Morals

[Ludwig]

Although there is already a thread about this, I'm creating a new one, because the old one is from 2009.

Wiktionary defines moral as:

Of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behaviour, especially for teaching right behaviour.

Moral is a word that I've read a lot in the debates, mostly in the context that it's morally wrong. No one seem to be able to answer why those things are morally wrong though. This makes me think that morals are unsupported statement rather than arguments and therefore got no value in a debate. The main reason why I'm creating this thread is to ask what morals include and why those things are included. But I'm also expecting that people will have different morals due to them just being opinions without any reasoning and that will probably start a debate about it. The debate will probably mostly be people writing statements without understanding what a debate is though (like in most other debate threads). Although, there is always a few people that actually do argue and it's for those people that I'm making this thread.

So, expressed with logical reasoning, tell me about morals.

 

[mattj]

No one seems to be able to explain why those things are morally wrong.

In my personal case I try to get all of my morals from the words of the Bible. I can't speak for others, but in my case "might makes right". As far as I can tell morality is fairly relative. Assuming that the Bible is true (another debate for a different thread), the God of the Bible is the most powerful being in the universe. If He is powerful enough to create everything in existence, and force those who reject Him to endure an eternity of torture, I think its pretty easy to see why His way is the best way. It sure beats any alternative.

 

[iCakeify]

Dat story about the chineese baby that got driven over twice and ignored by 18 pepole. It almost died. Now THAT'S what I call morals.

 

[BossTrainer]

My morals are do to others what you want done to you. Though I usually don't follow that moral. But one moral I have is that I will never kill someone.. :s

 

[Sadib]

Some people think that everyone in the world has the same morals, but that's an ethnocentric way of thinking. I think that drinking alcohol and smoking anything is bad, but others feel differently.

In my personal case I try to get all of my morals from the words of the Bible. I can't speak for others, but in my case "might makes right". As far as I can tell morality is fairly relative. Assuming that the Bible is true (another debate for a different thread), the God of the Bible is the most powerful being in the universe. If He is powerful enough to create everything in existence, and force those who reject Him to endure an eternity of torture, I think its pretty easy to see why His way is the best way. It sure beats any alternative.

That's an appeal to force, which is a logical fallacy.

A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.

 

[SwiftSoul]

The religious feeling engendered by experiencing the logical comprehensibility of profound interrelations is of a somewhat different sort from the feeling that one usually calls religious. It is more a feeling of awe at the scheme that is manifested in the material universe. It does not lead us to take the step of fashioning a god-like being in our own image - a personage who makes demands of us and who takes an interest in us as individuals. There is in this neither a will nor a goal, nor a must, but only sheer being. For this reason, people of our type see in morality a purely human matter, albeit the most important in the human sphere.

Albert Einstein.

Quite frankly, I see morality as a purely human construct which some try to attribute to a higher power.

EDIT: Got ninja'd on the Einstein, albeit with a different quote

 

[Double A]

Society can't exist if there is no "overlap" in terms of what everybody considers "morally right".

Throughout my childhood, I learnt through education, TV and inference that doing what others consider "good" is the best way to have others do what you consider "good". As such, I developed a conscience and learnt to care about others, since I practically had it drilled into my head that their wellbeing was directly tied to my own.

Morals are subjective, but "good" and "bad" often overlap greatly between individuals (as a result of people learning the "golden rule" through experience), which is why some people think that morals are concrete and objective.

 

[Grei]

Society can't exist if there is no "overlap" in terms of what everybody considers "morally right".

How so?

(I'm not trying to say you're wrong, I'm just curious as to how that works.)

Morals are subjective, but "good" and "bad" often overlap greatly between individuals (as a result of people learning the "golden rule" through experience), which is why some people think that morals are concrete and objective.

/ the Bible is very present in the lives of [Americans, at least], and so it's thought that what is in the Bible is the basis of all morality. At least, that's how I see it. Since America was founded as a Christian country (so I've heard), and the Bible has been so present in our lives since the Renaissance (and earlier, technically), most people think of morals and automatically assume that if it's a moral, it's in the Bible, and vice-versa. I feel like more people should think for themselves about what morals really are rather than turn to the Bible. Not that the Bible isn't a good source for morals--I think it's a fantastic source in some instances--but relying on someone else telling you what's right and wrong doesn't do anything for anyone.

 

[Jb]

I personally don't see the problem with geting your morals from the Bible.

 

[Double A]

How so?

(I'm not trying to say you're wrong, I'm just curious as to how that works.)

More specifically, an "overlap" that happens to be beneficial to the majority of the individuals involved.

For example, most would agree that attacking another except in the case of defense/survival is morally wrong from their own perspective. Ditto for stealing and other activities deemed "harmful". These aren't "objective" truths, but "subjective" opinions that happen to be shared among the majority if not everyone (i.e. these are areas where peoples' senses of morality overlap).

Having said that, it's easy to see why, if this "beneficial overlap" in morality didn't exist, society wouldn't exist. There would be disagreement and people would hurt others.

the Bible is very present in the lives of [Americans, at least], and so it's thought that what is in the Bible is the basis of all morality. At least, that's how I see it. Since America was founded as a Christian country (so I've heard), and the Bible has been so present in our lives since the Renaissance (and earlier, technically), most people think of morals and automatically assume that if it's a moral, it's in the Bible, and vice-versa. I feel like more people should think for themselves about what morals really are rather than turn to the Bible. Not that the Bible isn't a good source for morals--I think it's a fantastic source in some instances--but relying on someone else telling you what's right and wrong doesn't do anything for anyone.

"Thou shalt not kill" and "don't lie/steal" precede the Bible. You can't really claim the Bible as a source of morality, since the source of things like "don't kill/lie/steal" are extra-biblical. It's like citing a science book (i.e. the book itself, not the experiments that are mentioned in the book) as proof for a scientific concept.

 

[CSolarstorm]

Moral is a word that I've read a lot in the debates, mostly in the context that it's morally wrong. No one seem to be able to answer why those things are morally wrong though. This makes me think that morals are unsupported statement rather than arguments and therefore got no value in a debate.

Not so, because you don't need to know why something is for it to be true. That's a fallacious line of reasoning. You can ask why something is, and then when you get the answer, ask why that is, and then when you get that answer, ask why that is, and eventually one time you ask why you'll reach the bottom line - 'because it's just that way'. For some of us, our bottom line is, 'it's right as opposed to wrong'. For some of us, our bottom line is, 'God says it's that way', and you can't deconstruct that bottom line any farther. That doesn't mean the whole chain of reasoning has no basis at all, it means that your line of inquiry just stopped being profitable.

There are things that are just inherently so. Facts that most of us agree upon, regardless of what moral code we say we follow. Murder is wrong, hurting a child is wrong, there's the golden rule, there's empathy and altruism and helping your fellow man, and with some exceptions (war, rituals involving children, yes I know, there's a diversity of morality) most people unite under a set of primary moral principles. Treating them as if they are mere notions that must still be proven is just ignoring the fact that a central set of morals is already given information that we all have in our daily lives. We are people before we are debaters.

 

[Raddaya]

I personally don't see the problem with geting your morals from the Bible.

Oh, there's no problem with getting morals from the Bible. The problem, imo, is with following the Bible morals BECAUSE you a) want to go to heaven and/or b) don't want to go to hell. Carrot in front, stick at back, is this really a good way to go?

I personally go with "I'll scratch your back, someone else will scratch mine." If I help others, then I'll get helped when needed. If you play KoL, think how trustbot works.

 

[Hejiru]

Morality is a subject we will never get a definitive answer to. It's based on personal opinion and belief. I suggest looking up some of the famous moral philosophies. Plato's idealism, Aristotle's naturalism, hedonism, epicureanism, stoicism, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, Hobbes' egoism, Hume's sentimentalism, Kant's rationalism, Utilitarianism, Nietzscshe's existentialism, Sartre's existentialism, Darwinian Naturalism, Carol Gilligan's Care Ethics, Metaethics... read these and develop your own opinion.

Oh, there's no problem with getting morals from the Bible. The problem, imo, is with following the Bible morals BECAUSE you a) want to go to heaven and/or b) don't want to go to hell. Carrot in front, stick at back, is this really a good way to go?

I personally go with "I'll scratch your back, someone else will scratch mine." If I help others, then I'll get helped when needed. If you play KoL, think how trustbot works.

If the result is good, do the motivations really matter?

 

[Snorunt conservationist]

I personally don't see the problem with geting your morals from the Bible.

It actively promotes child abuse for one.

In short, I see morality as a relative construct with many things that simply happen to coincide with (almost) universal agreement.

 

[Raddaya]

If the result is good, do the motivations really matter?

Hell yes. Do you want to go back to the Dark Ages? Rational thinking is a must. There has to be a REASON to everything. The motivations obviously matter. You can't go around saying that the result was good so everything's fine.

 

[mattj]

Some people think that everyone in the world has the same morals, but that's an ethnocentric way of thinking. I think that drinking alcohol and smoking anything is bad, but others feel differently.

That's an appeal to force, which is a logical fallacy.

Nice opinion there. I have a couple of my own.

It actively promotes child abuse for one.

Fathers, do not provoke your children, lest they become discouraged.

Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.

But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

And so train the young women to love their husbands and children,

It consistently amazes me just how biased and ignorant you are. The Bible does not promote child abuse.

 

[Snorunt conservationist]

http://godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/BibleQuotes.htm#childabuse

 

[Jb]

Those seem more like consequences to 'bad' actions than straight out abuse, but to each his own.

 

[Snorunt conservationist]

I could also bring up figures like Abraham, who was willing to kill his own child in order to placate a bloodthirsty deity.

 

[Zachmac]

We humans rely deeply on each other. If there was no division of labor or people supporting each other, would we of been this successful? Moral is something that applies to humans and only humans, not to any other animal, since it's order in keeping people working together.

Imagine if no one ever did any work for anyone but themselfs. I mean, no selling, buying, trading, or anything like that, just collecting nuts for us to eat and only us.