• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

morality

What is morality/


  • Total voters
    63
Not to "whom", to "what" - to the nature of the phenomenon.

If the law is not immoral, the limitations will be dictated but that very nature: you cannot have whatever you want, only whatever you want that does not deny freedom of choice to other people.

Therefore freedom of choice is subjective in nature.
 
Me being able to ≠ all humans have the ability.

Curiouser and curiosier. You are seriously entertaining the idea that your obviously present volition is unique to yourself and perhaps a small elite of people like yourself? A superior race?

What about those people in a coma? Those with alien hand or anarchic hand syndrome? They don't have choices.

Geez. Are you going to say next that people who lost their legs show that being bipeds capable of walking is not an objective and universal human characteristic?
 
Therefore freedom of choice is subjective in nature.

Quite the opposite. It is the objective constant - in contrast with the particular choices and preferences of all the people exercising their freedom of choice. Morality is neutral on whether you choose apples or oranges; apples are "better" for some people, oranges for others - tastes, preferences, desires are subjective; moral laws step in when someone is being coerced into picking apples he doesn't want or denied the right to buy oranges.
There's nothing subjective about the act of coercion - or about the moral law guarding against it.
 
Quite the opposite. It is the objective constant - in contrast with the particular choices and preferences of all the people exercising their freedom of choice. Morality is neutral on whether you choose apples or oranges; apples are "better" for some people, oranges for others - tastes, preferences, desires are subjective; moral laws step in when someone is being coerced into picking apples he doesn't want or denied the right to buy oranges.
There's nothing subjective about the act of coercion - or about the moral law guarding against it.

Would you say coercion or being denied a right is unfair?
 
Curiouser and curiosier. You are seriously entertaining the idea that your obviously present volition is unique to yourself and perhaps a small elite of people like yourself? A superior race?

Not sure how you got that from that; it almost sounds like an underhanded "Godwin." I'm just saying what applies to me may (or may not) apply to all humans. I have blue eyes, it's foolish to ascribe that characteristic to all humans, though.

Geez. Are you going to say next that people who lost their legs show that being bipeds capable of walking is not an objective and universal human characteristic?

Physical and mental distinctions, Cyrylek.
 
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.
 
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:
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?

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?
 
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?
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
How do you think that makes morality objective? Objective morality wouldn't mean a choice.

It means no choice in respect to granting others their freedom to have their choices. Whatever they are. It doesn't get any more objective than that.


Why is that immoral to deny X his choosing? Why is his choice immoral if it means denying choices to other people?

Axiomatically. You have a moral system pivoted on the freedom of choice - that's what you get. "Do not onto others..." Nobody "wishes" to be coerced, by definition.
 
I'm not confused they're the same thing morals interpreted subjectively by humans.

You can "interpret" meaning out of anything. It doesn't mean there was no meaning in the first place.
Every woman in the world knows the difference between an act of voluntary love and rape. One of the best things in life - and one of the worst. Physically, the same event. What's the difference? Why, coercion is the difference, disregard for the freedom of choice. The cultural circumstances may be dramatically different, and a woman in one culture would not give her consent when a woman in another would - but both know perfectly well when it happens without their consent. And know it is wrong, to put it mildly.
 
It means no choice in respect to granting others their freedom to have their choices. Whatever they are. It doesn't get any more objective than that.

:lol: You or I could grant someone the choice of not living. You falsely assume that everyone wants to grant other's their freedom.

Axiomatically. You have a moral system pivoted on the freedom of choice - that's what you get. "Do not onto others..." Nobody "wishes" to be coerced, by definition.

That's an axiom to you. To me, that's absolute rubbish as there's no evidence for it by definition.
 
You falsely assume that everyone wants to grant other's their freedom.

I assume no such thing. The question was whether an objective morality system (not based on the authority of gods or dictators, societal consensus, or personal maneuvering in pursuit of fame, pleasure etc) does exist. Yes, it does. Obviously, not everyone is accustomed to it, and plenty of people will reject it on the spot - as incompatible with their own values.

English language does exist objectively, and is a smashing success, as lingua franca of our times. It doesn't mean, of course, that everyone in the world speaks English - or wants to.
 
You can "interpret" meaning out of anything. It doesn't mean there was no meaning in the first place.
Every woman in the world knows the difference between an act of voluntary love and rape. One of the best things in life - and one of the worst. Physically, the same event. What's the difference? Why, coercion is the difference, disregard for the freedom of choice. The cultural circumstances may be dramatically different, and a woman in one culture would not give her consent when a woman in another would - but both know perfectly well when it happens without their consent. And know it is wrong, to put it mildly.

Which brings us back to my original comment that all laws, rules, morals and values are based on the simple concept of fairness.
 
To me, that's absolute rubbish as there's no evidence for it by definition.

I know, I know: You have all evidence you need to believe that you are sentient and possess the ability to choose. And I bet you treasure that ability. Not moving to North Korea or Iran any time soon.

As for all the other people...Who knows, we may be zombies, or robots, or - how about that? - spurious figments of your imagination.

Quite some imagination you've got there. So, only 90% jokingly, do you think you are God?
 
Some things boil down to core values. What I feel in my heart doesn't require evidence. I feel in my heart that objective morality exists. If your morals apply to others, they aren't just your morals.
"Core values"? From what source, your heart? May as well invoke God and be done with it.
 
Which brings us back to my original comment that all laws, rules, morals and values are based on the simple concept of fairness.

It sure "brings us back". As in "chasing our own tails".

"Fairness" is not a "concept". It is amorphous, subjective, about as simple as asking for directions in English in the ancient Babylon, and totally useless as a moral guide.

Which is very "unfair", I agree ;)
 
Morality is the rules that a the members of a particular society are expected to abide by; and of course there are many moral systems for different societies. I remember reading about one such society that an anthropologist studied one of the values of that society was being able to steal without getting caught. This gets into the concept of Orange and Blue morality where the moral values are seemingly illogical or abhorrent or perhaps just odd.

Blue and Orange Morality - Television Tropes & Idioms
 
I assume no such thing. The question was whether an objective morality system (not based on the authority of gods or dictators, societal consensus, or personal maneuvering in pursuit of fame, pleasure etc) does exist. Yes, it does. Obviously, not everyone is accustomed to it, and plenty of people will reject it on the spot - as incompatible with their own values.

English language does exist objectively, and is a smashing success, as lingua franca of our times. It doesn't mean, of course, that everyone in the world speaks English - or wants to.

Humans are pleasure-seekers. That pleasure is subjective. You still have yet to present how it is objective and what basis you are using.

I know, I know: You have all evidence you need to believe that you are sentient and possess the ability to choose. And I bet you treasure that ability. Not moving to North Korea or Iran any time soon.

As for all the other people...Who knows, we may be zombies, or robots, or - how about that? - spurious figments of your imagination.

Quite some imagination you've got there. So, only 90% jokingly, do you think you are God?

The second question regards solipsism - a philosophic wasteland. Do I think I'm "god?" Well, I exist, so no. ;) But in all seriousness, we are each our own "god" if that makes sense.
 
Back
Top Bottom