morality

[____]

Yea, but you know tipit - only have to mention it, sometimes, and bam you got an 8 page war going on #-o

[FuBai]

When we talk about morality, we talk about acts being inherently wrong, or acts being intrinsicaly better than others. This I will attempt to disprove.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is no reason to say anything is of inherent value if it is not assigned to be of inherent value by a superior being. How else may something attain inherent value? If I say something is of value, that value is not inherent but in relation to me. If I did not exist to assign that value, then it would cease to have that value. Not only is it relative to my existance, but it is relative to someone else who may dissagree with me. I may assign moral value to an act - murder for instance being assigned a negative moral value, how ever such a thing may be measured, yet someone else may equaly assign murder no value whatsoever. Where does my ability to say, no my value is the correct one, stem from? I would contend that it does not exist at all. Others would say that society has shared values, and the values held by the majority of the people must be the correct ones. This is a false assumption. If 10 people say I'm naked, but I say i'm not because I can see that i'm wearing clothes, is it true that I am infact naked, simply because they beleive me to be, and there are more of them than me?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On what basis, therefore, do I say that murder is intrinsicaly wrong? Well I would look at the consequences, and say, these are not beneficial. But here I have already exposed two flaws. Firstly I assume it is possible to have a situation which is inherently moraly detrimental - that of grief and death in this instance, and secondly I have shifted the moral focus onto the consequences rather than the act. Thus the act is without inherent value, but consequential only. This being so, the value is relative to the consequenses, rather than intrinsic in the act itself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Perhaps the first flaw needs more examining. Well, you say, of course the situation of death and grief is not beneficial. Why is this? I would ask. Where does your assignment of value come from? Why are death and grief intrinsicaly bad? Utilitarians would argue that they promote pain, which is, for some utilitarians, inherently bad. But then I must ask, why is it inherently bad? Here we are stumped, and can go no further than "because it is unplesant". We haven't justfied pain having an inherent moral value, we have simply demonstrated one of its characteristics. We can keep redressing down other lines, to situations like the destruction of the human race - is this inherently bad? Why is it inherently bad? The only answer one can give is "because God says so and, being a superior being He knows more than can be derived from human logic alone" other than "There is no inherent moral value in that situation occuring". Morality is a myth without God.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The second flaw of the aforementioned consequence analysis seems self explanatory. But some make attack it saying that if something has relative value then this means that the objects that form this relationship derive inherent value from being linked to the relationship. Let us say, in the previous example, the simplified relationship is between murder and grief. The value of murder is in relation to the grief. Without the murder this specific grief would not occur. So we say that the murder must have some moral value derived from this bond. This is a falacy. The value still lies in the bond itself. Because this requires us to assume that grief is of inherent moral value in itself, we have denied that value lies only in the relationship, which forms a paradox in the argument. It seems that finaly this second flaw is mereley a different expression of the first flaw, because we have once again assumed inherent value in the grief.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So how do we justify inherent values of good and evil without God? We cannot.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As a final note, the argument is not with a religious basis, it isn't and argument about God, it is an argument without God. If He doesn't exist, and I don't beleive that he does, then this argument is the logical one.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you wish to respond to this argument, please avoid turning it into anything to do with religion. I am not discusiong religion but the logic of morality. I do not want to contravene the new regulation, and nor do I want anyone else to (even if you disagree with me :))

[warri0r45]

Why are death and grief intrinsicaly bad?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

while i admire you for spending your time formulating your agrument, i have to be honest and say i didnt catch 100% of it, kinda rushed it a little.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i have an answer for your quote, though. Death and grief are intrinsically bad because we, biologically, want to avoid these things. Survival of the species and the like. So this would be the basis of morals (in my opinion) - if we do something which makes others feel bad (perform a morally wrong act) then they dont feel the fittest they can (according to thier emotions/consequent physical state) to mate and spread the species. In other words, what im tring to say is that morals are an evolutionary trait designed to furthur the efficency of reproduction and hence the hightened survival of the species.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

just my ideas... what do you think?

[FuBai]

 

Why are death and grief intrinsicaly bad?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

while i admire you for spending your time formulating your agrument, i have to be honest and say i didnt catch 100% of it, kinda rushed it a little.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i have an answer for your quote, though. Death and grief are intrinsically bad because we, biologically, want to avoid these things. Survival of the species and the like. So this would be the basis of morals (in my opinion) - if we do something which makes others feel bad (perform a morally wrong act) then they dont feel the fittest they can (according to thier emotions/consequent physical state) to mate and spread the species. In other words, what im tring to say is that morals are an evolutionary trait designed to furthur the efficency of reproduction and hence the hightened survival of the species.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

just my ideas... what do you think?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Acording to your argument justification for moral value to be assigned to a situation is that it is a Darwinian evolutionary trait which impulses our actions? Thus if, due to darwinian inclinations, I saw that someone was a threat to me, and I had them killed in a way which would not result in any effects upon me other than beneficial ones, this can be moraly justified? Or are your talking in terms of a species? In species terms it is a Darwinian impulse to eat, as this keeps us at our fittest. Thus saying that a healthy, strong and intelegent man would be moraly wrong to give his food to a disabled person, thus making him weaker and perpetuating the life of a defected memeber of the species (acording to darwinism). Or our inclinations towards hatred and violence if we feel threatend can be justifed because it is for the benefit of the species that those weak members get weeded out, and only fitest may survive through the death of those too weak to do so without help? A form of social darwinism seems to be instated and justified.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's one apparent problem. On the other hand you havn't justified why it is moral to simply follow the inclination of the species. You simply said that it is benefical for the speices without demonstrating that something that is good for the speices must be moral.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Another problem other people would have is that your justification is amoral, in that what you have said is that which is in our own interests, or the interests of the species is moraly justifiable simply because it is a primal urge. My primal urge may tell me to rape someone, but most people would say it is not moral to do so. I do not follow this line of reasonsing as it suposes that justifcation for morality need be moral in itself, and that it assumes morality as the basis of morality.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, prima facie, your argument may seem a good one to some people.

[BDave]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Did the morality test and got probably 100% morality. Theres no point arguing over morals, you either have them or not. Its unlikely anyones going to change your core beliefs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is simply my belief that murder is generally wrong. You end someones life prematurely and there has got to be one hell of a reason for me to believe someone deserves the death penalty i.e. Hitler, Saddam Hussain. There is a system of the courts to decide this and this I believe is just.

[FuBai]

Logic is a terrible thing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[warri0r45]

Acording to your argument justification for moral value to be assigned to a situation is that it is a Darwinian evolutionary trait which impulses our actions? Thus if, due to darwinian inclinations, I saw that someone was a threat to me, and I had them killed in a way which would not result in any effects upon me other than beneficial ones, this can be moraly justified? Or are your talking in terms of a species? In species terms it is a Darwinian impulse to eat, as this keeps us at our fittest. Thus saying that a healthy, strong and intelegent man would be moraly wrong to give his food to a disabled person, thus making him weaker and perpetuating the life of a defected memeber of the species (acording to darwinism). Or our inclinations towards hatred and violence if we feel threatend can be justifed because it is for the benefit of the species that those weak members get weeded out, and only fitest may survive through the death of those too weak to do so without help? A form of social darwinism seems to be instated and justified.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's one apparent problem. On the other hand you havn't justified why it is moral to simply follow the inclination of the species. You simply said that it is benefical for the speices without demonstrating that something that is good for the speices must be moral.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Another problem other people would have is that your justification is amoral, in that what you have said is that which is in our own interests, or the interests of the species is moraly justifiable simply because it is a primal urge. My primal urge may tell me to [assault] someone, but most people would say it is not moral to do so. I do not follow this line of reasonsing as it suposes that justifcation for morality need be moral in itself, and that it assumes morality as the basis of morality.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, prima facie, your argument may seem a good one to some people.

 

 

 

forgive my 12th graded-ness, but could you dumb it down a little? its 10:30, and im tired, and i still dont understand your core argument.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thus if, due to darwinian inclinations, I saw that someone was a threat to me, and I had them killed in a way which would not result in any effects upon me other than beneficial ones, this can be moraly justified? Or are your talking in terms of a species?

i wouldnt say that killing someone because they were a threat to you is morally justified, i was suggesting more in terms of the human species as a whole, i.e. if someone threatened me, i would defend myself (so i can reproduce) but not go so far as to kill him so he cant reprodcue.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On the other hand you havn't justified why it is moral to simply follow the inclination of the species.

i was suggesting more that morality is an evolutionary mechanism, try not to think of it as being 'right' or 'wrong' to follow a biological inclination. Its like reproduction.. we just do it :wink:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Another problem other people would have is that your justification is amoral, in that what you have said is that which is in our own interests, or the interests of the species is moraly justifiable simply because it is a primal urge.

so be it.. im not saying my theories are 100% foolproof and we should re-define words like 'moral' 'immoral' or 'amoral', but, i suppose, if i were correct, then we would be amoral creatures and 'morality' would just be a primal urge. (i dont mind if im wrong, i just thought about these ideas a few hours ago)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My primal urge may tell me to [assault] someone, but most people would say it is not moral to do so.

perhaps because rage is the primal urge, not the desire to hit someone?

[Death_By_Pod]

 

 

 

That's exactly what I was getting at. Anyone that gets punched in the face for the (pseudo)-reason mentioned about, and doesn't think it's objectively wrong has some serious ethical thinking to do.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Saying that getting punched in the face as something 'objectively wrong', is just a band-aid patch and being lazy; It doesn't explain anything. Great, it's objective, but you are still not answering why it is objective or how it came to be objective.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If getting punched in the face is objectively wrong, then why is someone punching you in the face?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So it is not wrong for someone to just come up to you and punch you in the face for no reason other than they wanted to?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is nothing inherently wrong with someone punching you in the face. The person who punches you in the face must deal with the consequences associated with such an action, which is decided by people affected by the event.

[insane]

 

If god does not exist, neither do morals. I do not beleive in god, and I do not beleive in intrinsic morality either.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't see your logical leap here - how does the existence of god have any effect on the concept of intrinsic morality? It seems that you're basing the concept of morality with that of religion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think (to "dumb down" his argument a little), the reason intrinsic morality doesn't exist if God doesn't exist boils down to materialism. An atheist is generally going to be a materialist (only material things exist). An objective moral standard cannot be a material thing. Can you reach out and physically see or touch this moral standard? I think a materialist would argue that since a moral standard cannot physically exist, then there is no objective moral standard by which we can judge actions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Saying that getting punched in the face as something 'objectively wrong', is just a band-aid patch and being lazy; It doesn't explain anything. Great, it's objective, but you are still not answering why it is objective or how it came to be objective.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yea, I realized afterwards that it was a really dumb thing to say. Subjective morality is completely reasonable when believed by an atheist. But if everybody beliefs in a lack of morality then this world would degrade into a frenzy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I guess pragmatically we need to act as if morality is objective when dealing with things such as laws.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

 

 

Yea, I realized afterwards that it was a really dumb thing to say. Subjective morality is completely reasonable when believed by an atheist. But if everybody beliefs in a lack of morality then this world would degrade into a frenzy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I guess pragmatically we need to act as if morality is objective when dealing with things such as laws.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You don't need to be an atheist to rationalise subjective morality (I'm not an atheist for example), in fact I see it as a consequence of biology. We codify laws so that we have some form of cohesiveness and a minimal level of civil freedom. Even without formal laws, people would be discouraged from doing anything viewed as too negative, since people will eventually turn on them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I wouldn't necessarily say that we have to act as if it were objective, since useful laws are ones created as a response to a need from the population. I doubt it would be possible to create a law without influence from general opinion since the lawmakers themselves live in a society of differing opinion.

[Intarweb]

There is nothing inherently wrong with someone punching you in the face.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So says you. I think there is something inherently wrong with punching people in face for no reason other than wanting to.

[FuBai]

 

There is nothing inherently wrong with someone punching you in the face.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So says you. I think there is something inherently wrong with punching people in face for no reason other than wanting to.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ok..let's play the "why game". You keep making statments and I keep saying why until you realise there is no inherent value without god.

[Ragen]

 

 

There is nothing inherently wrong with someone punching you in the face.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So says you. I think there is something inherently wrong with punching people in face for no reason other than wanting to.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ok..let's play the "why game". You keep making statments and I keep saying why until you realise there is no inherent value without god.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Social status. I don't need a god to uphold my morals and neither do most people I beleive. If they are ridiculed and outcast or looked down upon by their peers for doing something, then they quickly develope the "No thats wrong" instinct - morals.

[Intarweb]

 

 

There is nothing inherently wrong with someone punching you in the face.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So says you. I think there is something inherently wrong with punching people in face for no reason other than wanting to.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ok..let's play the "why game". You keep making statments and I keep saying why until you realise there is no inherent value without god.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're right. So what's your point? I never denied the need for a belief in god - mainly because its irrelevant to my point, and also because religious discussions are not allowed. Let us not continue down this road.

[The Dark Lord]

There's nothing wrong with killing someone. Hell I can go out and stab someone in the chest now and it's not wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I can steal from someone and when they try to stop me, I shoot them in the head.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I could go out and become Adolf Hitler II and kill all Jews and no one of Hitler's "Master Race."

 

 

 

There's nothing wrong with doing those things...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

[warri0r45]

they quickly develope the "No thats wrong" instinct - morals.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

we could just be ovaranalysing this rediculously.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Our parents teach us right and wrong - thats obvious, and we learn some right and wrong ourselves, through consequences (bad consequence means wrong act). But where do our parents learn these things? well from thier parents and thier own personal experience as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

morals could be no more than a taught/inherited grasp on what 'works'(right) or what 'dosent work' (wrong).

[Gamemonster]

 

they quickly develope the "No thats wrong" instinct - morals.

 

 

 

we could just be ovaranalysing this rediculously.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Our parents teach us right and wrong - thats obvious, and we learn some right and wrong ourselves, through consequences (bad consequence means wrong act). But where do our parents learn these things? well from thier parents and thier own personal experience as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

morals could be no more than a taught/inherited grasp on what 'works'(right) or what 'dosent work' (wrong).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No one is going to figure out the the difference between Right and Wrong. nNo one not me and not all of you

[fakeitormakeit]

techinally i guess no1s morals are better then anyone others, some people say morals are better then others when the morals are more commonly viewed as good.

[warri0r45]

No one is going to figure out the the difference between Right and Wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

do you seriously believe that? Dogs can figure out the difference between right and wrong, so can humans.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

wrong= bad consequence/lack of good consequence

 

 

 

right=good consequence/lack of bad consequence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

its the basis of conditioning. Ivan Pavlov coined the concept with his bell+dog experiment. So its pretty easy to begin to understand the concepts of 'right' and 'wrong' (the basis of morality) without it being intrinsic or anything like that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Although i still think that morality being an evolutionary mechanism could be plausible, id have to think about it more though.

[warri0r45]

i just thought id post a part of the wikipedia article on Morality, its an interesting read.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Development of morality

 

 

 

While some philosophers and biologists hold that morality is a thin crust hiding egoism, amorality, and anti-social tendencies, others see morality as a product of evolutionary forces and as evidence for continuity with other group-living organisms. Proponents of what could be called "Natural Outgrowth Theory" see no conflict between evolutionary biology and morality since moral codes generally prescribe behavior that enhances individual fitness and group well-being. For example, the taboo against inbreeding encourages individuals to avoid producing defective offspring that would depress their reproductive fitness. Compliance with and internalization of social conventions leads to a sense of regularity that makes group living more predictable and hence, less stressful, for its members. Reciprocity ensures a reliable supply of essential resources, especially for animals living in a habitat where food quantity or quality fluctuates unpredictably. On any given night for vampire bats, some individuals fail to feed on prey while others consume a surplus of blood. Bats that have successfully fed then regurgitate part of their blood meal to save a conspecific from starvation. Since these animals live in close-knit groups over many years, an individual can count on other group members to return the favor on nights when it goes hungry (Wilkinson, 1984).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Christopher Boehm (1982) has advanced a possible mechanism where natural selection pressures drove the incremental development of moral complexity throughout hominid evolution. In primate societies, a fight between high-ranking individuals raises the anxiety level of the entire troupe, so that third parties sometimes intervene to bring the quarreling parties to reconcile. A despotic dominance style like that observed in many macaque species also causes more stress for subordinates. As early hominids moved from arboreal to terrestrial habitats, anxiety-induced dispersal behavior would have exposed individuals to predation, forcing our ancestors to develop more efficient conflict management strategies if they were to enjoy the benefits of group living. The invention of stone tools around 2.5 million years ago made fights potentially more injurious, which further increased selection pressure for conflict interference and group controls on dominance behavior. In summary, living in close quarters on the open savanna with ready access to dangerous weapons compelled early hominids to develop strict codes of acceptable behavior.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some evolutionary psychologists have argued that human morality originated from evolutionary processes. An innate tendency to develop a sense of right and wrong helps an individual to survive and reproduce in a species with complex social interactions. Selected behaviors, seen in abstraction as moral codes, are seen to be common to all human cultures, and reflect, in their development, similarities to natural selection and these aspects of morality can be seen in as the basis of some religious doctrine. From this, some also argue that there may be a simple Darwinian explanation for the existence of religion: that, regardless of the truth of religious beliefs, religion tends to encourage behavior beneficial to the species, as a code of morality tends to encourage communality, and communality tends to assist survival.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

These explanations for the existence of morality do not, however, necessarily assist in deciding what is truly right for future actions. Should an individual's own morality really be determined by what is best for their genetic offspring (colloquially, but inaccurately, "the good of the species" see group selection) Viewholders counter that evolutionary psychology extends millions of years of empirical justification for our moral sense, provided that sense is indeed innate ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ã

[crimsonking]

Morality is a persons view of right and wrong, its an opinion, though a necessity, morality is within everyone, no matter who they are, though some peoples actions are wrong to the majority of people it doesn't mean they are without morality or that they are necessarily wrong in their action.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In other words, good and evil exist only in our minds.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thats my theory anyways.

[BDave]

Logic is a terrible thing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It shows what I think, you have no morals. You try defending it using fancy words but that is what it comes down to. I think if this test was broken down more I wouldn't get full score as I didn't believe many of the scenarios deserved punishment, but I would still get a very high score because I believe those things shouldn't happen and should be stopped.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However this is all theoretical and its alot harder to carry out your theories in real life. A friend I met at work has I believe a problem with drugs. It's not full blown or anything but he gets in trouble at the pub because he does it there sometimes. He doesn't believe its a problem, but I do. I however know I cannot force him to do anything as that will not help him as he will simply not listen. My point being its all good being moralistic but real life situations are another matter.

[warri0r45]

My point being its all good being moralistic but real life situations are another matter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

thats right, you cant help people that dont want to be helped. In other words, you cant force your morals on others.

[Adam007]

 

My point being its all good being moralistic but real life situations are another matter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

thats right, you cant help people that dont want to be helped. In other words, you cant force your morals on others.

 

 

 

I don't know if you meant it that way, but are you implying that forcing morals on others helps them?

[Intarweb]

 

 

My point being its all good being moralistic but real life situations are another matter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

thats right, you cant help people that dont want to be helped. In other words, you cant force your morals on others.

 

 

 

I don't know if you meant it that way, but are you implying that forcing morals on others helps them?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wouldn't it make sense to imply that? If I think my set of morality is correct, then I think that it would help you had to follow them. If I didn't think my views on morality were helpful, why would I even follow them?