Christians for a Moral America ~gag~ is attacking Peter Jackson's Hobbit

[Ali]

I have no belief in morality.
I suggest that governments need to enforce laws required for a functional society not a moral one.
A society that steals from each other, causes much disruption and conflict and therefore is not functional. Morality has nothing to do with it.

If a government tries to impose a morality code purely for moral reasons then they are infringing on someone's rights without being able to justify in a way that these people could understand or agree with the infringment, this is oppression and causes conflict and hence is counter to a functioning society.

To the bolded - what do you mean?  Do you think that all actions are morally neutral?

I just don't necessarily think you can separate function from morality.  I agree that stealing (for example) causes disruption and conflict - but why?  For the same reason that I would call it "immoral" - because it hurts people.  So maybe we're arguing semantics here?  Like what I would call "immoral", you would call "dysfunctional", but at the root of it, we are talking about the same thing?

[Sandra Craft]

For example, do you consider stealing to be a moral issue?  If so, are you against laws against stealing?  And so on for murder, rape, assault, fraud most of the stuff that is currently illegal.

To me, that these are moral issues is co-incidental to the fact that they're also issues of protecting persons and property, which is what the law is concerned with.  The law does not (or should not) attempt to enforce morality but sometimes legal protection does overlap with morality.

[Stevil]

To the bolded - what do you mean?  Do you think that all actions are morally neutral?

Yes. Morality is a human made concept. There is no objective morality, only subjective, therefore  you cannot point to acts on grounds of morality as no two persons have exactly the same set of morals.

I just don't necessarily think you can separate function from morality.  I agree that stealing (for example) causes disruption and conflict - but why?  For the same reason that I would call it "immoral" - because it hurts people.  So maybe we're arguing semantics here?  Like what I would call "immoral", you would call "dysfunctional", but at the root of it, we are talking about the same thing?

If you try to use the term "morality" with regards to anything other than yourself you will always get into trouble, everyone will argue about what the definitive list of morals is. If you open up government to using morality as grounds for imposing law then certain groups will have the philosophical grounds to impose their morality on others. If we keep government's responsibility to a functional society then we overcome these problems.

[Davin]

Yes. Morality is a human made concept. There is no objective morality, only subjective, therefore  you cannot point to acts on grounds of morality as no two persons have exactly the same set of morals.

I agree that no two people have the same set of morals, but not having a matching set, doesn't mean that no one has matching pieces. The majority of people have very similar morals about most of the big things, so one can point to actions on the grounds of morality as many people have the same morals.

When discussing which actions are acceptable or not, people don't need to compare their entire set to see if everything matches in order to have a useful discussion, they just need to talk about one thing at a time.

[Ali]

If you try to use the term "morality" with regards to anything other than yourself you will always get into trouble, everyone will argue about what the definitive list of morals is. If you open up government to using morality as grounds for imposing law then certain groups will have the philosophical grounds to impose their morality on others. If we keep government's responsibility to a functional society then we overcome these problems.

I tend to think of "morality" less as a list of do's and don'ts, and more as a function for figuring out what is the right thing to do in a given situation.

What I mean by that is that I don't actually have a set in stone list of things that I absolutely would never do and things that I absolutely would do.  Life is way more complicated than that.  If you ask me "Would you steal from somebody?"  my first answer is "no."  If you say "Well what if your son was starving and you didn't have any other way to get him food than to steal it?" my answer changes to "yes."  Same with killing.  If you ask "Would you kill somebody?" my first answer is "of course not!"  If you say "what if that was the only way to save yourself, or better yet, your son?" my answer changes to "Probably for myself, definitely for my son."  My version of morality (and most people's I think) is not a set of stone tablets with engraved commands that never change. 

As such, I think that my "morality" is pretty close to your "functionality" - because the only "morality" that I would want the government to enforce is the simple rule of "don't tread on other people's rights."  In other words, don't hurt other people, don't take their stuff, et cetera.  It's a function, more than a list.  So again, I think we're basically using different words to describe the same idea, only I don't shy away from terms like "morals" and "ethics."

[Sweetdeath]

I think morality is just as vague of a term as table manners. Everyone has different standards!
I agree with Ali. Nothing is set in stone, because any situation can change at any point. It's like the whole parents judging another parents because Lacey got pregnant because she was an idiot, but then their own son gets a young teen preganant. suddenly, they are in the same boat.

I do use the whole killing is not okay except in self defense too. I mean , who knows? I would do anything for gf. What if she was being being stalked and (sadly--as in most cases) the police cannot do anything until the stalker attacks? You better believe i'll take actions into my own hands to protect her.

My world is gray. This is the main reason I am atheist. I know there are much more than to sides, and everyone's tale differs.
sorry for kinda minirant. XD

[Stevil]

I tend to think of "morality" less as a list of do's and don'ts, and more as a function for figuring out what is the right thing to do in a given situation.

What I mean by that is that I don't actually have a set in stone list of things that I absolutely would never do and things that I absolutely would do.  Life is way more complicated than that.  If you ask me "Would you steal from somebody?"  my first answer is "no."  If you say "Well what if your son was starving and you didn't have any other way to get him food than to steal it?" my answer changes to "yes."  Same with killing. 

It sounds to me that you have a personal set of "values". We need these if we want to be able to make decisions quickly. We don't want to go into the lengthy process of evaluating every situation thoroughly, this would be painful and crippling.

So again, I think we're basically using different words to describe the same idea, only I don't shy away from terms like "morals" and "ethics."

I don't mean to keep harping on in this discussion, hopefully you are finding it interesting to try and understand my position/thoughts rather than feeling that you are defending your own ideas against my attack on you. We can agree to disagree.

But, my thoughts are that the term "morals" is a loaded term which falls into the hands of the theists. Theism has been around for thousands of years and has had a major influence on the language we use. Influencing the definition of our words and the colloquial terms that we use. I feel the words "morals", "immoral", "morality" go beyond a personal set of values and imply a judgment that one uses to view other's action and hence into the realm of defining law.
It implies a common set, an objective morality, which is a theistic theme and in my opinion leads to oppression and conflict. It implies a universal, unchanging truth which polarises situations rather than giving people the room to assess situations based on the complex merits that make up that situation.

Why is it that some laws seem to adhere to a morality standard e.g. don't kill, don't steal but some of the moral code is not supported by law e.g. adultery? Do you think it is immoral to cheat on your partner? Do you think government should get involved and introduce law to support all morality?
Then maybe we need a qualifier on top of the word morality, functional society morality, or personal circumstantial morality etc. This seems to be getting overly complex just to try and keep using the word "moral". I feel we are better to cast it away, it is a nonsensical theistic term.

[Ali]

I don't mean to keep harping on in this discussion, hopefully you are finding it interesting to try and understand my position/thoughts rather than feeling that you are defending your own ideas against my attack on you. We can agree to disagree.

But, my thoughts are that the term "morals" is a loaded term which falls into the hands of the theists. Theism has been around for thousands of years and has had a major influence on the language we use. Influencing the definition of our words and the colloquial terms that we use. I feel the words "morals", "immoral", "morality" go beyond a personal set of values and imply a judgment that one uses to view other's action and hence into the realm of defining law.
It implies a common set, an objective morality, which is a theistic theme and in my opinion leads to oppression and conflict. It implies a universal, unchanging truth which polarises situations rather than giving people the room to assess situations based on the complex merits that make up that situation.

Why is it that some laws seem to adhere to a morality standard e.g. don't kill, don't steal but some of the moral code is not supported by law e.g. adultery? Do you think it is immoral to cheat on your partner? Do you think government should get involved and introduce law to support all morality?
Then maybe we need a qualifier on top of the word morality, functional society morality, or personal circumstantial morality etc. This seems to be getting overly complex just to try and keep using the word "moral". I feel we are better to cast it away, it is a nonsensical theistic term.

To the bolded, oh no!   I don't feel attacked at all!  I have thoroughly enjoyed discussing this with you, and thought that everything that you've said has been really smart and thought provoking.  You have no idea how starved I am for conversations /debates about things like this. 

You make some great points about the term "moral" but I guess my question is – if we remove the term "moral" – what do we use in its place? 

I think it's human nature to judge actions as being "right" or "wrong" – and I don't know if we should necessarily discard the idea that there is a "right" and a "wrong".  I can certainly agree that when it comes to the law, there need to be lines drawn between what is "wrong" (such as cheating on your spouse) and what is "illegal."  But aside from the law, I guess I feel uncomfortable with the notion that all actions are neutral.  If all actions truly are neutral, how do we decide how to treat each other and ourselves?  Of course I mean this aside from religious rulings – I'm talking about personal and cultural morality now.  I don't need a book or a preacher to tell me what I think is right or wrong, but I do need *some* (internalized) system to help me make decisions.

[Stevil]

To the bolded, oh no!   I don't feel attacked at all!  I have thoroughly enjoyed discussing this with you, and thought that everything that you've said has been really smart and thought provoking.  You have no idea how starved I am for conversations /debates about things like this.

Great, I get a horrible feeling sometimes that I may have cornered an opponent into a reluctant argument.

You make some great points about the term "moral" but I guess my question is – if we remove the term "moral" – what do we use in its place? 

My preference would be "personal values". It makes it clear that these are your's and apply to you only.
With an adherence to morals it is all to easy to be judgmental of others.

I think it's human nature to judge actions as being "right" or "wrong"

hehehe, "right" and "wrong" are theistic terms lol
There is no such thing as objective right and objective wrong.

But aside from the law, I guess I feel uncomfortable with the notion that all actions are neutral.  If all actions truly are neutral, how do we decide how to treat each other and ourselves?

Very good question.
Being amoral doesn't mean that you are apathetic. You could consider basing your stance on well considered, reasoned logic and compassion. You could realise that lying to people builds up a reputation for yourself of not being trustworthy, this may make it difficult to get people to confide in you or to go into partnership in ventures or to rely on you for favours etc.
If you value community as being important then you could realise that the society that you live in is a community to which you belong. Your intelligence could make you come to the realisation that certain rules (laws) of society are necessary for a functioning society, you could also realise that as part of a community it is important act above the law and take on additional optional rules (personal values) to treat other members with respect, that your own actions may influence or inspire other community members to act the same way. It isn't too hard to realise that an inclusive society where each person respects each other, and the diversity that comes with having many respected individuals is a beneficial state of society. The golden rule is a perfect personal value to adopt, to help guide you in your endeavors to be a respected member of society.