Morality

Originally posted by Syren
Can a system of morality be justified?

I'm thinking not. How exactly would you demonstrate that a moral system is justified. The only answer I can think of is, "If it promotes morality." But that answer is inadmisible because until we select a system, we cannot say what is or is not moral.

WindDancer proposed quality of life as the test. But it seems to me that this is simply another moral system--"Morality is living in a way that every body is provided for"--that can no more be justified than any other.

absolute

Morality is relative. Not necessarily to culture, but it's still relative... For example, if you had to choose between the death of someone you loved, and the deaths of two strangers, most people would choose for two strangers to die.

However, I do understand how morality is relative to culture. There is no "right" in this world... It all depends on perspective. Or in most cases.

Perhaps we should agree on what is MEANT by morals before we continue?

1. moral - relating to principles of right and wrong; i.e. to morals or ethics; "moral philosophy"
2. moral - concerned with principles of right and wrong or conforming to standards of behaviour and character based on those principles; "moral sense"; "a moral scrutiny"; "a moral lesson"; "a moral quandary"; "moral convictions"; "a moral life"

So – are our concepts of right and wrong absolute or relative? Some are and some are not I think. If we take a look at religious and legal texts of various cultures through the ages, they all seem to agree that murder is wrong, stealing is wrong and lying is wrong.
So obviously we’ll be hard pressed to find people who thinks it’s okay to steal, kill and lie. Will some people do that regardless? Sure – they’re called hypocrites.
But different cultures will have different ways of interpreting right and wrong – as the example of the tribe that says it’s okay to kill enemies from another tribe, but not okay to kill members of ones own tribe. We usually call that a war. Then it IS okay to kill your fellow man – says our leaders.

Well they're amoral 😛

Originally posted by The Omega
So – are our concepts of right and wrong absolute or relative? Some are and some are not I think. If we take a look at religious and legal texts of various cultures through the ages, they all seem to agree that murder is wrong, stealing is wrong and lying is wrong.
So obviously we’ll be hard pressed to find people who thinks it’s okay to steal, kill and lie. Will some people do that regardless? Sure – they’re called hypocrites.
But different cultures will have different ways of interpreting right and wrong – as the example of the tribe that says it’s okay to kill enemies from another tribe, but not okay to kill members of ones own tribe. We usually call that a war. Then it IS okay to kill your fellow man – says our leaders.

Thsi, I agree with completely. Our leaders, in your view, are contradicting themselves and all they stand for. Well argued Omega, and nice to see you. I hope your travels went well?

Syren> Ay! China was cool beyond belief!

Shaber> Amoral? 😄 But think about it. We’re always given a “good” reason to go and kill in a war. That the truth may be something else is usually the case.
So perhaps we do have some inherent morals. Like “Killing is wrong.” During WWI people were told that Germans ate Dutch babies, to justify killing the Germans. During the First Gulf War (Or Second, if the Ian/Iraq war counts as the first), we were told Iraqis took Kuwait babies out of life-support, to justify killing Iraqis.
So maybe instead of asking if morals are absolute or relative, we should ask if we humans come “equipped” with inherent morals. And if “yes”, why?

Off the cuff: I think that many do have inherent morality, but some just don't. Those who have no conscience merely try to exploit those who do.

Shaber> But does having no conscience rule out having morals? Or do you think those who kill, steal or lie aren't aware that they're doing something wrong?

The Omega> Weelll, bottom line; bad people relish doing the wrong things such as inflicting pain and stealing etc. not necessarily just when it is likely to further their interests. Obviously they have something wrong with them, but the problem isn't lack of awareness. They can quite easily infer what outrages everyone else. With regard to the military leader; infanticide is widely considered to be wrong, so an obvious way to manipulate a wide range of people is by playing on their antipathy there and redirecting it.

However, those who don't care about right and wrong have invariably had problems in their upbringing and a genetic predisposition to viciousness. A healthy person does have an inherent morality.

Shaber> I’m not sure all “bad” people relish in their crimes. Some steal out of need for example. Those who relish in inflicting pain are sociopaths in my book.
I don’t know if anyone is genetically dispositioned to go wrong in the head, but upbringing can do a lot of harm.

And you’re right about the infanticide part.

Yups. By "bad people" I meant sociopaths or psychopaths whichever 🙂

Less outlandish persons do immoral things under duress though, like stealing if they're starving, but obviously they know that to be wrong.

Shaber> Ah, then we're in agreement.

clap

Talk about taking the long way round guys 😉

Interesting debate, I enjoyed reading you both.........

Morality is absolute, ethics are subjective.

Originally posted by shaber
Yups. By "bad people" I meant sociopaths or psychopaths whichever 🙂

Less outlandish persons do immoral things under duress though, like stealing if they're starving, but obviously they know that to be wrong.

I disagree with both you and Omega.

If your are stealing food because you are hungry you are not acting immorally.

I think that while stealing is generally and immoral action, there are certain exceptions where certain rules do not apply.

If you kill someone who is attacking you, you are not a murderer.

If you lie to protect yourself when you have done no wrong you are not acting wrongly.

While killing, lying and stealing are immoral actions in a perfect world, we do not live in a perfect world. In a perfect world, yes these are immoral actions. But, dont tell me a poor person who steals because they need food is acting immorally. If anything is immoral, it is the fact that starving people still exist in this world. The amount of grain and corn produced in the US is enough to feed the entire world. Instead it is used to feed cattle for beef production, greatly reducing the total amount of actual food produced. Because Americans want hamburgers, children in Ethiopia starve because there is no grain. Who is acting immorally here?

I dont know if I am describing ethics here or morality, or applied ethics or what, but I have a big problem with you calling the actions of the hungry who steal as immoral. Their actions are morally justifiable.

It the moral principle of "I'm ****ing starving, Im taking this food."

If you kill someone who is attacking you, you are not a murderer

Sigh... dammit i dont want to talk about the Bible.

Legalistically, If you are kill someone and it is in self defense you are not a murderer. You then have a burden of proof to show that you were really acting in self defense, but as far as the actually killing goes regardless of the outcome of the investigation you still acted in a way which was not immoral... it was morally justifiable.

you obvious missed the point of my last post, it is that even the commandments have altered it so that killing in self defence can be justified.

yeah i did miss your point... i just saw something something Bible something... and was like don't care, don't care... I shouldnt have even responded.

My bad.