I don't believe in ethics or morality.

[Stevil]

children learn right and wrong before they can explain or understand it, it is a societal prerequisite

Parents teach their children the concept of right and wrong and generally provide consequences e.g. naughty corner, grounding etc. This is a necessary survival process because with inexperience and an inability to think ahead a child cannot utilise reasoned thought.

As children mature they start to challenge this concept of authoritative morality and instead replace it with reasoned thought, this is an ongoing process which religion tries to replace. It wants people to look towards the religion for authoritative morality rather than inward towards reasoned thought.

lack of  emotion is related to true amoralism. You dont feel right and wrong, irrespective of what you believe if you are amoral, close relative of psychopath.

i dont want to link amorality with psychopathy, but the ones I met fitted the bill and had serious problems with socialising in everyday life

I currently disagree with this, but would probably need to read the book to hear the points.
Emotionalism is a poor gauge of morality. This is one of the reasons why many people are so opposed to homosexuality, because it feels very wrong for many people, therefore it must be wrong, therefore homosexuals are perverted and evil, therefore there needs to be laws against it. This is a dangerous and oppressive path to take.

[statichaos]

I currently disagree with this, but would probably need to read the book to hear the points.
Emotionalism is a poor gauge of morality. This is one of the reasons why many people are so opposed to homosexuality, because it feels very wrong for many people, therefore it must be wrong, therefore homosexuals are perverted and evil, therefore there needs to be laws against it. This is a dangerous and oppressive path to take.

While I disagree with much of what you've stated in this thread, I have to say that this is an excellent point.

[Davin]

apart from the excellent response about macintyre,  virtue and uncle Telis, a nice book by albert camus "the Stranger" illustrates how lack of  emotion is related to true amoralism. You dont feel right and wrong, irrespective of what you believe if you are amoral, close relative of psychopath.

i dont want to link amorality with psychopathy, but the ones I met fitted the bill and had serious problems with socialising in everyday life

Psychopaths often feel very strong emotions, what psychopaths lack is empathy and/or not considering other people as people. Just a common misconception I don't like being repeated, given my general lack of emotions.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Ecurb, what you explain as morality, I could easily explain as something else.

Think of it this way, if you obey the government law are you deemed as a moral person or simply a law abiding person?
It seems that we think of moral decisions as being ones that do not have positive consequences to the person making the decision, and hence are made due to moral reasons rather than through self interest. This disqualifies all Christian morals for the Christian, and hence they are Christian law rather than morals.

I'm not arguing for any particular Christian standard of morals or ethics.  I'm simply saying that such things as morals and ethics exist, whether or not you accept them or believe in them.  They are concepts, but, to respond to Tank, they also have concrete forms.  For example, in the legal profession, there are codes of professional responsibility, which are ethical requirements. Those codes are in formal, written form, and apply in some fashion to attorneys, depending upon the jurisdiction.  Then there are established procedures to enforce those ethical norms, and there are various bodies constituted to carry out these procedures, whether they be grievance committees or something similar. Like government, there is an abstract concept, but there is also a tangible representation of the concept in the form of ethical rules and enforcement procedures.

The same may be said of morals in certain situations.  For example, a church or social organization may have certain rules of behavior and a method for enforcing them among members.  So, to deny their existence, even their substantive existence, seems to be an exercise in futility.

Now, if you mean to say "I don't think we should have morals or ethics," then we are just arguing about terms. You can call them something else, but in the end, there are rules and standards of behavior - in society, in families, in organizations – that are expected to be conformed with, and which are enforced, formally or informally, by various means.  This exists among human beings, and to say you don't believe in it becomes sort of a meaningless statement.

[Stevil]

I disagree Ecurb.

Concepts are conceptual, they do not denote existence.
There is a concept of god. But this does not mean that god exists.
Same for morality, there is a concept of morality but this does not mean that morality exists.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

I disagree Ecurb.

Concepts are conceptual, they do not denote existence.
There is a concept of god. But this does not mean that god exists.
Same for morality, there is a concept of morality but this does not mean that morality exists.

But you can have concepts and you can also have tangible expressions of those concepts.  Surely you accept that the tangible expressions exist.  "1" is an abstract concept, but when I typed it on this post, I gave it a tangible expression.  The expression now exists, and also gives substance (existence) to the concept.

[statichaos]

I disagree Ecurb.

Concepts are conceptual, they do not denote existence.
There is a concept of god. But this does not mean that god exists.
Same for morality, there is a concept of morality but this does not mean that morality exists.

But you can have concepts and you can also have tangible expressions of those concepts.  Surely you accept that the tangible expressions exist.  "1" is an abstract concept, but when I typed it on this post, I gave it a tangible expression.  The expression now exists, and also gives substance (existence) to the concept.

Forgive me if I'm oversimplifying, but isn't that like saying that a painting of a pink unicorn means that pink unicorns have an objective existence?

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Forgive me if I'm oversimplifying, but isn't that like saying that a painting of a pink unicorn means that pink unicorns have an objective existence?

Once the concept, whatever it is, is given tangible expression, then it can be better evaluated as to whether or not it exists.  You can paint a pink unicorn, and at least then I know what you are talking about when you claim that it exists.  I'll ask for evidence, and you won't provide any, so I'll dismiss it.

With ethics, one tangible expression is the various written codes that govern professional behavior.  Once those are written, we can evaluate the associated abstract concept, and, in fact, we see that various professions are, in fact, ruled by something referred to as "ethics."  It may be man-made, and it may not be totally objective, but that concept exists as a guiding force in professional behavior.  I don't see any benefit in denying that professional ethics exists.  People encounter it daily.  In fact, to say it doesn't exist is nonsensical.  

I'm not saying that ALL concepts can be given actual existence by tangibly expressing them, but by such expressions they can be evaluated as concepts.  Ethics and morality are memes that govern human behavior – they exist.

[statichaos]

Forgive me if I'm oversimplifying, but isn't that like saying that a painting of a pink unicorn means that pink unicorns have an objective existence?

Once the concept, whatever it is, is given tangible expression, then it can be better evaluated as to whether or not it exists.  You can paint a pink unicorn, and at least then I know what you are talking about when you claim that it exists.  I'll ask for evidence, and you won't provide any, so I'll dismiss it.

With ethics, one tangible expression is the various written codes that govern professional behavior.  Once those are written, we can evaluate the associated abstract concept, and, in fact, we see that various professions are, in fact, ruled by something referred to as "ethics."  It may be man-made, and it may not be totally objective, but that concept exists as a guiding force in professional behavior.  I don't see any benefit in denying that professional ethics exists.  People encounter it daily.  In fact, to say it doesn't exist is nonsensical.  

I'm not saying that ALL concepts can be given actual existence by tangibly expressing them, but by such expressions they can be evaluated as concepts.  Ethics and morality are memes that govern human behavior – they exist.

Okay, but that's different from stating that there is an objective set of ethics or morality in existence in the universe, which is what I took the OP to refer to.  Yes, people act by moral and ethical codes that have been written down, and in that case there are such things as morals and ethics, and it would go against direct observation to say otherwise.  It reminds me of this line from Death in Terry Pratchett's Hogfather

Then take the universe and grind it down to the finest powder, and sieve it through the finest sieve, and then show me one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy. And yet, you try to act as if there is some ideal order in the world. As if there is some, some rightness in the universe, by which it may be judged.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Okay, but that's different from stating that there is an objective set of ethics or morality in existence in the universe, which is what I took the OP to refer to. 

On the basis of several of his posts, I took him to be saying more than that, something like morality itself did not exist.  But maybe I misunderstood him.

[statichaos]

Okay, but that's different from stating that there is an objective set of ethics or morality in existence in the universe, which is what I took the OP to refer to. 

On the basis of several of his posts, I took him to be saying more than that, something like morality itself did not exist.  But maybe I misunderstood him.

Or maybe I did.  I seem to misunderstand a lot of people, which is why I ask so many questions.

[Stevil]

On the basis of several of his posts, I took him to be saying more than that, something like morality itself did not exist.  But maybe I misunderstood him.

That is correct. I don't believe that morality exists (regardless of objective or subjective), other than being a human made concept.

Subjective morality, I feel is an oxymoron and worthless with regards to functional use.

[statichaos]

On the basis of several of his posts, I took him to be saying more than that, something like morality itself did not exist.  But maybe I misunderstood him.

That is correct. I don't believe that morality exists (regardless of objective or subjective), other than being a human made concept.

Subjective morality, I feel is an oxymoron and worthless with regards to functional use.

Interesting.  I'd consider "subjective" to be a useless modifier, since my belief is that morality is subjective in nature.  It's actually a bit more complicated than that in my personal belief system, but that description should do for now.  Indeed, I believe that the only way to discuss morality is as a subjective matter, much as one would discuss art.

[The Magic Pudding]

It reminds me of this line from Death in Terry Pratchett's Hogfather

Then take the universe and grind it down to the finest powder, and sieve it through the finest sieve, and then show me one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy. And yet, you try to act as if there is some ideal order in the world. As if there is some, some rightness in the universe, by which it may be judged.

I started a thread based on that, it didn't go very far though.

That is correct. I don't believe that morality exists (regardless of objective or subjective), other than being a human made concept.

Subjective morality, I feel is an oxymoron and worthless with regards to functional use.

I don't think it's worthless just because we make it up.  Mathematics and art are abstractions but still useful.  Ecurb illustrated how ethics within the legal profession is useful, if there'd been a bit more in the financial industry it could have saved us much strife.  People feel things are wrong and they find agreement and share an idea of what's just.  There are problems, oppression by the majority, inflexible ancient religious laws, prejudice or bastardry (malicious or cruel behaviour, this may not be a word used in international English).  It's a messy business, application of one principle conflicts with another but it's the only system we have.  Just as a bad law doesn't justify giving up on all law morality is indispensable, well I don't want it dispensed with anyway.  Guidelines help to prevent conflict, conflict bad.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Or maybe I did.  I seem to misunderstand a lot of people,

It's a common ailment, from which we all suffer.  That's why we continue to talk, to see if there is some breach in the wall that allows us to meet face-to-face and understand.