Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

some people have them some seem not to
why are morals so flexible in terms of what is acceptable and what isn't and what are the "right" morals to have

Morals are seen as subjective because they are not "rooted" in the physical world like, say, gravity or digestion. And in a culture with a strong secular element, Divine Authority is not universally agreed upon, so again, morals can be seen as relative.

One could say that from an evolutionary viewpoint, some morals work better than others in fostering a long-term, peaceful and prosperous society (eg, murder: bad). But as a rule, people don't consider evolution when discussing moral behavior.

thats a good point, so what would define as the "right" morals to live by or uphold?

but are morals really relevant ?

Originally posted by Genesis-Soldier
thats a good point, so what would define as the "right" morals to live by or uphold?Ultimately, that would depend on what values a society holds, and generally speaking, humans apparently value conditions which promote physical and psychological well-being, for themselves, for family. As such, respecting one another is a good place to start, eg, the Golden Rule.

Originally posted by Genesis-Soldier
but are morals really relevant ? For reasons noted above, I would say yes, especially if one believes morals/ethics originate from a transcendent source.

thank you

Religions consider morals to be objective and not subjective.

I tend not to agree with this view but may have stumped myself by thinking that there is the one objective moral.

The one that says that the needs of the many are always to be put before the needs of the few.

My second question is this.

After years now of trying to get Christians and Muslims to think and debate some of their immoral tenets, unsuccessfully for the most part, could it be possible that those in those religions know that they have no arguments for the immoral tenets they follow?

Is their delusion of following the best God leading their mortal or is it just their delusions?

Regards
DL

so they are bieng stuck up and just don't want to be proen wrong by the other even though they know they may not have any debating evidence?

yeah p;robs

Morals are loose because society is fluid.

Honestly any set of morals I could give you are revolutionary to some and antiquated to others.

that is very true

although there are some morals that have a universal feeling
you see some bloke bashing on another fella or woman. you want to step i there

a child being hurt (as in abused and kicked around in the ribs) you want to **** over the abuser

Right and wrong...good and evil, these are just constructs created by us. Thus they can be open to interpretation.

pretty much

it just depends on the governing values of the time

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

Originally posted by Prof. T.C McAbe
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule
The golden rule can only apply to those who hold the same values are yourself, such as religious flock or those under the same oath. Otherwise, how do you know that they want what you want or have the same tastes?

Even biblically, it only applied to those within the faith.

Our concepts of morality are largely cultural, which itself is largely an evolutionary byproduct. It's important to keep that in mind; we only possess these concepts in the first place as survival mechanisms. The philosophical quandries of morality are an emergent problem resulting from evolutionary trends, and not necessarily an intended end of the developments in the first place. If you're building a case for relative morality - or, more radically, morality as an artificial construct in a deterministic, morally-devoid universe - that would be where I'd start.

That said...

I think there's probably a system of objective morality that could be judged based on primal opposites like suffering and happiness. In practice, we haven't the ability to do this perfectly. How would we begin to weigh one against the other in "grey" areas? However, it provides a framework from which to work, and one that needs absolutely no favorites among religions or philosophies. Does it cause suffering? Work to end it. Does it create happiness? Pursue it. The entire system could be encapsulated in a sentence and would be theoretically objective, perhaps even subject to empirical study. It could even extend beyond humans, to include any sentient being.

Originally posted by long pig
The golden rule can only apply to those who hold the same values are yourself, such as religious flock or those under the same oath. Otherwise, how do you know that they want what you want or have the same tastes?

Even biblically, it only applied to those within the faith. I'm not so sure you're right about this and I say that because you use the word those when the "golden rule" is directed at individuals and not groups. Whether something that you are doing goes against the golden rule depends totally on who YOU are. If you are doing something to someone that you would definitely not want done to you there is no way to call it a moral act. I've never seen one example where treating someone the way that you want to be treated is an immoral act.

Originally posted by Genesis-Soldier


although there are some morals that have a universal feeling
you see some bloke bashing on another fella or woman. you want to step i there



I've got feelings of guilt by getting involved once.

See below.

Originally posted by Genesis-Soldier


although there are some morals that have a universal feeling
you see some bloke bashing on another fella or woman. you want to step i there



I always thought that was "morally" true until one real life incident proved me wrong & I resolved that dilemma by never interfering in someone else's problem ever again.

Years ago I witnessed this guy yelling abuse & physically restraining this woman on the street. She was screaming & crying & I instinctively ran over & pushed the guy away from her.
I held him down whilst she ran off down the street, flagged down a cab & drove off.

The guy broke down in tears.
Turns out he just found out she was cheating on him & was on her way to the airport to fly out of the country with their kids, without him knowing.

And I helped that happen, thinking I was a Good Samaritan.

So yeah, F that. I won't ever interfere in someone else's problem ever again.

Sorry tried to edit but got a double post instead.

Because morals =/= ethics.

Originally posted by Mindship
Morals are seen as subjective because they are not "rooted" in the physical world like, say, gravity or digestion. And in a culture with a strong secular element, Divine Authority is not universally agreed upon, so again, morals can be seen as relative.

One could say that from an evolutionary viewpoint, some morals work better than others in fostering a long-term, peaceful and prosperous society (eg, murder: bad). But as a rule, people don't consider evolution when discussing moral behavior.
Digestion is a physical law?shocking
I do however agree that morals are subjective and exist only because they were/are beneficial for survival (evolution).

Originally posted by Van Hohenheim
Digestion is a physical law?shockingDigestion is
Originally posted by Mindship
"rooted" in the physical world Physical laws are, no doubt, involved.

Originally posted by Van Hohenheim
Digestion is a physical law?shocking
I do however agree that morals are subjective and exist only because they were/are beneficial for survival (evolution).

evolution based morals is an interesting branch to bring up

My idea of what morals are is that they are a a fluid, ever changing agreed upon idea of how to act.

How would you argue or reinforce the point of evolution?

Only one I can think of is its morally wrong to slaughter thousands of people, assuming they are not doing the same.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
I always thought that was "morally" true until one real life incident proved me wrong & I resolved that dilemma by never interfering in someone else's problem ever again.

Years ago I witnessed this guy yelling abuse & physically restraining this woman on the street. She was screaming & crying & I instinctively ran over & pushed the guy away from her.
I held him down whilst she ran off down the street, flagged down a cab & drove off.

The guy broke down in tears.
Turns out he just found out she was cheating on him & was on her way to the airport to fly out of the country with their kids, without him knowing.

And I helped that happen, thinking I was a Good Samaritan.

So yeah, F that. I won't ever interfere in someone else's problem ever again.



... That's ****ed

Thou I suppose the reasons behind morals should be questioned

I like how people in this thread seem to be completely oblivious to the concept of normative ethics or moral philosophy in general.

Enlighten them, master.

Originally posted by Mindship
Digestion is
Physical laws are, no doubt, involved.
"rooted", what do you mean by that? Is digestion essential to the "physical world", is that what you mean?

Originally posted by Genesis-Soldier
evolution based morals is an interesting branch to bring up

My idea of what morals are is that they are a a fluid, ever changing agreed upon idea of how to act.

How would you argue or reinforce the point of evolution?

Only one I can think of is its morally wrong to slaughter thousands of people, assuming they are not doing the same.
There is still a lot we don't know about evolution in general and how our bodies work, but how morality connects with evolution is theorised to be that some animals display morality as a social benefit. That is to say morality helps make a stronger group, thus it's a beneficial trait. http://www1.umn.edu/ships/evolutionofmorality/text.htm

Originally posted by Van Hohenheim
"rooted", what do you mean by that? Is digestion essential to the "physical world", is that what you mean? More like, the physical world "is essential" for digestion. Ie, it is a physical phenomenon.

Originally posted by Van Hohenheim
There is still a lot we don't know about evolution in general and how our bodies work, but how morality connects with evolution is theorised to be that some animals display morality as a social benefit. That is to say morality helps make a stronger group, thus it's a beneficial trait. http://www1.umn.edu/ships/evolutionofmorality/text.htm

Well socially agreed benefits would definitely further evolution over a long period of time is consistant

Originally posted by Mindship
More like, the physical world "is essential" for digestion. Ie, it is a physical phenomenon.
Hmm, at first you seemed to imply that digestion was a necessary part of the "physical world".

But this is irrelevant, really, I was just giving you a hard time.

Originally posted by Van Hohenheim
But this is irrelevant, really, I was just giving you a hard time. No problema. I'll take you off my Special Education list.

digestion in what sense?

Originally posted by Mindship
No problema. I'll take you off my Special Education list.
Now I can finally rest in peace.

Originally posted by Astner
I like how people in this thread seem to be completely oblivious to the concept of normative ethics or moral philosophy in general. Originally posted by Adam Grimes
Because morals =/= ethics.

.

Since we are on the subject of MORALS, does the underlying PHILOSOPHIES in Star Wars contradict the Bible?

Find out here:

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f80/t643061.html

My moral code boils down to love everyone and do what makes logical sense from there given that motivation, and this is something I've arrived at from looking at morality from a variety of perspectives and coming to the same conclusion, the same perennial truth if you will.

--------------------------------------

1. From the perspective of Christianity (my religion), Jesus stated his two greatest commandments were "Love God" and "Love yourself and other people," which essentially boils down to love everyone. So again, love everyone, and do what makes logical sense from there given that motivation.

--------------------------------------

2. From the perspective of my understanding of the moral compass that I have attained from experiences with psychedelics, I think there are two primary motivational forces in man, one of which is love, and the other is a visceral fear that one's own existence is without meaning.

Love stems from an embracement of one's own existence through self-awareness, and self-awareness is the ultimate truth because its the one thing we can be 100% certain of (Rene Descartes came to this conclusion of the ultimate truth pretty aptly). From there it follows that a person would conclude that if they exist and experience stuff then there is meaning either causing or at the very least within their lives, which leads them to love, which is the motivation behind all good.

The nihilistic fear that one's own existence has no meaning is the most irrational thought ever and directly contradicts the ultimate truth, which is why I would call the thought that one's existence is meaningless the ultimate lie. From the ultimate lie/fear, springs insecurity, self-doubt, and self-loathing, which from then motivates arrogance so people can try and escape this fear with an inflated image of themselves, and arrogance/pride is ultimately what motivates and allows people to justify all evil.

This is heavily reflected in Christian theology, as God introduces himself to Noah as "I am that I am" (a statement of self-awareness which is the ultimate truth), Jesus saying that his greatest commandment is to act out of love (which is the motivation behind all moral action), and Jesus saying to be humble and Christian theology teaching that pride is the father of all sin.

So from this perspective I come to the same conclusion of love everyone and do what makes sense from there since that motivation is based on the ultimate truth whereas the motivation for evil is based upon the ultimate lie.

--------------------------------------

3. If I am to look at the nature of meaning philosophically, regardless of my religious perspective, it appears that meaning only exists within or in relation to self aware beings. Thus acting in the interest of what meaning exists within the universe would mean valuing that meaning and acting in the best interest of that meaning. This again leads me to the conclusion of love everyone and do what makes logical sense from there.

--------------------------------------

4. Kant suggested that to be moral one should act in a way that if everyone acted in such a way it would lead to the best end result, or in other words in a way most conducive to progress. With the goal of progress in mind, Aldous Huxley posited the final end principle, which was that the primary principle in human actions should be a consideration of whether or not said action would contribute to the best possible end for oneself and others... which once again leads me to love everyone and do what makes logical sense from there.

--------------------------------------

In this respect, I don't believe morality is subjective, I believe it is objective, and even if I factored out my belief in God I would still find morality to be an objective thing.

The objective moral code is acting out of a motivation of love for everyone and doing what makes the most sense out of every possible action, however this objective moral code is unknowable to us because we are not omniscient beings. Thus functionally morality is subjective even though in actuality it is objective, and I believe it is everyone's responsibility to act out of love which is the objectively moral motivation and to try and do what makes the most sense in service to that motivation.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
My moral code boils down to love everyoneDoes that mean you love me?

Why?

I wonder how you square that against national pride. mmm

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Does that mean you love me?
My love of humanity extends to you regardless of your fuggotry

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Why?
Because I don't believe that existence can precede meaning, but even looking aside from there being meaning behind us existing, regardless of that point there is obviously meaning within our emotions, values, and experiences due to the nature of self-awareness and what it means to subjectively experience the world. This isn't purely in a cosmological "we were created with a divine purpose" sense.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
I wonder you square that against national pride. mmm
There's a difference between me having a huge amount of respect for the values upon which my nation was founded upon and the idea that me existing within a nation makes me better than those who do not. I ascribe to the former but not the latter.

People conflate the facts that people have different views on morality, and moral law can be violated, with the claim that morality is subjected.

Basically:

People have different concepts of morality, and violate moral laws which are said to be objective, therefor, morality must be subjective.

This doesn't follow, however. People can, and often do, have wrong views on objectively true statements, especially when they have reason to want their wrong views to be true. Similarly, the existence of free will makes moral law violable.

Congratulations on defeating an argument nobody made. Strawman for the win!

Morals are but the rules of your beliefs.

What are the morals of your believes? What are your believes?

I am a Christian, therefore I rule myself by Christian morals for instance.

Whenever you go against your believes that is Immoral.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Morals are but the rules of your beliefs.

What are the morals of your beliefs? What are your beliefs?

I am a Christian, therefore I rule myself by Christian morals for instance. That's only slightly less vague than saying "I am a human, therefore I rule myself by human morals."

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
That's only slightly less vague than saying "I am a human, therefore I rule myself by human morals."

Why?

Aren't your morals what you believe?

If you believe that drinking milk is bad then drinking it would be moral?

Morality has to do with our beliefs! The Romans had this big coliseums where people killed each other, while others laughed and cheer! They didn't call it immoral because they believed a slave's life was worth nothing more than laugh and cheers!

Originally posted by Emperordmb
My moral code boils down to love everyone and do what makes logical sense from there given that motivation, and this is something I've arrived at from looking at morality from a variety of perspectives and coming to the same conclusion, the same perennial truth if you will.

--------------------------------------

1. From the perspective of Christianity (my religion), Jesus stated his two greatest commandments were "Love God" and "Love yourself and other people," which essentially boils down to love everyone. So again, love everyone, and do what makes logical sense from there given that motivation.

--------------------------------------

2. From the perspective of my understanding of the moral compass that I have attained from experiences with psychedelics, I think there are two primary motivational forces in man, one of which is love, and the other is a visceral fear that one's own existence is without meaning.

Love stems from an embracement of one's own existence through self-awareness, and self-awareness is the ultimate truth because its the one thing we can be 100% certain of (Rene Descartes came to this conclusion of the ultimate truth pretty aptly). From there it follows that a person would conclude that if they exist and experience stuff then there is meaning either causing or at the very least within their lives, which leads them to love, which is the motivation behind all good.

The nihilistic fear that one's own existence has no meaning is the most irrational thought ever and directly contradicts the ultimate truth, which is why I would call the thought that one's existence is meaningless the ultimate lie. From the ultimate lie/fear, springs insecurity, self-doubt, and self-loathing, which from then motivates arrogance so people can try and escape this fear with an inflated image of themselves, and arrogance/pride is ultimately what motivates and allows people to justify all evil.

This is heavily reflected in Christian theology, as God introduces himself to Noah as "I am that I am" (a statement of self-awareness which is the ultimate truth), Jesus saying that his greatest commandment is to act out of love (which is the motivation behind all moral action), and Jesus saying to be humble and Christian theology teaching that pride is the father of all sin.

So from this perspective I come to the same conclusion of love everyone and do what makes sense from there since that motivation is based on the ultimate truth whereas the motivation for evil is based upon the ultimate lie.

--------------------------------------

3. If I am to look at the nature of meaning philosophically, regardless of my religious perspective, it appears that meaning only exists within or in relation to self aware beings. Thus acting in the interest of what meaning exists within the universe would mean valuing that meaning and acting in the best interest of that meaning. This again leads me to the conclusion of love everyone and do what makes logical sense from there.

--------------------------------------

4. Kant suggested that to be moral one should act in a way that if everyone acted in such a way it would lead to the best end result, or in other words in a way most conducive to progress. With the goal of progress in mind, Aldous Huxley posited the final end principle, which was that the primary principle in human actions should be a consideration of whether or not said action would contribute to the best possible end for oneself and others... which once again leads me to love everyone and do what makes logical sense from there.

--------------------------------------

In this respect, I don't believe morality is subjective, I believe it is objective, and even if I factored out my belief in God I would still find morality to be an objective thing.

The objective moral code is acting out of a motivation of love for everyone and doing what makes the most sense out of every possible action, however this objective moral code is unknowable to us because we are not omniscient beings. Thus functionally morality is subjective even though in actuality it is objective, and I believe it is everyone's responsibility to act out of love which is the objectively moral motivation and to try and do what makes the most sense in service to that motivation.

Originally posted by Genesis-Soldier
morals what r those

Originally posted by Beniboybling
what r those The things people mean when they spell out in YouTube comments: "LOL I love how the morale of the story is___"

^ Well, the morale of the story could be low. What if everyone in the story is depressed?

But it was a Care Bears episode. Cheer Heart kept everyone's spirit up!

^ Well high morale then