I don't believe in ethics or morality.

[Stevil]

At any given frame of events, a human consensus can be reached as to the right and wrong between 2 personal small minded perspectives.

I am not understanding this.
If your common goal is to have a moral society then
if person A says XYZ is moral but person b says XYZ is immoral hence you have a difference of opinion.
Now to reach a consensus they need to go into a debate.
Person A reiterates that XYZ is moral but person B reiterates that XYZ is immoral, again you have a difference of opinion.

What more can they provide into the debate?
Let's say Person A believes in Thor and believes that Thor thinks XYZ is moral therefore XYZ is moral, but person B is a free thinker and has put much thought into the matter, person B doesn't believe in Thor and hence goes on own opinion and again states that XYZ is immoral, again strangely we have a difference of opinion.

How, when we base society on morals can we come to a consensus?  Is it based on who is in power at the time? So if person B gets into power they have every right to make XYZ illegal and hence person A cannot legally perform XYZ because person B doesn't like it.

[Stevil]

I agree completely pytheas. There's a difference between public policy and just expressing personal beliefs. I like to think that empirical facts are what ultimately are capable of breaking the stalemate between any two individual's moral opinions.

I still don't understand how you can have empirical facts with regards to morality, which is a make believe concept.
Can you please explain to me the empirical facts that lead to polygamy being immoral or moral?

[Amicale]

I agree completely pytheas. There's a difference between public policy and just expressing personal beliefs. I like to think that empirical facts are what ultimately are capable of breaking the stalemate between any two individual's moral opinions.

I still don't understand how you can have empirical facts with regards to morality, which is a make believe concept.
Can you please explain to me the empirical facts that lead to polygamy being immoral or moral?

I know this was addressed to someone else, but can I please have a go at it?

For Polygamy or for any other human relationship, I'd say it was a moral one if it was based on mutual consent, a complete absence of coercion, and an agreement between the parties to treat one another with basic respect -- ie, listening to one another, treating one another decently, etc. The actual number of people in the relationship isn't what makes it moral or immoral. Instead, I would say it's how the people are treated in the relationship that makes it moral or immoral. Obviously, it should go without saying that only adults should be with adults; otherwise, the mutual consent is taken away, coercion occurs, and there would be no respect, as a child would be taken advantage of.

In terms of morality within another group -- This may be too much information, but when it comes to adult relationships, even the BDSM community has the understanding that while their 'play' might be rough, the actual relationships they enter into are mutually consenting, beneficial ones, where nobody should be coerced against their will, and the rules that partners establish will be respected, otherwise it's a dealbreaker. I brought up the BDSM community because when it comes to sexual practice, that's often a community that gets a lot of flak for being 'immoral', simply on the stereotypes people have of them.

[Stevil]

For Polygamy or for any other human relationship, I'd say it was a moral one if it was based on mutual consent, a complete absence of coercion, and an agreement between the parties to treat one another with basic respect.

Thanks Amicale.

Some question for you:
1. Do you think there is an objective definition of morality?
2. Do you think if questioned "Define morality?" everyone would say something like "actions based on mutual consent, a complete absence of coercion, and an agreement between the parties to treat one another with basic respect"?
3. Would you be happy in having a specific goal presented by your government to create a society where "actions based on mutual consent, a complete absence of coercion, and an agreement between the parties to treat one another with basic respect"
4. Do you think this explicit goal (3 above) would be more clear to each and every society member than simply a government which presented a goal of having a moral society?

I like this definition, it sounds fair. It is not what I personally would base law on, but it seems like a reasonable personal value, somewhat along the lines of the golden rule.

Some more questions for you:
5. If an adult son wants to have sex with his mother and they are both mutually consenting without coercion and have an agreement to treat one another with respect, would you consider this moral?
6. If a depressed person asks another person to kill them and they are both mutually consenting without coercion and have an agreement to to treat one another with respect, would you consider this moral?

[Amicale]

Sorry, I didn't feel like messing with quotes this late.   If I don't make much sense, I apologize, and will try again tomorrow.

Some question for you:
1. Do you think there is an objective definition of morality?

No, I don't. I believe morality exists, but it's subjective to each of us. That doesn't mean that there are necessarily a billion different versions of morality, though. A lot of us hold the same basic ones, and a lot of us base ours on some form of the golden rule. Not everyone does, and it varies from culture to culture, but generally people realize that if they want to be treated kindly and with respect, it's a good idea to do the same for others.

2. Do you think if questioned "Define morality?" everyone would say something like "actions based on mutual consent, a complete absence of coercion, and an agreement between the parties to treat one another with basic respect"?

No, not necessarily. When I said that, I was referring specifically to adult relationships, since you'd brought up polygamy. In the context of physical/emotional relationships though, those actions seem to be moral enough since their premise is to make sure everyone has a say, nobody's forced into anything, and everyone's treated decently. In moral situations that didn't involve personal relationships (ie, should I give my seat up to an old lady on the bus?) talking about mutual consent wouldn't make any sense, although treating another human being with basic respect would still hold.

3. Would you be happy in having a specific goal presented by your government to create a society where "actions based on mutual consent, a complete absence of coercion, and an agreement between the parties to treat one another with basic respect"

As my comments only applied to adult relationships, no, I don't think I'd bring up that goal to the government. What I might bring forward is a petition to create a society where humans willingly treated one another with basic respect, but that would be a wish or desire, rather than a demand. You can't coerce somebody into respecting someone else, after all, and you can't force them. I'd just prefer to live in a society where people treat me decently, and I treat them decently... but I understand that although that's my overall goal, sometimes I utterly fail at it, and sometimes others fail at it, too.

4. Do you think this explicit goal (3 above) would be more clear to each and every society member than simply a government which presented a goal of having a moral society?

I think I prettymuch answered this, but no, it wouldn't necessarily be clear to everyone what I meant. Now, if I came up with a goal that simply said "please try to treat others with kindness and be helpful and decent to them, so that you can also hope to be treated the same way", maybe that would be clear to a lot of people. The goal breaks down when people decide they want to opt out of it. Say someone says 'screw that goal, I'm going to go punch Amicale in the face just because I can" -- well, do I still smile sweetly at them and let them punch me because it'd be nice of me? Of course not. That's why I'm more for situational ethics, rather than anything even remotely approaching absolute morals or ethics.


Some more questions for you:
5. If an adult son wants to have sex with his mother and they are both mutually consenting without coercion and have an agreement to treat one another with respect, would you consider this moral?

For this question, I'll leave the knee-jerk ick factor aside. I wouldn't consider this 'moral', because I'd question whether it could even possibly be considered free of coercion. On a very deep level, the power dynamic between these two individuals is not that of equals. One raised the other. Even if they appear to treat one another as friends, there is still a level of difference between them that will always exist. It also probably couldn't be mutually consenting, because even if they both agreed to the act, there'd still be the power differences as well as societal pressure possibly influencing one or both of them to regret the action, let alone the biological ramifications. But I'll play devil's advocate, and say 'OK, how about an adult brother and sister then?' and I'd say very much the same thing -- we don't live in a bubble, if an adult brother and sister wanted to enter into this sort of relationship, there is still possible coercion, and there's a lack of respect for the possible outcomes of that partnership -- namely a child with potential severe deformities. There's also the very real possibility that by them engaging in this act, one or both of them knows how badly society would treat one or both of them, were others to ever find out. I obviously don't have my argument here worded very precisely and I'm sure you can find loopholes.... but do you at least understand my thought process?

6. If a depressed person asks another person to kill them and they are both mutually consenting without coercion and have an agreement to to treat one another with respect, would you consider this moral?

Yes, for the most part***(see below). Assisted suicide is practiced across the world, and it's legal in at least one or two countries that I can think of. The only thing I would be cautious of is that when someone is actually depressed, consent to an action can drop staggeringly because the brain is chemically impaired. Cognition is damaged, and the capability someone may have to use their rational powers is diminished. In a sense, the depression itself coerces you, NOT the other person per se. So before anyone kills themselves, or asks someone else to kill them and the action is completed, I would say it would be necessary to have non-involved third parties go over all the options with the depressed person who wants to end their life -- in a way, act as an aid to their rationality, to assist them because theirs might be currently faulty. If counselling, drug therapy, other treatments etc etc are of no help and no use to someone and they truly come to an INFORMED decision, then I believe that their life is their own, and nobody can tell them what to ultimately do with it.

***Of course, one main very serious problem someone seeking to kill themselves is going to face is how their family and friends will react to their choice. If they understand that they're going to cause intense pain and sorrow, but choose that action anyhow... *shrug* The action of killing yourself or having someone else kill you does not respect your family and loved ones in any way, assuming they also want you alive. That being said, say it was someone dying of a brutal form of cancer, or AIDS. While their loved ones might want them to stay alive and fight, there does come a point where someone's individual autonomy weighs heavier than the desires of others. If one of my loved ones was suffering badly and wanted to end it, I'd want to rule out simply aleviating the pain and suffering first, if that could be done... but failing that, I would understand the choice they wanted to make to end the pain. I strongly suspect I'd make such a choice myself.

[Stevil]

What I might bring forward is a petition to create a society where humans willingly treated one another with basic respect, but that would be a wish or desire, rather than a demand.

So you want people to have choice, you want to influence or convince rather than coerce.
If you were the government, what basis would you create law on?  It seems already evident to me that you would not base law on all of your own morals. So how do you decide which of your morals are to be placed into law and which of your morals are not to be placed into law?

"please try to treat others with kindness and be helpful and decent to them, so that you can also hope to be treated the same way"

This isn't what I would recognise as morality. This is instead a well reasoned statement that recognises social behavior, it recognises that our own actions have consequences on ourselves. You don't need any laws for this to come into play, no forced morality.
In a way this can show the positive side of being selfish. Treat others as you would like to be treated and hopefully others will return the gesture.
This works for the most part.
When it doesn't work, we are often shocked. Shocked when a person doesn't return the respect that we have given them. I think subconsciously we do have this expectation, and it is one of the driving forces on why we behave well to others in society. Not based on morality, but based on an expectation that if we treat people nicely then we will be treated nicely in return.

Say someone says 'screw that goal, I'm going to go punch Amicale in the face just because I can"

And the inhibitor to this behaviour IMHO is not that a person recognises that this is immoral behavior, but is because the person recognises that this behaviour will have consequences. Even without law it has consequences.
Amicale's husband, father, brother, cousins, friends, neighbors, community members, society will retaliate on this offender.
A society that stands up for each other, is more likely to be successful, stable and functional. They will naturally do this. They will naturally want a law to protect themselves and other society members (not from immoral behaviour, but from harmful behaviour).

I wouldn't consider this 'moral', because I'd question whether it could even possibly be considered free of coercion. On a very deep level, the power dynamic between these two individuals is not that of equals.

You are making many assumptions here. Personally I wouldn't create a law imposing a restriction on incest of adults. If adults want to do this, then that is their business, I don't see it as leading towards an unstable or dysfunctional society therefore I don't care, its none of my business what these people do. Let them make their own choices.
There was a 20/20 documentary about a daughter and Father in Australia that fell in love and had children together. The children weren't ostrich people. The father did not raise up the daughter. They did not "feel" that they were Father/daughter. They were literally strangers whom fell in love.
I thought it was quite romantic with a twist. I certainly wasn't about to judge them and I thought it odd that the police stepped in and made them promise not to have sex anymore. I didn't feel it was any of the police's business.

Assisted suicide is practiced across the world, and it's legal in at least one or two countries that I can think of. The only thing I would be cautious of is that when someone is actually depressed, consent to an action can drop staggeringly because the brain is chemically impaired.

I'm not so worried about impaired brain function here. The thing that bothers me is that the parents, spouse, friends, neighbors, community, society would see this potentially as a temporary issue with the depressed person. They would likely retaliate with force against the assisted suicide clinic. Society would become unsafe, unstable.

I am all for euthanasia of terminal people in constant pain, maybe even of people with degenerative disease like Alzheimer.
But there are also strong cases for assisted suicide of certain people, e.g. a good friend of mine had a girlfriend once, she was super depressed. She had been raped by her brothers when she was young and had never mentally got over it. She did kill herself. I think hers was a strong case where assisted suicide may have been reasonable.

[pytheas]

At any given frame of events, a human consensus can be reached as to the right and wrong between 2 personal small minded perspectives.

I am not understanding this.
If your common goal is to have a moral society then
if person A says XYZ is moral but person b says XYZ is immoral hence you have a difference of opinion.
Now to reach a consensus they need to go into a debate.
Person A reiterates that XYZ is moral but person B reiterates that XYZ is immoral, again you have a difference of opinion. What more can they provide into the debate?

No, obviously not between person A and person B. They have a debate, a difference of oppinion.
the human consensus is reached by the majority of the Observer judge, the outsider viewing portal that takes the whole frame with A and B inside it. Playing the judge solomon on A's and B's dispute requires COMMON SENSE which should be common.

Let's say Person A believes in Thor and believes that Thor thinks XYZ is moral therefore XYZ is moral, but person B is a free thinker and has put much thought into the matter, person B doesn't believe in Thor and hence goes on own opinion and again states that XYZ is immoral, again strangely we have a difference of opinion.?How, when we base society on morals can we come to a consensus?

STRICTLY IN THE ABSENCE OF THOR OR ANY OTHER IMAGINERY JUSTIFICATION

Is it based on who is in power at the time? So if person B gets into power they have every right to make XYZ illegal and hence person A cannot legally perform XYZ because person B doesn't like it.

disconnect legality from morals. one is for individuals the other is for societies. neither need supernatural justification and both can be drawn from human biology.
if we are to have a political policy debate, I agree there is no room for morality. the more free the better

Both ethics and morality are a modus operandi for individual justifications, rights and wrongs. An enlightened society has legal policies that do not contradict the sum mean of individual positions on any one issue. So policies is a scientific analytic observation testable operation, and ofcourse NOT MORAL. Moral and godly justifications have historically hidden and in present time hide social injustice and oppression. We have to do without it.

[Stevil]

If your common goal is to have a moral society then
if person A says XYZ is moral but person b says XYZ is immoral hence you have a difference of opinion.
Now to reach a consensus they need to go into a debate.
Person A reiterates that XYZ is moral but person B reiterates that XYZ is immoral, again you have a difference of opinion. What more can they provide into the debate?

No, obviously not between person A and person B. They have a debate, a difference of oppinion.
the human consensus is reached by the majority of the Observer judge, the outsider viewing portal that takes the whole frame with A and B inside it. Playing the judge solomon on A's and B's dispute requires COMMON SENSE which should be common.

But you will fall into the trap of majority rules. Therefore homosexuality, polygomy, prostitution, incest, euthanasia, stemcell research are against the law.

STRICTLY IN THE ABSENCE OF THOR OR ANY OTHER IMAGINERY JUSTIFICATION

But in some countries like USA, imaginary justification is in the minds of the majority. Shouldn't we convince them that law is for a stable and functional society and morale adherance is for their god to judge in the afterlife?

disconnect legality from morals. one is for individuals the other is for societies. neither need supernatural justification and both can be drawn from human biology.
if we are to have a political policy debate, I agree there is no room for morality. the more free the better

I am much more interested in how people's belief in morality manifests itself into law and hence causes oppression on certain people within society.
I don't care if an individual is shocked at my "immoral" actions, as long as they don't try to stop me.

Out of interest, what would you base law on? I have made my claim for a stable and functional society, no doubt yours would be different.

Both ethics and morality are a modus operandi for individual justifications, rights and wrongs.

Not for me, I have no belief in ethics or morality, I think they are imaginary constraints and hence I like to keep my justifications real.
Internally I ask myself, will this action result in danger for me or my loved ones.

Moral and godly justifications have historically hidden and in present time hide social injustice and oppression. We have to do without it.

Hmmmm, I agree with this completely, but you have been debating against me, so I am a little confused to hear you say this.

[pytheas]

But you will fall into the trap of majority rules. Therefore homosexuality, polygomy, prostitution, incest, euthanasia, stemcell research are against the law.

majority of who exactly?

[pytheas]

But you will fall into the trap of majority rules. Therefore homosexuality, polygomy, prostitution, incest, euthanasia, stemcell research are against the law.

majority of who exactly? anyone will not do we are not dealing with political democracy towards agendas of policies.
All your examples are private choice to act upon oneself, by the way. Any law is interfering
Majority of those that witness the same actual frame of A and B and their dispute
Let sailors be crew members of a ship, musicians for orchestras and gays for gay policies, druggies for drug policies, terminally ill and in pain people for euthanasia, polygamists-for they know any problems with polygamy- for polygamy and so on- incest has biological complications i would imagine. oedepus tragedy became famous because we relate to it. Tragedy it may be- let incestious people (and victims might i suspect) talk and decide their majority law...
Hang, drawn and quartered would be returning

law is for a stable and functional society is a moral position. To want it you think its good. Pleasure, hedonic reward mechanisms with emotional glue through memory flexing with logic,  form moral fibres.

You dont need to believe in your endothelial cells, but your blood cells use it and keep you ticking
if there is a difference between doing something you like and something you dont like, the machinery for moral paint is up and running.

morale adherance is for personal good conduct i.e. succesful, productive, enabling joining and intimate socializing, one can argue of societal progress

I am much more interested in the moralities who manifest themself into felt unspoken sense of right, of "better" and stay carefully out of law LOGIC but if scrutinised by logic, can hold the test, step firmly on bio-reality and hence prevent oppression on any people within society.

your claim for a stable and functional society, is a moral claim and its not yours you share it with most us monkeys, if we are truthful and unhurt, not damaged or in imbalance

you confusion is on the ettikete,of no opposition chasms, I am a "funny-weird" label of the same product

[Hector Valdez]

As interesting as this thread is, there seems to be a certain level of thick-headedness amongst philosophers about this sort of question. For example, "Good" can easily be defined if we understand that the word only exists in relation to some fixed concept that can, therefore, be compared with other concepts in a relative fashion. To elaborate, if I take the concept of driving a car very quickly, certain motor and engine parts can be ascribed the quality of "good", in that they are more effective in achieving the state of a fast-driven car.

So really, what all these arm-chair philosophers are worried about, is the question of how one is to live his or her life. I think we can all agree that there is no such thing as a one-size fits all approach to living life. But what might not be so obvious is that if you have chosen to pursue the question of what to do with one's life as a life pursuit in itself, then you are obviously lacking a centralized, fixed concept by which to measure actions in terms of "good" or "bad".

What does this mean? It means that to have a concept of what is good or bad, you must first have a picture of reality that is reasonably accurate. This is why people of the same religion find it so easy to agree on moral principles: They share a common reference point with which they experience and understand reality, a la, the universe.

Of course, the wish for an objective understanding of the universe has been going on for ages. Science might come closest to describing mathematically what the universe is, but it's not the only approach. Furthermore, to have a one-sized fits all approach to viewing reality is not only stupid, but amounts to imposing one view on others, even if they do not wish to hold that view. Of course, if you have the view that this is permissible, then you don't have a problem with it. But there's gonna be a lot of blood spilled.

[Stevil]

law is for a stable and functional society is a moral position.

No it is not a moral position.
It is not the right thing to do, nor is it a good thing to do.
It is neutral with regards to universal right and universal good.

There is no such thing as good and bad, right and wrong, certainly in a universal sense.

To want it you think its good.

I don't think it is good. I think it gives me the best chance to survive, certainly a better chance to survive than in a society which is governed and oppressed by someone's idea of morality.

If a rapist thinks it is good to rape, does that make it moral for them?

Let's point out a difference in my own personal values and that of my goal of a functional and stable society.
I am personally against having an affair. Why, because I might catch a disease and pass this onto my wife, I might get someone else pregnant and have to direct some of my families money to support this child, my wife would feel betrayed, my wife might leave me, my children would be impacted negatively if my wife and I split up. So in many ways I think this activity is bad. You might then incorrectly assume that I would label this as an immoral act.
Would I then think this "immoral" act ought to be outlawed and perpetrators sent to prison?

My answer is no, an affair is not immoral (there is no such thing), people can make their own choices as this does not affect me or society. Law does not need to get involved.

morale adherance is for personal good conduct i.e. succesful, productive, enabling joining and intimate socializing, one can argue of societal progress

Why not call it a personal value, that which you know is not hard and fast, not set in stone, but a guidline only, that which is personal to yourself and cannot be used to judge the conduct of others. Personal values are not dangerous or oppressive, morality is.

[Amicale]

Hey Stevil, when you say "people can make their own choices as this does not affect me or society. Law does not need to get involved." was this just in reference to having an affair? Or generally when it comes to the decisions we make?

I dunno, I think this is dangerous, if it applies to all the decisions we make. If someone decides to hurt a child, or attack them, I'd say that's wrong and the law needs to step right in pronto. For me, it really centers around two main ideas -- the giving of consent, and the mental/emotional ability to give consent.

If someone gives it, and is fully able to because their faculties are all intact and they're of the age where they can give it (ie, adult) that's one thing, and that's where I'd say sure, make your own choices, the law doesn't need to get involved when two consenting, 'with it' adults are concerned.

If the situation shifts and someone's being coerced, forced, abused, etc because they either can't give consent or don't know enough to refuse -- I think the law needs to step in pronto because someone's freedom and safety are being violated. It's not a matter so much of "this act is always good" and "this act is always bad", but the context I mentioned above. Does that make any sense?

[Stevil]

Hey Stevil, when you say "people can make their own choices as this does not affect me or society. Law does not need to get involved." was this just in reference to having an affair? Or generally when it comes to the decisions we make?

I was referring to the example specifically, but this does apply to everything else as well.

I dunno, I think this is dangerous, if it applies to all the decisions we make. If someone decides to hurt a child, or attack them, I'd say that's wrong and the law needs to step right in pronto. For me, it really centers around two main ideas -- the giving of consent, and the mental/emotional ability to give consent.

If someone is allowed to hurt someone else then I extrapolate that. Does this mean that they are allowed to hurt me or my children?
If someone decides to hurt gay children, and my children aren't gay, then can I turn a blind eye? No, because that sets a discrimination premise, then what stops them from creating a rule that they are allowed to hurt mixed race children? Then all of a sudden my children are at risk.
As members of a society we need to support and protect each other, this improves our own chances of survival.

[Amicale]

Hey Stevil, when you say "people can make their own choices as this does not affect me or society. Law does not need to get involved." was this just in reference to having an affair? Or generally when it comes to the decisions we make?

I was referring to the example specifically, but this does apply to everything else as well.

I dunno, I think this is dangerous, if it applies to all the decisions we make. If someone decides to hurt a child, or attack them, I'd say that's wrong and the law needs to step right in pronto. For me, it really centers around two main ideas -- the giving of consent, and the mental/emotional ability to give consent.

If someone is allowed to hurt someone else then I extrapolate that. Does this mean that they are allowed to hurt me or my children?
If someone decides to hurt gay children, and my children aren't gay, then can I turn a blind eye? No, because that sets a discrimination premise, then what stops them from creating a rule that they are allowed to hurt mixed race children? Then all of a sudden my children are at risk.
As members of a society we need to support and protect each other, this improves our own chances of survival.

OK, thanks for the clarification. I figured that's what you meant, but I decided to just talk for talking's sake. I do that, on occasion, when I'm trying to think something through.

And for sure, when we need to step up to protect others, we shouldn't just make it specific groups and discriminate based on our own pet concerns. We're all in this together. Through unity, strength, etc.

I totally agree with you that we need to support and protect one another. It definitely improves our chances of survival. Aside from the survival factor, it also bonds us as a community, makes life a lot more tolerable, a bit more joyful, and a bit more fun, to know that we live in a community that cares for us and will have our back, just as we'll have theirs.