Are Christian Morals Superior?

[technolud]

I still don.t really get it why you have to propose a basis for morality

This is a straw man argument.  MarkMcdaniel was not proposing a basis.  He was proposing a definition so we can at least agree on what we are talking about.

[En_Route]

Bit I don't have to label such violence as immoral to favour such a law.

So, is it only the sematics you have an issue with? 

No. Take my membership of HAF. There are rules here which are designed to make the forum function in a way that maximises the individual satisfaction that members derive from participating in it. I can approve of those rules as a means to an end which I share. However, I don't regard those rules as having any moral basis.

[En_Route]

I still don.t really get it why you have to propose a basis for morality

This is a straw man argument.  MarkMcdaniel was not proposing a basis.  He was proposing a definition so we can at least agree on what we are talking about.

I disagree. He was proposing a set of moral principles. The definition of morality is another matter entirely. It is a word with different shades of meaning. I would use it in the sense of a code of conduct which characterises certain actions as wrong and others as right and which holds these distinctions to be a matter of truth.

[technolud]

I would like to propose a working  definition of morality or at least immorality.

Markmcdaniel stated the above.  Sure looks like he's trying to propose a definition to me.  Don't see "basis" nowhere.

[En_Route]

I would like to propose a working  definition of morality or at least immorality.

Markmcdaniel stated the above.  Sure looks like he's trying to propose a definition to me.  Don't see "basis" nowhere.

That seems to have been what he intended to do but not what he actually did. He did not offer any definition of morality as such, he simply put forward what he thought should be the principles on which his idea of morality would be based viz. the idea of avoiding causing hurt to others. That is not a definition of morality, just one example of how you might go about establishing the ground rules for a particular moral code.  You could for example equally have a moral code which is premised on maximising the sum of human happiness or one based on the principle of The Golden Rules. These are not definitions of morality but competing versions of moral beliefs.  What they share is an attempt to distinguish between right and wrong by reference to some purportedly objective standard.

[Firebird]

En_route, I'm struggling a bit to understand what you object to. You don't seem to object to rules governing random violence like I used, or even the HAF rules, yet you still complain of the use of a definition of morality. What's a rule/law in use today in the Western world that illustrates what you object to?

[En_Route]

En_route, I'm struggling a bit to understand what you object to. You don't seem to object to rules governing random violence like I used, or even the HAF rules, yet you still complain of the use of a definition of morality. What's a rule/law in use today in the Western world that illustrates what you object to?

It's not a question of objecting to laws or rules as such. They are necessary from a pragmatic perspective. Law and morality are distinct issues however. I don't think random violence is wrong, because that term is meaningless to me. But I like living in a society where steps are taken to minimise its incidence, primarily because that conduces to the personal safety of myself and those to whom I am close or for whom I have some empathy.

[Stevil]

It is about how you internally justify your decisions.

A "Moral" person presumably wants to be "Good" and thus attempts to make the "Right" choice by doing the "Right" thing.

An "Amoral" person wants to survive and thus attempts to make the choice that enhances the likelihood of that survival goal by doing things that either improve chances of survival or don't jeopordise chances of survival.

So two ways to justify one's own actions.

These also can be used as a preference for a type of society, meaning a desire to have laws defining/governing society. A "Moral" person wants laws against murder because murder is "wrong", an "Amoral" person wants laws against murder because murder jeopordises one's own chances of survival.

Essentially, the "Amoral" person does not claim to know what is "Right" or "Wrong" but instead claims these terms as meaningless, especially without a goal or purpose. It is harder to be an Amoralist because you have to explain actions, you can't simply categorise or paint the world black and white. An "Amoralist" is much less likely to be judgemental and can't ever justify oppressive laws that don't impact the self e.g. laws against prostitution, same sex marriage, polygamy etc.

[Firebird]

Stevil, En_Route:
Here's another hypothetical. What if there's a law passed saying that two minorities, neither of which you're a member of, have the right to rape and kill each other and only each other? Doesn't affect you directly. Is that ok by your standards?

[Stevil]

Stevil, En_Route:
Here's another hypothetical. What if there's a law passed saying that two minorities, neither of which you're a member of, have the right to rape and kill each other and only each other? Doesn't affect you directly. Is that ok by your standards?

Yes it does, conflict within society causes danger to me, I might get caught in the crossfire, also I might have an alliance with a person or people within these minorities, they might be my personal friends, they could be my wife...  Its not just me, others from my race might have ties to people from these minorities. The threat of conflict is not isolated to these two minorities.

My allies also help me to survive, when they are in danger I will risk my life to help them and I hope the opposite will also be true.

[En_Route]

Stevil, En_Route:
Here's another hypothetical. What if there's a law passed saying that two minorities, neither of which you're a member of, have the right to rape and kill each other and only each other? Doesn't affect you directly. Is that ok by your standards?

Well, first off, living in the kind of society that would pass such arbitrary laws would be disturbing in itself. What might it think of next? So,  I think it is highly likely that it would therefore affect me indirectly. Putting that to one side, I would think an extreme law of this kind would almost certainly increase the sum of human misery  without any countervailing pleasure and my empathy for people in general would lead me on a personal basis to prefer it not to be passed. That is an emotional reaction not a philosophical conclusion. I would not say such a law was immoral or wrong in any objective or verifiable sense, because that usage means nothing to me.

[Firebird]

Well, first off, living in the kind of society that would pass such arbitrary laws would be disturbing in itself. What might it think of next? So,  I think it is highly likely that it would therefore affect me indirectly. Putting that to one side, I would think an extreme law of this kind would almost certainly increase the sum of human misery  without any countervailing pleasure and my empathy for people in general would lead me on a personal basis to prefer it not to be passed. That is an emotional reaction not a philosophical conclusion. I would not say such a law was immoral or wrong in any objective or verifiable sense, because that usage means nothing to me.

I have to say I think you're splitting hairs here. You have empathy for people. Doesn't that imply a sense of right/wrong, which is essentially about what's moral?

[En_Route]

Well, first off, living in the kind of society that would pass such arbitrary laws would be disturbing in itself. What might it think of next? So,  I think it is highly likely that it would therefore affect me indirectly. Putting that to one side, I would think an extreme law of this kind would almost certainly increase the sum of human misery  without any countervailing pleasure and my empathy for people in general would lead me on a personal basis to prefer it not to be passed. That is an emotional reaction not a philosophical conclusion. I would not say such a law was immoral or wrong in any objective or verifiable sense, because that usage means nothing to me.

I have to say I think you're splitting hairs here. You have empathy for people. Doesn't that imply a sense of right/wrong, which is essentially about what's moral?

Empathy is  generally part of our make- up although it comes in various degrees and some people don't have any. It is also partial and fickle. We feel a pang when we see starving children in Africa and maybe there and then send off a modest donation, after which we tend to banish their suffering from our mind. Again, empathy presumably was adaptive from an evolutionary perspective, which is why it is the norm to posses it. But one cannot extrapolate from it any objective criteria as to what is right or wrong.

[Stevil]

I have to say I think you're splitting hairs here. You have empathy for people. Doesn't that imply a sense of right/wrong, which is essentially about what's moral?

The problem with moral emotivism is that you then make rules for all based on your own "gut" feeling.
Ecurb invoked this in a different thread stating that he thought homosexual sex was gross. So it raised a repulsive emotion within himself thus implying to him that it must have been "objectively and absolutely" wrong, thus immoral.

Does this seem flawed?

[Asmodean]

I think liquorice candy is utterly disgusting. Let's outlaw that, yes?