Happy Atheist Forum

I don't believe in ethics or morality.

But it seems many people, even Atheists, think they are ethical and think they know what the ethical thing is to do and hence would like to frame up law based on their own understanding of ethics.

I can't express enough how dangerous and oppressive I feel this route is.

But I do like to listen to other people, especially other atheists, and hear how they justify law.


EDIT: Split from another thread - Tank

Quote from: Stevil on February 22, 2012, 09:10:30 AM
I don't believe in ethics or morality.

But it seems many people, even Atheists, think they are ethical and think they know what the ethical thing is to do and hence would like to frame up law based on their own understanding of ethics.

I can't express enough how dangerous and oppressive I feel this route is.

But I do like to listen to other people, especially other atheists, and hear how they justify law.

Stevil, I've never met anyone who didn't believe in ethics or morality. I'm curious what you mean when you say that, especially in relation to this topic. Do you mean that you don't believe in a universal sense of ethics/morality that everyone ought to follow, or do you yourself never make choices that you consider to be moral or ethical, or... something else?

I would think that you, on a personal level, make choices daily that you'd consider ethical or moral -- helping someone simply to be kind, cheering up/comforting your wife if she's upset, etc. As it relates to this topic... if you and your wife were to find out she was pregnant, whether or not you chose to keep the baby would have something to do with your own sense of ethics and morality, I'd guess.

Am I wrong on all of this? :) If you're saying objective ethics/morality don't exist, OK, I understand your position. But if you're saying that personal, subjective ethics/morality don't exist either, I'm a bit lost.

I don't want to derail the thread, but I wanted to ask.

There is no such thing as objective morality. Most Atheists would agree with this.

I don't think there is any such thing as subjective morality.

Morality is a human made concept.

Think of it like this.
1. If a male kills another male so that he can take his female partner for his own sexual endevours would this be immoral?
2. If a male kills a female's offspring so that she will become free for him to procreate with would this be immoral?
3. If a female kills her lover and eats him, would this be immoral?

As you have probably guessed by now, the above are examples of common behaviours of various non human animals. Why if other animals can take actions and simply be acting in a way that is natural to them, to their species then why do we not classify them as immoral where-as we would classify humans as being immoral?

Humans are animals too, we do what we do, because that is what we are.
As a society we need to make laws to protect ourselves and our society, we need to discourage certain behaviours and we need to remove certain dangerous individuals from our society. This is not because these behaviours are immoral or because these people are evil. It is because we need to protect ourselves and our society in order to survive.

You could say that morality is that which is Good and immorality is that which is Bad, but then you need to define in what context do we mean Good or Bad.
Morality is unnecessary for a functioning and stable society. We do not want a moral branch of the police force. We do not want moral law. Without objective morality then whose morals are you going to push onto society? Muslim morality? Christian morality? Your own morality?

As intelligent society we want a government to provide us with a stable and functioning society without unnecessarily infringing on our ability to make our own decisions in life. If the government imposes rules (law) we want these to be justified, we want to accept that it is best for us that the government makes these decisions and not us. These imposed rules must be towards a stable and functioning society e.g. laws against murder, rape, theft, assault etc. Imposing law on moral grounds rather than for a stable and functioning society only leads to oppression and conflict, e.g. laws against homosexual relationships, laws against divorce, laws against public displays of affection, laws against women's liberties, laws against sex outside of marriage etc.

On a personal note, when I make decisions it is with regards to my own survival, acting within the law keeps me out of prison, treating others how I would like to be treated keeps me out of conflict, treating friends and family with love and kindness provides me with important alliances and support. Behaving cordially within society helps to influence a social culture of cordiality.

You may find this interesting

http://www.philosophynow.org/issues/80/An_Amoral_Manifesto_Part_I

Quote
In a word, this philosopher has long been laboring under an unexamined assumption, namely, that there is such a thing as right and wrong. I now believe there isn't.

The above quote comes from a guy that I think is a professor of philosophy. Ironically he writes a column called "Moral Moments" for PhilosophyNow.org and has been doing so for over ten years, but he only came to the realisation that morality doesn't exist in 2010, if I read his column correctly.

Quote from: Stevil on February 22, 2012, 10:09:20 AMI don't think there is any such thing as subjective morality.

Morality is a human made concept.

I'm not really picking up on that, I have my concept of right and wrong, it's subjective, fuck I'm getting stuck in a this does not compute loop.

Quote from: Stevil on February 22, 2012, 10:09:20 AM
Think of it like this.
1. If a male kills another male so that he can take his female partner for his own sexual endevours would this be immoral?
2. If a male kills a female's offspring so that she will become free for him to procreate with would this be immoral?
3. If a female kills her lover and eats him, would this be immoral?

As you have probably guessed by now, the above are examples of common behaviours of various non human animals. Why if other animals can take actions and simply be acting in a way that is natural to them, to their species then why do we not classify them as immoral where-as we would classify humans as being immoral?

We don't judge them because we aren't in a position to, we don't know how they think.  I checked the definition of immoral, there's a doesn't follow moral principles one and  "Deliberately violating accepted principles of right and wrong"  Weather and earth quakes don't seem much different.

Quote from: Stevil on February 22, 2012, 10:09:20 AM

Humans are animals too, we do what we do, because that is what we are.
As a society we need to make laws to protect ourselves and our society, we need to discourage certain behaviours and we need to remove certain dangerous individuals from our society. This is not because these behaviours are immoral or because these people are evil. It is because we need to protect ourselves and our society in order to survive.



You could say that morality is that which is Good and immorality is that which is Bad, but then you need to define in what context do we mean Good or Bad.

Reasonable man is used often, reasonable person would be more reasonable in modern context.

Quote from: Stevil on February 22, 2012, 10:09:20 AM
Morality is unnecessary for a functioning and stable society. We do not want a moral branch of the police force. We do not want moral law. Without objective morality
then whose morals are you going to push onto society? Muslim morality? Christian morality? Your own morality?

I'm wondering where that's going to get you, will law have to be prescriptive, anticipate every harm to the common good?  I'm suspicious of reformers, they promise simplification, they point at tax law that requires a wheelbarrow to carry it around, when they're finished it takes two.

Quote from: Stevil on February 22, 2012, 10:09:20 AM

As intelligent society we want a government to provide us with a stable and functioning society without unnecessarily infringing on our ability to make our own decisions in life. If the government imposes rules (law) we want these to be justified, we want to accept that it is best for us that the government makes these decisions and not us. These imposed rules must be towards a stable and functioning society e.g. laws against murder, rape, theft, assault etc. Imposing law on moral grounds rather than for a stable and functioning society only leads to oppression and conflict, e.g. laws against homosexual relationships, laws against divorce, laws against public displays of affection, laws against women's liberties, laws against sex outside of marriage etc.

It's my impression that prior to WWII governments treated those wanting access in a,  utilitarian, racist or popularist way.  People were turned away and were gassed.  We had a white Australia policy for decades, it was supported by the left, workers would be disadvantaged by indiscriminate immigration, wages would fall.  Why didn't we scourge the land of indigenous people?  Why can't I get me a slave from a place of  famine if they sign the papers?

This new system of laws may get us to the stars quicker but the ticket may have costs you're not accounting for.

Quote from: Stevil on February 22, 2012, 10:09:20 AMOn a personal note, when I make decisions it is with regards to my own survival, acting within the law keeps me out of prison, treating others how I would like to be treated keeps me out of conflict, treating friends and family with love and kindness provides me with important alliances and support. Behaving cordially within society helps to influence a social culture of cordiality.

This just sounds like ethics and/or morality to me, why quibble over what you call this?

Quote from: Davin on February 22, 2012, 02:52:18 PM

Quote from: Stevil on February 22, 2012, 10:09:20 AMOn a personal note, when I make decisions it is with regards to my own survival, acting within the law keeps me out of prison, treating others how I would like to be treated keeps me out of conflict, treating friends and family with love and kindness provides me with important alliances and support. Behaving cordially within society helps to influence a social culture of cordiality.

This just sounds like ethics and/or morality to me, why quibble over what you call this?

Ya, that's what I'd call ethics/morality too.  You might want to look into 'ethical egoism'.

I apologise in advance this is a long post. I hope that it is, none the less, of interest.

Quote from: Stevil on February 22, 2012, 09:10:30 AM
I don't believe in ethics or morality.

[...]

But I do like to listen to other people, especially other atheists, and hear how they justify law.

This echos the position of most modern moral philosophy. Up until the C20th most ethical systems justified themselves either by reference to deities or through reference to human nature. So the Utilitarians argued that it is human nature to desire happiness, thus moral behaviour, in the broadest sense, was to maximize happiness. Similarly Kant's ethics derive from the central claim that humans are rational and ethics can be derived from rational method (what Kant referred to as categorical imperatives).

In 1903 the British philosopher G E Moore wrote a book called Principia Ethica in which he argued that all these various formulations were committing what he called the naturalistic fallacy. Essentially he argued that the ultimate question of "what is good?" will always be left open. So while a utilitarian might act in a manner to maximize happiness she could never justify the central claim that "maximizing happiness is what is good". G E Moore compared the word "good" to the word "yellow". "Yellow" he argued cannot be defined; we could not, for example, explain what "yellow" is to a person born blind; however we all know "yellow" when we see it. He argued the same was true of "good"; we cannot define it but we know it when we see it. This position was known as intuitionsim.

It did not take long for other philosophers (most noticeably C L Stevenson and A J Ayer) to observe that intuitionism was a pretty weak justification for ethics as people disagree as to their intuitions of "good". As Ayer put it in Language Truth and Logic: "Unless it is possible to provide some criterion by which one may decide between conflicting intuitions, a mere appeal to intuition is worthless as a test of a proposition's validity. But in the case of moral judgement no such criterion can be given" (Ch 6 p141). Ayer's claim was that moral statements were little more than subjective expressions of preference. Essentially saying "x is good" is equivalent to saying "hurrah for x" (Hare puts a gloss on this by pointing out that moral language is prescriptive in nature, so "x is good" means "I approve of x and so should you"). This position, known as emotivism, denies any objective morality has become the dominant position in modern moral philosophy.

My own view is that this is both bleak and ultimately wrong.

I think the central mistake dates back to the enlightenment. The scientific method was, at the time, becoming dominant; and there was a drive to try and find grounds for morality similar to those of science. It is this project that has ended in the moral apocalypse of emotivist thinking. The error, to my mind was to look at actions. Most modern moral thinking asks where certian actions are good or bad. However as the G E M Anscombe pointed out, this kind of 'rule-conception' ethics relied upon the existence of a 'rule-giver', which was God. As God become increasingly abolished in intellectual circles so the foundation for rule-conception ethics was lost. As Anscombe puts it: "The situation, if I am right, [is] the interesting one of the survival of a concept outside the framework of thought that made it a really intelligible one" (Modern Moral Philosophy - Philosophy 33 No 124 Jan 1958).

So given that, without God, we cannot justify a 'rule-conception' ethical system are there any other alternatives? The truly brilliant contemporary philosopher Alisdair MacIntyre (if anyone is interested in ethics, I could not recommend his book After Virtue strongly enough - it certainly shocked me out of my emostivist complacency) thinks that the system of virtue ethics found in Aristotle may provide a way forward. It is important to understand at the outset that Aristotle's system does not deal with questions of what is "good" or "bad" but rather how the pursuit of human happiness/flourishing (eudaimon) will allow for the foundation of a peaceful and productive society (the polis). Instead of looking at question of what makes an action "good" or "bad" Aristotle is trying to account for how through practice and "the right principle" (logos) we can flourish as human beings.

This post has gone on far too long already so I will not try and go too deep into this, a far more eloquent account than any I could give, is to be found in After Virtue. What I would say is this. While I think G E Moore was correct that words like "good" are undefinable, I don't think the same is true for virtues. I think we can all agree on definitions of ideas like "honesty", "justice" and "courage". While this is only the start of the story it perhaps already gives us a hint that Aristotle's method of ethics, abandoned during the enlightenment, have stronger foundations that the modern rule-conception view of ethics.

Interesting OP.

peace.

Saying there is no such thing as ethics or morality is like saying there is no such thing as government or political parties.  There may not be any universally applicable objective standard for what constitutes a good government or a good political party, but they exist.  They exist if for no other reason than that humans created them.  Humans also create ethics and morality, from a variety of sources - religion, cultural norms, response to crisis, reason, biological drives.  They exist, and I believe that they exist.  I am affected by both these concepts every day.  I have moral duties that have been inculcated upon me from youth and by society.  I have ethical duties imposed on me by my profession and by law. To say I don't believe in them or that they do not exist would simply be to deny reality. They are there, and for some of them, if I violate their principles, I could end up in jail, in divorce court, or disbarred, any of which would have devastating consequences for my life.  

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 22, 2012, 04:02:26 PM
Saying there is no such thing as ethics or morality is like saying there is no such thing as government or political parties. {snip}

I think you have come up with a false analogy there. ethics/morality have no physical reality, they are concepts concerned with human behaviour that may or may not influence behaviour. A government is an organisation with physical representations such as buildings filled with politicians. They have a physical existence in a way that a concept does not.

Quote from: Tank on February 22, 2012, 04:12:12 PM

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 22, 2012, 04:02:26 PM
Saying there is no such thing as ethics or morality is like saying there is no such thing as government or political parties. {snip}

I think you have come up with a false analogy there. ethics/morality have no physical reality, they are concepts concerned with human behaviour that may or may not influence behaviour. A government is an organisation with physical representations such as buildings filled with politicians. They have a physical existence in a way that a concept does not.

I'm not sure the snip was fair, maybe he started awkward but he kinda explained what he meant.
I'm not just saying this 'cause me and Ecurb are best pals, it's just, it's an odd thread.

Quote from: The Magic Pudding on February 22, 2012, 05:16:51 PM

Quote from: Tank on February 22, 2012, 04:12:12 PM

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 22, 2012, 04:02:26 PM
Saying there is no such thing as ethics or morality is like saying there is no such thing as government or political parties. {snip}

I think you have come up with a false analogy there. ethics/morality have no physical reality, they are concepts concerned with human behaviour that may or may not influence behaviour. A government is an organisation with physical representations such as buildings filled with politicians. They have a physical existence in a way that a concept does not.

I'm not sure the snip was fair, maybe he started awkward but he kinda explained what he meant.
I'm not just saying this 'cause me and Ecurb are best pals, it's just, it's an odd thread.

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.

Quote from: The Magic Pudding on February 22, 2012, 02:11:37 PM

Quote from: Stevil on February 22, 2012, 10:09:20 AM
Think of it like this.
1. If a male kills another male so that he can take his female partner for his own sexual endevours would this be immoral?
2. If a male kills a female's offspring so that she will become free for him to procreate with would this be immoral?
3. If a female kills her lover and eats him, would this be immoral?

As you have probably guessed by now, the above are examples of common behaviours of various non human animals. Why if other animals can take actions and simply be acting in a way that is natural to them, to their species then why do we not classify them as immoral where-as we would classify humans as being immoral?

We don't judge them because we aren't in a position to, we don't know how they think.  I checked the definition of immoral, there's a doesn't follow moral principles one and  "Deliberately violating accepted principles of right and wrong"  Weather and earth quakes don't seem much different.

So, if you don't believe in objective morality then how can you define "accepted principles of right and wrong?".
I would like to know also how you define "right" and how you define "wrong" does it become a circular reference such that right is that which is moral, wrong is that which is immoral? or do you have some reasoning towards a goal e.g. stable and functional society.
This would be more along the lines of reasoning for self preservation, a selfish interest which disqualifies the concept of morality.

Quote from: The Magic Pudding on February 22, 2012, 05:16:51 PM

Quote from: Tank on February 22, 2012, 04:12:12 PM

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 22, 2012, 04:02:26 PM
Saying there is no such thing as ethics or morality is like saying there is no such thing as government or political parties. {snip}

I think you have come up with a false analogy there. ethics/morality have no physical reality, they are concepts concerned with human behaviour that may or may not influence behaviour. A government is an organisation with physical representations such as buildings filled with politicians. They have a physical existence in a way that a concept does not.

I'm not sure the snip was fair, maybe he started awkward but he kinda explained what he meant.
I'm not just saying this 'cause me and Ecurb are best pals, it's just, it's an odd thread.

Looking back the snip was a little premature. Let's see what Bruce has to add.

Quote from: Stevil on February 22, 2012, 09:10:30 AM
I don't believe in ethics or morality.

you don't need to believe, you already function utilising some modality as such.

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

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

Quote from: pytheas on February 22, 2012, 06:44:31 PM
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.

Quote from: pytheas on February 22, 2012, 06:44:31 PM
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.

Quote from: Stevil on February 22, 2012, 06:59:29 PM
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.

Quote from: pytheas on February 22, 2012, 06:44:31 PMapart 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.

Quote from: Stevil on February 22, 2012, 06:16:30 PM
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.

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.

Quote from: Stevil on February 22, 2012, 07:22:16 PM
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.

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 22, 2012, 09:51:22 PM

Quote from: Stevil on February 22, 2012, 07:22:16 PM
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?

Quote from: statichaos on February 22, 2012, 09:53:14 PM
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.

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 22, 2012, 10:07:03 PM

Quote from: statichaos on February 22, 2012, 09:53:14 PM
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

Quote from: DeathThen 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.

Quote from: statichaos on February 22, 2012, 10:14:14 PM
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.

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 22, 2012, 10:39:18 PM

Quote from: statichaos on February 22, 2012, 10:14:14 PM
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.

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 22, 2012, 10:39:18 PM
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.

Quote from: Stevil on February 23, 2012, 12:35:21 AM

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 22, 2012, 10:39:18 PM
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.

Quote from: statichaos on February 22, 2012, 10:14:14 PMIt reminds me of this line from Death in Terry Pratchett's Hogfather

Quote from: DeathThen 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 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=6838.0), it didn't go very far though.

Quote from: Stevil on February 23, 2012, 12:35:21 AM

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.

Quote from: statichaos on February 22, 2012, 10:40:34 PM
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.

Quote from: statichaos on February 23, 2012, 01:18:15 AM
Interesting.  I'd consider "subjective" to be a useless modifier, since my belief is that morality is subjective in nature.

There are many people whom think morality is objective, and for the purposes of this thread it became apparent for me to expose my understanding of subjective morality.

Quote from: Stevil on February 22, 2012, 10:09:20 AM
There is no such thing as objective morality. Most Atheists would agree with this.

I don't think there is any such thing as subjective morality.

Morality is a human made concept.

Think of it like this.
1. If a male kills another male so that he can take his female partner for his own sexual endevours would this be immoral?
2. If a male kills a female's offspring so that she will become free for him to procreate with would this be immoral?
3. If a female kills her lover and eats him, would this be immoral?

As you have probably guessed by now, the above are examples of common behaviours of various non human animals. Why if other animals can take actions and simply be acting in a way that is natural to them, to their species then why do we not classify them as immoral where-as we would classify humans as being immoral?

I'd like to go back to this statement so I can further understand what you're trying to say. You say that you don't believe in the idea of objective or subjective morality or ethics. I'm not sure if I agree with you, but I can see why you might believe it. However, are you saying society would be better off without an attempt at subjective morality, such as outlawing the behavior you listed above? It sounded like that, but I'd like to be sure before commenting further.

Quote from: The Magic Pudding on February 23, 2012, 02:52:29 AM
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.

I'm not saying that it is worthless because of its conceptual nature but worthless because as an oxymoron it cancels itself out.

If you cast away your ideas of morality you will be much better off and so will society.

Morality is inherently objective
When you vocalise that something is moral or immoral you are implying that morality is objective.
e.g. To state "It was wrong of him to cheat on his girlfriend", if you spoke this statement out loud, you are assuming that this is an objective wrong and hence you are justified in publicly judging this person.
If someone asks you why it was wrong and you state because it is immoral then you would not have added any clarity to your position given that immoral and wrong mean exactly the same thing. Hence a public claim to something being immoral is a public claim to knowledge of an objective moral standard.

If you think morality is subjective and yet you publicly claim that something is immoral e.g. "It was immoral of him to cheat on his girlfriend" then your message is confusing to your audience. Your audience will assume you have made an objective moral claim whereas you were simply expressing your own opinion. With regards to subjective morality you could state "cheating on girlfriends is against my personal moral standard". This is OK to say, but does seem contradictory to what morality actually means. A better way to phrase it would be "cheating on girlfriends is against my personal values". IMHO this is a step in the right direction, and is a quick way to describe something to someone whom you don't want to bore with the details.

Personal values
Personal values are important, they are a guide to help you make decisions quickly without having to delve into heavily into the details. personal values are personal, they are a guide. What they are not is a static stance on what is right or wrong, they are not a basis from which to judge other people. Therefore personal values are not morals.

Law
Law is a way to encourage people to behave in certain ways, it is effectively a way of taking away people's decisions. It is also a way to justify dispensing consequences onto those that make decisions contrary to the law.
Law should never be based on subjective morality.
Whose morality are we to base it on? Just because person A thinks something is wrong does that mean it is wrong for all of us?
Of course law ought to be put in place to ensure a functioning and stable society, but beyond that, members of society should not have their ability to make decisions infringed upon.

Ethics
Ethics are based on morality.
"Ethics, also known as moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior"
"a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture"
Ethics assumes morality to be objective hence it is capable of defining rights and wrongs.
In my opinion when you have business ethics, medical ethics, legal ethics these are simply rules based on a person or persons opinion of what is right and wrong. They have come to the conclusion that they would like to push their own ideas of right and wrong onto other people. Just because they have chosen to call their defined rights and wrongs ethics, it doesn't mean that they are ethics.
In my opinion ethics are impossible, morality is impossible, there is no objective set of morals, no moral law maker. Existence and our universe is amoral, there is no cosmic justice for our actions, humans have simply dreamed up the concept of morality and most people have taken it on board and chose to use it as a vehicle for judging others, for dishing out consequences, for creating law and controlling other people.

We are much better off without morality and ethics, people ought to be taught to be more understanding, more accommodating of differences and less judgmental. We need to learn the place of government and law and ensure it is focused on a stable and functioning society rather than a controlled and oppressed society.

Quote from: Firebird on February 23, 2012, 04:41:21 AM
I'd like to go back to this statement so I can further understand what you're trying to say. You say that you don't believe in the idea of objective or subjective morality or ethics. I'm not sure if I agree with you, but I can see why you might believe it. However, are you saying society would be better off without an attempt at subjective morality, such as outlawing the behavior you listed above? It sounded like that, but I'd like to be sure before commenting further.

It is about the reasoning behind laws.
Not for the goal of a moral society, but for the goal of a stable and functioning society.
If a law is unecessary for a stable and functioning society then that law should be removed.
e.g. Society functions and is stable with prostitution therefore we should not have a law against prostitution.
Society functions and is stable with abortions.
I have no doubt that society would be stable and would function with euthanasia... etc

Quote from: Stevil on February 23, 2012, 04:44:39 AM

Quote from: The Magic Pudding on February 23, 2012, 02:52:29 AM
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.

I'm not saying that it is worthless because of its conceptual nature but worthless because as an oxymoron it cancels itself out.

If you cast away your ideas of morality you will be much better off and so will society.

Morality is inherently objective
When you vocalise that something is moral or immoral you are implying that morality is objective.
e.g. To state "It was wrong of him to cheat on his girlfriend", if you spoke this statement out loud, you are assuming that this is an objective wrong and hence you are justified in publicly judging this person.
If someone asks you why it was wrong and you state because it is immoral then you would not have added any clarity to your position given that immoral and wrong mean exactly the same thing. Hence a public claim to something being immoral is a public claim to knowledge of an objective moral standard.

If you think morality is subjective and yet you publicly claim that something is immoral e.g. "It was immoral of him to cheat on his girlfriend" then your message is confusing to your audience. Your audience will assume you have made an objective moral claim whereas you were simply expressing your own opinion. With regards to subjective morality you could state "cheating on girlfriends is against my personal moral standard". This is OK to say, but does seem contradictory to what morality actually means. A better way to phrase it would be "cheating on girlfriends is against my personal values". IMHO this is a step in the right direction, and is a quick way to describe something to someone whom you don't want to bore with the details.

Personal values
Personal values are important, they are a guide to help you make decisions quickly without having to delve into heavily into the details. personal values are personal, they are a guide. What they are not is a static stance on what is right or wrong, they are not a basis from which to judge other people. Therefore personal values are not morals.

Law
Law is a way to encourage people to behave in certain ways, it is effectively a way of taking away people's decisions. It is also a way to justify dispensing consequences onto those that make decisions contrary to the law.
Law should never be based on subjective morality.
Whose morality are we to base it on? Just because person A thinks something is wrong does that mean it is wrong for all of us?
Of course law ought to be put in place to ensure a functioning and stable society, but beyond that, members of society should not have their ability to make decisions infringed upon.

Ethics
Ethics are based on morality.
"Ethics, also known as moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior"
"a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture"
Ethics assumes morality to be objective hence it is capable of defining rights and wrongs.
In my opinion when you have business ethics, medical ethics, legal ethics these are simply rules based on a person or persons opinion of what is right and wrong. They have come to the conclusion that they would like to push their own ideas of right and wrong onto other people. Just because they have chosen to call their defined rights and wrongs ethics, it doesn't mean that they are ethics.
In my opinion ethics are impossible, morality is impossible, there is no objective set of morals, no moral law maker. Existence and our universe is amoral, there is no cosmic justice for our actions, humans have simply dreamed up the concept of morality and most people have taken it on board and chose to use it as a vehicle for judging others, for dishing out consequences, for creating law and controlling other people.

We are much better off without morality and ethics, people ought to be taught to be more understanding, more accommodating of differences and less judgmental. We need to learn the place of government and law and ensure it is focused on a stable and functioning society rather than a controlled and oppressed society.

I disagree with your definition of morals as necessarily being imposed from outside (I find it to be ovelry narrow), but it's largely a semantic disagreement, and not worth debating.

Quote from: statichaos on February 24, 2012, 12:28:27 AM
I disagree with your definition of morals as necessarily being imposed from outside (I find it to be ovelry narrow), but it's largely a semantic disagreement, and not worth debating.

It is much more than a semantic disagreement. The very core of debating morals is to keep them out of the law making process.

If you believe in subjective morality, then what makes you feel your morals are better than other peoples?
What makes you feel that law should be based on a person or a group's set of morals and hence be used to stop other people making their own subjective moral decisions as it relates to their own lives?

I have made a statement that I do not believe in morals, that I don't think they (what people perceive as morals) are useful for judging others or for law, that I think they are dangerous and lead to oppression and conflict.

These are my key points, rather than simply the difference between personal values and subjective morals. What you internally call something is somewhat beside the point, but how you externally use these becomes important

Quote from: Stevil on February 24, 2012, 01:34:34 AM

It is much more than a semantic disagreement. The very core of debating morals is to keep them out of the law making process.

If you believe in subjective morality, then what makes you feel your morals are better than other peoples?

I'll assume that this is more than a rhetorical question, so I'll answer it:  I don't know for sure.  I do know that I find them workable.

Quote
What makes you feel that law should be based on a person or a group's set of morals and hence be used to stop other people making their own subjective moral decisions as it relates to their own lives?

I don't.

QuoteI have made a statement that I do not believe in morals, that I don't think they (what people perceive as morals) are useful for judging others or for law, that I think they are dangerous and lead to oppression and conflict.

Okay.

QuoteThese are my key points, rather than simply the difference between personal values and subjective morals. What you internally call something is somewhat beside the point, but how you externally use these becomes important

I agree with that.

Quote from: Stevil on February 23, 2012, 04:44:39 AM
Existence and our universe is amoral, there is no cosmic justice for our actions, humans have simply dreamed up the concept of morality and most people have taken it on board and chose to use it as a vehicle for judging others, for dishing out consequences, for creating law and controlling other people.

We are much better off without morality and ethics, people ought to be taught to be more understanding, more accommodating of differences and less judgmental. We need to learn the place of government and law and ensure it is focused on a stable and functioning society rather than a controlled and oppressed society.

Not saying I agree, but let's say hypothetically that you're right that there is no "cosmic justice for our actions". Hell, one reason I've decided that I'm an atheist is that I realized that were are a completely insignificant speck in the vast universe we occupy. So what? How does that conclusion lead to the premise that we're better off without the morals and ethics we have developed in our relatively short time in this universe? I would argue that since the nature of the universe is chaotic and naturally leads to entropy, we need to resist that urge if we are to function and thrive as a society. How can we do that if we do not agree on some form of shared values and responsibilities to each other, ie a system of ethics and morals?
My sense is that you resent how the idea of "morals" has been hijacked by people, and perhaps organized religion, to impose their views on other people. And you would be correct there. However, this does not mean we need to throw the idea of ethics and morality out the window. It does mean we need to continue to develop as a species and learn from our past mistakes, and further develop our sense of ethics and morality. That includes not imposing someone's religion on another person. To me, that is ethical.

The other problem I have is that there's no clear line between laws ensuring a "stable and functioning society" without some form of ethics. For example, laws against corruption in the business or political sphere, such as bribing politicians or kickbacks, are based on the idea of ethics. But they're also necessary for a stable and functioning society, for if people lose faith in their government and the business environment, it leads to instability.

The point is that we are attempting to advance as a species, which includes forming societies, and there is a need for ethics to further advance said society and species. Whether it's artificial or not is besides the point; it is necessary if we are to survive and thrive. Going against the natural order of the universe is a necessity.

Quote from: Firebird on February 24, 2012, 03:50:44 AM
Not saying I agree, but let's say hypothetically that you're right that there is no "cosmic justice for our actions". Hell, one reason I've decided that I'm an atheist is that I realized that were are a completely insignificant speck in the vast universe we occupy. So what? How does that conclusion lead to the premise that we're better off without the morals and ethics we have developed in our relatively short time in this universe?

I am not saying that we are better off without morals because the universe is amoral. One does not lead to the other.

I am just stating that morals are a human made concept, they don't actually exist. Somehow in the development of the human mind we have invented this concept and most people believe in them. There is no proof of them, no evidence, but people are so used to the concept that they simply believe and the thought that they don't exist seem ridiculous to them.

I feel there is certainly a strong analogy with regards to belief in god. Another similarity is that people think belief in god or morals makes you a better person than if you don't believe in god or morals, which is an incorrect assumption. It is not god or morals that makes you behave socially well. You can cast aside both these beliefs and still be an exceptionally kind and compassionate person. There are christians who would tell some atheists that they are very christian like. I am sure a moral person could tell an amoral person that they are very ethical. Outwardly it is hard to tell the difference.

I feel if you replace morals with reason then you are doing yourself and society a favour. Belief in morals certainly causes oppression and conflict. It is because of morals that people feel they can judge others, they create a standard by which they feel others should live up to. The intolerance that this moral standard grows affects how people behave towards each other, in their judgmental ways they oppress each other and from this comes conflict.

I certainly feel that in order to be tolerant you must throw away your idea's of morality. Yeah, you might say to yourself that it is moral to be tolerant, but it is likely that you would conflict with your own morals when a person acts immorally, how can you be tolerant and yet be thinking that the other person is immoral at the same time? In someways it is like a christian saying they have no problem with gay people and yet stating that gay people are immoral sinners. Can you see that labeling someone as immoral is casting judgement and lacking tolerance?

Quote from: Firebird on February 24, 2012, 03:50:44 AM
It does mean we need to continue to develop as a species and learn from our past mistakes, and further develop our sense of ethics and morality. That includes not imposing someone's religion on another person. To me, that is ethical.

This makes me somewhat sad. I feel we ought to learn from our past mistakes and get rid of our belief in ethics and morality. This includes not judging people as good or bad, not judging actions as good or bad. To me, this is tolerance and freedom of choice. Diversity is a great thing and should be encouraged, not constraint by adherence to a perceived morality.

Quote from: Firebird on February 24, 2012, 03:50:44 AM
The other problem I have is that there's no clear line between laws ensuring a "stable and functioning society" without some form of ethics. For example, laws against corruption in the business or political sphere, such as bribing politicians or kickbacks, are based on the idea of ethics. But they're also necessary for a stable and functioning society.

So I presume that you would have no problems basing law on what is required for a stable and functioning society then. We could keep the laws against corruption in the business or political sphere because they bring us towards that goal.
But if we only focus on stable and functional society then you would find we would remove the laws against prostitution, against gay marriage, against polygomy, law would be consistent when it does not prosecute a person for cheating on their spouse, or for having sex outside of marriage. People of all religions could optionally choose to constrain themselves based on their own religious "morality" but would not desire to constrain others.
Society would be stable and functional and people would have the freedom to make their own decisions on matters that do not make society unstable or dysfunctional.

Quote from: Stevil on February 24, 2012, 04:44:43 PM
This makes me somewhat sad. I feel we ought to learn from our past mistakes and get rid of our belief in ethics and morality. This includes not judging people as good or bad, not judging actions as good or bad. To me, this is tolerance and freedom of choice. Diversity is a great thing and should be encouraged, not constraint by adherence to a perceived morality.

I haven't commented on this thread yet because I guess I'm still trying to wrap my head around your arguments, but hey, I'm trying. What you said here is something I can at least ask more about, though. I agree on the not judging people as good or bad, because no one person is 100% everything. Where I get lost is when you say 'not judging actions as good or bad'. If certain actions which are detrimental to society for various reasons occur, what are we to judge them as? 'Detrimental' is just another way of saying 'unwanted' or 'bad for', really. I'm NOT willing to judge a rapist, murderer, child molestor, animal abuser etc as simply expressing their 'freedom of choice' and celebrating their 'diversity'. For me, the line I draw in the sand is "does what you're doing take advantage of another being while harming them physically, emotionally, or mentally". If so, I'd classify that as bad. I see it as wrong, 100% of the time, to harm a child in any way, shape, or form. If we just say 'well, we should be tolerant of someone's choice to do that', we've got a huge problem.

Also, as an aside, the values of tolerance and freedom of choice boil down to them being moral arguments. When you say 'tolerance, freedom of choice, and diversity are great things and should be encouraged' -- why should they? If ethics and morality don't exist, why are these particular values better than any others, and what gives them the right to trump other values -- say, selfishness?

Stevil, just so you know, I'm not trying to pick on you as a person or anything. Just trying to wrap my head around your arguments, and see if I can even try and see it from your perspective. Maybe we're talking past one another, I dunno.  ???

Quote from: Amicale on February 24, 2012, 05:15:29 PM
I haven't commented on this thread yet because I guess I'm still trying to wrap my head around your arguments, but hey, I'm trying. What you said here is something I can at least ask more about, though. I agree on the not judging people as good or bad, because no one person is 100% everything. Where I get lost is when you say 'not judging actions as good or bad'.

Thanks for pointing this out, I need to know where I am losing you. I seem to be losing everybody and am struggling to find a connect where people can actually understand what I am saying here.

Quote from: Amicale on February 24, 2012, 05:15:29 PM
If certain actions which are detrimental to society for various reasons occur, what are we to judge them as?

Judge them as being dangerous for society. We need to protect ourselves and hence our society. We need laws to protect ourselves and our society.

Quote from: Amicale on February 24, 2012, 05:15:29 PM
'Detrimental' is just another way of saying 'unwanted' or 'bad for', really.

The word "bad" is ambiguous. In what context is something bad? What justification goes behind this label? What justification do you have for instigating a law taking this choice away from people?

What I would like to see is clear and specific justification, I would also like to see it focused on stable and functional society. If it is focused on your personal moral system then why would I be expected to buy into that? Why would I feel happy being forced to comply to your personal moral system?

Quote from: Amicale on February 24, 2012, 05:15:29 PM
I'm NOT willing to judge a rapist, murderer, child molestor, animal abuser etc as simply expressing their 'freedom of choice' and celebrating their 'diversity'.
For me, the line I draw in the sand is "does what you're doing take advantage of another being while harming them physically, emotionally, or mentally". If so, I'd classify that as bad. I see it as wrong, 100% of the time, to harm a child in any way, shape, or form. If we just say 'well, we should be tolerant of someone's choice to do that', we've got a huge problem.

That is fine that you see these things as wrong, but why should I also see these things as wrong? Why should I support a representative government imposing law on me based on what Amicale sees as wrong?

In the examples that you have provided, we could easily tie these acts into being a threat to a stable and functional society. If people are allowed to rape then people in society are not safe. Violence will prevail, violent attacks, violent defense, violent retaliation, this is not a stable and functional society. We need laws against rape and murder in order to have a stable and functional society. Even I and my amoral ways would agree with that.

Quote from: Amicale on February 24, 2012, 05:15:29 PM
Also, as an aside, the values of tolerance and freedom of choice boil down to them being moral arguments.
When you say 'tolerance, freedom of choice, and diversity are great things and should be encouraged' -- why should they? If ethics and morality don't exist, why are these particular values better than any others, and what gives them the right to trump other values -- say, selfishness?

Tolerance and freedom of choice removes oppression. Oppression causes conflict which results in an unstable and dysfunctional society.
BTW selfishness is what drives us, it is a great thing. But with lots of forethought a selfish person would not appear to be selfish.
An intelligent person can see that acting in a way that benefits society is in their own best interests. Acting immeadiately selfishly will likely be detrimental to the self in the long term.

Quote from: Amicale on February 24, 2012, 05:15:29 PM
Stevil, just so you know, I'm not trying to pick on you as a person or anything. Just trying to wrap my head around your arguments, and see if I can even try and see it from your perspective. Maybe we're talking past one another, I dunno.  ???

I can see that you are trying to understand what I am saying. It seems to be a difficult concept for most people on this site to understand. Most likely a failing in my own ability to articulate this idea.

Quote from: Stevil on February 24, 2012, 05:44:18 PM
Tolerance and freedom of choice removes oppression. Oppression causes conflict which results in an unstable and dysfunctional society.
BTW selfishness is what drives us, it is a great thing. But with lots of forethought a selfish person would not appear to be selfish.
An intelligent person can see that acting in a way that benefits society is in their own best interests. Acting immeadiately selfishly will likely be detrimental to the self in the long term.

Societies based on slavery and oppression have been stable in the past.  Our experiments with liberal democracy are far from being able to claim greater stability than Roman, Egyptian or Chinese civilisations.  If your oppression is causing instability perhaps your're not doing it right, show me your whip technique.  Are your publicly disembowelling the disobedient and sticking their heads on spikes?  Having a large sub class serving a comfortable middle class and a lofty upper one would almost seem the natural state.  Keep slaves ignorant and scared, education is only for the elite.

Does that all sound unpleasant?  I think I could be all right with it if I found myself in an upper class.  Otherwise I'm going to be looking for shared values of fairness good, cruelty bad.

Quote from: The Magic Pudding on February 24, 2012, 11:22:33 PM
Societies based on slavery and oppression have been stable in the past.

The obvious problem with slavery and oppression is that the slaves and the oppressed need to be continually ruled by force. They are certainly motivated themselves to be violent against their oppressors.

Another problem with slaves is that they are people. When people get to know other people (even slaves) they sometimes build friendships or romantic relations. Slaves in society will become part of society. Some non slave society members will start to stick up for the slaves. It all snowballs from there, the government gets overrun, with many people in society dead.

A more stable society is one that is governed by a group who represent society rather than rule society. But beware, effort must be made to take care of the poor. If too many people become poor then they will effectively be oppressed and you will have conflict in society. So even a minimalist tolerant and representative government can get into strife if they don't counter economic issues.

Really like both your posts MP and Stevil.
I really think dealing with the lower classes is all about education.
The education to make an infirmed decision about you life.
"Am I both financially and emotionally stable enough to have a child?"
" How does this law affect me?"

( gah it's 1Am) :(  I make no sense

I kind of disagree with your whole "what is stable for society" thing. I think morals are primarily a construct made by individuals, but argued on a macro scale for the benefit of society. But your choice of examples seemed short-sighted to me. For example, you can say prostitution doesn't cause instability. Or, hard drugs don't cause instability. Or, no speed limits doesn't cause instability, etc etc. You can keep singling out a bunch of little things that, while true they may not cause mass pandemonium if implemented, many of those things interacting with each other will create entirely novel problems. Life is so heavily interconnected that I think we should really think more critically than just looking at how good or bad individual things are at a time. Macro perspective! Big picture!

Quote from: NatsuTerran on February 25, 2012, 07:38:24 AM
I kind of disagree with your whole "what is stable for society" thing. I think morals are primarily a construct made by individuals, but argued on a macro scale for the benefit of society. But your choice of examples seemed short-sighted to me. For example, you can say prostitution doesn't cause instability. Or, hard drugs don't cause instability. Or, no speed limits doesn't cause instability, etc etc. You can keep singling out a bunch of little things that, while true they may not cause mass pandemonium if implemented, many of those things interacting with each other will create entirely novel problems. Life is so heavily interconnected that I think we should really think more critically than just looking at how good or bad individual things are at a time. Macro perspective! Big picture!

Prostitution doesn't cause instability in society. Prostitution is legal in NZ and there are no issues, no riots, no upheaval. People that don't like prostitution chose not to partake of it, people that like it do partake. There are many countries surviving with legalised prostitution.

I've never said anything about hard drugs or no speed limits.
If you can make a strong case that these things lead to unstable society then I would be for laws against them.

If you want to base laws on morality, then I have to ask, "Whose morality are you going to base them on?". If people allow laws to be based on morality then they really have no recourse to complain when a leader decides to infringe on their rights because of the leader's own perceived morals. Lets say a leader makes it against the law to be gay. Well if it is based on the leader's morality then he/she is well within reason to impose the law. Since one person's morality is no more universally correct than another person's then it just comes down to what the leader wants, rather than what society demands.

I believe morals should come from empirical science, as strange as that sounds. In many ways, this is already the case. For example, in the past gays did not have rights like straight people (and they still don't in a way). But as science uncovers details about homosexuality and learns that these people did not choose this or are not evil in any way, it only makes sense that they have the same rights as other people. The same thing applied to women and blacks in the past. Don't you want to say that all three of these people have a moral right to be treated equally?

I agree with you on the whole "making the case" for whether one particular thing might be bad for society or not. But keep in mind that things are not going to be quite that simple. No given thing is going to make a stable society unstable, and an unstable society stable. Life isn't black and white like that. Various different laws and ideals are going to push society along a gradient of stable-unstable. This is ultimately why philosophy and politics will never die or be "solved." You can't solve it from an individual level. I think the best thing that can be done is for society to impose values based on empirical facts.

The statistics and facts that show that having no speed limits ups the amount of deaths quite a bit, the facts that show child abuse has long-term consequences on the individual...basically, the facts that show the effects of what certain laws will give us when implemented, should be our basis for morals.

The issue here, is that correlation does not equal causation. Even people who are well aware of this fact still make the mistake numerous times. As humans, we want to have a simple, cut and dry answer. "Oh look, being black is connected to higher crime, let's put a curfew on black people." No, that is a correlation, the causation is socioeconomic class.

This is why morality is a play-as-you-go kind of thing. We have to learn the facts and make mistakes in order to correct them. And many people will interpret data differently. That's where critical thinking comes into play. In essence I can see exactly where you are coming from. But the idea of abandoning morals as a concept itself is not pragmatic for the political problems we are trying to solve. Another thing to keep in mind is that, somewhere, someone can and probably is arguing any given point you can imagine. Someone is still saying the earth is flat, someone is still saying we never landed on the moon.

There's a whooooole lot of information out there, and anyone can argue any given point. The data is there, and one truth will prevail. But how that data is interpreted and argued is what ends up being used to pass laws and impose morality. That is what I believe morality fundamentally is. It's our best understanding of how to live. So ultimately I believe in an objective morality based on empiricism, but because humans are subjective beings and perform logical fallacies quite a bit, there isn't a guarantee that we will get our morals to line up with those objective morals. But I think it is still in our best interest to discuss it and try.

Quote from: NatsuTerran on February 25, 2012, 04:42:37 PM
I agree with you on the whole "making the case" for whether one particular thing might be bad for society or not. But keep in mind that things are not going to be quite that simple. No given thing is going to make a stable society unstable, and an unstable society stable. Life isn't black and white like that. Various different laws and ideals are going to push society along a gradient of stable-unstable. This is ultimately why philosophy and politics will never die or be "solved." You can't solve it from an individual level. I think the best thing that can be done is for society to impose values based on empirical facts.

While empirical facts are a good basis, I don't think it can be the only basis for it either, because people are always going to claim their "facts" trump other "facts". Let's take the issue of pedophilia, for example. I feel that pedophilia and the distribution of child pornography should not be allowed. Besides the obvious emotional reaction that it creates among most people, I can point to empirical evidence that pedophilia is harmful to the psychological health of children. However, many pedophiles respond by pointing out that pedophilia was common in the Greek and Roman Empires, which were both stables for hundreds of years, so how can you argue it causes instability in society? They also argue that denying them the "right" to sexual relationships with children is akin to pushing our version of morality onto them, much like the laws against homosexuality in previous generations.
So who's empirical evidence is ultimately correct? Should we have a debate about that before we decide which way to go on the issue?
I'm not willing to use pure empirical evidence here and wait for the results, and most people in our society would not either. Yes, it's an emotional reaction, and it is claiming our sense of morality is better than the pedophile's, because we're not willing to allow children to be legally exploited for sexual purposes. Where does that sense of morality come from? Who knows. And yes, we've gotten it wrong before, such as when most people considered homosexuality an abomination. But in a case like this, I think our sense of morality has to trump pure empirical reasoning, because we have values that protect children from harm and exploitation.
Truth be told, I don't know quite where to draw the line here between empirical evidence and emotional reaction. Society needs to constantly work on that and evolve to find that line. But there is one.

There's a balance between emotions and logical facts for every individual. I agree there. I also like your example with pedophilia because it can be hard to argue that it causes unstable societies. I wasn't implying that empirical facts be the only thing we use, but that it is a good starting point. Someone in a psych class wanted to do a research paper on the effects of homosexuality on child rearing with a homosexual couple. Her sources initially came from the world wide web, but was told that they aren't academic and would not count because they are not credible. After that, she said that she wanted to change the papers topic to something else because there wasn't any scientific research on this area of interest. The teacher responded "Yes there is." And she then replied "But none of it supports the side that homosexual parenting is dysfunctional to children." Well there you go. That's what the evidence shows, and you can't just ignore that.

But naturally, different facts crop up and people can interpret them to see different things.
What this ultimately seems like to me, is that we have to know how much to follow science, but not so much that we live like robots and completely ignore our own feelings. Morality wouldn't apply to a robot. Many shows and movies even depict this by making robots/computers end up with the strange goal of destroying the  planet or something along those lines. It logically makes sense, if we are to maximize happiness and minimize suffering, the best way to do that is to end all life as we know it. That way, the future generations will not have to undergo the suffering of life. Because I think we can all agree that life in itself, when considering all species and the amount of suffering that goes on as a whole far outweighs the happiness and well-being, nature is a scary place. So using pure logic, facts, and research you end up with cold, robotic logic that completely misses the point of what our goals are in the first place. All the scientific knowledge in the world is meaningless if we don't know how to apply it towards helping our own well-being. But we all have different goals in the first place. Different political parties have different visions for the world, none being inherently wrong. People we don't agree with politically aren't evil, they have the best intentions but have a different vision for society.

The opposite end of the spectrum is pure gut reactions and emotion. This is what we are used to from the theistic side of things. They tend to believe in dogmatic views on morality rather than utilitarian. Too much on this side has disastrous results just like the robot example. Two people or two groups following their hearts when they are at ends with each other is the essence of warfare. Subjective thinking is in my opinion one of the primary causes of human suffering. Who are you to use special pleading to favor yourself or your ingroup over others? It is devoid of logic and relies on pure feelings, but feelings and emotions differ from person to person, and you are left with chaos and warfare without any scientific and social common ground.

It should be obvious that there needs to be a balance. But I don't truly believe there is one "set" amount of each side that should be given weight. I tend to gravitate more towards logic; I understand my feelings are subjective. But I realize this can get out of hand on a slippery slope. This is what I fear the most about Stevil's thoughts on the subject. The irony is that he says we should strive for a stable society. But I'm not sure if he realizes that this goal of his is completely subjective in the grand scheme of things. The universe doesn't care if our society is more stable. In fact, the most stable society of all is no society, let's destroy it all, right?

Taking things to an extreme is never good. Most of us atheists side with logic, and most theists side with emotions, generally speaking. While empirical facts and science cannot tell us "homosexuality is okay," it CAN tell us "homosexuality is based on such and such factors; it was not a choice." And then it is up to *us* to take that information and correct/maintain our moral stance on the issue of whether it is okay or not. I would like to be able for everyone to see the facts and then realize "well it must be okay if it 1. doesn't cause harm, and 2. wasn't a choice." But we all know humans aren't always logical and rational about things. Emotions can and oftentimes do override the obvious answer to most situations.

Seen in this light, it's starting to make sense that morality doesn't even exist. It cannot be completely objective OR completely subjective. It is going to feel inconsistent, but that is the essence of morality to me. At this point I don't even know what to say anymore. I still think morality is a useful, although illusory, construct that allows us to move society towards where we as a group want it. Stevil expressed his concern with this kind of "tyranny of majority." But I guess in the end, someone is going to get stepped on. There really isn't an idealistic alternative in which everyone prospers freely. So as Spock would tell us, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one."

Ultimately it comes down to the goals of the individual, and what they are trying to accomplish. To take abortion as an example. I and many atheists seem to use the logical side of our brains more. I realize that a fetus doesn't have a brain, central nervous system, heart, or consciousness. I realize that it is a life but not any more special of a life than any other life I would be willing to take, like spiders or plants. I believe that it is wrong to kill because we are 1. taking away something that is perceived as valuable and unique, and 2. Are going against their personal wishes for prosperity. I don't think a fetus has wishes. It will become a person, but I can't help but think "If I was aborted, I wouldn't have a mind to mourn my own death." I differentiate between living things and a fetus because a conscious thing has experienced sentience and then lost it; the fetus never got it to begin with. The first part, uniqueness, is why I think we are okay with killing animals but not people. People are perceived as "unique" to us, in a valid way. Animals are "just another cow" or just a spider. But attach a name to the animal and make it a pet, and all of a sudden it is valuable in its uniqueness. A fetus, in my opinion, does not contain any unique valuable traits, at least no more than a snowflake. Although the mother can sometimes place an emotional attachment onto it, the fact remains that there is not a tangible victim. I liken it to destroying a blank painting canvas. Destroying an actual portrait, even halfway painted, should be a crime because it is irreplacable. Destroying a blank canvas is meaningless because it's not a valuable resource. Truth be told, we can make an infinite number of canvas' and fetus'. Where is the value?

That is my logical breakdown of it, although I have emotional attachment too. My emotional attachment sides with the actual living person whose life can be disastrously impacted by an unwanted pregnancy. In some cases, I would say it's moral to abort even if the child was wanted, but had severe birth defects that would prove troublesome for it itself in the future. Now I must admit that I do understand how what I have said is "distasteful." And I think that is what most pro-life advocates place emphasis on. They care more about how they themselves feel about something than about how the world views it. As a moral relativist I can understand where they come from and why they think that. I realize that to them, their take on my abortion stance is probably akin to my take on the robot's solution to the world's troubles.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Logic and science shows us what is really true, feelings and emotions show us what really matters. The first half of the equation is set in stone. It can be interpreted differently, but there is only one objective truth for it. The subjective feelings are what cloud our judgement every step of the way. Because we cannot agree on this, I guess the only true solution is to have representative democracy and just allow majority rule, but let certain groups counterbalance each other like the government checks and balances. It's like that Winston Churchill quote: "Democracy is the worst form of government, until you consider the alternatives."

Quote from: NatsuTerran on February 25, 2012, 04:42:37 PM
But as science uncovers details about homosexuality and learns that these people did not choose this or are not evil in any way

What is the empirical test of evil? I haven't heard of that one, as far as I know evil does not exist.
With regards to whether something is a choice or not is largely beside the point, I am arguing that if a choice doesn't result in an unstable society then governments ought to but out and let the people choose their own fate.

Quote from: NatsuTerran on February 25, 2012, 04:42:37 PM
No given thing is going to make a stable society unstable, and an unstable society stable.

If we make first degree murder legal, how long do you think it will be for society to become unstable?
Same thing goes for rape, same thing for theft or assult etc.

Just take a look at what happened in New Orleans in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. The law was largely absent and society degraded into a dangerous and unstable environment.

Well it all depends on how you define stability. How *much* instability before it becomes wrong? And as for my post on empirical facts determining right and wrong, you misunderstood. Read my mammoth post.

Natsu: Great post, and I agree with your points about empirical evidence being a good starting point for morality, but not the only one. The Churchill comment sums it up very well, and is also one of my favorite quotes.

Stevil: You talk often of basing laws only on maintaining a "stable society". However, look at countries like China, Iran, and Russia. They will suppress freedom of expression, public demonstrations, and imprison people who dare to speak out against the government in the name of "social stability". They place a higher priority on that than letting people express thoughts that might de-legitimize the government, because that could get messy. Western countries which allow for public demonstrations risk more instability, but still allow them because they consider it immoral and unethical to suppress demonstrations and imprison someone just because they disagree with the government. How do you square that with your argument? I am not, by the way, implying that you agree with China, Russia, and Iran. However, as deplorable as their human rights record is, they are currently very stable and in no danger of collapse, as far as I can tell.

That is a good point Firebird. Stability is a balancing act. More socialist countries will be more stabilized, and more free countries will be less. I personally value objective security and safety far more than subjective freedoms, so my dream country is along the lines of Japan, where everyone is compliant with the laws and norms. No one raises a stink about anything like most Americans. It sickens me how selfish people in this country are; I think selfishness is the ultimate evil. I just don't see how people can value their own subjective freedoms being overridden in favor of objective goods coming from it. Not everyone cares about certain freedoms, freedom is neutral. But everyone should care about well-being and suffering. This is why I tend to side with security over freedom as my starting point, and then examine how much of a fit people raise on a subjective level. But at the same time stability can go too far as seen in communism. It's all a balancing act.

A good example is public security cameras. Some people raise a fit over this for whatever reason, saying they have a right to privacy while in the public. The results of these cameras is objectively observable: crime is reduced by x amount per year. What isn't clear, is how much the citizens are bothered by this. In my Japanese mind, everyone should be logical and smart enough to realize that they could potentially be affected by said crimes that were reduced, and that privacy doesn't matter in this setting that much (ballparked amongst society) because you are already in public.

One thing to keep in mind though, is that while behavior is ultimately predictable, and not metaphysical at all, we cannot truly know the consequences of certain things. Like you say Firebird, other cultures fear a lack of stability and have more coercion to compliment their beliefs. But how are we to know objectively if this is correct, that the ends do indeed justify the means? We cannot say "well look at this western country, they are fine and they have no coercion." The problem is that the people are different, the temperatures are different, the environment and culture is different.

This is the essence of Chaos Theory. While everything is completely predictable in the end, whether we can predict what will happen or not is a whole other beast altogether. Do we err on the safe side, or glorify our subjective values and take the risk? Chaos theory is the main issue I found with Stevil's stability idea, but I didn't realize it until your last post. How are we to truly *know* if something causes stability or instability in any given situation? There are trillions of variables in life that are so interconnected that any given thing could skew results. There are two kinds of studies we use in science to deal with this, quasi data and lab research. Lab research takes place in enclosed settings with all variables evened out or accounted for. It should be able to recreate the same result every time.

Quasi data gathering is just looking at what has happened in a natural setting and trying to extrapolate the information to apply to other areas of life. As I implied above, chaos theory makes this type of data extraordinarily unreliable if taken at face value. Correlation does not imply causation. Quasi data is most often used in the field of economics. That is why most experts cannot agree in that field, they have no means of differentiating between what happened because of economic policies or what happened because of external factors that were unaccounted for. They do have scientific methods, but it is difficult to know how to apply them to reality. Some economists even go as far as to abandon all scientific methods and rely on armchair ruminations based on their own "common sense." And I hope we all know by now how reliable common sense is  ::)

Quote from: Firebird on February 25, 2012, 08:14:42 PM
Stevil: You talk often of basing laws only on maintaining a "stable society". However, look at countries like China, Iran, and Russia. They will suppress freedom of expression, public demonstrations, and imprison people who dare to speak out against the government in the name of "social stability". They place a higher priority on that than letting people express thoughts that might de-legitimize the government, because that could get messy. Western countries which allow for public demonstrations risk more instability, but still allow them because they consider it immoral and unethical to suppress demonstrations and imprison someone just because they disagree with the government. How do you square that with your argument? I am not, by the way, implying that you agree with China, Russia, and Iran. However, as deplorable as their human rights record is, they are currently very stable and in no danger of collapse, as far as I can tell.

I disagree that suppressed freedom = stability and that freedom risks more instability.
History shows that suppressed freedom = oppression = instability = conflict = war.

Under Mao's China people turned on each other, the educated, the prosperous were routed out, denounced and killed. The uneducated turned the tables, divided up the wealth and for a short time were able to feed better than they had in the past. But the country did not prosper, it struggled under Mao, huge amounts of focus was on propaganda and control, people lived in fear and publicly loved Mao through fear for their own lives. People began to starve, in their millions they died. 60 million at least died in this oppressed China.
Things are getting better in China, but people are still oppressed, people still live in fear and people are still dying for the greater good. China will implode at some stage, it is only a matter of time.

I don't believe that Western countries allow freedom of speech because it is perceived as the moral approach. I believe they do it to avoid oppressing the people and hence avoid facing a rebellion. Democratic countries have government voted into power, this means the members of society have chosen their leaders. Parties that campaign on rule rather than representation do not get voted into power.

Quote from: Stevil

Quote from: pytheas
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.

no disagreement, we both accept that the neurologic machinery to accomodate and implement ethics is prior and separate from the growing capacity of intellect.

Quote from: StevilAs children mature they start to challenge this concept of authoritative morality and instead replace it with ....authoritative morality rather than inward towards reasoned thought.

OK however the critical keyword is REPLACE and not NEGATE. I too understand that any fixed dogma is for the bin as the living space evolves and transmutates. competence is based on the alignment and stability of drives emotionally springing from within in accord to reasoned choices and secured scrutiny upon  orthologic meta-analysis

Quote from: StevilEmotionalism 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.

Of course disjointed from logic emotionalism is the stuff of animals, you are spot on. However your example does not match: the only time you can support your right to oppinion and feel very wrong about homosexuality is if you are actively doing it and do not like it. The acts between consenting adults do not allow ground for "your" nosy judgement, so get a life! homophobia and insecurity are the principal motivators for negativity against homosexuals, and it is an imbalance of the observer.  public indecency is another fishy chapter and not only related to homo but to all sexuality- we can argue there as to the right and wrong. But in casting judgement for issues behind closed doors and private affairs,  many people are simply stupendously wrong and small-minded.

I believe there is moral grounds to implement an exclusion of Stupid and small minded voices from oppinions that form /infuence public policy.

Quote from: pytheas on February 26, 2012, 10:49:58 AM
I believe there is moral grounds to implement an exclusion of Stupid and small minded voices from oppinions that form /infuence public policy.

All opinions based on morality are small minded.
It is wrong because it is immoral therefore I must make it against the law for everyone else.

If you oppose this based on moral grounds then you fail to recognise that your opponents morality is as justified as your own. Thus we have two small minded opponents furiously screaming at each other that their own brand of morality is better.

Which is why there is not going to be an easy answer, but as humans we want a simple fix. It's not possible to objectively argue that your way of life is the answer to another person. Just imagine, as being an educated atheist, trying to argue with someone about any number of things with a person from a very poor and under-developed country. There's just no way you can convince them of certain things because they don't have the basic scientific assumptions that we have.

This is why democracy is pretty much the only answer. Societies need to bounce their morals across each other and work out a compromise. Compromise is what drives progress, not dogmatic ideals. It's not going to be pretty for everyone, but the majority's needs are what really count ultimately. I know that it's not nice for me, for example, to think of a country that bans abortion due to religious beliefs. I would like to say they are objectively wrong for manufacturing more suffering in certain instances. But I can't really say that, I have no jurisdiction of their culture. All we can do is throw our hands up and have faith that science and empirical logic will eventually spread to these people so that they might be educated to our own personal beliefs. Every individual has their own point on the grid, but the concept of morality as a whole is the collection and compromise of those points. I like how Dawkins said it when he was answering a question a theist proposed about absolute morality. I can't remember exactly what he said, but it was something like "Absolute morality is listening to every word of God, including things such as slavery and killing children. I don't think we would want absolute morality, but rather we should reason and argue our morality through logic in order to reveal the best answer for all of us."

That's probably not even close to a direct quote but it was the idea I got from it. But keep in mind that Dawkins idea of morality is subjective as well. Being a moral relativist is subjective too. I guess you are correct in saying objective morality doesn't really exist. All it is is what matters to us as individuals.

Quote from: Stevil on February 26, 2012, 04:34:09 PM

Quote from: pytheas on February 26, 2012, 10:49:58 AM
I believe there is moral grounds to implement an exclusion of Stupid and small minded voices from oppinions that form /infuence public policy.

All opinions based on morality are small minded.
It is wrong because it is immoral therefore I must make it against the law for everyone else.

If you oppose this based on moral grounds then you fail to recognise that your opponents morality is as justified as your own. Thus we have two small minded opponents furiously screaming at each other that their own brand of morality is better.

Wait, no not all opinions, ie personal oppinions, but all public policy decisions. I big difference. Then Natsu applies perfectly about collective compromise.

My input:
At any given frame of events, a human consensus can be reached as to the right and wrong between 2 personal small minded perspectives. It;s clear cut and its what gives the name to "common" sense which includes quasi-common morality, base human reflector animal spirit shit. if you like
And i understand that the scenario's when right is not clearly distinguishable from wrong, it' s always a matter of poor frame perception, not the clear consice picture for anyone that looks on.Its ok to accept grey areas, its part of life and temperance, moderation, compromise, understanding, empathy all have a little beneficiary  act in the grey arenas

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. If left to their own devices, there will be eternal war and disagreement. But through establishing common grounds with science, we can show what applies to all of us and work out a compromise. This is why I think morals kind of exist objectively, but are still ultimately subjective. Certain factors can show us what is really there, which is objective. But it still comes down to how tasteful it is for the individual, which is subjective.

Quote from: Stevil on February 26, 2012, 10:13:07 AM

Quote from: Firebird on February 25, 2012, 08:14:42 PM
Stevil: You talk often of basing laws only on maintaining a "stable society". However, look at countries like China, Iran, and Russia. They will suppress freedom of expression, public demonstrations, and imprison people who dare to speak out against the government in the name of "social stability". They place a higher priority on that than letting people express thoughts that might de-legitimize the government, because that could get messy. Western countries which allow for public demonstrations risk more instability, but still allow them because they consider it immoral and unethical to suppress demonstrations and imprison someone just because they disagree with the government. How do you square that with your argument? I am not, by the way, implying that you agree with China, Russia, and Iran. However, as deplorable as their human rights record is, they are currently very stable and in no danger of collapse, as far as I can tell.

I disagree that suppressed freedom = stability and that freedom risks more instability.
History shows that suppressed freedom = oppression = instability = conflict = war.

Under Mao's China people turned on each other, the educated, the prosperous were routed out, denounced and killed. The uneducated turned the tables, divided up the wealth and for a short time were able to feed better than they had in the past. But the country did not prosper, it struggled under Mao, huge amounts of focus was on propaganda and control, people lived in fear and publicly loved Mao through fear for their own lives. People began to starve, in their millions they died. 60 million at least died in this oppressed China.
Things are getting better in China, but people are still oppressed, people still live in fear and people are still dying for the greater good. China will implode at some stage, it is only a matter of time.

I don't believe that Western countries allow freedom of speech because it is perceived as the moral approach. I believe they do it to avoid oppressing the people and hence avoid facing a rebellion. Democratic countries have government voted into power, this means the members of society have chosen their leaders. Parties that campaign on rule rather than representation do not get voted into power.

I don't agree with your premise that governments allow freedom of speech simply to avoid rebellion. The concept had its start in philosophers such as John Locke, Voltaire, and John Milton, and governments historically resisted allowing it until pushed by the people who read such philosophers and pushed for the idea. The US Constitution was the first instance where such ideas were codified into law, and even it did not allow freedom of speech initially.  Indeed there is still resistance to it by governments around the world. And there are always attempts by governments to chip away at it in the name of stability. Much of Europe has blasphemy laws. J. Edgar Hoover investigated domestic "enemies" of the US because they were saying things he didn't like, which he perceived as a threat to stability. And so on. It lives on as an important basis of western governments precisely because people resist encroachment on said rights, considering it unethical and immoral to take away such an important right. If freedom of speech actually caused more stability, why don't more governments allow for it, then?

And as much as I hope you're right about China, it is also quite possible that they could remain stable for decades to come. They have a plethora of resources and a population willing to be exploited in order to raise their living standards above the extreme poverty they have had to endure in the rural areas of the country. Maybe at some point people will rebel, but it's not a given.

Quote from: pytheas on February 26, 2012, 05:26:04 PM

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.

Quote from: NatsuTerran on February 26, 2012, 05:32:44 PM
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?

Quote from: Stevil on February 27, 2012, 06:56:20 AM

Quote from: NatsuTerran on February 26, 2012, 05:32:44 PM
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.

Quote from: Amicale on February 27, 2012, 07:17:39 AM
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?

Sorry, I didn't feel like messing with quotes this late.  ;D 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.

Quote from: Amicale on February 27, 2012, 08:33:56 AM
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?

Quote from: Amicale on February 27, 2012, 08:33:56 AM
"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.

Quote from: Amicale on February 27, 2012, 08:33:56 AM
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).

Quote from: Amicale on February 27, 2012, 08:33:56 AM
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.

Quote from: Amicale on February 27, 2012, 08:33:56 AM
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.

Quote from: Stevil on February 27, 2012, 06:53:33 AM

Quote from: pytheas on February 26, 2012, 05:26:04 PM

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.

Quote from: Stevil
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

Quote from: Stevil
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.

Quote from: pytheas on February 27, 2012, 02:09:57 PM

Quote from: Stevil on February 27, 2012, 06:53:33 AM
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.

Quote from: pytheas on February 27, 2012, 02:09:57 PM
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?

Quote from: pytheas on February 27, 2012, 02:09:57 PM
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.

Quote from: pytheas on February 27, 2012, 02:09:57 PM
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.

Quote from: pytheas on February 27, 2012, 02:09:57 PM
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.

Quote from: Stevil on February 27, 2012, 06:17:02 PM
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?

Quote from: Stevil on February 27, 2012, 06:17:02 PM
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

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.

Quote from: pytheas on February 28, 2012, 08:15:49 PM
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.

Quote from: pytheas on February 28, 2012, 08:15:49 PM
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.

Quote from: pytheas on February 28, 2012, 08:15:49 PM
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.

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?

Quote from: Amicale on March 26, 2012, 05:14:27 AM
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.

Quote from: Amicale on March 26, 2012, 05:14:27 AM
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.

Quote from: Stevil on March 26, 2012, 05:27:04 AM

Quote from: Amicale on March 26, 2012, 05:14:27 AM
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.

Quote from: Amicale on March 26, 2012, 05:14:27 AM
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.

Quote from: Amicale on March 26, 2012, 05:42:23 AM
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.

Yes, the nature of humans seems to be sociability as opposed to cats which are generally solo creatures.

Quote from: The Semaestro on March 26, 2012, 03:59:04 AM
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.

I think the debate here is mostly how does one take any kind of construction of morality and turn it into law? Most of us agree that some kind of laws are necessary. And to create laws, you need some kind of defendable, structured definition of what is or isn't acceptable.

It is simple enough to derive laws from ethical principles, so long as those affected by said laws share the same perspective of reality. Of course, when different views of perspective arise, then conflicting laws also will come into contention. For example, a law banning contraception and abortion in america will be looked favorably upon by catholics, who generally share the same viewpoint. Those that disagree with the underlying principles of such an action will also, necessarily, dissagree with the worldview contributing to the belief in such principles.

Any society, to have agreed upon laws, must be uniform enough in how it views the world to avoid civil war.

Quote from: The Semaestro on March 26, 2012, 09:34:31 PM
It is simple enough to derive laws from ethical principles, so long as those affected by said laws share the same perspective of reality. Of course, when different views of perspective arise, then conflicting laws also will come into contention. For example, a law banning contraception and abortion in america will be looked favorably upon by catholics, who generally share the same viewpoint. Those that disagree with the underlying principles of such an action will also, necessarily, dissagree with the worldview contributing to the belief in such principles.

Any society, to have agreed upon laws, must be uniform enough in how it views the world to avoid civil war.

If we remove ethics and morality out of the equation then we don't have the conflict, we don't have the war.
The religious people can feel happy that their all powerful god will seek perfect vengeance for ethical misconduct in the afterlife.
But on earth we only need rules for a stable and functional society, one where our earthly lives can be safe and free from unnecessary oppression.

Quote from: The Semaestro on March 26, 2012, 09:34:31 PM
Any society, to have agreed upon laws, must be uniform enough in how it views the world to avoid civil war.

I don't think so, I think the only thing that is necessary is that everyone acknowledges that the rule of law is important. If we only make laws that are absolutely essential to bettering society, and we mostly leave the issues of morality alone, I think many different worldviews could adjust to that. Civil wars break out when one faction of society feel like they are being unfairly managed by another faction of society. I don't think that feeling of injustice in inevitable if laws are based on solid, logical, scientific principals about what makes the society more functional.

Quote from: The Semaestro on March 26, 2012, 03:59:04 AM
to have a concept of what is good or bad, you must first have a picture of reality that is reasonably accurate.  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,

minimally correspondant by lowest common denominator reality

lower common denominator is any homo sapiens-christian.cretins, atheist, whatever, but they have to bleed and pain, feel and express have a normative range of psychologic dynamics

minimally correspondant relies on science, verifiable, testable, replicatory and demonstration-prone

the king is naked, because when I wear the same "clothes" I go COLD

Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 26, 2012, 09:52:06 PM

Quote from: The Semaestro on March 26, 2012, 09:34:31 PM
Any society, to have agreed upon laws, must be uniform enough in how it views the world to avoid civil war.

...only thing that is necessary is that everyone acknowledges that the rule of law is important...

Thank you for proving my point. This is a precise example of what I mean.

Quote from: The Semaestro on April 04, 2012, 08:09:07 PM

Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 26, 2012, 09:52:06 PM

Quote from: The Semaestro on March 26, 2012, 09:34:31 PM
Any society, to have agreed upon laws, must be uniform enough in how it views the world to avoid civil war.

...only thing that is necessary is that everyone acknowledges that the rule of law is important...

Thank you for proving my point. This is a precise example of what I mean.

Uh, which society doesn't acknowledge a need for laws?

Quote from: pytheas on March 29, 2012, 01:27:51 PM

Quote from: The Semaestro on March 26, 2012, 03:59:04 AM
to have a concept of what is good or bad, you must first have a picture of reality that is reasonably accurate.  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,

minimally correspondant by lowest common denominator reality

lower common denominator is any homo sapiens-christian.cretins, atheist, whatever, but they have to bleed and pain, feel and express have a normative range of psychologic dynamics

minimally correspondant relies on science, verifiable, testable, replicatory and demonstration-prone

the king is naked, because when I wear the same "clothes" I go COLD

I don't think you even understand what you are saying with this post.

Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on April 04, 2012, 08:12:10 PM

Quote from: The Semaestro on April 04, 2012, 08:09:07 PM

Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 26, 2012, 09:52:06 PM

Quote from: The Semaestro on March 26, 2012, 09:34:31 PM
Any society, to have agreed upon laws, must be uniform enough in how it views the world to avoid civil war.

...only thing that is necessary is that everyone acknowledges that the rule of law is important...

Thank you for proving my point. This is a precise example of what I mean.

Uh, which society doesn't acknowledge a need for laws?

Precisely, Determined Juiliet.  :-*

What?!

Edit:
Just so I make sure I understand this:
-You said that a society needs people with a similar worldview, or there'll be civil war.
-I said they don't need a similar worldview, they just need to acknowledge the need for rule of law.
- You said "thanks for explaining my point" (which I wasn't).
- So I asked you to point out which society functions without acknowledging the need for rule of law.
- You said "precisely" and gave me a kissy face (which you can keep, by the way).

In conclusion, WTF?
 

Acknowledging the need for the rule of law isn't a whole "worldview", was my point.

Quoteworld·view  (wûrldvy)
n. In both senses also called Weltanschauung.
1. The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world.
2. A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group

Perhaps I misspoke. By "worldview" I was referring to the entire collections of beliefs that an individual has/accumulates throughout one's life. A society does not need to have every individual therein have the exact same beliefs as every other individual. However, certain beliefs must be held by a significant amount of others that common ground can be found. My equating this common belief to a "worldview", while probably not literally appropriate, was meant only in the sense that a belief is considered a worldview to the extent that the belief has, as it's focus, an element of the world. Naturally, all beliefs/statements do this(excluding goedel statements).

In plain english: Everybody's gotta get a long.

:edit:Sorry for making the kissy face. :(

Ah, I see. It's just hard to know how to take something when there are only a couple word responses. No worries, though!

Quote from: The Semaestro on April 04, 2012, 08:12:38 PM

Quote from: pytheas on March 29, 2012, 01:27:51 PM

Quote from: The Semaestro on March 26, 2012, 03:59:04 AM
to have a concept of what is good or bad, you must first have a picture of reality that is reasonably accurate.  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,

minimally correspondant by lowest common denominator reality
lower common denominator is any homo sapiens-christian.cretins, atheist, whatever, but they have to bleed and pain, feel and express have a normative range of psychologic dynamics
minimally correspondant relies on science, verifiable, testable, replicatory and demonstration-prone
the king is naked, because when I wear the same "clothes" I go COLD

I don't think you even understand what you are saying with this post.

I'll break it down for you in digestible fragments

The reality which can be trans-communicated, explained, shown with the least effort, the least interpretation, without explanation. Self-evident.

So in considering society, the people, we have to include the lowest common denominator  and  any homo sapiens within  a normative range of psychologic dynamics.
The only unavoidable split in viewpoints can only be justified in the cuckoo's nest.

So any "normal"person that eg.  bleeds and pains, , feels and expresses themselves.
In belief or IQ or worldview they can be christian/cretins, atheist, whatever, so long as they have a basic understanding

Metaphor/example based on known fairy tale:
"the king is naked, because when I wear the same "clothes" I go COLD"

reality through observation, example mimetics, replication and verification of causal effect : 
no clothes=cold   
naked=view

This approach relies on scientific reasoning, verifiable, testable, replicatory and demonstration-prone 

It is the only approach and it does fit all. The level of resolution allows for the range of understandings. It is not stupid and in having various levels of resolution it does not impose anything on anyone that cannot witness it directly, as it is, for themselves.

Quote from: pytheas on April 23, 2012, 09:37:31 AM

Quote from: The Semaestro on April 04, 2012, 08:12:38 PM

Quote from: pytheas on March 29, 2012, 01:27:51 PM

Quote from: The Semaestro on March 26, 2012, 03:59:04 AM
to have a concept of what is good or bad, you must first have a picture of reality that is reasonably accurate.  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,

minimally correspondant by lowest common denominator reality
lower common denominator is any homo sapiens-christian.cretins, atheist, whatever, but they have to bleed and pain, feel and express have a normative range of psychologic dynamics
minimally correspondant relies on science, verifiable, testable, replicatory and demonstration-prone
the king is naked, because when I wear the same "clothes" I go COLD

I don't think you even understand what you are saying with this post.

I'll break it down for you in digestible fragments

The reality which can be trans-communicated, explained, shown with the least effort, the least interpretation, without explanation. Self-evident.

So in considering society, the people, we have to include the lowest common denominator  and  any homo sapiens within  a normative range of psychologic dynamics.
The only unavoidable split in viewpoints can only be justified in the cuckoo's nest.

So any "normal"person that eg.  bleeds and pains, , feels and expresses themselves.
In belief or IQ or worldview they can be christian/cretins, atheist, whatever, so long as they have a basic understanding

Metaphor/example based on known fairy tale:
"the king is naked, because when I wear the same "clothes" I go COLD"

reality through observation, example mimetics, replication and verification of causal effect : 
no clothes=cold   
naked=view

This approach relies on scientific reasoning, verifiable, testable, replicatory and demonstration-prone 

It is the only approach and it does fit all. The level of resolution allows for the range of understandings. It is not stupid and in having various levels of resolution it does not impose anything on anyone that cannot witness it directly, as it is, for themselves.

pytheas

How come you have just found out how to use the shift key and post in vaguely comprehensible English?
This post is so far out of your normal style it might as well be a different person posting. - Tank

Quote from: Tank on April 23, 2012, 09:41:52 AM
pytheas

How come you have just found out how to use the shift key and post in vaguely comprehensible English?
This post is so far out of your normal style it might as well be a different person posting. - Tank

how can you presume the width depth and crevises of my "normal" style since my exposure is limited and comprehension compromised?

according to one's mood and available time  the effort put into writing, and the sentiment intensity of participation fluctuates.

I assure you  no-one else utilises this account

I am also pretty sure we cannot fathom our respective personalities in all their spread through this medium.

Quote from: pytheas on April 24, 2012, 08:55:02 AM

Quote from: Tank on April 23, 2012, 09:41:52 AM
pytheas

How come you have just found out how to use the shift key and post in vaguely comprehensible English?
This post is so far out of your normal style it might as well be a different person posting. - Tank

how can you presume the width depth and crevises of my "normal" style since my exposure is limited and comprehension compromised?

according to one's mood and available time  the effort put into writing, and the sentiment intensity of participation fluctuates.

I assure you  no-one else utilises this account

I am also pretty sure we cannot fathom our respective personalities in all their spread through this medium.

Fine.