Source of morality?

[Fishteacher73]

This idea was brought up by Biochemist I believe (maybe bumab...sorry if I am wrong)...I just Checked and it was actually C1ay...sorry.

 

What is (if any) the basis of morality?

 

Is morality the same as ethics?

[bumab]

I do think all morality has a basis in something. Morality cannot exist without a reference point, and that reference point IS the basis for morality. If you say "i get my morality from Jesus" then the actions of Jesus would be your basis for moral action.

 

If you say "my basis for morality is simmply: do to others what you want to be done to you", then your basis for morality is yourself. I see this as far more problematic, because obviously, everybodies idea of what is ok to do to others will be different. Maybe that is ok, not sure yet...

Anyway, there IS a basis to that statement, but it's not a universal basis, for sure.

 

Agree/disagree?

[IrishEyes]

I agree, I guess. All morality (or lack of) has a basis in something. It can not exist without some point of reference. (geez, I actually typed reverence the first time! ;) )

 

What I find interesting is that C1ay's morality is in the Bible. Luke 6:31 says "And as ye would that men should do to yu, do ye also to them likewise". So do you guys consider that a personal morality, or as something that uses the teachings of Jesus as the basis for morality?

[bumab]

Well, to be fair, Confucious said it as well.

[Fishteacher73]

I read that all the major religions have some form of the "golden rule". Which in itself I think is a basic moral code. most people want to be treated fairly and kindly, so they should act so in turn.

[IrishEyes]

I read that all the major religions have some form of the "golden rule". Which in itself I think is a basic moral code. most people want to be treated fairly and kindly, so they should act so in turn.

I would tend to agree with that.

However, the problem arises when one person's idea of fair and kind does not match that of another person. We've discussed this a few times, and it comes back to trying to figure out if there should be some sort of standard, or absolute, right and wrong. Without a standard, it becomes very difficult to determine where the 'line' should be drwan.

[Fishteacher73]

Right and wrong are mental constructs that hold no value outside of human civilization (and even varies considerably within it). What is right and wrong is dependent upon the participants. To do something against someone's will is wrong. The same action is reasonable if it is condoned by the party. The difference between rape and sex.

 

Morality is a construct that we have evolved to work as a society.

[UncleAl]

Morality protects the State against its citizens. Ethics protect citizens against each other. Both morals and ethics are arbitrary and situational wthout exception. They exist for overall operational convenience and to levy impressed control. Where there is no enforcement there is no law.

 

1) Morals: Is premeditated homicide immoral? Disband your armed forces. Allow yourself/your parents/your children to be killed by a criminal - or a priest. Other than chastity, what sexual acts are intrinsically abnormal?

 

2) Ethics: A lawyer finishes with his client and is handed a crisp new one hundred dollar bill as fee paid in full. The lawyer realizes he was accidently given two crisp new hundred dollar bills stuck together as the client exits through a door. Now then... Does he tell his law partner?

 

Nature does not care; we do.

[bumab]

Right and wrong are mental constructs that hold no value outside of human civilization (and even varies considerably within it). What is right and wrong is dependent upon the participants. To do something against someone's will is wrong. The same action is reasonable if it is condoned by the party. The difference between rape and sex.

 

Morality is a construct that we have evolved to work as a society.

 

That is the naturalistic point of view. But what do you do when people's will's are different? Is imposing your will on somebody else wrong?

 

Then you've found the basis of your morality, right?

[Fishteacher73]

Discussing this independent of free-will (we have enough of those threads going ;) ), or else there is no morality, etc. etc.

 

At least for myself, yes. That is the basis of my morality.

 

Example:

 

I want to rob a bank. (my will)

 

The bank does not want to be robbed. (Their will).

 

It is immoral for me to impose my will upon another when the outcome is harmful to the other party. (me not robbing the bank is not harmful to me...outside the fact that I would have to get a real job then).

 

Again there can be constucted systems that cause one to have to choose the "greater good". ie--rob the bank or I kill you kid scenario.

[IrishEyes]

These are the discussions that made me join Hypography!

I love this stuff, but have never found an answer to this that is acceptable to everyone. It seems to be the difference between black, white and gray.

[IrishEyes]

Again there can be constucted systems that cause one to have to choose the "greater good". ie--rob the bank or I kill you kid scenario.

Robbing the bank still would not be moral, regardless of circumstances. The consequencesof *not* robbing the bank will cause you pain, if your child is killed, of course. However, that in itself is not a reason to break the law. Of course, there is a difference between being moral and keeping laws, isn't there?

 

And for the record, in that situation, OF COURSE I would rob the bank. Breaking the law or not, immoral or not, I'd do anything when it comes to one of my children. And wouldn't holding the child as leverage be immoral as well? But still, one immoral act does not give anyone the right, or excuse, to commit another.

[Fishteacher73]

So the moral choice, technically, would be to allow the child to die. It is said two wrongs do not make a right, but I think every decision is situational. Whether you look at Machiavellian priciples or Kant's Categorical Imperitive, there is one aspect that has more weight, outcome or methods...

[C1ay]

What I find interesting is that C1ay's morality is in the Bible. Luke 6:31 says "And as ye would that men should do to yu, do ye also to them likewise". So do you guys consider that a personal morality, or as something that uses the teachings of Jesus as the basis for morality?

 

No surprise to me reallly since the bible is a work of man anyhow. It makes since that men before me would feel the same way.

 

My belief in treating others as I would have them treat me lies in truly understanding and feeling empathy for others. For me it is also a weighted consideration I guess, since I give additional consideration of the feelings of those that are sensitive to begin with. I would certainly not holler 'boo' in jest at someone I knew was easily startled or of weak heart although the same would not bother me.

 

This basis, or foundation as some would call it, is quite variable though. The more social of us certainly have a better opportunity to learn and practice empathy more than a loner which is isolated. On the other hand there are loners, insulated from society, that do not feel the constant need to be on the defensive as a result of the distrust they have learned from some of the less friendly sectors of society. Some of them are much more intimate with empathy than many which are raised to think of themselves first and others last.

 

For me the feeling is a natural one, one that I believe is exhibited in nature as well. When a dog protects it's owner it is because it feels the fear or distress of it's owner. It is the same when a dolphin protects a comrade or another fish from a shark or when a mother duck takes in an orphan that has lost it's own mother. Look at how many animals warn each other when a predator nears. Some animals will even give their own life to protect another, i.e. police dogs for example. In my opinion animals can and do empathize with others and exhibit moral behavior as a result.

 

While many religions may have a similar golden rule, I like to think that nature had it's own morals long before there were religions. I would be very hard pressed to believe for instance, that any dinosaur cared for another because of it's religion.

[IrishEyes]

It is said two wrongs do not make a right, but I think every decision is situational...

This is a very common approach. But I agree that two wrongs don't make a right.

 

Whether or not someone threatens your child does not mean you should commit a crime yourself. Will most people still commit the crime? Probably. However, accepting the jail time with a smile after the bank is robbed and your child is safe should be your response, instead of trying to convince the judge that you were forced to rob the bank. It's all about choices, isn't it? If you know robbing the bank is wrong, yet you do it anyway regardless of your reasons, it doesn't change the right or wrong of it.

 

I don't think everything is situational. I think that there should be absolute limits to things. I think that there has to be a solid place to begin. Morals should not be situational. Actions are situational. Adhering to or disregarding laws is situational. Defending or accepting explanations for behaviour is situational. Morals themselves need to be steadfast.

[Fishteacher73]

Not to be confrontational, Irish, but what would that irrefutable line be?

[IrishEyes]

Not to be confrontational, Irish, but what would that irrefutable line be?

Sorry, 'the line in the sand' is something that used to be a very popular topic of conversation around here.

 

And i don't think you're confrontational at all.

 

I don't know what the line should be. I know what i think, and how I live my life. And it seems to work ok for me. However, if everyone doesn't live according to the same moral code, or ethical code- as the case may be, then it really doesn't matter, does it?