Let's quarrel over morals!

[Laerod]

The idea is that instead of basing what is right and what is wrong on old texts, you examine what you ought to do by finding arguments that support doing or not doing something. For instance you don't need a biblical commandment to realize that murder is wrong; there's good reasons to not allow people to kill each other. Meanwhile, the biblical prohibition on cotton-polyester blends is nonsensical and indefensible.

So is it's only stance Anti-Biblical authority, or does it propose it's own standard of morallity?

Huh? What makes you think the bible is the only book out there claiming to be a moral authority? It's not against religious morality per se, it attempts to evaluate everything based on reason rather than whether some book somewhere prohibits it.

[Radiatia]

We, as human beings, whether we are religious or atheists or angnostic, have a conscience- or at least an instinct that lets us know if what we are doing is against the basic unsaid laws. These laws are instilled in ourselves and contain the basic and obvious do's-and-don'ts: i.e. don't kill people, obey your parents, help that little old lady with her groceries. These laws are the foundations for morality, and apart from being found in ever human being, they are also the common points of almost every major religion/lifestyle, whether it be Buddhism, Catholicism, Hinduism, etc. So no matter what religious/non-religious kind of person you are, you can have morals- religion just makes it easier to do so and helps define the lines more, as well as giving counsel and guidance as to how to live your morals in a better way.

This, on a scientific level, comes from natural altruism, an evolutionary mechanism.

Basically, because humans are pack animals, we instinctively know that we rely on the group for protection/ our own health and well-being. Therefore we have instincts that tell us that the well-being of the group is inherent to our own well-being, hence why we automatically find something like killing another human to be atrocious. (Or at least, we should.)

Those people who don't are known as "psychopaths" and studies have shown that they chemically lack empathy.

That's my extremely brief "about to go to bed" reply anyway.

[Ethel mermania]

i disagree. If you wofship. the mighty Favog, eyou can be pretty sure there will be some virgin sacrifice within your worship service, and that the religion is based around keeping the mighty favog from getting too pissed, and raining down death and terror on the populace.

All moral systems are arbitrary, the question is can we agree upon any particular system? maximizing greater good, maximizing individual freedom, maximizing peace and tranquility, etc.

Well, no. A moral system based on ethical argumentation is simply less arbitrary by definition than following a code that some group of people long dead arbitrarily came up with.

eh, the dialectic determination of the system itself is arbitrary,

In theory the dead people were told their ethic's from above. So "the mighty Favog said so" is a valid argument. There is no arbitrary in the eyes of the believer. There is easy and comfort in the "believer, heathen, heritic, scenario.

In any normative system determining the norm requires some sort of agreement among the group holding that group of morals. i just dont see how any moral system is not somehow relativistic and arbitrary.

[Raeyh]

You sense of morality will be rather twisted.

So you concede that there is a "straight" morality? Because if there was no straight morality you couldn't have a twisted one.

I can only base it on my ideals of morality.

[NMaa942]

I'd like to participate, but I really don't know what this thread is about.

[Tubbsalot]

Like many deep philosophical questions, this is stupid and the failure lies in an unreasonable obsession with the power of words.

Morality is just a word we use to describe systems of what we think is good. There's no need to get any more in-depth than that.

[Laerod]

Well, no. A moral system based on ethical argumentation is simply less arbitrary by definition than following a code that some group of people long dead arbitrarily came up with.

eh, the dialectic determination of the system itself is arbitrary,

In theory the dead people were told their ethic's from above. So "the mighty Favog said so" is a valid argument. There is no arbitrary in the eyes of the believer. There is easy and comfort in the "believer, heathen, heritic, scenario.

In any normative system determining the norm requires some sort of agreement among the group holding that group of morals. i just dont see how any moral system is not somehow relativistic and arbitrary.

Hence why I said that it wasn't as arbitrary.

[Ashmoria]

I do love quarreling.

I hold that morality without God is arbitrary.

morality WITH god is arbitrary.

consider the moral differences between the quakers and the westboro baptist church.

[Lietvos]

To live in a morally correct way is a self-imposed duty. The Psychopath has to know, even in the teeniest, tiniest way that some of the things he's doing (if he's done anything wrong, for example murder) are wrong and go against his conscience. But, I mean, of course you're free to go and do whatever you want if it's according to your 'morals'. It's your life- if you go to jail/hell/ whatever you believe in, it's your business..

Thant you believe he would have a conscience shows that you have no understanding of what a psychopath is.

[Costaguano (Ancient)]

We is not aving any morals so we is not quarreling over wht we as not got !

[Alyekra]

Well ... yes. Morality is self-imposed and so anyone unable or un-willing to adhere to a form of morality is exempt of it. Others might try to press their morality on him. A concept that we call 'law and justice'.

To live in a morally correct way is a self-imposed duty. The Psychopath has to know, even in the teeniest, tiniest way that some of the things he's doing (if he's done anything wrong, for example murder) are wrong and go against his conscience. But, I mean, of course you're free to go and do whatever you want if it's according to your 'morals'. It's your life- if you go to jail/****/ whatever you believe in, it's your business.

So a serial killer is okay?

I apologize if I'm misinterpreting your views.

[Radiatia]

I'd like to participate, but I really don't know what this thread is about.

You've been answered, and my original post made it very clear, as does the title.

So politely please either participate, or simply refrain from spamming the thread. Thanks.

EDIT: Hehe I accidentally wrote "typo" instead of "title"

[Celebel]

Like many deep philosophical questions, this is stupid and the failure lies in an unreasonable obsession with the power of words.

Morality is just a word we use to describe systems of what we think is good. There's no need to get any more in-depth than that.

That's a pretty smart way to say 'shut up' and I agree. Sometimes, though, a little more explanation for the obtuse is required.

[Celebel]

To live in a morally correct way is a self-imposed duty. The Psychopath has to know, even in the teeniest, tiniest way that some of the things he's doing (if he's done anything wrong, for example murder) are wrong and go against his conscience. But, I mean, of course you're free to go and do whatever you want if it's according to your 'morals'. It's your life- if you go to jail/****/ whatever you believe in, it's your business.

So a serial killer is okay?

I apologize if I'm misinterpreting your views.

What do you mean 'okay'? A serial killer usually has that occupation because of a) boredom (rare, but still there) b) deep psychological issues c) madness. If c) then, I suppose, that the person may be unaware that what he's doing is wrong in every sense. b) and a), though, are still wrong and should go against his sense of morality.

[NMaa942]

consider the moral differences between the quakers and the westboro baptist church.

The westboro baptist church is a hell of a lot funnier. Why does God hate Fags? BECAUSE HE CAN!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ua1Y7dL ... age#t=527s
"I have serious respect for Louis. To approach these people and retain calm in their presence takes an enormous level of patience for the insane."

[Alyekra]

So a serial killer is okay?

I apologize if I'm misinterpreting your views.

What do you mean 'okay'? A serial killer usually has that occupation because of a) boredom (rare, but still there) b) deep psychological issues c) madness. If c) then, I suppose, that the person may be unaware that what he's doing is wrong in every sense. b) and a), though, are still wrong and should go against his sense of morality.

Alright, I see now.

[Radiatia]

Like many deep philosophical questions, this is stupid and the failure lies in an unreasonable obsession with the power of words.

Morality is just a word we use to describe systems of what we think is good. There's no need to get any more in-depth than that.

That was an unnecessarily rude way of putting it but what I am asking is "Is morality something that actually exists universally, or is it something subjective that we all make up based on our own thoughts and ideas."

Which is a pretty fucking valid question.

So... no it's not stupid, there isn't an 'unreasonable obsession with the power of words' and quite frankly by posting in this 'stupid' thread instead of ignoring it you've only made yourself look incredibly arrogant and demonstrated that you fail to understand the very thing that we are discussing.

[NMaa942]

That was an unnecessarily rude way of putting it but what I am asking is "Is morality something that actually exists universally, or is it something subjective that we all make up based on our own thoughts and ideas."

Which is a pretty fucking valid question.

So... no it's not stupid, there isn't an 'unreasonable obsession with the power of words' and quite frankly by posting in this 'stupid' thread instead of ignoring it you've only made yourself look incredibly arrogant and demonstrated that you fail to understand the very thing that we are discussing.

made it up

[Ethel mermania]

I do love quarreling.

I hold that morality without God is arbitrary.

morality WITH god is arbitrary.

consider the moral differences between the quakers and the westboro baptist church.

morality without god is arbitrary

consider the moral differences between stalin, and the ethical cultural society.

eh, its human, its all arbitrary. i prolly should not be in this thread.

[Ashmoria]

consider the moral differences between the quakers and the westboro baptist church.

The westboro baptist church is a hell of a lot funnier. Why does God hate Fags? BECAUSE HE CAN!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ua1Y7dL ... age#t=527s
"I have serious respect for Louis. To approach these people and retain calm in their presence takes an enormous level of patience for the insane."

probably funnier when its not your loved one who they are claiming god killed on purpose in order to punish america.

[Alyekra]

The westboro baptist church is a **** of a lot funnier. Why does God hate ****? BECAUSE HE CAN!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ua1Y7dL ... age#t=527s
"I have serious respect for Louis. To approach these people and retain calm in their presence takes an enormous level of patience for the insane."

probably funnier when its not your loved one who they are claiming god killed on purpose in order to punish america.

probably not funny at all, actually.

[Radiatia]

That was an unnecessarily rude way of putting it but what I am asking is "Is morality something that actually exists universally, or is it something subjective that we all make up based on our own thoughts and ideas."

Which is a pretty fucking valid question.

So... no it's not stupid, there isn't an 'unreasonable obsession with the power of words' and quite frankly by posting in this 'stupid' thread instead of ignoring it you've only made yourself look incredibly arrogant and demonstrated that you fail to understand the very thing that we are discussing.

made it up

At this stage I agree. I think that it is something that we have made up but I'm interested to see if there are any valid or convincing arguments out there to the contrary.

[NMaa942]

At this stage I agree. I think that it is something that we have made up but I'm interested to see if there are any valid or convincing arguments out there to the contrary.

How can there be?

[Radiatia]

At this stage I agree. I think that it is something that we have made up but I'm interested to see if there are any valid or convincing arguments out there to the contrary.

How can there be?

Well there are those who argue that morality is a universal thing, and they usually cite religion as being an example of this, which can on its own be debunked.

But I'm wondering if there is in fact a universal morality, or else if people are kidding themselves when they say "this is immoral" given that morality must be subjective and that therefore my more religious friends are right when they say that I have no grounds on which to condemn someone given that I don't believe in a universal morality.

I'm not sure I worded that very well...

[Grenartia]

Hello everyone. Hope you're all well.

I was reading through this thread before when someone brought up that inevitable line "How can you be moral without religion"?

After all "good" without "god" is just "o", right?

I noticed, as I skimread the thread, that the other posters dismissed the question as nonsense, which I personally felt to be grossly unfair.

After all, the nature of morality is something that has baffled philosophers since before the days of Socrates, which therefore leads me to the conclusion that either a) NSG contains the greatest philosophical minds the world has ever seen or b) There is some merit to the idea that morality at the very least needs to be defined, if not by religion then by something solid.

Now firstly, about me - I'm a crochety old atheist, hence why I am currently hard at work being bitter and nihilistic.

However several of my very dear Christian and Muslim friends have asked me how I am able to say "Persecution/Slavery/The production of the TV show 'Glee' is morally wrong" when I don't have a solid, or universal definition of what is morality, which usually causes me to hide behind the "I'm a moral nihilist" excuse.

Religion, although in my humble opinion irrational and illogical, does at the very least offer some kind of definition (or attempt at one) even if said definition is "obedience and the advocation of discrimination and slavery".

So, upon pondering this, I thought of doing things like reading Plato's Euthyphro, or going to the university that I live a block away from and talking to some of the philosophy lecturers, and reading and researching into this ancient dilemma.

And then I thought "Screw that. This looks like a job for NSG."

Challenge accepted. Here's a totally secular definition:

Something can only be immoral if it infringes or deprives a person or group of people their reasonable rights without their informed consent.

Something can be moral if it grants or preserves the reasonable rights of a person or group of people.

Everything else is morally neutral.