I think my meaning is obvious.

Also, evolution is science, God is a construct. One cannot work within the other, so your third argument (God controlling evolution) is scientifically (and constructurally) impossible.

somethingillremember 01-2-2009 10:16 PM

Re: Morality.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 2940212)
That really only covers the most basic moral imperatives like "Don't kill" maybe "Don't steal" but our culture has developed a much more robust code of behavior and social mores that seem much more fabricated than something that is some reflection of objective values from God.

In the evolutionary animal world, spending resources that could be used for the betterment of the strong and the young/developing to keep the sick and elderly alive is a counterproductive action, and yet as a culture we pride ourselves as morally superior for our efforts to care for the elderly, and that's just one example.

I was just giving the most common examples, like killing and stealing. Much of the moral code may be derived from "Me and this guy can agree not to do this to each other, and we both come out the better."

The part where my argument fails a bit is in all the extensive laws made by governments. These, I think, are less evolutionary and more governments thinking through things.

But at the base of it all seems to be our sense of Morality, and Guilt. If we didn't feel like it was wrong to kill or that anything could be gained from not killing, chances are we wouldn't care so much for obeying other laws. Again, with the sick and elderly thing, our brains might say something like "This person is going to die. Dying is not good. This person may still be of some help to society." In my view, it's God that gave us, possibly through evolution, our sense of morality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seefu Sefirosu (Post 2940756)
Wait, wait, wait just a second. Explain how evolution has any effect on morals. Your explanation doesn't work for me, k. It simply doesn't fit: The fact that we're having this debate in a way proves you incorrect, or everyone would obviously agree that killing, in any sense, is wrong. Which doesn't work out, cause if somebody attacks me, intent to kill or not, my immediate intent is to immediately terminate the threat. And by terminate, I think my meaning is obvious.

I don't mean that everyone thinks that killing is wrong. In your point of view, it is just socially accepted that you don't kill someone (or, at least, that's what I'm understanding. If you're viewpoint is different, please correct me).

But think about if you did. Would you feel too good after killing someone? Personally, even if the person was attacking me, I would probably feel sick for months.

So I guess I meant more that "don't kill" is written into our brains somewhere, not that it is wrong in everyone's point of view.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seefu Sefirosu (Post 2940756)
Also, evolution is science, God is a construct. One cannot work within the other, so your third argument (God controlling evolution) is scientifically (and constructurally) impossible.

Intelligent design is the name of the theory that states that some "intelligent designer" (not specifically a God) controls things. I don't see the problem with God and science working together. I might be wrong on this, but I think the view that the God and science cannot go hand in hand comes from the Middle Age church, and them not accepting the works of people like Gallileo. I'm not sure why, but I don't like having a large opinion on evolution. My view is that whatever God did, it'll work. I should probably learn how to back up my view on evolution, but... um... I haven't.

That being said, here's the Wikipedia article for Intelligent Design:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
And it's not just an uncommon, third party thing. I mean, it certainly is less common than the other two views, but it has a featured article on Wikipedia.

Afrobean 01-3-2009 02:40 AM

Re: Morality.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Seefu Sefirosu (Post 2940756)
if somebody attacks me, intent to kill or not, my immediate intent is to immediately terminate the threat. And by terminate, I think my meaning is obvious.

That does not prove the presented idea false. If someone is acting against you with lethal force, they've broken the social contract, and in doing so, have justified you using lethal force against them. Simply speaking, there are times when things which should be immoral are completely justified; times when the social contract declaring such things immoral has already been broken.

Quote:

Also, evolution is science, God is a construct. One cannot work within the other, so your third argument (God controlling evolution) is scientifically (and constructurally) impossible.
If one were to make the leap of faith in the existence of an all-powerful supernatural creator-god, then one must also notice that him being ALL-powerful means that he is capable of ANYTHING. This means that he should be able to act directly (as religious scripture indicates), but it also means that he could choose to act indirectly as anyone who trusts in science must believe in if they are religious.

Quote:

Originally Posted by somethingiforget
it's God that gave us, possibly through evolution, our sense of morality.

Morality is a social construct. Evolution is not an issue here, socialization is.

Quote:

Intelligent design is the name of the theory that states that some "intelligent designer" (not specifically a God) controls things.
Actually, by definition, "god" would be an accurate term for a being who created all life on Earth and possibly even the Earth/universe itself.

For you folks who want to touch on religion/science, we already have a thread for science and religion's potential incompatibilities and the implications of such a compatibility or lack thereof.

Seefu Sefirosu 01-4-2009 06:59 AM

Re: Morality.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by somethingillremember (Post 2940849)
I don't mean that everyone thinks that killing is wrong. In your point of view, it is just socially accepted that you don't kill someone (or, at least, that's what I'm understanding. If you're viewpoint is different, please correct me).

But think about if you did. Would you feel too good after killing someone? Personally, even if the person was attacking me, I would probably feel sick for months.

So I guess I meant more that "don't kill" is written into our brains somewhere, not that it is wrong in everyone's point of view.



Intelligent design is the name of the theory that states that some "intelligent designer" (not specifically a God) controls things. I don't see the problem with God and science working together. I might be wrong on this, but I think the view that the God and science cannot go hand in hand comes from the Middle Age church, and them not accepting the works of people like Gallileo. I'm not sure why, but I don't like having a large opinion on evolution. My view is that whatever God did, it'll work. I should probably learn how to back up my view on evolution, but... um... I haven't.

That being said, here's the Wikipedia article for Intelligent Design:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
And it's not just an uncommon, third party thing. I mean, it certainly is less common than the other two views, but it has a featured article on Wikipedia.

As for my point of view, you're right, in certain cases, it isn't wrong, just not socially accepted. By the same token, if you just go out and randomly slit someone's throat because the thought struck you, that's wrong.

As for what I'd feel if I did, I don't know. I've never killed anyone. I could feel trumphant, because I removed the threat, I could feel happy (same reason), or I may even feel a since of guilt, because I took a life. But I don't know. I think it would be a good idea to survey people who have killed in self-defense.

Also, I don't think "don't kill" was written into our brains without parents and lawbooks. You see, in the military (everyone's, not just ours), people's capacity for killing be increased to the point where they don't even have to think about it. If "don't kill" were written into our brains by evolution, as "sex", "food", or "air", we'd never be able to get rid of the hesitation. Soldiers would still hesitate and think about it before they killed someone.

Disclaimer: Not ragging on the military in any way, I love em, don't take my examples the wrong way.

Sure, intelligent design isn't just like The Church of The Flying Spaghetti Monster (that is to say, a fringe theory which makes no sense at all), but at the same time, on its face, it does not make sense.

And here you may insert all or more of the common arguments against higher powers... why doesn't everyone believe, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. but I won't, because I think you already know what the arguments are. At this point, I really don't want to debate Intelligent Design's viability as a theory, but rather its relevance twoards morality, which is thus:

For this argument (or piece of it), we will assume that Intelligent Design is valid.

So, why didn't God have "don't kill" written in all of us? What about murderers? Why would he put something so major in an ink that is relatively easy to remove?

devonin 01-4-2009 11:14 AM

Re: Morality.
 
Quote:

So, why didn't God have "don't kill" written in all of us? What about murderers? Why would he put something so major in an ink that is relatively easy to remove?
The "easy" answer to this is that humanity was given all the tools necessary to determine the good and to act upon it, but was also given free will to discard those tools if they wanted to. From the "Life = Test" view of the world, the whole point of your mortal life is to prove what kind of person you are and either earn your way into heaven or fail to do so. Only the ability to discard the intrinsic moral rules God set down allows you to potentiality to screw up and not get into heaven.

Afrobean 01-4-2009 12:02 PM

Re: Morality.
 
Is being morally only to get into Heaven truly moral though?

I mean, if a person is a terrible person, but behaves morally because they believe it to be their only way into Heaven... would that person be morally right?

It seems to me that a person like that is lying to themselves... and this god who is all powerful, what's the point of the supposed test? He is not bound by time or space, he knows what sort of person we are, what kind of moral ideals we'll hold. Why does the test need to play out?

devonin 01-4-2009 12:12 PM

Re: Morality.
 
Quote:

I mean, if a person is a terrible person, but behaves morally because they believe it to be their only way into Heaven... would that person be morally right?
Pascal says yes, but I find it hard to believe that someone would propose trying to fool a being considered to be omniscient.

Quote:

He is not bound by time or space, he knows what sort of person we are, what kind of moral ideals we'll hold. Why does the test need to play out?
Well, this is where I point out that despite the fact that God is assumed to be omniscient, there are some logical issues with omniscience and free will interacting.

I can explain the logical process to anyone who doesn't see it but basically, either we have no free will, or God is not in fact omniscient. And since whether we have free will or not, we have an incredibly persistant impression of free will, I'm more inclined to conclude that God is not omniscient, and that the test is actually a test and needs to play out because God does not know what the outcome will be.

Afrobean 01-4-2009 12:24 PM

Re: Morality.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 2942116)
Pascal says yes, but I find it hard to believe that someone would propose trying to fool a being considered to be omniscient.

Right, but that's exactly what someone suggests when they say that morality is driven by religion. "I behave morally because religion says to." Is a person who does this truly a moral person then? Or are they just lying to themselves because they fear what lies for them when they die? What's the point of a religion telling you to behave morally if one may go against their nature and try to fool an all-knowing god? Feigning morality is not truly moral.

Quote:

Well, this is where I point out that despite the fact that God is assumed to be omniscient, there are some logical issues with omniscience and free will interacting.
See, that's the problem. You can't think logically about this stuff.

:|

Quote:

I can explain the logical process to anyone who doesn't see it but basically, either we have no free will, or God is not in fact omniscient. And since whether we have free will or not, we have an incredibly persistant impression of free will, I'm more inclined to conclude that God is not omniscient, and that the test is actually a test and needs to play out because God does not know what the outcome will be.
I'd rather like to think that God would be truly all-powerful, but is simply choosing to not interfere. If left to our own devices, we'd be truly free willed, but if this god is truly all-powerful, he could do things if he wanted to.

And since he is not bound by time or space, he can just observe us in the future. Think 4th dimensionally. While we're just being born, he could skip ahead to the future and look at what we've done with our lives, then go back in time and pass judgment on us for things we hadn't yet done. He's ****ing God. He can time travel, bro.

devonin 01-4-2009 12:35 PM

Re: Morality.
 
Yes...this is why I'm saying that free will and omniscience don't go together...

Afrobean 01-4-2009 12:53 PM

Re: Morality.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 2942133)
Yes...this is why I'm saying that free will and omniscience don't go together...

yeah but if he's got all powers

then one of his powers is inaction

He can choose to do nothing. In choosing to do nothing, he allows free will to emerge.

devonin 01-4-2009 12:55 PM

Re: Morality.
 
All powers is omnipotence, not omniscience.

Omnipotence is all on its own a contradiction in terms, and it absolutely can't go together with omniscience, let alone omniscience and human free will.

dore 01-4-2009 05:10 PM

Re: Morality.
 
If we truly have free will, then we could do something completely random and unpredictable. If God did not know this beforehand (without looking ahead in time) then he is not truly omniscient. He could look ahead to the future and make inferences of the effect based on the cause but that's not omniscience, that's critical analysis.

devonin 01-4-2009 08:46 PM

Re: Morality.
 
Quote:

then we could do something completely random and unpredictable
Not necessarily. Free choice doesn't have to mean free choice among a full infinte variety of choices. I can't choose to fly, or to grow a third arm, we're still restricted by the laws of causality and science.

Free will and predictability aren't incompatible, knowing someone well enough I can make pretty ready predictions with a high degree of success, as to what action they will take given a certain set of circumstances. But yes, they -could- make a conscious choice to defy expectations and do something unpredictable.

dore 01-4-2009 09:09 PM

Re: Morality.
 
Yeah I just meant something completely out of character, for example, me grabbing a knife right now and stabbing my mom. I would obviously never do that if you knew me, yet I still have the ability to decide to do that at any moment.

I wasn't exactly clear with my syntax but I meant something achievable but out-of-character and unexpected.

Seefu Sefirosu 01-5-2009 05:46 AM

Re: Morality.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dore (Post 2942801)
Yeah I just meant something completely out of character, for example, me grabbing a knife right now and stabbing my mom. I would obviously never do that if you knew me, yet I still have the ability to decide to do that at any moment.

I wasn't exactly clear with my syntax but I meant something achievable but out-of-character and unexpected.

Oh, but watch out, -God- is watching!

He already apparently knows whether or not you'll do that, and then whether or not, if you end up doing it, you pray for forgiveness, and mean it, and get forgiven.

Etc.

This would be a prime example of why Intelligent Design is not a logical theory.

EDIT: Not the point of the topic, though, sorry. I keep wanting to engage in religious discussion. Back on point...

Assuming Intelligent Design is valid (just for this post), God is a pretty immoral dude, then. He know who's gonna kill who, knew Hitler was gonna go after some Jews, etc., and he jsut let it play out. It's like putting all of the kids in the sandbox and just walking away for eternity until you feel like coming back and doing something.

devonin 01-5-2009 09:50 AM

Re: Morality.
 
Quote:

God is a pretty immoral dude, then. He know who's gonna kill who, knew Hitler was gonna go after some Jews, etc., and he jsut let it play out.
God set up the list of rules, said "Here they are, follow them and you go to heaven, don't follow them and you don't. Go."

If the purpose of existance is a TEST, then how is it immoral to allow the test to follow through? What would be immoral would be if God promised us to let us use our free will and then constantly meddled and modified and interfered.

dore 01-5-2009 03:25 PM

Re: Morality.
 
Seefu, way to completely ignore the point of every post on this page.

jimcwx 01-5-2009 04:01 PM

Re: Morality.
 
Hmm... morality... i don't think there's such thing. i believe the world is just a whole lot of emptiness, there are only our instinctive, constant, unceasing struggle for existance. Only power, strength and survival matter. Might is right;eat or be eaten.

devonin 01-5-2009 09:04 PM

Re: Morality.
 
So you are 100% okay, if I can manage to pull it off, with my beating you half to death, imprisoning you and making you toil to my benefit?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:50 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution