Morality

[Free Arabian Nation]

It's not what defines morality, it's who.

I knew Mr Bubba defined Morality.

[Jolthig]

It's not what defines morality, it's who.

I knew Mr Bubba defined Morality.

The coffee cup maker?

[Twilight Imperium]

There are those who could consider the willful destruction of someone else's property to also be immoral. What if it was say, a command bunker with 100 generals, politicians, and assorted functionaries?

I'm against war, so I would say even then it isn't right.

If you're against war, wouldn't bringing one to a swifter conclusion be better? I'm not proposing that any of these choices are purely moral, but only that one may be more so than the other.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I'm against war, so I would say even then it isn't right.

If you're against war, wouldn't bringing one to a swifter conclusion be better? I'm not proposing that any of these choices are purely moral, but only that one may be more so than the other.

I think it would be better not to kill anyone and not fight the war.

[DACOROMANIA]

It's not what defines morality, it's who.

So if God mandated that people should be slaughtered, that would be moral? It doesn't seem any different from the logic of the Waffen SS who ran the death camps.

God sent them Moral rules when Moses asked for. Then when they gone to Canaan, they met immoral aggressors. For their leaders this wasn't a dilemma. Surrounding tribes wanted to kill them or to enslave them and even found the new coming religion as a non-sense for the polytheism, as something what should be eradicated. So they had to fight and to clean these lands for themselves otherwise their neighbors would had killed them all by any means. The darker ages of history. God gave them moral laws. But their neighbors weren't moral.

Which Christians are you speaking about? USA? France? Russia? or who? are they still Christians after the French revolution? Roman Empires fallen long times ago. China also is a superpower but was never Christian. So who?
Balkans and Caucasians were oppressed by the Ottomans.

Their / their environment's kind of Christianity. Just like my community's liberal/moderate muslim bubble in a sea of fundamentalist conservative hellhole.

Again, don't make confusion between Christianity and Islam. Also, don't confuse Christianity with politics. And the neo-protestants are not related to the Apostles Christianity.
If you live in USA that country was never Christian and nor their politicians. Also E.U. is not confused as Christian. They departed Christianity through the French and American revolutions.
In the EU and/or Occident many Muslims (men especially) were let to enter by the politicians. And the politicians are out of a religion.

[Andsed]

Okay so lets define what objective morality is. I would define objective morality as a universal code of morals that everyone has. It also stands to reason that objective morality would not be changed based off what a certain culture thinks. So with that criteria we can logically assume that objective morality is a much less likely part of the universe than subjective morality.

We can easily see that a culture and what it thinks is moral can be very different than what another culture. If we compare the west to the middle east we can see a major difference in morals. We can also see that morals have changed over the course of human history as cultures change and evolve. For example slavery was once widely accepted but now is despised. With these things in mind we can safely say that humans have differing morals based off the culture they were born in.

And that lets us safely assume that if were to meet another intelligent species that has a culture different than ours than they would have different morals than us. None of this is 100% fact but I personally think with all of the differing morals we have due to our cultures does make the idea of objective morality much less feasible.

[Twilight Imperium]

If you're against war, wouldn't bringing one to a swifter conclusion be better? I'm not proposing that any of these choices are purely moral, but only that one may be more so than the other.

I think it would be better not to kill anyone and not fight the war.

Of course it would be better not to steal or war or kill or otherwise do harm, but having an ethical framework that essentially says "don't do bad stuff" is fairly useless in situations more complicated than "do I do the bad?" Moral frameworks are there to help us make tough choices.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I think it would be better not to kill anyone and not fight the war.

Of course it would be better not to steal or war or kill or otherwise do harm, but having an ethical framework that essentially says "don't do bad stuff" is fairly useless in situations more complicated than "do I do the bad?" Moral frameworks are there to help us make tough choices.

Sometimes it's best not to make a choice at all.

[Andsed]

If you're against war, wouldn't bringing one to a swifter conclusion be better? I'm not proposing that any of these choices are purely moral, but only that one may be more so than the other.

I think it would be better not to kill anyone and not fight the war.

Does not fighting the war apply to all wars? Or do you agree sometimes war is an necessary evil?

[Twilight Imperium]

Sometimes it's best not to make a choice at all.

Not making a choice is still a choice, though.

Let's say you're the leader of a country. There's a country next door that's very angry with you and covets your land and your stuff and your (et cetera). Sharing isn't really on the table - they will come and take all your stuff and kill you and your people unless you fight them off.

What is the moral path?

[United Muscovite Nations]

I think it would be better not to kill anyone and not fight the war.

Does not fighting the war apply to all wars? Or do you agree sometimes war is an necessary evil?

I think it can sometimes be a necessary evil, but I don't think it's ever justified, I don't believe in just war theory. I personally wouldn't serve in a military under any circumstance, but I won't make that choice for everyone.

[Twilight Imperium]

I think it can sometimes be a necessary evil, but I don't think it's ever justified, I don't believe in just war theory. I personally wouldn't serve in a military under any circumstance, but I won't make that choice for everyone.

Let's say you're the leader of a country. There's a country next door that's very angry with you and covets your land and your stuff and your (et cetera). Sharing isn't really on the table - they will come and take all your stuff and kill you and your people unless you fight them off.

What is the moral path?

[United Muscovite Nations]

I think it can sometimes be a necessary evil, but I don't think it's ever justified, I don't believe in just war theory. I personally wouldn't serve in a military under any circumstance, but I won't make that choice for everyone.

Let's say you're the leader of a country. There's a country next door that's very angry with you and covets your land and your stuff and your (et cetera). Sharing isn't really on the table - they will come and take all your stuff and kill you and your people unless you fight them off.

What is the moral path?

It's to do nothing, but I wouldn't judge someone for doing otherwise.

[Jolthig]

Okay so lets define what objective morality is. I would define objective morality as a universal code of morals that everyone has. It also stands to reason that objective morality would not be changed based off what a certain culture thinks. So with that criteria we can logically assume that objective morality is a much less likely part of the universe than subjective morality.

We can easily see that a culture and what it thinks is moral can be very different than what another culture. If we compare the west to the middle east we can see a major difference in morals. We can also see that morals have changed over the course of human history as cultures change and evolve. For example slavery was once widely accepted but now is despised. With these things in mind we can safely say that humans have differing morals based off the culture they were born in.

And that lets us safely assume that if were to meet another intelligent species that has a culture different than ours than they would have different morals than us. None of this is 100% fact but I personally think with all of the differing morals we have due to our cultures does make the idea of objective morality much less feasible.

I can agree with this to some extent.

[Twilight Imperium]

It's to do nothing, but I wouldn't judge someone for doing otherwise.

Interesting - what's the basis for this morality?

[Ethel mermania]

Morality is in the eye of the beholder.

[United Muscovite Nations]

It's to do nothing, but I wouldn't judge someone for doing otherwise.

Interesting - what's the basis for this morality?

That you wouldn't kill someone if you love them as much as you love yourself -- even in self-defense.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

It's not what defines morality, it's who.

So if God mandated that people should be slaughtered, that would be moral? It doesn't seem any different from the logic of the Waffen SS who ran the death camps.

Well that depends on what you mean by "if God mandated that people should be slaughtered". Because there are times when Allah SWT mandated that. He still does.

Sometimes it's best not to make a choice at all.

Not making a choice is still a choice, though.

Let's say you're the leader of a country. There's a country next door that's very angry with you and covets your land and your stuff and your (et cetera). Sharing isn't really on the table - they will come and take all your stuff and kill you and your people unless you fight them off.

What is the moral path?

Lesser jihad

[Andsed]

Okay so lets define what objective morality is. I would define objective morality as a universal code of morals that everyone has. It also stands to reason that objective morality would not be changed based off what a certain culture thinks. So with that criteria we can logically assume that objective morality is a much less likely part of the universe than subjective morality.

We can easily see that a culture and what it thinks is moral can be very different than what another culture. If we compare the west to the middle east we can see a major difference in morals. We can also see that morals have changed over the course of human history as cultures change and evolve. For example slavery was once widely accepted but now is despised. With these things in mind we can safely say that humans have differing morals based off the culture they were born in.

And that lets us safely assume that if were to meet another intelligent species that has a culture different than ours than they would have different morals than us. None of this is 100% fact but I personally think with all of the differing morals we have due to our cultures does make the idea of objective morality much less feasible.

I can agree with this to some extent.

In the interest of discussion what part do you disagree with?

[Jolthig]

I can agree with this to some extent.

In the interest of discussion what part do you disagree with?

That there is no true morality as you indirectly said in your post.

[Andsed]

In the interest of discussion what part do you disagree with?

That there is no true morality as you indirectly said in your post.

Well as I stated are morals differ base on whatever culture we are born in raised in and since a true morality should reasonably apply to every one it is safe to to assume it does not exist. I mean realistically if we were to encounter any alien life they would have a very different culture and thus different morals which puts the idea of one set of true morals into serious doubt.

[Hanafuridake]

Religion is a form of philosophy.

Bastard child perhaps.

Nagarjuna, Dharmakirti, and Dignāga would like a word.

[Jolthig]

That there is no true morality as you indirectly said in your post.

Well as I stated are morals differ base on whatever culture we are born in raised in and since a true morality should reasonably apply to every one it is safe to to assume it does not exist. I mean realistically if we were to encounter any alien life they would have a very different culture and thus different morals which puts the idea of one set of true morals into serious doubt.

Yes, but also humans and aliens are two biologically different species if somehow they interacted, provided that they exist. For example, religion has always said man are the chosen recipients for religion as in the case of Islam.

[Andsed]

Well as I stated are morals differ base on whatever culture we are born in raised in and since a true morality should reasonably apply to every one it is safe to to assume it does not exist. I mean realistically if we were to encounter any alien life they would have a very different culture and thus different morals which puts the idea of one set of true morals into serious doubt.

Yes, but also humans and aliens are two biologically different species if somehow they interacted, provided that they exist. For example, religion has always said man are the chosen recipients for religion as in the case of Islam.

If morality is objective it should apply to all sentient species correct?

[Jolthig]

Yes, but also humans and aliens are two biologically different species if somehow they interacted, provided that they exist. For example, religion has always said man are the chosen recipients for religion as in the case of Islam.

If morality is objective it should apply to all sentient species correct?

I do not know, as we haven't encountered these hypothetical species, but at a guess, I would say, yes.