Morality

[Neutraligon]

Morality is I think the intersection of self interest and empathy for social (not hive) creatures.

[New Legland]

Okay fine I concede on this argument. I really have no more interest in this debate. This all comes down to our subjective opinions. You have yours and I have mine. Agree to disagree and all that jazz.

Yeah, that's my point, there was no point in this argument, because if morality is subjective, there's no objective meaning in life to pursue.

Okay? I fail to see what point you're trying to make.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Yeah, that's my point, there was no point in this argument, because if morality is subjective, there's no objective meaning in life to pursue.

Okay? I fail to see what point you're trying to make.

That subjective morality fails as a moral theory because it doesn't provide either a reason to do something or a reason not to do something.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Morality is I think the intersection of self interest and empathy for social (not hive) creatures.

I tend to agree with you particularly on the empathy part. I think empathy is probably the strongest argument for an objective moral system.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

Okay? I fail to see what point you're trying to make.

That subjective morality fails as a moral theory because it doesn't provide either a reason to do something or a reason not to do something.

I concur with this statement; I mean, even egoistic hedonism (a highly... misguided ethical framework, to be clear) makes statements about how humans should act, and what should be pursued (in the case of "pure" egoistic hedonism, this is the pursuit of pleasure for the benefit of the self, viewing others as merely instrumental to the self's pleasure-seeking)

Moral subjectivism is an exercise in utter futility.

Morality is I think the intersection of self interest and empathy for social (not hive) creatures.

I tend to agree with you particularly on the empathy part. I think empathy is probably the strongest argument for an objective moral system.

I agree, to a point. From a perspective of moral philosophy, "empathy" isn't the best term perhaps. Maybe "impartial benevolence" or a "universal predisposition towards friendliness" would be better? I mean, most humans are bad at applying the principles behind empathy (in essence, compassion) to those in the "out-group". And that's terrible.

[Neutraligon]

Morality is I think the intersection of self interest and empathy for social (not hive) creatures.

I tend to agree with you particularly on the empathy part. I think empathy is probably the strongest argument for an objective moral system.

Actually both of those are why I don't think morals are objective. I will give an example. Self interest, I think two men having sex is disgusting; empathy others think gay sex is also disgusting. I don't want to live in a society where guys are allowed to have sex with each other and there are others who feel the same way so it is "wrong" for men to have sex with each other.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I tend to agree with you particularly on the empathy part. I think empathy is probably the strongest argument for an objective moral system.

Actually both of those are why I don't think morals are objective.

I'm curious as to why you think that, I would think that we all have empathy seems to imply that there is a right way or a wrong way to treat other people.

[Neutraligon]

Actually both of those are why I don't think morals are objective.

I'm curious as to why you think that, I would think that we all have empathy seems to imply that there is a right way or a wrong way to treat other people.

Because empathy can and is limited. Empathy only really works if you are able to put yourself in another's shoes, and that is not always possible. Also it is limited by whom you empathize with in a situation. Do empathize with the homosexual couple who wants to get married or with the religious individual who thinks it is against god's will?

[United Muscovite Nations]

I'm curious as to why you think that, I would think that we all have empathy seems to imply that there is a right way or a wrong way to treat other people.

Because empathy can and is limited. Empathy only really works if you are able to put yourself in another's shoes, and that is not always possible. Also it is limited by whom you empathize with in a situation. Do empathize with the homosexual couple who wants to get married or with the religious individual who thinks it is against god's will?

That's true, though I would say that not having empathy would be flawed.

As for the hypothetical, I would say that we can empathize with both, while acknowledging that one situation is a lot more unfair to one party than to the other.

[Neutraligon]

That subjective morality fails as a moral theory because it doesn't provide either a reason to do something or a reason not to do something.

I concur with this statement; I mean, even egoistic hedonism (a highly... misguided ethical framework, to be clear) makes statements about how humans should act, and what should be pursued (in the case of "pure" egoistic hedonism, this is the pursuit of pleasure for the benefit of the self, viewing others as merely instrumental to the self's pleasure-seeking)

Moral subjectivism is an exercise in utter futility.

I tend to agree with you particularly on the empathy part. I think empathy is probably the strongest argument for an objective moral system.

I agree, to a point. From a perspective of moral philosophy, "empathy" isn't the best term perhaps. Maybe "impartial benevolence" or a "universal predisposition towards friendliness" would be better? I mean, most humans are bad at applying the principles behind empathy (in essence, compassion) to those in the "out-group". And that's terrible.

I used empathy for a reason. I am not talking about impartial benevolence, but rather being able to feel what others are feeling. I don't like having my stuff stolen in a society does not mean anything if you are unable to figure out through empathy that others do not like having their stuff stolen. Self interest comes in when we say I don't like having my stuff stolen, you also probably don't like being hurt (empathy). I don't want to live in a society where I am am going to get hurt, so it is bad if we live in a society where people steal each others stuff and so stealing is wrong.

[New Legland]

Okay? I fail to see what point you're trying to make.

That subjective morality fails as a moral theory because it doesn't provide either a reason to do something or a reason not to do something.

We don't need an objective reason to do anything. We have our own reasons.

[Neutraligon]

Because empathy can and is limited. Empathy only really works if you are able to put yourself in another's shoes, and that is not always possible. Also it is limited by whom you empathize with in a situation. Do empathize with the homosexual couple who wants to get married or with the religious individual who thinks it is against god's will?

That's true, though I would say that not having empathy would be flawed.

As for the hypothetical, I would say that we can empathize with both, while acknowledging that one situation is a lot more unfair to one party than to the other.

I don't think not having empathy in particular situations is necessarily flawed. For instance I can never put myself in the place of the Donner party, the situation is just too far removed from my own life experiences. I can feel horror at the idea of starving since I know a little of what it is like to feel hungry and so can guess at what it feels like to starve, but I cannot really place myself in the shoes of having to decide whether to eat the corpses of my family members.

And that is where self interest comes into play since that will likely determine which one you empathize with. Do you think that it is against gods will, you are far more likely to empathize with the religious individual. This can be true especially if you think something bad will happen to guys who have sex with guys. Do you have family members who you are close to who are in the scenario where they have sex with other guys? You might end up feeling more empathy for the couple since it is in your own interest to do so.

[United Muscovite Nations]

That's true, though I would say that not having empathy would be flawed.

As for the hypothetical, I would say that we can empathize with both, while acknowledging that one situation is a lot more unfair to one party than to the other.

And that is where self interest comes into play since that will likely determine which one you empathize with. Do you think that it is against gods will, you are far more likely to empathize with the religious individual. This can be true especially if you think something bad will happen to guys who have sex with guys. Do you have family members who you are close to who are in the scenario where they have sex with other guys? You might end up feeling more empathy for the couple since it is in your own interest to do so.

That's true, but it's clearly more unfair to the couple to not let them marry than it is to the religious person to let them marry, unless there are conditions like a religious institution being forced to marry them.

[Neutraligon]

And that is where self interest comes into play since that will likely determine which one you empathize with. Do you think that it is against gods will, you are far more likely to empathize with the religious individual. This can be true especially if you think something bad will happen to guys who have sex with guys. Do you have family members who you are close to who are in the scenario where they have sex with other guys? You might end up feeling more empathy for the couple since it is in your own interest to do so.

That's true, but it's clearly more unfair to the couple to not let them marry than it is to the religious person to let them marry, unless there are conditions like a religious institution being forced to marry them.

Except if you truly believe that by preventing them from marrying you are doing something good for them since you are preventing whatever bad thing (say the starve for eternity after they die) you think will happen from happening to them. Your empathy is then being used by saying I know what it feels like to be hungry and I don't like it, and I bet they won't like it either so it is better to not let them marry.

[United Muscovite Nations]

That's true, but it's clearly more unfair to the couple to not let them marry than it is to the religious person to let them marry, unless there are conditions like a religious institution being forced to marry them.

Except if you truly believe that by preventing them from marrying you are doing something good for them since you are preventing whatever bad thing (say the starve for eternity after they die) you think will happen from happening to them. Your empathy is then being used by saying I know what it feels like to be hungry and I don't like it, and I bet they won't like it either so it is better to not let them marry.

But the belief that by stopping them from doing that you're preventing them from going to hell changes the moral equation, but if we don't assume the belief in God, there's no reason to have this in the equation.

[Neutraligon]

Except if you truly believe that by preventing them from marrying you are doing something good for them since you are preventing whatever bad thing (say the starve for eternity after they die) you think will happen from happening to them. Your empathy is then being used by saying I know what it feels like to be hungry and I don't like it, and I bet they won't like it either so it is better to not let them marry.

But the belief that by stopping them from doing that you're preventing them from going to hell changes the moral equation, but if we don't assume the belief in God, there's no reason to have this in the equation.

Except we can't disregard already existing beliefs and experiences. And I don't think it changes the basis or what defines morality.

[Twilight Imperium]

That subjective morality fails as a moral theory because it doesn't provide either a reason to do something or a reason not to do something.

We don't need an objective reason to do anything. We have our own reasons.

ding ding ding

Also, why would no one group being "right" mean we can't discuss things? If anything, that would stifle discussion, since anyone who wasn't that group wouldn't end up having much to say.

Name one good reason to discuss something that there's no correct answer for.

To gain a better understanding of your own ideas and those of others, as mentioned. I don't know if you've noticed, but people have profitable discussions about things that have no objectively correct answer all the time - politics, religion, laws, what kind of steak is best..

[The Emerald Legion]

As a Christian, I believe there are only two commandments, from which all other moral positions can be arrived at:

1) Love God
2) Love others as much as you love yourself

Once you accept these two principles, I think right action is pretty obvious, because it should be obvious when you're acting in an unloving way towards someone or towards God. As for the basis of those two moral views, they are done in emulation of God, to make oneself more like God in action.

Essentially, this.

I would go further, or at least rephrase it, and say that the foundation of all morality is God. God is love; therefore, love is the foundation of morality.

The foundation of all morality is success. Actions that enable the successful completion of ones goals are moral, actions that hinder the completion of ones goals are immoral. This is fact across all cultures.

Culturally however, there are zeitgeist's of what goalset is commonly embraced. Whether it be the Christian goalset, the American Dream of a suburban home, nice family of 2.5 children, and two cars goalset... Etc etc.

People who embrace antagonistic goalsets are certainly evil from the point of view of those they antagonize, but so long as they actually further their own goals they remain in line with their own morality, and thus their own beliefs.

[United Muscovite Nations]

We don't need an objective reason to do anything. We have our own reasons.

ding ding ding

Also, why would no one group being "right" mean we can't discuss things? If anything, that would stifle discussion, since anyone who wasn't that group wouldn't end up having much to say.

Name one good reason to discuss something that there's no correct answer for.

To gain a better understanding of your own ideas and those of others, as mentioned. I don't know if you've noticed, but people have profitable discussions about things that have no objectively correct answer all the time - politics, religion, laws, what kind of steak is best..

None of that matters because it doesn't matter how developed or understandable your ideas are, they're still just as good as anyone else's.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Essentially, this.

I would go further, or at least rephrase it, and say that the foundation of all morality is God. God is love; therefore, love is the foundation of morality.

The foundation of all morality is success. Actions that enable the successful completion of ones goals are moral, actions that hinder the completion of ones goals are immoral. This is fact across all cultures.

Culturally however, there are zeitgeist's of what goalset is commonly embraced. Whether it be the Christian goalset, the American Dream of a suburban home, nice family of 2.5 children, and two cars goalset... Etc etc.

People who embrace antagonistic goalsets are certainly evil from the point of view of those they antagonize, but so long as they actually further their own goals they remain in line with their own morality, and thus their own beliefs.

What if your goal harms yourself?

[Major-Tom]

After years of theology and philosophy classes, it's still tough for me to find a "one size fits all definition." Perhaps that's because morality is, in some senses, defined by society. I'd argue, personally, that it's a combination of innate empathy for your fellow man and your community, and the societal expectations around them (many of which are completely valid.)

[The Emerald Legion]

The foundation of all morality is success. Actions that enable the successful completion of ones goals are moral, actions that hinder the completion of ones goals are immoral. This is fact across all cultures.

Culturally however, there are zeitgeist's of what goalset is commonly embraced. Whether it be the Christian goalset, the American Dream of a suburban home, nice family of 2.5 children, and two cars goalset... Etc etc.

People who embrace antagonistic goalsets are certainly evil from the point of view of those they antagonize, but so long as they actually further their own goals they remain in line with their own morality, and thus their own beliefs.

What if your goal harms yourself?

Doesn't matter. Self Sacrifice in the name of ones goals is frequently lauded as the highest of moral acts. A parent dying to save their child for example, or a soldier giving their life to defend their country.

[United Muscovite Nations]

What if your goal harms yourself?

Doesn't matter. Self Sacrifice in the name of ones goals is frequently lauded as the highest of moral acts. A parent dying to save their child for example, or a soldier giving their life to defend their country.

I was thinking more like being a drug addict and your only goal being your next fix.

[West Leas Oros 2]

I define what is morally right by what humans have agreed is morally right and what is morally wrong. Call me a bit of a contractarian, but I generally believe that society is the source of morals.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I define what is morally right by what humans have agreed is morally right and what is morally wrong. Call me a bit of a contractarian, but I generally believe that society is the source of morals.

As I pointed out earlier, the problem with moral relativism is that it doesn't leave any room for social injustices.