Morals > Rules?

[Zygimantas]

If there is no proper support that supports the moral then the moral should not have an effect on laws.

 

 

 

But does popular support also mean it's right?

If there is no good reasoning behind it then it does not make it right. If there are one million people with poor reasoning and five people with a great counter-argument to their reasoning then they can convince a lot of the majority and therefore changing the popular stance on the moral. Now the only problem is, is that the minority might feel no need to convince the majority making the moral still right even tho it is not. Then again since if something is right or wrong is a matter of opinion then right might be wrong and wrong might be right. But still I feel if a group has more reasonable reasoning then the other then their opinion is usually right.

[killerbeer0]

But does popular support also mean it's right?

If there is no good reasoning behind it then it does not make it right.

 

 

 

The example I'm thinking of is widely viewed as immoral and the reasoning behind that view is good, but the information the reasoning is based on is false.

[Zygimantas]

But does popular support also mean it's right?

If there is no good reasoning behind it then it does not make it right.

 

 

 

The example I'm thinking of is widely viewed as immoral and the reasoning behind that view is good, but the information the reasoning is based on is false.

The information doesn't necessarily need to be right to make the reasoning right. Its more based on opinion and the reasoning to that opinion.. but then whether the reasoning is right or wrong is based on opinion..... so I guess in a way you are right popular support does make a moral right. But, the majority might not think too much about the other support or the one that is less known. Some of the majority might be too narrow minded to embrace the other support that some majority might even agree with. So really morals are just opinions and that makes most laws just enforced opinions. Laws are based on the public's opinion most of the time or if not it has to based off someones opinion..and that means laws are wrong, all of them ( at least to someone)... and that means everything is wrong... Nothing is right or wrong without a fact supporting it pushing it to either direction................ dang I got too wrapped up into this, you know what, [bleep] laws and morals #-o :roll:

[killerbeer0]

But does popular support also mean it's right?

If there is no good reasoning behind it then it does not make it right.

 

 

 

The example I'm thinking of is widely viewed as immoral and the reasoning behind that view is good, but the information the reasoning is based on is false.

The information doesn't necessarily need to be right to make the reasoning right. Its more based on opinion and the reasoning to that opinion.. but then whether the reasoning is right or wrong is based on opinion..... so I guess in a way you are right popular support does make a moral right. But, the majority might not think too much about the other support or the one that is less known. Some of the majority might be too narrow minded to embrace the other support that some majority might even agree with. So really morals are just opinions and that makes most laws just enforced opinions. Laws are based on the public's opinion most of the time or if not it has to based off someones opinion..and that means laws are wrong, all of them ( at least to someone)... and that means everything is wrong... Nothing is right or wrong without a fact supporting it pushing it to either direction................ dang I got too wrapped up into this, you know what, [bleep] laws and morals #-o :roll:

 

 

 

Hmm that's complex reasoning, I love the conclusion though :thumbsup: ... What I mean is that based on the false information the reasoning would be good. So if it were true the reasoning would be sound. But that it isn't because the information is false.

[Zygimantas]

But does popular support also mean it's right?

If there is no good reasoning behind it then it does not make it right.

 

 

 

The example I'm thinking of is widely viewed as immoral and the reasoning behind that view is good, but the information the reasoning is based on is false.

The information doesn't necessarily need to be right to make the reasoning right. Its more based on opinion and the reasoning to that opinion.. but then whether the reasoning is right or wrong is based on opinion..... so I guess in a way you are right popular support does make a moral right. But, the majority might not think too much about the other support or the one that is less known. Some of the majority might be too narrow minded to embrace the other support that some majority might even agree with. So really morals are just opinions and that makes most laws just enforced opinions. Laws are based on the public's opinion most of the time or if not it has to based off someones opinion..and that means laws are wrong, all of them ( at least to someone)... and that means everything is wrong... Nothing is right or wrong without a fact supporting it pushing it to either direction................ dang I got too wrapped up into this, you know what, [bleep] laws and morals #-o :roll:

 

 

 

Hmm that's complex reasoning, I love the conclusion though :thumbsup: ... What I mean is that based on the false information the reasoning would be good. So if it were true the reasoning would be sound. But that it isn't because the information is false.

But then the reasoning would have to be based more on opinion then information, or maybe different information would need to be found to support the reasoning.

[killerbeer0]

 

Hmm that's complex reasoning, I love the conclusion though :thumbsup: ... What I mean is that based on the false information the reasoning would be good. So if it were true the reasoning would be sound. But that it isn't because the information is false.

But then the reasoning would have to be based more on opinion then information, or maybe different information would need to be found to support the reasoning.

 

 

 

Its based on biased information and biased portrayal. It only makes news when its bad.

[Zygimantas]

 

Hmm that's complex reasoning, I love the conclusion though :thumbsup: ... What I mean is that based on the false information the reasoning would be good. So if it were true the reasoning would be sound. But that it isn't because the information is false.

But then the reasoning would have to be based more on opinion then information, or maybe different information would need to be found to support the reasoning.

 

 

 

Its based on biased information and biased portrayal. It only makes news when its bad.

what do you mean by "its " exactly ?

[killerbeer0]

 

Hmm that's complex reasoning, I love the conclusion though :thumbsup: ... What I mean is that based on the false information the reasoning would be good. So if it were true the reasoning would be sound. But that it isn't because the information is false.

But then the reasoning would have to be based more on opinion then information, or maybe different information would need to be found to support the reasoning.

 

 

 

Its based on biased information and biased portrayal. It only makes news when its bad.

what do you mean by "its " exactly ?

 

 

 

This

[Zygimantas]

 

Hmm that's complex reasoning, I love the conclusion though :thumbsup: ... What I mean is that based on the false information the reasoning would be good. So if it were true the reasoning would be sound. But that it isn't because the information is false.

But then the reasoning would have to be based more on opinion then information, or maybe different information would need to be found to support the reasoning.

 

 

 

Its based on biased information and biased portrayal. It only makes news when its bad.

what do you mean by "its " exactly ?

 

 

 

This

well its all based on opinion. Like when I was watching this show on MSNBC and there was a guy in jail for murdering someone. In the jail he started to gather interest in Christianity, god and the bible. He became religious. He then asked someone if it is worse to steal candy from a baby or murder someone and the person said, to murder someone. The inmate then said that they are both equally bad, and no one is worse then the other. He said that that by the bible ( and god) all sins are equal whether it be stealing candy or killing someone. Now a lot of people will disagree, but its all a matter of opinion. Laws have to be influenced from morals, if they were not there would be no laws.

[Lenticular_J]

An interesting dilemma. What is a rule but a moral a lot of people hold true or logical? Rules were made to be broken, of course. And people all have different morals, so it isn't like either of them are inflexible. This is somewhat a philosophical question, I see it. Pretty difficult because it has no real answer. We people like to put titles and rules on things. We try to dress our universe up like a little dog at a party. But the dog is actually a bear, while we're fleas on the bear's [wagon].

 

 

 

Still, dressing up the bear is the only way we can comprehend and understand it in our not-so-humble little way.

 

 

 

I do like metaphors.

[user1991]

In my opinion, there is no such thing as an objective right or wrong.

 

 

 

Humanity places value onto things by our very nature, but outside of our consciousness I see no reason to believe that "right" or "wrong" actually exist.

 

 

 

Now if what we're calling "morals" are actually "things which most people in society consider to be necessary for a stable society with a stable population and a decent standard of living," these aren't really different to laws or rules. Admittedly, whilst the law may not always represent the will of the people, most of the basic things that most people consider to be "morals" are illegal because we do not think society would be able to function without such a system of "right" and "wrong".

 

 

 

In my opinion, "right" and "wrong" is a stupid concept and highlights just how terrible the English language really is. Of course, religious morals should play no part in the law whatsoever (note: common morals may be the same as religious morals in which case that is entirely different) because of the first amendment of the constitution.

 

 

 

This is what I think the issue of "morality" comes down to. Outside of our own value systems there is no such things as right or wrong, they are simply concepts we have created to explain certain beliefs that most people consider beneficial/necessary for society. Even if it is evolutionarily embedded in us to not kill others or to consider it "wrong", this doesn't make it objective because outside of our own existence this does not apply.

 

 

 

So rules/laws, generally express the "morals" of the people, and it is pointless to talk of things such as "should rules be based on morals?" because the concept makes no sense whatsoever.

[Zygimantas]

But the dog is actually a bear, while we're fleas on the bear's [wagon].

 

LMAO, your metaphors own :thumbsup:

[Zygimantas]

In my opinion, there is no such thing as an objective right or wrong.

 

 

 

Humanity places value onto things by our very nature, but outside of our consciousness I see no reason to believe that "right" or "wrong" actually exist.

 

 

 

Now if what we're calling "morals" are actually "things which most people in society consider to be necessary for a stable society with a stable population and a decent standard of living," these aren't really different to laws or rules. Admittedly, whilst the law may not always represent the will of the people, most of the basic things that most people consider to be "morals" are illegal because we do not think society would be able to function without such a system of "right" and "wrong".

 

 

 

In my opinion, "right" and "wrong" is a stupid concept and highlights just how terrible the English language really is. Of course, religious morals should play no part in the law whatsoever (note: common morals may be the same as religious morals in which case that is entirely different) because of the first amendment of the constitution.

 

 

 

This is what I think the issue of "morality" comes down to. Outside of our own value systems there is no such things as right or wrong, they are simply concepts we have created to explain certain beliefs that most people consider beneficial/necessary for society. Even if it is evolutionarily embedded in us to not kill others or to consider it "wrong", this doesn't make it objective because outside of our own existence this does not apply.

 

 

 

So rules/laws, generally express the "morals" of the people, and it is pointless to talk of things such as "should rules be based on morals?" because the concept makes no sense whatsoever.

Exactly what I was thinking accept, better organized, higher vocabulary and better written :

[mmmcannibalism]

laws are and have to be based on morality(well maybe not in a state like in some distopia novels)

 

 

 

things such as murder is wrong rape is wrong etc. are morally based even if they are unanimously excepted.

[RayOxide]

Well, if I think about this scientifically in a way, for example, abortion.. You dont want to give birth to your own baby, it's a thing stopping someone, but in some ways can save a life (giving-birth-deaths etc),

 

where-as stem cells, one unborn fetus(sp?) can save a few people. I dont know how many but cant 1 save/heal like.. 2?

[Dexek]

I had always hoped laws would be created on the basis of protecting someone who can not protect themselves. Obviously this isn't true for all laws. I don't really care for laws to be based on what some people believe is morally right, as different people have different morals.

[mmmcannibalism]

Well, if I think about this scientifically in a way, for example, abortion.. You dont want to give birth to your own baby, it's a thing stopping someone, but in some ways can save a life (giving-birth-deaths etc),

 

where-as stem cells, one unborn fetus(sp?) can save a few people. I dont know how many but cant 1 save/heal like.. 2?

 

 

 

I believe thats unitarian philosophy, noble in thought but it kind of breaks down here.

 

 

 

Not going to get into abortion for obvious reasons, so lets look at something more expressive. Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" is a satirous article about eating babies to solve hunger crisis(good read btw). Technically each baby is helping around 4 people survive but that doesnt make it right, while we can sort of equate life to life in what ratio do we equate life to standard of living?

[Shinjula]

My own take on it is that morals are strategies which societies use to survive and proliferate. Morals are simply rules put in place to ensure the survival of society.

 

 

 

Obviously having a murderer in the midst of your society will damage it, so murder = bad becomes a very common moral. Likewise often in a lot of societies (I'm not talking about the more evolved first world societies like the US & UK but you can still see remnants of these memes) it is considered fine to war on another country (Patriotism = good), because the society then has less competition. Incest = bad because it has a detrimental effect on the gene pool. Sharing and caring for other members of society = good although its a bit less easy to see why, but the mathematics of game theory do show it to be a winning strategy. Selective forgiveness can also be shown to be a very good strategy.

 

 

 

One thing to note is that one very useful strategy in a set of competing societies is Having Babies = good, is actually a terrible strategy once we move to a global society and that is something which we are increasingly coming up against these days. It is very hard to convince a lot of people that we need to be having less babies because having babies = good has been instilled in all societies from their very beginnings.

 

 

 

Its also worth noting that whether a moral should be adopted should NOT then be chosen according to public support, but according to how successful it is for that society, and according to arguements about its actual effect, and though evidence showing what effect it has, for example homosexual marriage has not eroded countries adopting it and the promotion of the homosexual lifestyle as legitimate has improved the psychological health of the 5-10% of homosexuals in those societies thus increasing their productive returns to that society. Their lack of children isnt being a problem since producing children is relatively easy.

[killerbeer0]

Its also worth noting that whether a moral should be adopted should NOT then be chosen according to public support, but according to how successful it is for that society, and according to arguements about its actual effect, and though evidence showing what effect it has, for example homosexual marriage has not eroded countries adopting it and the promotion of the homosexual lifestyle as legitimate has improved the psychological health of the 5-10% of homosexuals in those societies thus increasing their productive returns to that society. Their lack of children isn't being a problem since producing children is relatively easy.

 

 

 

Makes me feel a wee bit better about myself... I agree with your entire post. Many excellent points.

[tryto]

Well, if I think about this scientifically in a way, for example, abortion.. You dont want to give birth to your own baby, it's a thing stopping someone, but in some ways can save a life (giving-birth-deaths etc),

 

where-as stem cells, one unborn fetus(sp?) can save a few people. I dont know how many but cant 1 save/heal like.. 2?

 

 

 

I believe thats unitarian philosophy, noble in thought but it kind of breaks down here.

 

 

 

Not going to get into abortion for obvious reasons, so lets look at something more expressive. Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" is a satirous article about eating babies to solve hunger crisis(good read btw). Technically each baby is helping around 4 people survive but that doesnt make it right, while we can sort of equate life to life in what ratio do we equate life to standard of living?

 

 

 

 

 

Ah but having babies to eat them is monstrously inefficient. Due to the respective laws of conservation of matter and energy, all the energy gained by eating the baby is used up by the extra food the mother needs to use to eat. Just like how eating soybeans and vegetables straight is much more efficient (I think you lose 90% of the nutrients) than eating cows, you lose an additional 90% of the energy used when eating a baby.

 

The article is much more meaningful when you consider overcrowding in England, especially of the lower classes, not in terms of food gained.

[mmmcannibalism]

[hide=]

Well, if I think about this scientifically in a way, for example, abortion.. You dont want to give birth to your own baby, it's a thing stopping someone, but in some ways can save a life (giving-birth-deaths etc),

 

where-as stem cells, one unborn fetus(sp?) can save a few people. I dont know how many but cant 1 save/heal like.. 2?

 

 

 

I believe thats unitarian philosophy, noble in thought but it kind of breaks down here.

 

 

 

Not going to get into abortion for obvious reasons, so lets look at something more expressive. Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" is a satirous article about eating babies to solve hunger crisis(good read btw). Technically each baby is helping around 4 people survive but that doesnt make it right, while we can sort of equate life to life in what ratio do we equate life to standard of living?

 

 

 

 

 

Ah but having babies to eat them is monstrously inefficient. Due to the respective laws of conservation of matter and energy, all the energy gained by eating the baby is used up by the extra food the mother needs to use to eat. Just like how eating soybeans and vegetables straight is much more efficient (I think you lose 90% of the nutrients) than eating cows, you lose an additional 90% of the energy used when eating a baby.

 

The article is much more meaningful when you consider overcrowding in England, especially of the lower classes, not in terms of food gained.

[/hide]

 

 

 

Im familair with the energy pyramid, just figured swift was a perfect example here.