What are ethics and morality based on?

[Roman]

It's all about going to the right community, isn't it?

And staying out of the way of the wrong community.

If it is ok to rape children there(can't see sex w/kids as consensual), then why do we have people crying foul?

Because it makes people feel bad. The same reason why you eat meat and you have PETA crying fowl.

What the hell are "human rights" based on?

Volatile, revolutionary middle classes.

What right does anyone have to say about what another person or people do, morally?

Way to phrase the question in meaningless, emotive jargon.

For example, what right do we in the US have to say that the treatment of women in some islamic nations is immoral?

It makes us feel good to say it, and no one is around to stop it.

If none, why do we say anything, then?

Because we can and we want to.

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

So...

You don't want to be tortured because it makes you sad. Am I to thus assume no one wants to be tortured? That everyone else will feel my actions would be torture?

Sounds like quite the inductive stretch.

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Roman-so it really is all meaningless bullshit?

 

[sniffy]

So...

You don't want to be tortured because it makes you sad. Am I to thus assume no one wants to be tortured? That everyone else will feel my actions would be torture?

Sounds like quite the inductive stretch.

I don't want to be tortured because it fucking hurts! Even though I enjoy my torture of you I'm well aware that it's hurting cos, you're screaming, shitting and bleeding all over the place. Well maybe not bleeding because I know where to hurt you so it won't bleed.

When I try to sleep at night. I hear your screams. It makes me sweat but I'll make you scream again tomorrow. BECAUSE THERE'S SOMETHING IN IT FOR ME.

Read it and weep.

 

[sniffy]

Roman-so it really is all meaningless bullshit?

Excuse for speaking out of turn but isn't the meaning in the eye of the beholder?

There are many things that humans agree on.
There are many things that humans disagree on.

In the end you just have to make up your own mind about things.

 

[Roman]

So...

You don't want to be tortured because it makes you sad. Am I to thus assume no one wants to be tortured? That everyone else will feel my actions would be torture?

Sounds like quite the inductive stretch.

It's called theory of mind. Well, actually, that's the Golden Rule, but it's essentially based on our ability to to empathize with other. We can put ourselves in others' shoes. A very, very powerful ability, and not just socially. Einstein imagining what it was to be light? Imagination is probably largely derived from social pressure.

Roman-so it really is all meaningless bullshit?

Yep!

I don't want to be tortured because it fucking hurts! Even though I enjoy my torture of you I'm well aware that it's hurting cos, you're screaming, shitting and bleeding all over the place. Well maybe not bleeding because I know where to hurt you so it won't bleed.

When I try to sleep at night. I hear your screams. It makes me sweat but I'll make you scream again tomorrow. BECAUSE THERE'S SOMETHING IN IT FOR ME.

Read it and weep.

...
Nice.

 

[glaucon]

Let me begin with stating what it appears to me to based upon.

There are regional religions, these religions are the basis for all things "moral", or at least morality can be traced to them.

On this note, I have to disagree.
Morality in particular (and ethics in general) can clearly be understood outside of the realm or religion. Religion is primarily a political structure, that makes use of fear and confusion to maintain a prescriptive role in society.

Now, to answer the question at hand, my answer is this: nothing beyond the necessity of co-operation.

 

[Norsefire]

There is a psychological basis for the common human morality; it is based on a darwinian explanation, that humans being social animals require certain guidelines to ensure the health and survival of the species.

However, that is not to say that morality is objective. Morals are still, ultimately, relative and morality is, if anything, a weakness.

Morality is not based on anything much; they can't be proven to objectively exist. It is just a vague concept that people cannot agree upon.

I do think we ought to not allow morals to restrict, for instance, scientific progress. Morals are simply a construct of primitive society.

 

[Saven]

It should always be based on if it hurts other people.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

No, there's a biological basis.
(I have a prior appointment and have to log out now, but this should be a start).
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro01/web3/Solano.html

This link you provided, very interesting thanks



"De Waal also uses Gage as an example for showing how morality is grounded in neurobiology, and since human brains are a product of evolution, evolution must be a part of any satisfactory account of morality. de Wall outlines Darwinian dilemmas of pairing natural selection and morality. He argues that incorporating a social context into the biological explanation will answer these problems and explain how social interactions of morality can be attributed to evolution. (2). De Waal theorizes that human morality arose from the simple need to get along in order to survive. Already well-known for extensive research on how monkeys and apes reconcile after conflict, de Waal is now studying morality in their system of tit-for-tat sharing. De Waal's evidence of 'morality' in an animal model is a compelling piece of evidence for a moral biological foundation. De Waal is perhaps the most well known source regarding the pairing of morality with biology in an evolutionary psychology perspective (7)."

 

[Oli]

This link you provided, very interesting thanks

Glad to be of help.
S.A.M. and I (among others) started to go through this a while ago (before my long absence).
(IIRC I was heavily castigated by some troll for working at the concept from the bottom up and positing no biological basis and no religion - e.g. no morality whatsoever, and the troll assumed it was personal stance rather than an exercise in thinking ).
Going from memory I think the most compelling piece of evidence I came across (judging by the sheer number of peer references to it) also unfortunately turned out be available on the net only in the original language - Hungarian or something.
Which sort of put a halt to the proceedings.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

The paper states:

"De Waal claimed that this incident provided examples of how conscience is not some disembodied concept that can be understood only on the basis of culture and religion. The cultural and religious implications of 'good' and 'evil' will find it difficult to label individuals who are incapable of comprehending 'morality' due to aspects of biology that govern the creation of the very concept of 'morality'."

But it doesn't explain why certain aspects or details of morality differ from culture to culture. For example some societies think state execution is fundamentally unethical and immoral while other's do not.

 

[Oli]

But it doesn't explain why certain aspects or details of morality differ from culture to culture. For example some societies think state execution is fundamentally unethical and immoral while other's do not.

Maybe the basis is merely that: some sense or feeling that there should be morals? :shrug:
State execution (looking at it from one perspective) does ensure no repeat offence from that particular person.
Plus there's the element of pour encourager les autres - I'm still in two minds about the whole thing myself .
I also remember that about the time S.A.M. and I were discussing it New Scientist published something about a genetic basis for altruism - but where that issue is in my pile of books & magazines I have no idea.
The net has this, amongst others.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10750-why-altruism-paid-off-for-our-ancestors.html
And a general Google listing:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&q="New+scientist"+altruism+genetic&btnG=Search&meta=

 

[Oniw17]

Morals and ethics, for me, are based on a sort of personal religion. The most important thing is loyalty to those people I have love for. Next is self-interest. Then comes being respectful to everyone and avoiding causing unnecessary malice. Malice I consider the cause of fear, sadness, anger, or pain to someone who doesn't consent. I judge what's necessary malice or unnecessary using logic and the emotions that past experiences of a similar nature to the experience at hand have given me. I'm adverse to waste and idleness because of self-interest. It's in my interest to become a better person in my own eyes and to a lesser degree in the eyes of others. Waste isn't good for anyone, and being active keeps your mind and body healhy and more useful. There's also a certain etiquette that I try to keep, but it's completely arbitrary with no real reason behind it other than to keep others happy. Beyond that, I just use reason and empathy as much as I can and I'm an agent of circumstance(meaning I do whatever comes along or is suggested to me). I don't claim to have knowledge of anything or deny any belief of my own. One of those beliefs is that everyone needs to have an at least slightly different set of morals in order to accept them.

 

[visceral_instinct]

I agree. Have we not evolved enough to look at things without the glass of "emotion"?

Fairness, on the other hand, seems to be one of the most amorphous concepts out there. Can fairness be defined in some static way which would make it possible for things to be "fair" to all parties involved?

Fairness is essentially about equality, if you ask me. Fairness means that everyone has the same rights and is held to the same rules and standards.

 

[Norsefire]

That is all still meaningless. "Justice", "fairness", "right and wrong"....all of these things do not actually exist. They are merely constructs of human society, but hold no real meaning. There is no such thing.

 

[visceral_instinct]

So Norsefire, if I were giving out vaccines to protect against a deadly virus and I gave it to everyone in the area except you, you'd be ok with that, since fairness is just a human construct?

 

[Enmos]

That is all still meaningless. "Justice", "fairness", "right and wrong"....all of these things do not actually exist. They are merely constructs of human society, but hold no real meaning. There is no such thing.

Here you go..

 

[Norsefire]

So Norsefire, if I were giving out vaccines to protect against a deadly virus and I gave it to everyone in the area except you, you'd be ok with that, since fairness is just a human construct?

What is your point? I wouldn't be ok with it, but that doesn't change the fact that there is no such thing as objective fairness, or right and wrong.

Fairness and morality ARE just human constructs....

Here you go..

I don't get it.

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

On this note, I have to disagree.
Morality in particular (and ethics in general) can clearly be understood outside of the realm or religion. Religion is primarily a political structure, that makes use of fear and confusion to maintain a prescriptive role in society.

Now, to answer the question at hand, my answer is this: nothing beyond the necessity of co-operation.

I agree. Morality and Ethics can be built and understood without religion. However, do you really disagree that current morality is loosely based on whatever is/was the dominant religion of a given region?

Let's take, for example, the morality of helping someone in need/being charitable. Is this truly darwinian human nature at work, or a construct created by religion(another construct) to stabilize society and give itself(religion) power?

All this is saying that Morality and Ethics are based on nothing, and there's no good reason not to write a basic moral code for everyone on earth, and then force it upon them.

Maybe the basis is merely that: some sense or feeling that there should be morals? :shrug:
State execution (looking at it from one perspective) does ensure no repeat offence from that particular person.
Plus there's the element of pour encourager les autres - I'm still in two minds about the whole thing myself .
I also remember that about the time S.A.M. and I were discussing it New Scientist published something about a genetic basis for altruism - but where that issue is in my pile of books & magazines I have no idea.
The net has this, amongst others.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10750-why-altruism-paid-off-for-our-ancestors.html
And a general Google listing:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&q="New+scientist"+altruism+genetic&btnG=Search&meta=

So, the "feelyness" is darwinian? Thus it's the actual code itself is meaningless?