Morality, What Good Is It?

Cris said:
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”.
Click to expand...
I'll respond to you in that thread.

StrangerInAStrangeLa said:
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.
Click to expand...
This is true although you missed my point; it's force that makes your morality matter. What good is your morality if you are unable to enforce it?

Thus even if morality inspires people, unless they're strong enough to actually be victorious then their opinion is moot. This is why I say "Might makes right", without might your morality doesn't mean anything. If the Allies couldn't defeat Hitler then their opinions wouldn't have mattered.
 
-=-

Chris
The quantity and survival of the group of greater importance than individual value is the communist perspective?
Seems to me, that is the capitalist perspective.

For the USA and in the declaration of independence every individual has the right to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”?
The Declaration Of Independence says that yet the government & laws do not follow it & most people seem to think otherwise.
 
Norsefire said:
I'll respond to you in that thread.
Click to expand...


Which thread?


Norsefire said:
This is true although you missed my point; it's force that makes your morality matter. What good is your morality if you are unable to enforce it?
Thus even if morality inspires people, unless they're strong enough to actually be victorious then their opinion is moot. This is why I say "Might makes right", without might your morality doesn't mean anything. If the Allies couldn't defeat Hitler then their opinions wouldn't have mattered.
Click to expand...


You miss the point.
It's the morality that makes your force matter. You won't have enforcement without morality.
Without morality, the strength & other factors to be victorious are moot. There is no victory without morality. Without morality, might doesn't mean anything.
If the Allies hadn't the morality they had, the possibility of defeating Hitler wouldn't have mattered.
 
The morality might provide inspiration; I say might because there's loads of other sources of inspiration.

Anyway, it all comes down to importance; one could say motivation in general is more important than might, and ultimately perhaps that is true but it's still useless if you can't win.
 
You saw an innocent person attacked and couldn't do a damn thing about it. You did't stop it because you couldn't.
 
Norsefire said:
The morality might provide inspiration; I say might because there's loads of other sources of inspiration.

Anyway, it all comes down to importance; one could say motivation in general is more important than might, and ultimately perhaps that is true but it's still useless if you can't win.
Click to expand...


Any other factors which figure into the possibility/probability of winning are useless without morality.
1 comes from the other. Morality happens 1st. All else is secondary.
 
Morality simply isn't as important as might. We're confusing morality with motivation; one could have motivation and might and not care for morals, and still act out of his other motivation, like greed. And if you're unable to stop him, then your morals are useless.
 
Norsefire said:
Morality simply isn't as important as might. We're confusing morality with motivation; one could have motivation and might and not care for morals, and still act out of his other motivation, like greed. And if you're unable to stop him, then your morals are useless.
Click to expand...


Might simply isn't as important as morality.
I'm not confusing anything. Motivation depends on morals. 1 can't have motivation & act out of greed without morals. 1 can't have motivation & act out of generosity without morals. I may believe they're bad morals yet they act from morals. Without morals, no 1 can stop him. Without morals, no 1 will want to stop him.
 
Morality is a software written by us, and it functions on humans. It does not make a great issue whether it comes from nature, pure human logic, God, or aliens: At the end of the day, they have to be written in human language, must find a space in human mind, and mostly they must be shared among humans. Even if we achieve to transfer our moral values to other animals or machines, what they do would become the parody of humans, and these codes would be an imposed external condition for non-human creatures.

It also does not matter if it is material or not: Because "moral" first make sense in human minds, then transforms the reality. "Whether moral is subjective or objective" issue is unnecessaryly complicated than it deserves: Some people severely experience in their lives that moral values and their social structure can get as powerful as earthquakes or any other "objective" disaster. "Some people can bend the moral rules" does not mean that -because the rules are subjective (arbitrary), so- they are easily being restored and/or destroyed. They are glueing principles for our functionality, and there are various social, historical, technical and philosophical background behind them. Some other people can bend the objective rules in order to fly, to build or to communicate; simply, in order to satisfy the "subjective" goals. Yet that also does not mean that we are the masters of the forces...

Our morality is also open to corruption, improvements and/modifications as much as any other software which is programmed to manage the hardware through user's point of view. In this sense, it is not the greatest problem if moral values are tangible or not. They are force in us, so the force in universe.
 
Stanger,

The quantity and survival of the group of greater importance than individual value is the communist perspective?
Seems to me, that is the capitalist perspective.

For the USA and in the declaration of independence every individual has the right to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”?
The Declaration Of Independence says that yet the government & laws do not follow it & most people seem to think otherwise.
Click to expand...
Competition and entrepeneural pursuits are the basis of the USA - these are made possible by empowering individuals. Free enterprise favors the strongest individuals. Now the group, society, benefits ultimately by having a healthy but competeive set of strong individuals. But the emphasis is on indviduals to make it happen.
 
SnakeLord said:
What would typically speaking be the arguments against prostitution?
Click to expand...

For me there is only one: would you suggest it to your daughter as a lifestyle?

To the OP:

Morality is the basis of civilisation.
 
Norsefire,

Morality simply isn't as important as might.
Click to expand...
This doesn’t make sense. These are two different activities and not directly comparable. Each has its place. It is like saying the fork is more important than the knife.

If what you say were true then because I am stronger than my daughter I would rape her because of my might, and morality would take second place. This is clearly not what occurs in normal life. Morality is our overwhelming governing influence over our conduct with others. Might always takes second place.

We're confusing morality with motivation; one could have motivation and might and not care for morals, and still act out of his other motivation, like greed. And if you're unable to stop him, then your morals are useless.
Click to expand...
This is nonsense. Motivation is also influenced and governed by our moral sense. Without these moral codes of conduct being of highest importance and widespread then society as we know it would break down into chaos and anarchy. Now, there are some who will deliberately bypass the moral code and will commit acts not deemed acceptable to society. This in no way diminishes the importance of morality and in fact highlights its essential priority requirement. And yes you might be harmed or killed by someone with a lesser moral standard, but then that is the current state of our moral evolution. As a species we are still very immature.
 
sam,

Morality is the basis of civilisation.
Click to expand...
Oh crap - I have to totally agree with you.

I agreed with Lori on something earlier as well. This is worrying.

:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top