Morality, What Good Is It?
- Thread starter StrangerInAStrangeLand
- Start date
Irrelevant to preventing the wrongdoer from wrongoing. If Hitler conquered the world tommorow and you think he is evil but are powerless to do anything about it, then what good is your opinion? It will not stop him, only physical force will.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
We are though. But I guess that leaves some room for speculation.
Do you agree with my edit in post 17 ?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
I really have to leave.. lol
Doesn't the "usual concept of God" say that he created everything ?
Ok, I'm off
Later.
-=-
Everything except itself.
Everything except itself.
Morality is conduct of behaviour that ought to be followed. People often confuse it as "subjective" when what they really mean is "situational" (objectively). More on this if it is needed.
Not entirely, no
If I recall correctly, every single person on this forum and reading this is of the very same species. We are all part of a social species. Survival is paramount, (to all living organisms), we need others to ensure our own survival - yes, not one person here was born and could have survived by themselves. We also have physical and emotional needs.
These are objective facts. So the question is, can we arrive at statements to how one ought to behave from these facts? Yes - we can. I'll go into it in depth if needed later on.
"Objective morality" concerns itself with what one "ought" to do. Arriving at an 'ought' is very simple indeed. Consider the following:
1. Survival is paramount
2. Eating is essential to survival
3. You ought to eat.
As long as 1 and 2 are true, 3 is the inevitable conclusion. It is very easy to arrive at objective 'oughts' and the same can be typically done with morality.
You simply wouldn't be here to ask the question otherwise.
Absolutely and not particularly - it depends upon the scenario.
It depends. With regards to flimsy morals, any idiot with the power to vote can make such decisions. With regards to species morality - it's not a decision, it's a species fact. It's like asking what tiger should decide that tigers eat meat.
Generally it serves the species well but like anything, isn't going to be perfect.
Last edited:
So how would say something like prostitution fit with these ideas? It is considered by many to not be moral, but I wouldn't say it detracts from survival.
Indeed the whole area of the sex industry, e.g. pornography, come under this confused category. I believe in Holland both are legal with no detrimental factors, and some will strongly argue the positive aspects. In the USA, where poltics are dominated by the religious, it would seem unlikely that such activities could ever be officially accepted as moral.
Indeed the whole area of the sex industry, e.g. pornography, come under this confused category. I believe in Holland both are legal with no detrimental factors, and some will strongly argue the positive aspects. In the USA, where poltics are dominated by the religious, it would seem unlikely that such activities could ever be officially accepted as moral.
This is a fine example to look at. What would typically speaking be the arguments against prostitution? Having gone through it quite a few times I find it pretty much comes down to the same continual points:
1. It's dangerous. Standing alone on a street corner and hooking up with any old stranger? It's high risk.
2. There is high risk of infection.
3. Most women in prostitution got there by being used. They are forced into heroin addiction and then refused it unless they performed certain acts.
4. Most prostitutes have a 'pimp' - an abusive controller that makes them have sex through various means, (3 being a popular method).
When we say "prostitution is wrong", we're not talking about the act of having sex or getting paid for having sex but the harm that such actions can cause. If any action only produces non-harm then nobody is ever going to say anything about it. Imagine if beer made everyone 100% loving, 0% aggressive. Pubs would be holy places.
So we're looking at the harm any action causes or can cause. Other than certain theists that believe that marriage is essential before sex, would anyone really argue that carefully controlled, monitored and chosen prostitution is bad?
If a woman chooses that career in a guaranteed safe and disease free setting, would anyone really complain? I contend that they wouldn't, (save for the fundies).
I think it's worth examining what exactly it is that people see as being immoral. It isn't sex that's immoral and it isn't paying someone that's immoral. I would submit that it's purely a matter of harm.
[edit] It is perhaps worth mentioning that I don't really nag when someone talks about marriage - it serves benefit to the tribe. If you pair off certain people, (typically the strongest/most likely to survive and produce strong offspring), then you're doing a very worthwhile thing, [hence why marriage is a continual part of our species - although not quite so useful now]. However, marriage does not address genetic needs. In pretty much any species you'd care to mention, the female has her short moments of 'heat' and the rest of the time she's just plain old her. The male of the species is an entirely different thing. Why, my rabbit went at it with a teddy bear for the best part of 6 months without even pausing for tea and cookies - and they were good cookies.
Prostitution is there to service a need. It's not just something different to do on weekends, it is a genetic need. If it were entirely safe, then there would be no complaint other than complaint from emotional need, (from the partner).
Is emotional need important? Yes - very much so, and this is a final aspect of the issue. However, I would assert that physical need in this instance does not intrude upon emotional need, (In so much as the act of having sex with a protitute/masturbating to porn is not an indication that you love or have feelings for the 'object' of the action) - although that's not how the missus would see it. So, we could move on to question prostitution provided to married folk and possibly conclude that a married man ought not visit a prostitute, (dependant upon whether not visiting one is going to make him a sexual psychopath with his wife). Although we could examine it, it doesn't change any argument against prostitution itself.
Like all morality, it is situational, (does not mean subjective).
Last edited:
Objectively, God is neither good or bad.
IF there were objective morality, God would be judged by it just as anyone else.
Morals coming from God is simply God subjectively deciding what is good. It's God's belief that makes it good or bad. Or God's selfish whims.
So what is good or evil IF God exists? It's all behavior.
I pulled this from the other kinda related thread.
The idea is that the underlying basis for morality for humans is that anything that enhances life is good and anything that detracts from life is bad. Our moral code should reflect those values.
There are two major perspectives here.
1. The value of the individual
2. The value of the group
Depending on which path you choose will largely determine your morality code of conduct.
Stalin saw the quantity and survival of the group of greater importance than individual value. This is the communist perspective. China follows this path today. Similarly others might see that it is more important that the species survive and that individuals are of lesser importance. This can lead to value judgements of the form; if we kill a particular 10,000 people then a further 10,000,000 will survive and have a better life. Or that you should be prepared to sacrifice yourself if it will benefit a greater number of people.
The opposite is that the individual has primary value and that it is better that we all die than sacrifice a single individual. I would argue that this is the superior morality and the more difficult to achieve. The essence is that a group is made of individuals and if no individual has value then the sum total is “no value” i.e. the group has no value, and life becomes valueless. It is only the individual that can appreciate life.
By focusing on value of the individual we can construct codes of conduct that enhance life for the individual and that in turn enhances the benefit of the group.
So now break those ideas into which of the two paths we want to follow. Overpopulation means fewer resources to share and every individual is likely to suffer. Involuntary euthanasia might well be of benefit to the group (a moral good), but would be bad (a moral bad) for the individual.
If you were to involuntary die that would be bad for you, agreed? If I were to involuntary die then that would be bad for me. This is true for every individual. I.e. involuntary death is bad. This is an objective fact.
If we create, as a species, a code where it is acceptable to kill individuals without their consent for any reason, then we will have failed to maximize life as a moral goal. This encompasses all forms of war and capital punishment. That we currently live a world where people feel it is good to kill others simply means we are morally immature and should that not be construed in anyway that killing should ever be seen as a good thing.
Note for the USA and in the declaration of independence every individual has the right to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”.
The idea is that the underlying basis for morality for humans is that anything that enhances life is good and anything that detracts from life is bad. Our moral code should reflect those values.
There are two major perspectives here.
1. The value of the individual
2. The value of the group
Depending on which path you choose will largely determine your morality code of conduct.
Stalin saw the quantity and survival of the group of greater importance than individual value. This is the communist perspective. China follows this path today. Similarly others might see that it is more important that the species survive and that individuals are of lesser importance. This can lead to value judgements of the form; if we kill a particular 10,000 people then a further 10,000,000 will survive and have a better life. Or that you should be prepared to sacrifice yourself if it will benefit a greater number of people.
The opposite is that the individual has primary value and that it is better that we all die than sacrifice a single individual. I would argue that this is the superior morality and the more difficult to achieve. The essence is that a group is made of individuals and if no individual has value then the sum total is “no value” i.e. the group has no value, and life becomes valueless. It is only the individual that can appreciate life.
By focusing on value of the individual we can construct codes of conduct that enhance life for the individual and that in turn enhances the benefit of the group.
So now break those ideas into which of the two paths we want to follow. Overpopulation means fewer resources to share and every individual is likely to suffer. Involuntary euthanasia might well be of benefit to the group (a moral good), but would be bad (a moral bad) for the individual.
If you were to involuntary die that would be bad for you, agreed? If I were to involuntary die then that would be bad for me. This is true for every individual. I.e. involuntary death is bad. This is an objective fact.
If we create, as a species, a code where it is acceptable to kill individuals without their consent for any reason, then we will have failed to maximize life as a moral goal. This encompasses all forms of war and capital punishment. That we currently live a world where people feel it is good to kill others simply means we are morally immature and should that not be construed in anyway that killing should ever be seen as a good thing.
Note for the USA and in the declaration of independence every individual has the right to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”.
Hitler's morality inspired him to do what he did with guns & other means.
Guns & other means were brought against Hitler because people with different morality decided to do so because of that morality.
Without morality, guns mean nothing.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
He doesn't seem to understand that as I pointed it out to him several times already.
-=-
I apologize if I'm simply repeating what was said recently. I didn't read the 100s of posts in that thread but thought that would fit here.
Then again, maybe he needs someone else to say it.
I apologize if I'm simply repeating what was said recently. I didn't read the 100s of posts in that thread but thought that would fit here.
Then again, maybe he needs someone else to say it.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
It doesn't bother me. I just fear that it's wasted effort.
-=-
As is much of the "discussions" here?
As is much of the "discussions" here?