What is Morality?

[ThePainefulTruth]

The Question: Other than the issue of limited moral grey areas (subject of another thread), what human interactions can be defined as immoral?: The violation of the equal rights of all human adults to their life, liberty, property and self-defense through force or fraud. Therefore, true morality is much less than the wide array of sins that most if not all religions claim that it is.

A simple moral code, a refined statement of the Golden Rule, uses only two assumptions: 1) That life is of value to creatures that can comprehend that they are alive (enabling them to value it), with human/sentient life being of ultimate value due to a full self-awareness defined as the comprehension of mortality; 2) The desire for (value of) good order among humans mandates a universal morality among humans. The only ones who wouldn't agree with those assumptions are those wishing to establish a double standard with themselves being in the elite favored status; and anarchists who only want to watch the world burn. Some will say that restricting the elite class is subjective, but just the opposite is the case. To allow for a morally elite class or individual would automatically invite chaos, and devalue those of the second class based on the subjective (self-determined, exceptional) values/superiority the elites give themselves.


IOW, morality is an objective means to fulfill a subjective but nearly universal goal. If no objective/universal morality is allowed, there is only social/human chaos.

The more universally honored the moral code is, the more universal good order is. In order to work toward that universal acceptance, we must keep the moral code as simple as possible without mandating individually determined virtues—the disagreements over which are the cause of most human strife. Understanding the need to separate subjective virtues from objective morality is our greatest obstacle to good order.

[Bust Nak]

Violating another's rights is a hard and fast act of immorality, and those rights I've listed are simple, few, and objective.

Simple and few, sure, but how are rights objective? Where are you getting rights from anyway, without some divine right giver? Without God, rights become privileges with very low entry requirement, backed up with the strength of arms.

[wiploc]

[Replying to post 1 by ThePainefulTruth]

creating the absence of needless suffering without causing it elsewhere. That's a close as I've ever come to a solid answer for this question.

So if you're unable to relieve someone's suffering, you're immoral?

...

I'm saying (simply) that morality is honoring the rights of others, which would include doing something to prevent another's rights from being violated.

So if you're unable to prevent another's rights from being violated, you're immoral?

You're being intentionally difficult.

That's funny. I responded to your claim in the same way that you responded to Mr.M's claim. If you don't think you were being intentionally difficult, I don't see how you can think I was being so.

And what would be the point of honoring people's rights if that didn't tend to increase happiness?

Happiness is up to you, not anyone else. Someone can be happy, or miserable, through no fault of anyone else; and it isn't your duty to make others happy any more than it is to make them miserable.

Then why are you on about rights? What's the point? If trenching on people's rights doesn't tend to increase unhappiness, why should anyone want to honor their rights?

Where I'm coming from: I'm a utilitarian. I think that utilitarianism is the unspoken basis for other moral codes. I imagine that most people who promote honoring people's rights, as I do myself, do so because they believe that people will be happier if we do that.

If you disagree. If you believe that we should honor rights even if that caused suffering, if you believe rights aren't determined/identified/established based on what facilitates happiness, then I'd like to hear your reasoning.

If rights don't increase happiness, I don't see the point of them. If morality is about rights, but rights don't increase happiness, then what is the point of morality? Why should anyone choose to be moral?

Doing so isn't our duty, but they can be considered issues of individually determined virtue, which would be subject to social pressure, but not the law.

We aren't talking about law here. Our subject is morality.

Hate or other politically incorrect negative emotions such as being offensive should not be a crime.

I don't know of anyone, liberal or otherwise, who thinks hate itself should be a crime.

Only actions should be.

Right.

I know every liberal in the country would go apoplectic if they read that, but it's time to leave the playground, grow up and quit whining to the thought police.

When you said I was being intentionally difficult, I took that as a criticism. But now you're tossing out irrelevant insults (liberals are childish whiners) as if you thought being difficult was a good thing.

[Danmark]

You're being intentionally difficult....
.... I know every liberal in the country would go apoplectic if they read that, but it's time to leave the playground, grow up and quit whining to the thought police.

Moderator Warning

Please don't accuse other debaters of intending to be 'difficult.' That is a personal remark that does not advance your argument. It is also against the rules to make negative blanket remarks that personally attack entire groups of people.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Danmark]

When you said I was being intentionally difficult, I took that as a criticism. But now you're tossing out irrelevant insults (liberals are childish whiners) as if you thought being difficult was a good thing.

Moderator Comment
If you think a fellow debater is breaking the rules, report it; don't engage. Please keep the debate to the issues and ignore the personal.
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. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 11 by Bust Nak]

Via reason, using the reasoning I've posted. You assume God intervenes to tell us, but that's only based on hearsay. That same hearsay told the Israelites to stone those who work on the sabbath. That doesn't compute now nor did it then. A man gathering sticks on the sabbath to keep his family warm is executed? That is an abomination, but it doesn't even come close other examples of evil like genocide, infanticide or human sacrifice. And were supposed to take moral guidance from that God. No, because that "God" is man made as are the "scriptures".

[Bust Nak]

Via reason, using the reasoning I've posted.

But your premises are fundamentally subjective. The value of life, the desire for order i.e. "the subjective but nearly universal goal" you mentioned in the OP.

You assume God intervenes to tell us, but that's only based on hearsay. That same hearsay told the Israelites to stone those who work on the sabbath. That doesn't compute now nor did it then. A man gathering sticks on the sabbath to keep his family warm is executed? That is an abomination, but it doesn't even come close other examples of evil like genocide, infanticide or human sacrifice. And were supposed to take moral guidance from that God. No, because that "God" is man made as are the "scriptures".

Whatever it is that God orders or forbids, doesn't change the fact that without a supreme deity, rights are nothing more than man made conventions that are backed by the strength of arms.

[ThePainefulTruth]

Via reason, using the reasoning I've posted.

But your premises are fundamentally subjective. The value of life, the desire for order i.e. "the subjective but nearly universal goal" you mentioned in the OP.

As I conceded to begin with. But the value of life and desire for order are the most universal desires by a very wide margin. Would you care to suggest another subjective value--or can you think of an objective one? Add to that the fact that natural law appears to adhere to the principle of good order as an example (from God?) (Hmmm, I just thought of that. It's a keeper. It makes this Thomas Paine quote from The Age of Reason even more profound):


“It is only in the CREATION that all our ideas and conceptions of a word of God can unite. The Creation speaketh an universal language.... It is an ever-existing original, which every man can read. It cannot be forged; it cannot be counterfeited; it cannot be lost; it cannot be altered; it cannot be suppressed. It does not depend upon the will of man whether it shall be published or not; it publishes itself from one end of the earth to the other. It preaches to all nations and to all worlds; and this Word of God reveals to man all that is necessary for man to know of God.�

You assume God intervenes to tell us, but that's only based on hearsay. That same hearsay told the Israelites to stone those who work on the sabbath. That doesn't compute now nor did it then. A man gathering sticks on the sabbath to keep his family warm is executed? That is an abomination, but it doesn't even come close other examples of evil like genocide, infanticide or human sacrifice. And were supposed to take moral guidance from that God. No, because that "God" is man made as are the "scriptures".

Whatever it is that God orders or forbids, doesn't change the fact that without a supreme deity, rights are nothing more than man made conventions that are backed by the strength of arms.

But if God doesn't order or forbid anything, as appears to be the case, we are left to deduce a morality for ourselves--and it should not be a morality determined by a powerful few. Perhaps the wording should, but the goal must be as universal as possible.

[Bust Nak]

As I conceded to begin with. But the value of life and desire for order are the most universal desires by a very wide margin...

Yes, you did, and my point was, applying reason and logic to subjective premises, cannot generate objective conclusions. You don't have to convince me that these are worthy premises. I am approchaing this from the subjectivism vs objectivism angle.

But if God doesn't order or forbid anything, as appears to be the case, we are left to deduce a morality for ourselves--and it should not be a morality determined by a powerful few. Perhaps the wording should, but the goal must be as universal as possible.

Must be? Says who?

[ThePainefulTruth]

As I conceded to begin with. But the value of life and desire for order are the most universal desires by a very wide margin...

Yes, you did, and my point was, applying reason and logic to subjective premises, cannot generate objective conclusions. You don't have to convince me that these are worthy premises. I am approchaing this from the subjectivism vs objectivism angle.

So what are your findings? I'm saying:

But if God doesn't order or forbid anything, as appears to be the case, we are left to deduce a morality for ourselves--and it should not be a morality determined by a powerful few. Perhaps the wording should, but the goal must be as universal as possible.

Must be? Says who?

Says what? The outcome is determined by the situation. In this case, should we concentrate power in the hands of a few which inevitably results in the abuse of that power, or pursue the most widely desired goal--desired by all but despots and anarchists?

If that, as you say, is a worthy premise, what's the problem?

[Bust Nak]

If that, as you say, is a worthy premise, what's the problem?

The problem is, and have been, your insistence that morality is objective.