Source of morality?

[Fishteacher73]

Well in a court of law possibly...or even the role of laws and the apropriateness(sp) of some. Many US laws are based in Christian moral code (ie blue laws) and really should not be on the book IMO.

[IrishEyes]

Well in a court of law possibly...or even the role of laws and the apropriateness(sp) of some. Many US laws are based in Christian moral code (ie blue laws) and really should not be on the book IMO.

Why not?

If the citizens wanted those laws, then what is the problem?

Frankly there are hundreds of laws on the books that really shouldn't be anymore, due to them being outdated or otherwise no longer enforceable.

If the citizens no longer want those laws to be in effect, then the laws should be removed. If you don't care for blue laws, move to California.

[Fishteacher73]

I like the cost of living here, thanx.... ;) (Plus only wierd people live in CA.... ;) ).

[Fishteacher73]

Also, citizens could vote that women should not drive and are essentially property again.... The Constsution over-rides popular whims....

[IrishEyes]

Also, citizens could vote that women should not drive and are essentially property again.... The Constsution over-rides popular whims....

It would take more than a few citizens to accomplish that though, wouldn't it? But if the general population agreed that women shouldn't drive, it could be added to the Constitution, couldn't it? I mean, I'm sure you guys would have fun coming up with the wording for THAT amendmant, but still... ;)

[Fishteacher73]

We could not even pass the ERA.... Perhaps it was because it was not limiting rights of someone....Americans tend to really like those amendments that tell people that they do not count the same (Read as defense of mariage act, 3/5 compromise, etc).

[Biochemist]

I just scanned this entire thread, and would like to offer a couple of points. All are my opinion:

 

1) Morality and law are weakly related. Laws are usually implemented by majority vote, by autocracy or by accident. They may be unrelated to anyone's perception of right and wrong, safety or fariness.

2) Morality is not a majority vote.

3) The notion of "doing unto others as you would have then do unto you" is highly dysfunctional unless there is some reasonably objective external standard. I don't think Ted Bundy really minded being sentenced to death. He certiainly didn't mind torturing his victims. I suspect most of us would not like to adopt his standard. But he was living pretty well by his golden rule.

4) Given number 3, morality is not an individual's vote either.

5) Ethics do have a connection to morality. In American english normal usage, ethics and morality are almost synonymous. Ethics is often used preferentially in some contexts (e.g., business ethics). In all cases ethics are a proscribed set of moral standards.

 

The Christian framework of "doing unto others..." includes additional ideas that were not mentioned in the posts so far. I think they are valuable. They include:

 

1) Doing things for others' benefit that do not benefit you. Sometimes, the actions are even to your disbenefit. This is usually characterized as "loving your neighbor". Most of us admire people that act this way. Think of Mother Theresa.

2) Doing things for others that are valuable for them, even if they do not perceive it as such. We certainly do this sort of thing for our children frequently. Jesus suggested it applied to everyone. Another flavor of "loving your neighbor".

3) Treating others well even when they treat you poorly. Yet one more flavor of "loving your neighbor".

4) Influencing others in a moral direction. We routinely accept this notion with our children. We are less reliably/consistently convinced it makes sense outside our families. This one certainly causes a ruckus in US politics.

5) Giving honor to the Creator. Jesus put loving God higher than loving your neighbor. This is probably because the framework for defining "loving your neighbor" is impossible without a reference framework for love. I suspect that Jesus would not have approved of Ted Bundy's approach to loving his neighbor. But I am pretty sure Jesus would have loved Ted Bundy.

[Biochemist]

Morality protects the State against its citizens. Ethics protect citizens against each other.

I have to tell you UA, this is a pretty bizarre construct. Protect the state from its citizens??

 

Totalitarians use their armed forces or police. In democracies, the citizens are the state. What are you talking about?

 

Were you joking?

[BEAKER]

5) Giving honor to the Creator. Jesus put loving God higher than loving your neighbor. This is probably because the framework for defining "loving your neighbor" is impossible without a reference framework for love. I suspect that Jesus would not have approved of Ted Bundy's approach to loving his neighbor. But I am pretty sure Jesus would have loved Ted Bundy.

Love is deffinately not something that can be quantified within the framework of any laboratory testing facility; neither is it ever even mentioned in reguard to evolution. What a desolate and terrible world it would be without it.;)

 

I pitty those poor souls who cannot esteem it's value, and burry it's worth under the supposedly greater importance of accumulated knowledge.

[paultrr]

Love is deffinately not something that can be quantified within the framework of any laboratory testing facility; neither is it ever even mentioned in reguard to evolution. What a desolate and terrible world it would be without it.;)

 

I pitty those poor souls who cannot esteem it's value, and burry it's worth under the supposedly greater importance of accumulated knowledge.

 

Konner, Melvin, 2002. The Tangled Wing: Biological Constraints on the Human Spirit, New York: Henry Holt and Co.

 

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/anthro/faculty/fessler/FesslerEmotionEncycl.pdf#search='Evolution%20and%20emotions'

 

Griffiths, Paul E. What Emotions Really Are: The Problem of Psychological Categories. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press, 1997.

 

Emotional disorders in evolutionary perspective by Nesse R, Br J Med Psychol 1998 Dec; 71 ( Pt 4):397-415

 

To name a few that go into that subject from an evolutionary perspective.

[BEAKER]

Thanks Paul.;)

[sanctus]

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

 

 

I guess it is the other way around it is the society that brings morality into life. The demonstration of this is very easy: every society has another moral (i.e in Texas the majority therefore the society sees death penalty as morally acceptable, elswhere the majority doesn't).

 

The difference between morality and ethics is (as I see it) that the former hasn't to have a logic behind, while ethics has to be logically defendable. I mean, people say that it is unethic to clone and not unmoral, because you can simply say I want a copy of myself and as it doesn't hurt nobody it is morally acceptable for me and as I live in a society where moral is given by "if it hurts nobody then it is ok" , cloning isn't immoral.But if we say cloning is ethic we have to prove logically why. In other word morality is the common feeling of the society and ethics is logical derivation starting from some axioms.

 

 

And by the way, robbing a bank for saving your child's life is morally perfectly acceptable (as long as you don't hurt anyone during the robbery). I guess all western societies would tell you that it is alright to do so. that they would have acted the same way (as you said irish and I do as well).

[Biochemist]

The difference between morality and ethics is (as I see it) that the former hasn't to have a logic behind, while ethics has to be logically defendable.

I think this is arbitrary. Most ethics are not any more defensible than personal moral choices. A good, common reference point for ethics is that is is ethical to always honor your word. In many cases, the is disadvantageious in the contractual sense. The only real defense for this behavior is that it is "right", not that it is "defensible".

 

I think ethics are personal moral chouces. We just don't usually use "ethics" for some categores of morality (e.g., sexuality, violence, honoring your parents. etc).

[BEAKER]

This is all just a matter of semantics. You say potato, I say potato. The source of morality will always be defined by the individual (in his or her own mind) based upon his or her view about where we came from and where we are going.

 

If you believe we are all creatures in a state of evolution, you can come to no other conclusion as to the source of morality but that it is something created by us, and is therefore based only upon our own personal preferences.

 

If however you believe that we were created by God, then you must believe that He was the One who placed certain values upon our hearts and in His Word that define what is right or wrong.

 

If the former is true, it really doesn't matter how you define morality or where you attribute it's source.

 

If the latter, then it also doesn't matter where you believe it comes from, in the end it will rise above any and all controversy, and some will be ruled by it, while others will be ashamed by it.;)

[lindagarrette]

 

The difference between morality and ethics is (as I see it) that the former hasn't to have a logic behind, while ethics has to be logically defendable.

Both morality and ethics have logical causes. Neither is arbitrary. The main difference is that ethics takes on a more social nuances. A lie, legally indefensible, for example, or an evasion, can be considered ethical in some circumstances when a worse personal harm would occur if the truth were expressed. Morality on the other hand is determined by the society within the environment (time and place) of the action. Example, killing an enemy may be morally justifiedl or outlawed, depending on who is doing it and when. Neither concept is subjective or absolute.

[Biochemist]

Both morality and ethics have logical causes. Neither is arbitrary. The main difference is that ethics takes on a more social nuances.....Morality on the other hand is determined by the society within the environment (time and place) of the action....

I agree with this generally, although I still can't see how morality and ethics are different. It is true that we tend to use the term "morality" in some contexts and "ethics" in others, but they both have social nuance, social connotation, and balance of good vs bad in outcome. I could see substitituing "morality" for "ethics" in the above two sentences, and they still seem valid.

 

Some folks (me, for instance) think there are some moral absolutes, but this is, frankly, a pretty small part of the morality discussion. It is the discussion of issues that are not absolute that are more meaningful and instructive.

[C1ay]

I recall an incident in the news regarding the Brookfield Zoo in Chicago. A young visitor at the zoo climbed the railing and fell nearly 20 feet into the gorilla display. One of the female gorillas there recued him, with her own child on her back, and carried him to the door where the keepers usually brought food. While the child layed at the door she defended the area keeping the other gorillas away until the child was removed from their pen. Was this an act born of morality?