Why do people want the chains of morality still?

[Wootah]

Jesus would say you whitewashed tombs to the Pharisees because they looked good on the outside but inside were rotten.

Why do we want to do bad things (like abortion) and still worry about whether we are moral?

Morality is clearly not real, we can say God is not real but morality we cling to?

One reason might be evolution. The veneer of morality helps us in society to get our way?

Others. Yeah yeah God exists, morality is objective but who wants to hear that ....

[Purple Knight]

People fear a world without morality. I'm the least moral person probably in the world, but I recognise the value of knowing what you can and cannot do, the rules that say this is fine you will not be punished, but that is not okay and you will be punished.

Now, I would personally like to drop the chains but have the rules anyway, and say something like, here is a good set of rules that is well-liked and works well, let's have this set of rules.

Unfortunately, that represents a position which has been needlessly weakened. Someone will come along and say, your rules are bad, they are immoral, follow my rules instead, because they are right and yours are wrong. And if I don't even try to claim my rules are on the same level as his, he'll just kick mine over like a sandcastle with his superior position and install his own rules.

[Wootah]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #2]

Yes, fear is the reason. What most people don't realise is that not doing evil out of fear just shows how weak they are.

Yes, might makes right seems like the foundation to me as well.

[Bust Nak]

Why do people want the chains of morality still? ...[why] worry about whether we are moral?

Why as in through what the mechanism? We want the chains of morality because we are biologically wired to want it.
Why as in motivation? We want the chains of morality because we can chain others with it, re: don't do that, it's immoral. This benefit far outweighs the cost of "oh no, it's immoral, I want to but can't do that."

Morality is clearly not real...

Clearly not real, how? It's as real as another other evolved instincts, are those also not real?

One reason might be evolution. The veneer of morality helps us in society to get our way?

That sounds a bit like some of what I said above. Why call it a veneer though?

Others. Yeah yeah God exists, morality is objective but who wants to hear that ....

If you have an argument for objective morality, I want to hear it.

[RightReason]

[Replying to Wootah in post #1]

Not to be rude, but I seriously have no idea what you are saying.

[RightReason]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #2]

People fear a world without morality.

Probably because a world absent of the moral good would be hell.

I'm the least moral person probably in the world, but I recognise the value of knowing what you can and cannot do

Knowing what is right and good vs. bad and wrong is in fact knowing moral truth. By saying that you are admitting, there are some things you should and should not do – that, my friend, is what we mean by morality (moral truth).

Now, I would personally like to drop the chains but have the rules anyway,

What chains? How do chains differ from rules? Many people consider rules chains. Also, are you thinking these chains or rules you are referring to imposed by others or self imposed?

and say something like, here is a good set of rules that is well-liked and works well, let's have this set of rules.

Unfortunately, that represents a position which has been needlessly weakened. Someone will come along and say, your rules are bad, they are immoral, follow my rules instead, because they are right and yours are wrong. And if I don't even try to claim my rules are on the same level as his, he'll just kick mine over like a sandcastle with his superior position and install his own rules.

I suppose this is what we often see, however, as you are pointing out, it is silly. If we want to do that which is right and good vs. that which is wrong and bad, there shouldn’t be too much disagreement. As all humans can know what is right/wrong via observation of the world we live and man’s relationship with this world, by acknowledging form/function/purpose, etc. Moral truth exists and is something that can be known.

[RightReason]

[Replying to Wootah in post #3]

Yes, fear is the reason. What most people don't realise is that not doing evil out of fear just shows how weak they are.

I couldn’t disagree more. Not doing evil is never weak. It is much easier to do evil than that which is good/right. I have no problem if someone simply avoids evil out of fear. They might not realize it, but that is in fact wise. Obedience takes strength and is especially necessary when others may know more than we do and we are willing to admit that. It’s good that even though the child does not yet understand why he shouldn’t stick a fork in the outlet, out of fear he listens to his parents.

[RightReason]

[Replying to Wootah in post #1]

Wootah wrote: ↑Tue Jul 12, 2022 5:46 pmWhy do people want the chains of morality still? ...[why] worry about whether we are moral?

We want the chains of morality because we are biologically wired to want it.

True. And because it makes sense and is the way for man to achieve true human fulfilment.

We want the chains of morality because we can chain others with it

Huh? Living in accordance with that which is right and good is freeing and in man’s best interest. We want others to live according to the moral law because it will bring them peace and fulfilment.

For example, saying one should not be sexually promiscuous is not to be a buzzkill or ruin someone else’s fun or weight someone down (chains). It’s so that they can live a happy fulfilling life and not go down some empty road.

One reason might be evolution. The veneer of morality helps us in society to get our way?

What veneer? Morality is not for the sake of morality. It isn’t arbitrary. It is what is in man’s best interest.

[Purple Knight]

What chains? How do chains differ from rules? Many people consider rules chains. Also, are you thinking these chains or rules you are referring to imposed by others or self imposed?

Rules are mutually agreed to for the benefit of all. They have nothing inherently to do with morality. Rules by themselves can be for any purpose. Think of the rules of a board game, like Monopoly or Candyland. The rules serve a purpose: So the game is fair and everyone has fun. It's no more moral for Park Place to cost $500 than for it to cost $600. And it's no more moral for green lights to mean go and red to mean stop than it is to just not have yellow or red.

Ideally, anyway, everyone would get a say. Because with rules, but no morality, someone would have to prove their special privilege to impose their way - to say, no, that rule you like that benefits you is immoral, my rule is moral, my rule is better, you obey me.

But with morality, someone more moral than I am gets to impose his way and that's the end of it. If red lights are immoral, then we can't have them whether they serve a good purpose or not. (A Libertarian I know actually argues this.) With morality introduced, purpose is secondary. It doesn't matter how good red lights are for everyone or how many accidents they prevent, because if it's immoral force to make someone stop when they could go, we can't do it. If it's moral to have traffic be dog-eat-dog Libertarian and punish people only if they run into others, then we must do that.

I suppose this is what we often see, however, as you are pointing out, it is silly. If we want to do that which is right and good vs. that which is wrong and bad, there shouldn’t be too much disagreement. As all humans can know what is right/wrong via observation of the world we live and man’s relationship with this world, by acknowledging form/function/purpose, etc. Moral truth exists and is something that can be known.

What we also observe is that some are more moral than others. If we want to do what is right (which isn't about want; it's a genuine obligation, otherwise it would not be called right versus wrong) then we must bow to them.

For example, take social justice, which I agree is right. It gets extreme. You take a group of people playing around and saying something they find harmless, like, "That's gay." Or you take a group of friends who thought it was cool to have Japanese things in their houses and didn't give a thought to the fact that it was cultural appropriation and thus morally wrong. The fellow with the higher moral standard comes in and ruins everyone's fun. He now gets to say what we can do and what we can't. And he's right. But the trouble is, life is better without him.

I don't dispute that any of this is right, but it makes life suck. From my perspective, for no reason. It's a genuine obligation to follow the highest morality and I do it, but I don't want to, and if I'm away from anyone it might hurt, I don't see why I should have to. I want to take all the people who of the highest morals and leave them Earth and just move to another planet where the first rule will be, absolutely no morality. Nobody imposing their way unilaterally. The rules are for the benefit of all, and everyone gets a say. Something offends you? Tell me a logical reason it should be banned or go back to Earth.

[2ndRateMind]

People fear a world without morality. I'm the least moral person probably in the world, but I recognise the value of knowing what you can and cannot do, the rules that say this is fine you will not be punished, but that is not okay and you will be punished.

Now, I would personally like to drop the chains but have the rules anyway, and say something like, here is a good set of rules that is well-liked and works well, let's have this set of rules.

Unfortunately, that represents a position which has been needlessly weakened. Someone will come along and say, your rules are bad, they are immoral, follow my rules instead, because they are right and yours are wrong. And if I don't even try to claim my rules are on the same level as his, he'll just kick mine over like a sandcastle with his superior position and install his own rules.

I read somewhere that rules are for the obedience of the fool and the guidance of the wise. The problem is, deciding whether one is foolish or wise.

Best wishes, 2RM.