Requirements for a moral system

[FinalEnigma]

What are the logical requirements for a moral system? A philosopher that I can't recall proposed a set, but I want to make my own.

some examples:

1) it must not be self-contradictory(murder cannot be simultaneously moral and immoral in a given situation)
2) it must produce positive results when adhered to.
3) it must be flexible enough to allow for circumstances(I.E. 'all killing is immoral' is not valid. what if a man is about to set off a bomb in a crowded playground and you have a gun?)
etc.

Question for debate: what are logical requirements for a moral system? please propose as you like, and debate one another's(and my) proposed rules.

[FinalEnigma]

for debate:

1) adherents of a moral system must feel that it is good.

[Miles]

for debate:

1) adherents of a moral system must feel that it is good.

If for them alone if nothing else.

[FinalEnigma]

for debate:

1) adherents of a moral system must feel that it is good.

If for them alone if nothing else.

yes, that was basically what I meant.

nobody has any ideas or a dispute with any of my ideas?

[T-mash]

1) it must not be self-contradictory(murder cannot be simultaneously moral and immoral in a given situation)

I think this point isn't feasible because morality is personal and based on your own opinion as well. Sentencing people to the electric chair is murder. Our own morality is build on self-contradictions. You go to a friends house and see a mosquito and you squash it.. no problem. You see his dog and you kill it? Expect to be beaten, kicked out of the house and sued for killing his dog. A black friend calls me "nigger" (I'm white) which is fine nowadays. I say the same back and I'm a racist. These are just a few things of how things are simultaneously moral and immoral in a given situation. What specifically do you mean with "in a given situation"? For example if I lock a guy in my basement for a year it's highly immoral. We lock a guy up for a year because he did something criminal and it is moral in this given situation. Or did you mean in the same given situation?

2) it must produce positive results when adhered to.

I'd personally change this to "It mustn't produce negative results", because neutrality on an issue is not immoral. Al tough I think you might have meant here that the entire morality code must provide a positive result on your life, which of course should be true (why else follow it?).

3) it must be flexible enough to allow for circumstances(I.E. 'all killing is immoral' is not valid. what if a man is about to set off a bomb in a crowded playground and you have a gun?)

I think this point is contradictory with point 1, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. The main issue with this point in my eyes is that.. flexibility is just a matter of how far you can stretch it. Your example shows a very clear situation where nearly no one would blame you (the judge still would because he is obligated too judge you for the murder) for doing this. However what if there is a child molester that is trying to feel up a child and you draw your gun and kill him. Some would say "Great job! You're a hero!" others would not be so positive with your actions. If you are able to "stretch" a moral system, then who will be judging how far you can stretch it?

Question for debate: what are logical requirements for a moral system? please propose as you like, and debate one another's(and my) proposed rules.

I think the best logical requirement is still the good old fashioned "Treat others as you want to be treated".

[T-mash]

1) adherents of a moral system must feel that it is good.

Don't all though? I think the KKK feels they have great morals as well.

[FinalEnigma]

1) it must not be self-contradictory(murder cannot be simultaneously moral and immoral in a given situation)

I think this point isn't feasible because morality is personal and based on your own opinion as well. Sentencing people to the electric chair is murder. Our own morality is build on self-contradictions. You go to a friends house and see a mosquito and you squash it.. no problem. You see his dog and you kill it? Expect to be beaten, kicked out of the house and sued for killing his dog. A black friend calls me "nigger" (I'm white) which is fine nowadays. I say the same back and I'm a racist. These are just a few things of how things are simultaneously moral and immoral in a given situation. What specifically do you mean with "in a given situation"? For example if I lock a guy in my basement for a year it's highly immoral. We lock a guy up for a year because he did something criminal and it is moral in this given situation. Or did you mean in the same given situation?

Yes, that.

2) it must produce positive results when adhered to.

I'd personally change this to "It mustn't produce negative results", because neutrality on an issue is not immoral. Al tough I think you might have meant here that the entire morality code must provide a positive result[strike] on your life[/strike], which of course should be true (why else follow it?).

Again, the bolded part(minus the stricken. I won't condemn a system that calls for self sacrifice where appropriate). I realize that many of these may seem pretty obvious, but I'm trying to be very specific.

3) it must be flexible enough to allow for circumstances(I.E. 'all killing is immoral' is not valid. what if a man is about to set off a bomb in a crowded playground and you have a gun?)

I think this point is contradictory with point 1, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. The main issue with this point in my eyes is that.. flexibility is just a matter of how far you can stretch it. Your example shows a very clear situation where nearly no one would blame you (the judge still would because he is obligated too judge you for the murder) for doing this. However what if there is a child molester that is trying to feel up a child and you draw your gun and kill him. Some would say "Great job! You're a hero!" others would not be so positive with your actions. If you are able to "stretch" a moral system, then who will be judging how far you can stretch it?

my point with this rule, and perhaps I could have phrased it better, is to avoid broad statements like(somebody or others) natural law, where 'killing is wrong'. what about a situation where the only way to avoid a huge amount of killing is to kill someone? Should a swat sniper be imprisoned or held as immoral for shooting a criminal where it was deemed necessary in a dangerous hostage situation?

Question for debate: what are logical requirements for a moral system? please propose as you like, and debate one another's(and my) proposed rules.

I think the best logical requirement is still the good old fashioned "Treat others as you want to be treated".

I'd say that's a moral system in itself rather than a requirement for a moral system. I'd be happy to look at it as a moral system, but I'm not there yet - I'm still working on what rules to use to determine if a system is a valid one.
But yes, I do agree that that is a pretty good system, if followed appropriately

1) adherents of a moral system must feel that it is good.

Don't all though? I think the KKK feels they have great morals as well.

I'm not sure. Have you read the adventures of Huckleberry Finn?
super cliff notes version: the main character ends up helping a slave escape. at one point he encounters some people looking for the escaped slave, and they ask him if he's seen the slave. By his moral system, he should tell them. according to the morality he understands, it is clearly wrong to hide the slave, but he can't bring himself to turn him in. it felt horrible, but it would have felt more horrible to turn the slave in. So in the end, he did the right thing - by failing to follow his moral system. he didn't decide that the system was wrong, he just failed to hold up to its standards, because it felt too horrible to do it.

and even if that is a poor example, and yes all adherents do feel that the system they follow is correct, what if there was one that they didn't? could a moral system be a valid, acceptable moral system even if it made it adherent feel disgusting and vile for following it?

[T-mash]

Yes, that.
gain, the bolded part(minus the stricken. I won't condemn a system that calls for self sacrifice where appropriate). I realize that many of these may seem pretty obvious, but I'm trying to be very specific.

Al right, I stand corrected

my point with this rule, and perhaps I could have phrased it better, is to avoid broad statements like(somebody or others) natural law, where 'killing is wrong'. what about a situation where the only way to avoid a huge amount of killing is to kill someone? Should a swat sniper be imprisoned or held as immoral for shooting a criminal where it was deemed necessary in a dangerous hostage situation?

I would of course agree with that, but my only problem with that is that it's self-contradictory, or am I wrong? In this case the "given" situation is depended on personal opinion, so does that not mean a second set of morals would be needed to put this rule into effect? Violence from the police is considered moral because they are a form of authority that aims to uphold the law, yet there have been cases where policemen were judged for using "too much" violence. In these cases we use an arbitrary rule of "too much". Is that not a contradiction in morality? Seems to me that being able to stretch a moral system like rule 3 dictates can conflict with rule 1 in some cases.

I'd say that's a moral system in itself rather than a requirement for a moral system. I'd be happy to look at it as a moral system, but I'm not there yet - I'm still working on what rules to use to determine if a system is a valid one.
But yes, I do agree that that is a pretty good system, if followed appropriately

Apologies if I'm slightly annoying with these statements, but I am ultimately a moral relativist. I don't think ethics and morality can be enclosed in a simple system of rules because they are nothing more than what society thinks sounds good in combination with our lawbook.

1) adherents of a moral system must feel that it is good.

Don't all though? I think the KKK feels they have great morals as well.

I'm not sure.

After watching a video on youtube on the KKK* I checked out their website for the fun of it and it actually says: "They won't care what the agenda driven entertainment media has to say about this truly Christian and family oriented movement".

Have you read the adventures of Huckleberry Finn?
super cliff notes version: the main character ends up helping a slave escape. at one point he encounters some people looking for the escaped slave, and they ask him if he's seen the slave. By his moral system, he should tell them. according to the morality he understands, it is clearly wrong to hide the slave, but he can't bring himself to turn him in. it felt horrible, but it would have felt more horrible to turn the slave in. So in the end, he did the right thing - by failing to follow his moral system. he didn't decide that the system was wrong, he just failed to hold up to its standards, because it felt too horrible to do it.

I've not read that but that is indeed a great example. Too be fair though my KKK example is a bit off because you don't get born into the KKK, but you instead decided their morals fit you and then join them. This is a moral system (if you can call it that) based on a personal choice where the main character in that book is not a follower by personal choice per se.

and even if that is a poor example, and yes all adherents do feel that the system they follow is correct, what if there was one that they didn't? could a moral system be a valid, acceptable moral system even if it made it adherent feel disgusting and vile for following it?

Depends quite a bit on how you mean that. There are plenty of stories on immoral morality. For example a story where a father agrees on sacrificing his daughter to their God because he feels powerless against it. So with tears in his eyes and a sense of disgust he would give her up for the ritual and he wouldn't think to do otherwise because in his eyes their moral system and the act of sacrificing is valid and acceptable. Most moral philosophers are also known for a sense of disgust against the current leading morality. Some even blame themselves for following a disgusting moral. Another example you can find in the song "Hero of War" by Rise Against. The song is about a boy joining the army to see the world and become a hero of war and people would be proud of him when he is back after the war. The way he is congratulated by medals and being labelled as a hero does not fit with what he personally experienced in terms of morality.

* - It's an interview of the former KKK clan-leader Johnny Lee Clary who describes how "one black man defeated the entire clan". Off-topic of course, but incredibly hilarious