Morality

[Mr.Badham]

Morality is based entirely on consent.

I propose that;
You cannot morally force someone to do something they don't want to do.

If I'm wrong, you will give an example of something you can force someone to do that they don't want to do.

[Choir Loft]

Morality is based entirely on consent.

I propose that;
You cannot morally force someone to do something they don't want to do.

If I'm wrong, you will give an example of something you can force someone to do that they don't want to do.

Prisons.

There are any number of things we require of someone in order to share burdens in (or near) a society.

My question would be, "Is it moral to lock them up, or is it lust whats best for society?"

When we judge an act or omission to be "moral" we've weighed all of the pros and cons and determined that, in our opinion, overall the conduct is better than it is worse. An act in an of itself isn't moral or immoral. You have to look at the particular situation and consider all of the competing values that apply and, if you feel that the good outweighs the bad, it's a moral act.

For instance, is it immoral to cut a person's throat? Depends on the circumstances. If I do it to a stranger in a bar because he stepped on my toe, that's an immoral act. If I'm a surgeon performing neck surgery it's moral. In both cases I'm causing harm, but in the latter case the benefits outweigh the harms so it's a moral act. Of course, further factual complications might change my judgment in either case.

Is it immoral to imprison someone? Depends on all the circumstances. It is harmful in that it uses force to restrain a person's autonomy. But if the good I am doing in protecting society, specific potential victims, and even the person himself outweighs the harm, then it's moral. That something is moral doesn't mean it does no harm, just that on balance it is more beneficial than not.

In weighing the competing moral values, you lean heavily libertarian in saying that the only, or primary, concern should be the right to do as one wills. I'm more utilitarian and concerned with avoiding harm to people and promoting wellbeing. So, for instance, in a situation where a snake oil salesman is selling a concoction as a cure for cancer, you might say that it would be immoral to interfere with their freedom to pursue their goals and it would be immoral to interfere with the consent of the patient to buy the medicine of their choice. Regulating this transaction would, therefore, be an immoral act. I'd consider the opportunity of individuals to determine their own medical care, but would find that outweighed by the competing values of preventing fraud and protecting public health.
I don't think that either moral evaluation is the objectively true one, I just don't consider the libertarian approach to be better for society or for individuals.

I wonder that you don't read your own words. Its really a mess, all that relative morality you've cooked up. There is no coherent thought, no basis for your logic and no point at all.

Let's back up a bit and have another look, shall we?

We have two choices when it comes to defining morality.
1. That there is a God and that man is created in His image.
2. That man is an animal like all other animals on the earth, nothing special, no big deal, no glittering lights where a soul should be.

Considering the argument for morality under #1, man's behavior is dictated not by himself or even by his community but by God. Behavior is absolute and not subject for interpretation. A sub-set of this logic is that it's ok for man to kill animals because they are not infused with the divine spark - they aren't made in the image of God. It is not ok to kill humans because they are made in His image.

Considering the argument for morality under #2, man's only 'claim to fame' over other critters on the earth is his intelligence. Stop and think a minute. Some animals, like certain species of chimps for instance, are equal in intelligence levels to some retarded human children. A sub-set of this logic is that since it is assumed that there is no divine spark in man, that man isn't made in God's image, is that its equally ok to kill man as well as animals. From this we get eugenics, which justifies racial cleansing and genocide and euthanasia (killing the fetus, terminally sick adults, etc).

Without an absolute moral standard from God to adhere to, all discussion about morality degenerates into pointless opinion. That's what the post above was; pointless, incoherent OPINION. That's all you've got. ALL. Just opinion.

Without an absolute moral standard from God IT IS PERFECTLY OK TO SHOOT AN UNARMED BOY WITH A BAG OF SKITTLES IN HIS HAND. Why? Because he is just another wild dog of an animal and it really doesn't matter at all. The community sets the moral standard and in this case the community doesn't give a damn. Therefore the recent killing in Sanford, Florida wasn't really a killing at all. It was only pest control.

Similarly abortion is perfectly ok, since the doctor who kills the baby is licensed to do so, JUST LIKE the man in Sanford with a gun.

Do you see where I'm going with this? Without a high standard ANY moral discussion is pointless and usually ends with some innocent getting killed.

While we're at it, why don't we just shoot the pregnant mother in the head. You get two pests for one bullet and its a heckuva lot cheaper. Sounds good doesn't it? It does if you have no solid moral standard. In fact, you can't justify NOT DOING IT.

Where does this lead? In the Bible, property is tied to persons. While we are arguing about whether abortion is ok or not and whether its ok to blow away a black kid or not (forget that he is unarmed and unable to defend himself...just like the baby BTW), the government, OUR GOVERNMENT, is working out plans to seize our personal property at will. Lots of examples for this, but I'm sure you know what I'm talking about; eminent domain and all that you know.

The danger is that if any government can seize your wallet or property, they can seize YOU. Any government that isn't chained is like a ravenous wolf out to devour anything and anyone it wants to.

Then again, that's not a moral argument is it, because animals don't have a right to own property any more than they have a right to live, do they?

but that's just me, hollering from the choir loft...

[Artie]

We have two choices when it comes to defining morality.
1. That there is a God and that man is created in His image.
2. That man is an animal like all other animals on the earth, nothing special, no big deal, no glittering lights where a soul should be.

Considering the argument for morality under #2, man's only 'claim to fame' over other critters on the earth is his intelligence. Stop and think a minute. Some animals, like certain species of chimps for instance, are equal in intelligence levels to some retarded human children. A sub-set of this logic is that since it is assumed that there is no divine spark in man, that man isn't made in God's image, is that its equally ok to kill man as well as animals. From this we get eugenics, which justifies racial cleansing and genocide and euthanasia (killing the fetus, terminally sick adults, etc).

Yes, this is Gods morals as evidenced all over the Old Testament where He personally drowns practically all human beings and animals on the planet and commands people to commit genocide killing even women and innocent children. You are actually saying we should be sticking to these morals?

Without an absolute moral standard from God IT IS PERFECTLY OK TO SHOOT AN UNARMED BOY WITH A BAG OF SKITTLES IN HIS HAND. Why? Because he is just another wild dog of an animal and it really doesn't matter at all. The community sets the moral standard and in this case the community doesn't give a damn. Therefore the recent killing in Sanford, Florida wasn't really a killing at all. It was only pest control.

Wasn't God drowning almost all humans and animals in the flood also pest control?

[DINSTAAR]

From RichardP

Let's back up a bit and have another look, shall we?

We have two choices when it comes to defining morality.
1. That there is a God and that man is created in His image.
2. That man is an animal like all other animals on the earth, nothing special, no big deal, no glittering lights where a soul should be.

I would say that this is a false paradigm, much like Eddie Izzard's "Cake or Death". It is unwise to assume that we have just two choices for a foundation to "defining morality".

Considering the argument for morality under #1, man's behavior is dictated not by himself or even by his community but by God. Behavior is absolute and not subject for interpretation. A sub-set of this logic is that it's ok for man to kill animals because they are not infused with the divine spark - they aren't made in the image of God. It is not ok to kill humans because they are made in His image.

Is it not okay to kill humans because we are made in his image or is it not okay to kill humans because that is how God dictated? I am confused by your reasoning.

Also, is saying "a sub-set of this logic" interpreting the moral code?

Considering the argument for morality under #2, man's only 'claim to fame' over other critters on the earth is his intelligence. Stop and think a minute. Some animals, like certain species of chimps for instance, are equal in intelligence levels to some retarded human children. A sub-set of this logic is that since it is assumed that there is no divine spark in man, that man isn't made in God's image, is that its equally ok to kill man as well as animals. From this we get eugenics, which justifies racial cleansing and genocide and euthanasia (killing the fetus, terminally sick adults, etc).

Sub-set of what logic? If you make a claim and from that, create a conclusion, you can't bridge the logic with that phrase.

Also, if you want to delve into the history of violent acts against humanity, you should know that people that believed in god are the greatest offenders ever(edit to add "unless God actually does exist" to the end of this sentence).

[DINSTAAR]

Without an absolute moral standard from God to adhere to, all discussion about morality degenerates into pointless opinion. That's what the post above was; pointless, incoherent OPINION. That's all you've got. ALL. Just opinion.

The least one could do is have an opinion that rigorously adheres to logic. Simply, its your opinion that God exists and mine that none does.

Saying something is absolute does not make it so... if it is so, it would be demonstrably so. If we set an experiment, could we prove that God has set a high moral standard for humanity? No. In fact, we do not have any instruments that can observe the existence of God. All we have is an ancient account and "feelings" people attribute to the supernatural.

Without an absolute moral standard from God IT IS PERFECTLY OK TO SHOOT AN UNARMED BOY WITH A BAG OF SKITTLES IN HIS HAND. Why?

Where is this poor boy getting shot with candy?

A few issues. Does an absolute moral standard have to come from God? If it came from God, but allowed for the shooting of the skittles kid, would killing the boy still be wrong?

What if an absolute moral standard came from logic and physics itself?
Let me demonstrate....

"Without God keeping gravity on, we would all fly out into space."

So, from this, there has to be a God because we aren't flying out into space. This is your argument basically.

Also, if morality is innate in humanity, this does not exclude the existence of god. Morality can be a separate issue from the existence of god.

What if God has created the universe with human moral code intertwined. He would not have directives, but instead he would have ingrained us all with the idea of morality (excluding people with mental disorder).

Does empathy only exist because god told us to treat each other the way we want to be treated?

[DINSTAAR]

Do you see where I'm going with this? Without a high standard ANY moral discussion is pointless and usually ends with some innocent getting killed.

Discourse does not lead to violence. Discourse and violence are mutually exclusive.

While we are arguing about whether abortion is ok or not and whether its ok to blow away a black kid or not (forget that he is unarmed and unable to defend himself...just like the baby BTW), the government, OUR GOVERNMENT, is working out plans to seize our personal property at will.

You just went all crazy uncle there for a sec. Kidding. Governments exist in combat with the people.... that's why the US and other countries have constitutions (that fail).
Government is morally corrupt. It crowdsources responsibility and violently takes from the citizens. This is not the topic so I will leave this as it is.

[Thatguy]

I wonder that you don't read your own words. Its really a mess, all that relative morality you've cooked up. There is no coherent thought, no basis for your logic and no point at all.

Let's back up a bit and have another look, shall we?

We have two choices when it comes to defining morality.
1. That there is a God and that man is created in His image.
2. That man is an animal like all other animals on the earth, nothing special, no big deal, no glittering lights where a soul should be.

Considering the argument for morality under #1, man's behavior is dictated not by himself or even by his community but by God. Behavior is absolute and not subject for interpretation. A sub-set of this logic is that it's ok for man to kill animals because they are not infused with the divine spark - they aren't made in the image of God. It is not ok to kill humans because they are made in His image.

Considering the argument for morality under #2, man's only 'claim to fame' over other critters on the earth is his intelligence. Stop and think a minute. Some animals, like certain species of chimps for instance, are equal in intelligence levels to some retarded human children. A sub-set of this logic is that since it is assumed that there is no divine spark in man, that man isn't made in God's image, is that its equally ok to kill man as well as animals. From this we get eugenics, which justifies racial cleansing and genocide and euthanasia (killing the fetus, terminally sick adults, etc).

Without an absolute moral standard from God to adhere to, all discussion about morality degenerates into pointless opinion. That's what the post above was; pointless, incoherent OPINION. That's all you've got. ALL. Just opinion.

Without an absolute moral standard from God IT IS PERFECTLY OK TO SHOOT AN UNARMED BOY WITH A BAG OF SKITTLES IN HIS HAND. Why? Because he is just another wild dog of an animal and it really doesn't matter at all. The community sets the moral standard and in this case the community doesn't give a damn. Therefore the recent killing in Sanford, Florida wasn't really a killing at all. It was only pest control.

Similarly abortion is perfectly ok, since the doctor who kills the baby is licensed to do so, JUST LIKE the man in Sanford with a gun.

Do you see where I'm going with this? Without a high standard ANY moral discussion is pointless and usually ends with some innocent getting killed.

While we're at it, why don't we just shoot the pregnant mother in the head. You get two pests for one bullet and its a heckuva lot cheaper. Sounds good doesn't it? It does if you have no solid moral standard. In fact, you can't justify NOT DOING IT.

Where does this lead? In the Bible, property is tied to persons. While we are arguing about whether abortion is ok or not and whether its ok to blow away a black kid or not (forget that he is unarmed and unable to defend himself...just like the baby BTW), the government, OUR GOVERNMENT, is working out plans to seize our personal property at will. Lots of examples for this, but I'm sure you know what I'm talking about; eminent domain and all that you know.

The danger is that if any government can seize your wallet or property, they can seize YOU. Any government that isn't chained is like a ravenous wolf out to devour anything and anyone it wants to.

Then again, that's not a moral argument is it, because animals don't have a right to own property any more than they have a right to live, do they?

but that's just me, hollering from the choir loft...

I first read this early in the morning and, for some reason, thought it was from Mr. Badham. The accusation that I don't read my own words and that they are an incoherent mess, therefore, stunned me. It didn't sound like what little I've seen of Mr. Badham's style. Then I saw it wasn't from him and all surprise dissipated.

How do we know God's moral judgment in each situation we face?

Yes, I consider morality to be an opinion. No, I do not think that knowing that we are animals means we then must abandon morality. There are believers and non-believers on most sides of all moral questions. I know there are those who will say that "if you don't believe as I do about the gods, you must hold X moral views." [Insert something ridiculous for X.] But rarely does the moral code the speaker insists the other must hold actually resemble the moral code of the person being lectured to.

[Thatguy]

I would say that this is a false paradigm, much like Eddie Izzard's "Cake or Death". It is unwise to assume that we have just two choices for a foundation to "defining morality".

Welcome, Dinstaar.
A more complete morality, in the context of religion and nationalism, is not based on the dichotomy of "cake or death," as you point out. There are also flags. We have a flag.

[connermt]

Morality is based entirely on consent.

I propose that;
You cannot morally force someone to do something they don't want to do.

If I'm wrong, you will give an example of something you can force someone to do that they don't want to do.

What is or isn't moral depends on the person, culture and situation. What's moral to you may not be to me and vice versa.

[Bust Nak]

We have two choices when it comes to defining morality.
1. That there is a God and that man is created in His image.
2. That man is an animal like all other animals on the earth, nothing special, no big deal, no glittering lights where a soul should be.

At it stand it a false dichotomy, you missed out that man is a moral animal unlike most other animals on earth, hence very special. But I am guessing you knew that and just want take a swipe at humanism with choice 2.

Considering the argument for morality under #1, man's behavior is dictated not by himself or even by his community but by God. Behavior is absolute and not subject for interpretation.

Just take a loog at the number of denominations within Christianity to know how open to interpretation God's words can be. Lets start from the top: Is it thou shall not kill or thou shall not murder?

A sub-set of this logic is that it's ok for man to kill animals because they are not infused with the divine spark - they aren't made in the image of God. It is not ok to kill humans because they are made in His image.

Another sub-set of this logic is it's ok for men to kill other men because God judged them to be wicked or evil.

Considering the argument for morality under #2, man's only 'claim to fame' over other critters on the earth is his intelligence. Stop and think a minute. Some animals, like certain species of chimps for instance, are equal in intelligence levels to some retarded human children. A sub-set of this logic is that since it is assumed that there is no divine spark in man, that man isn't made in God's image, is that its equally ok to kill man as well as animals. From this we get eugenics, which justifies racial cleansing and genocide and euthanasia (killing the fetus, terminally sick adults, etc).

Another sub-set of this logic is that we should treat chimps as we do other human.

Without an absolute moral standard from God to adhere to, all discussion about morality degenerates into pointless opinion. That's what the post above was; pointless, incoherent OPINION. That's all you've got. ALL. Just opinion.

Sure, but why do you think opinion are pointless? People kill and are killed by opinion. You select your leaders by opinion. Said leaders make wars based on the opinion of his constituents.

Besides, opinion's all you've got too: It's just your opinion that we should follow a higher standard; it's your opinion that God's word is that higher standard; it's your opinion that God commanded certains things and banned others.

Without an absolute moral standard from God IT IS PERFECTLY OK TO SHOOT AN UNARMED BOY WITH A BAG OF SKITTLES IN HIS HAND. Why? Because he is just another wild dog of an animal and it really doesn't matter at all.

No it's not perfectly ok at all. Why? Because it's my opinion that it isn't ok.

The community sets the moral standard and in this case the community doesn't give a damn. Therefore the recent killing in Sanford, Florida wasn't really a killing at all. It was only pest control.

Opinion differs on that.

Similarly abortion is perfectly ok, since the doctor who kills the baby is licensed to do so, JUST LIKE the man in Sanford with a gun.

Opinion differs on that too.

Do you see where I'm going with this? Without a high standard ANY moral discussion is pointless and usually ends with some innocent getting killed.

Do you see where I am going with my reply? Without a higher standard doesn't mean no standards at all.

While we're at it, why don't we just shoot the pregnant mother in the head. You get two pests for one bullet and its a heckuva lot cheaper. Sounds good doesn't it? It does if you have no solid moral standard. In fact, you can't justify NOT DOING IT.

Sure I can. I don't want to. That's enough justification for not doing it.

[Political comments cropped]Then again, that's not a moral argument is it, because animals don't have a right to own property any more than they have a right to live, do they?

Rights can be granted by other animals.

[otseng]

I wonder that you don't read your own words. Its really a mess, all that relative morality you've cooked up. There is no coherent thought, no basis for your logic and no point at all.

Moderator Comment

This would be considered a personal comment and would be against the rules.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster.