View Poll Results: What is morality/

Voters
71. You may not vote on this poll
  • a false concept

    5 7.04%
  • the laws of a particular society

    20 28.17%
  • the laws of God

    10 14.08%
  • the laws of nature

    9 12.68%
  • other

    27 38.03%
Page 29 of 38 FirstFirst ... 192728293031 ... LastLast
Results 281 to 290 of 380

Thread: morality

  1. #281
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:16 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,290

    Re: morality

    I think human and its' contemporary environment generate cultural mores that can change as times and needs change. OTOH, I think human kindness can overrule the baser natures when cultures are closely knit groups, but I'm thinking that the current state of political mores are unacceptable. When you can't reach out and squeeze your leader by the neck, they do not have the small amount of fear necessary to do the right thing.

  2. #282
    Guru
    Cyrylek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Boston
    Last Seen
    02-05-17 @ 01:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,467

    Re: morality

    Quote Originally Posted by grip View Post
    Would you say coercion or being denied a right is unfair?
    Coercion is objectively morally wrong. "Fairness" means different things to people who accept morality based on freedom of choice and those who reject it.

    In those experiments with apes, a primatologist gives a slice of cucumber to one chimp and a grape to another. The cucumber-receiver is outraged: Unfair! Grape are so much better. And tries to attack the grape-receiver and take his treat away. (Cain and Able). But nothing "moral" or "immoral" had happened here (until the attack): neither chimpanzee "deserved" either kind of treat, and if they had a soft spot for cucumbers, not grapes, the roles could be reversed. The innate "sense of fairness" that they exhibit leads straight to an (immoral, if they were sapient humans) attempt at coercion, and nowhere else.
    Last edited by Cyrylek; 05-06-13 at 03:07 PM.

  3. #283
    Guru
    Cyrylek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Boston
    Last Seen
    02-05-17 @ 01:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,467

    Re: morality

    Quote Originally Posted by zgoldsmith23 View Post
    I have blue eyes, it's foolish to ascribe that characteristic to all humans, though.
    So, you think the freedom of choice and other advanced mental attributes may be an exclusive domain of some group within the human species? The People with Blue Eyes, for example? Any particular reason for such hypothesis?

    Quote Originally Posted by zgoldsmith23 View Post
    Physical and mental distinctions, Cyrylek.
    What about them, Zgoldsmith? Mental attributes we are talking about demonstrably exist, just like legs and arms. And in any case, "mental" is simply another level of organization of "physical", is it not?

  4. #284
    Light△Bender

    grip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    ☚ ☛
    Last Seen
    12-04-17 @ 04:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,186
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyrylek View Post
    Coercion is objectively morally wrong. "Fairness" means different things to people who accept morality based on freedom of choice and those who reject it.

    In those experiments with apes, a primatologist gives a slice of cucumber to one chimp and a grape to another. The cucumber-receiver is outraged: Unfair! Grape are so much better. And tries to attack the grape-receiver and take his treat away. (Cain and Able). But nothing "moral" or "immoral" had happened here (until the attack): neither chimpanzee "deserved" either kind of treat, and if they had a soft spot for cucumbers, not grapes, the roles could be reversed. The innate "sense of fairness" that they exhibit leads straight to an (immoral, if they were sapient humans) attempt at coercion, and nowhere else.
    How is that possible when morals are subjective?
    Einstein, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

  5. #285
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,313

    Re: morality

    Quote Originally Posted by jwzg View Post
    The Bible wasn't written in English, there buddy. "Murder" IS the intention of the word.

    Thank you for playing.


    Sent from my Nokia Lumia 920 using Board Express
    Unjustified killing is a matter of interpretation. Shall you deny God's sovereignty?

  6. #286
    Antichrist
    zgoldsmith23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TN
    Last Seen
    11-06-17 @ 12:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,692

    Re: morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyrylek View Post
    So, you think the freedom of choice and other advanced mental attributes may be an exclusive domain of some group within the human species? The People with Blue Eyes, for example? Any particular reason for such hypothesis?
    I'm not ascribing it to any causal link.

    What about them, Zgoldsmith? Mental attributes we are talking about demonstrably exist, just like legs and arms. And in any case, "mental" is simply another level of organization of "physical", is it not?
    It can be. It hasn't been fully researched and understood. There are still thing we don't understand.

    So, to try and summarize your opinion, you say morality is objective because humans think? Please correct me if I'm wrong.
    Quote Originally Posted by X Factor View Post
    I've never denied my own hackish tendencies
    Quote Originally Posted by Pin dÁr View Post
    scientific by itself isn't enough of course.
    Quote Originally Posted by blaxshep View Post
    Not all Nazis were bad people

  7. #287
    Guru
    Cyrylek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Boston
    Last Seen
    02-05-17 @ 01:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,467

    Re: morality

    Quote Originally Posted by zgoldsmith23 View Post
    So, to try and summarize your opinion, you say morality is objective because humans think? Please correct me if I'm wrong.
    I say that morality based on freedom of choice is objective, because freedom of choice is, objectively and demonstrably, a defining characteristic of human nature, and freedom of choice does not depend on (inevitably subjective and temporary) taboos, consensus agreements or personal preferences. Whatever it is X is choosing, for whatever reason, it is immoral to deny X his choice - unless, of course, his choice means denying choices to other people.

  8. #288
    Guru
    Cyrylek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Boston
    Last Seen
    02-05-17 @ 01:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,467

    Re: morality

    Quote Originally Posted by grip View Post
    How is that possible when morals are subjective?
    See #287.
    You keep confusing two sets of "morals" - the pile of taboos based on authority or consensus, and the moral law based on the nature of human condition. The distinction was already quite clear to Pittacus (what is it, the 6th century BC)- and almost certainly to many before him.

  9. #289
    Antichrist
    zgoldsmith23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TN
    Last Seen
    11-06-17 @ 12:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,692

    Re: morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyrylek View Post
    I say that morality based on freedom of choice is objective, because freedom of choice is, objectively and demonstrably, a defining characteristic of human nature, and freedom of choice does not depend on (inevitably subjective and temporary) taboos, consensus agreements or personal preferences
    How do you think that makes morality objective? Objective morality wouldn't mean a choice. It would mean lack thereof. Just because it does not depend on those three also does not make it objective.

    Whatever it is X is choosing, for whatever reason, it is immoral to deny X his choice - unless, of course, his choice means denying choices to other people.
    Why is that immoral to deny X his choosing? Why is his choice immoral if it means denying choices to other people?
    Quote Originally Posted by X Factor View Post
    I've never denied my own hackish tendencies
    Quote Originally Posted by Pin dÁr View Post
    scientific by itself isn't enough of course.
    Quote Originally Posted by blaxshep View Post
    Not all Nazis were bad people

  10. #290
    Light△Bender

    grip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    ☚ ☛
    Last Seen
    12-04-17 @ 04:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,186
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyrylek View Post
    See #287.
    You keep confusing two sets of "morals" - the pile of taboos based on authority or consensus, and the moral law based on the nature of human condition. The distinction was already quite clear to Pittacus (what is it, the 6th century BC)- and almost certainly to many before him.
    I'm not confused they're the same thing morals interpreted subjectively by humans.
    Einstein, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Page 29 of 38 FirstFirst ... 192728293031 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •