• 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
Societies morality does not interest me and nor does individual morality. It's a matter of reason. The example you gave defies the very foundation of morality and replaces it with pity and abuse.
Now you're just lecturing - good job! :)
 
I don't recall having a problem with gays. Perhaps because I'm consistent and god is not. ;)



Right. Because I buy into that mess...........It's not enough for you to say you don't have a problem with gays, far from it.................
 
The philosophy you reference is both from reason and morality.
I think the philosophy was from reason alone - but I have no doubt there was personal bias thrown in there. How could there not be?
 
Last edited:
There can be basic moral standards and individual interpretations in the implementation of those standards. Everyone knows right from wrong, yet the question is largely what one can get away with (personally and otherwise). As far as your nonsense, above, you'll have to file the false dichotomy founded in ignorantly cherry-picked absolutism elsewhere.
Basic moral standards according to whom? You are now in three posts relaying different information. If you can't even keep tabs on your moral decisions in three posts how will you get a moral consensus with a multitude of people. Does everyone know the difference between right and wrong? A Sociopath, does such a person as this know the difference. Yes and morality is individually governed by what said person can get away with. Does what is perceived as right and wrong matter. I cherry picked nothing but used your own statements against your argument. You have created the doubt in the dependability of such moral efficiency as a premise for creating Law.
 
Now you're just lecturing - good job! :)

Is it not just pity and abuse? The people you reference pity the poor man due to his need and excuse his abuses towards others. I don't believe it can be anything else. Is it not reasonable to say that abandoning your morality for an exception is not holding to it?
 
Basic moral standards according to whom? You are now in three posts relaying different information. If you can't even keep tabs on your moral decisions in three posts how will you get a moral consensus with a multitude of people. Does everyone know the difference between right and wrong? A Sociopath, does such a person as this know the difference. Yes and morality is individually governed by what said person can get away with. Does what is perceived as right and wrong matter. I cherry picked nothing but used your own statements against your argument. You have created the doubt in the dependability of such moral efficiency as a premise for creating Law.

Can you use a sociopath to decide on the morality of the average person?
 
Is it not just pity and abuse? The people you reference pity the poor man due to his need and excuse his abuses towards others. I don't believe it can be anything else. Is it not reasonable to say that abandoning your morality for an exception is not holding to it?
I don't think it is an abandonment of morality. Again, you continue to provide evidence of my point.
 
>" National law is more a moral than a legal science. Law is a rule of action prescribed by competent authority. Moreover, all Law implies some sanction to enforce it. Now National law is that which defines and regulates the social duties of Nation to Nation. Where then is the authority that prescribes such duties, and where the sanction that enforces them?

To find these we must go back to the individual Man, and see whether such duties appertain to him; by what authority, and with what sanctions.

We assume the maxim "cuivis Natura convenienter vivere opportet."

If then we can show that the nature of Man is such as to make society one of the conditions of his existence, we may thence infer his social duties.

Now, out of Society the Human Race could not exist, for

1. The infant would presently perish if not supplied with food and warmth.

2. The human mother, unlike other animals is hardly less helpless than her new-born babe, and she too would perish without aid.

3. The husband and father gives the needed aid only because he knows himself to be so; and this knowledge he must owe to social regulation, unless we suppose him and his family disconnected entirely from all others.

4. On that supposition it would be impossible for him at once to feed and defend his wife and child. While he hunts the deer, the tiger devours them.

This infirmity of the individual man is the strength of the Race. It binds men together, and makes the strength the knowledge and resources of the whole, the strength, knowledge and resources of each.

From this social nature we infer social duties: prescribed by the author of that Nature.

The sanction is the destruction which a neglect of them would bring on the race.

The universal law which binds all things "Natura convenienter vivere," is faithfully obeyed by all things but man. Why not by him?

He has a will wayward and perverse, passions that mislead, and a reason too short-sighted to keep him always in the path of duty.

To reform this will; to regulate these passions and enlighten this reason is the business of all Education from the cradle to the death-bed.

Even while man resists the teachings of Wisdom and Virtue, he acknowledges, in general terms, the social duties arising from his social nature.

This admission is the basis Natural Law; which teaches the duties of Man to Man.

Can he lawfully refuse to perform them?

Can he, by his own act, shake off the obligation to perform them?

Can he lawfully disable himself to perform them?

They are due to all. Can he, by leaguing with a few, free himself from his duties to the rest?

To all these questions reason answers "no."

Then a community so knit together that the performance of the duties of its members to strangers is made impracticable, must assume them.

Communities are thus bound to fulfil to other communities the duties which the members of the one owe to the members of the other as natural men.

Thus the Law of Nature becomes the Law of Nations.

It is the same code whose maxims are summed up in the rule, "Whatsoever ye would that others should do unto you, the same do ye also unto them."

Its sanction is the same that denounces "tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that doeth evil." What is all this but Morality. "<
 
I don't think it is an abandonment of morality. Again, you continue to provide evidence of my point.

It is an abandonment of morality. If the moral position is against theft then morality dedicates that the rich man nor the poor can steal and be morally in the right. Be that for their survival, their desire, or otherwise. As I said, this position that they hold is not a moral position, but a position based on pity and abuse.
 
Last edited:
>" National law is more a moral than a legal science. Law is a rule of action prescribed by competent authority. Moreover, all Law implies some sanction to enforce it. Now National law is that which defines and regulates the social duties of Nation to Nation. Where then is the authority that prescribes such duties, and where the sanction that enforces them?

To find these we must go back to the individual Man, and see whether such duties appertain to him; by what authority, and with what sanctions.

We assume the maxim "cuivis Natura convenienter vivere opportet."

If then we can show that the nature of Man is such as to make society one of the conditions of his existence, we may thence infer his social duties.

Now, out of Society the Human Race could not exist, for

1. The infant would presently perish if not supplied with food and warmth.

2. The human mother, unlike other animals is hardly less helpless than her new-born babe, and she too would perish without aid.

3. The husband and father gives the needed aid only because he knows himself to be so; and this knowledge he must owe to social regulation, unless we suppose him and his family disconnected entirely from all others.

4. On that supposition it would be impossible for him at once to feed and defend his wife and child. While he hunts the deer, the tiger devours them.

This infirmity of the individual man is the strength of the Race. It binds men together, and makes the strength the knowledge and resources of the whole, the strength, knowledge and resources of each.

From this social nature we infer social duties: prescribed by the author of that Nature.

The sanction is the destruction which a neglect of them would bring on the race.

The universal law which binds all things "Natura convenienter vivere," is faithfully obeyed by all things but man. Why not by him?

He has a will wayward and perverse, passions that mislead, and a reason too short-sighted to keep him always in the path of duty.

To reform this will; to regulate these passions and enlighten this reason is the business of all Education from the cradle to the death-bed.

Even while man resists the teachings of Wisdom and Virtue, he acknowledges, in general terms, the social duties arising from his social nature.

This admission is the basis Natural Law; which teaches the duties of Man to Man.

Can he lawfully refuse to perform them?

Can he, by his own act, shake off the obligation to perform them?

Can he lawfully disable himself to perform them?

They are due to all. Can he, by leaguing with a few, free himself from his duties to the rest?

To all these questions reason answers "no."

Then a community so knit together that the performance of the duties of its members to strangers is made impracticable, must assume them.

Communities are thus bound to fulfil to other communities the duties which the members of the one owe to the members of the other as natural men.

Thus the Law of Nature becomes the Law of Nations.

It is the same code whose maxims are summed up in the rule, "Whatsoever ye would that others should do unto you, the same do ye also unto them."

Its sanction is the same that denounces "tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that doeth evil." What is all this but Morality. "<




I think you're mixing up the residue of prehistoric Germanic tribal thinking with the babblings of rabbinical students from 3,000 BC...............How you connect point A to point Z escapes me......................
 
Basic moral standards according to whom?

Everyone. For example: no raping children. Do you have a problem with that? Do you think anyone does?
 
Everyone. For example: no raping children. Do you have a problem with that? Do you think anyone does?
I do not have a problem with this at all but a pedophile may well disagree with you. So no there is not a universal moral consensuses. You can even look at murder or killing. There are those who can even justify this. So you cannot base Law on moral thoughts based on individuals.
 
Everyone. For example: no raping children. Do you have a problem with that? Do you think anyone does?

I really don't think you should go with everyone. There are those that lack certain functions which makes any "everyone" argument go out the window. I think your argument holds up for the normally functioning person though.
 
It is an abandonment of morality. If the moral position is against theft then morality dedicates that the rich man nor the poor can steal and be morally in the right. Be that for their survival, their desire, or otherwise. As I said, this position that they hold is not a moral position, but a position based on pity and abuse.
You continue to repeat yourself, so I am forced to do the same: Each of us has our own set of morals and obviously some people disagree with you. You continue to make a false representation of other people's morals. Since you don't believe in those morals, you can't understand them.
 
Last edited:
You continue to repeat yourself, so I am forced to do the same:

Each of us has our own set of morals and obviously some people disagree with you.

Then it should be known by now that the example you have given does not express this.
 
I do not have a problem with this at all but a pedophile may well disagree with you.

Under some circumstances, raping children is ok?

Morality is a social construct and not a matter of individual decision. It's no more debatable than reality.
 
Then it should be known by now that the example you have given does not express this.

My "god" is not your "god"......................
 
Then it should be known by now that the example you have given does not express this.
Express what? That other people have different morals than you? At this point it's obviously true.
 
I really don't think you should go with everyone. There are those that lack certain functions which makes any "everyone" argument go out the window. I think your argument holds up for the normally functioning person though.

Incorrect. As long as the impacts of an action are considered (that is, morality remains a social construct), even disgusting sociopaths fail to disrupt a universal understanding of right and wrong. Only through an absolutist and nihilist slab of crap based on egocentrism can anyone claim that either is relative.
 
Express what? That other people have different morals than you? At this point it's obviously true.

What is obvious is that you haven't countered my argument that they are not upholding the moral position against theft.
 
I think you're mixing up the residue of prehistoric Germanic tribal thinking with the babblings of rabbinical students from 3,000 BC...............How you connect point A to point Z escapes me......................

It's from the the commentary on the bible of the American Constitution, Vattel's "Law of Nations", intended for the use for the class of National Law at William and Mary College.

If you ever took a class in American Constitutional Law you probably would have read what I posted.

It's not hard to comprhend. -> Emmerich de Vattel: The Law of Nations

Have no idea how Obama got through law school ? He was probably doing lines of cocain instead of reading "The Law of Nations." A Constitutional law proffesor ? Right.
 
I feel pain from hunger so I steal your food.
I fear you so I kill you.
I'm lonely* so I enslave you.

And unless you're stupid or insane, you realize that if you do that to me, then someone will do it to you. So we collectively agree not to do these things, and we all benefit. Our own survival and prosperity drives us to protect one another and not abuse each other. Empathy is biological. Learned behaviors are biological. Morality is biological.
 
Back
Top Bottom