• 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
Just like the example with the gunman above, situations you guys always ignore, when it comes to life and death (and even severe injury) there are exceptions. There's nothing illogical or immoral about it.

That is so dishonest. When someone poses a immediate imminent threat to your life it is of course moral to remove that threat. That has really nothing at all to do with the poor man example.
 
The individual is irrelevant, as an individual alone has no need or use for morality. Morality is, by nature and logic, a social construct.

I think that vantage, though with merit, lacks breadth of perspective. It's extremely erroneous to simply set aside the individual in any discussion of the subjective. You would have some all-encompassing morality? What about different levels of society, smaller and greater variegated communities with their own mores? And just casting off the individual like that, an individual alone is no use to anything. We are human beings. We affirm ourselves in relation to our fellows. But within that construct the individual mind still supersedes all else. What you're talking about is a vague median point, a point of confluence, a consensus of the majority (which is often wrong.) Morality, as an idea, still springs from the mind, and the mind is ever-shifting—and highly variable. You cannot tell me that the individual is irrelevant to such a fluxile concept. You do yourself an intellectual disservice by not viewing this idea of morality within all of the states in which it exists.
 
I think that vantage, though with merit, lacks breadth of perspective.

The only thing lacking perspective is your argument. What good does morality do for a person who is entirely alone? Without society, morality loses all purpose and meaning. A sociopath that lacks empathy is alone and effectively outside any moral system that any society might establish; that's why using sociopaths for support in an argument about morality is nonsense.
 
The only thing lacking perspective is your argument. What good does morality do for a person who is entirely alone? Without society, morality loses all purpose and meaning. A sociopath that lacks empathy is alone and effectively outside any moral system that any society might establish; that's why using sociopaths for support in an argument about morality is nonsense.

...You don't seem to have interpreted my points correctly. I'm not talking about the individual alone. The individual alone is indeed irrelevant. But the individual in relation to others is of massive import to this discussion. My last post had nothing to do with sociopaths. I was simply defending the fluidity of morality. In fact none of my posts do strictly. If one wishes to do harm (most likely not conceived of as this,) and has dehumanized the object of that malice (or wayward affection,) from their perspective, they are in the right. And it is very easy to make the unconscious concession of dehumanization without being a sociopath, in fact it is quintessential error of the human mind. I understand where you stand, it also being an essential perspective in this discussion; but you're not seeing the wider spectrum, and the worth of the individual morality when considering the greater ideal of morality.
 
The individual is irrelevant, as an individual alone has no need or use for morality. Morality is, by nature and logic, a social construct.

The individual is 100% relevant, since it is individuals who interact with each other, morally or immorally. Morality is meaningless, on any level but the level of individual actions and choices.
 
Morality, laws, values, freedoms and rights are built around one concept, fairness.

I couldn't disagree more. "Fairness" is entirely in the eye of beholder. The story of Cain and Able is all about "fairness": Cain thought it is terribly unfair that his crops fail, and his brother's herds are thriving.

The one concept is the freedom of choice, not "fairness".
 
Obviously, people disagree on moral issues, otherwise we would not be having this conversation. It doesn't mean, however, that objective morality does not exist. It simply means that some people discover and accept it, others discover and reject, still others have no clue what to look for or why look at all...

Some people believe that of course, and they're entitled to their opinions, but personally I don't believe there is any such thing as universal or objective morality. There is no higher power or natural law that defines morality.
 
That is so dishonest. When someone poses a immediate imminent threat to your life it is of course moral to remove that threat. That has really nothing at all to do with the poor man example.
A threat? I could take that to some pretty gruesome but very logical conclusions. That's how wars of invasion get started.


Amazing that some things have exceptions that are OK but others don't. LOL!
 
Last edited:
I don't mean to be rude, but everyone knows that each person has their own opinions about what is and isn't moral. It goes without saying, but it doesn't address the OP or the poll.

It certainly does address it. That is my belief about what morality is. A person's individual beliefs about what sort of behavior is acceptable and what isn't. If we're speaking of morals on the scale of a society, it is simply a gestalt of the moral views of the individuals that make up that society.
 
There is no higher power or natural law that defines morality.

"Higher power" would not supply "an objective morality" - it would be simply "whatever He says".

But don't you think that our capacity for volition and our freedom of choice do exist, "objectively"?
 
I couldn't disagree more. "Fairness" is entirely in the eye of beholder. The story of Cain and Able is all about "fairness": Cain thought it is terribly unfair that his crops fail, and his brother's herds are thriving.

The one concept is the freedom of choice, not "fairness".

You couldn't be more wrong.

If someone or group is practicing tyranny and oppression over you because they believe that's fair you'd have no freedom of choice. Laws on based on fair and equitable treatment.
 
If someone or group is practicing tyranny and oppression over you because they believe that's fair you'd have no freedom of choice..

Exactly. Just like Cain had killed Abel out of "fairness", and denied him his choice to stay alive. "Fairness" is a lousy guide.


Laws on based on fair and equitable treatment.

are tyrannical and oppressive, if they deny the freedom of choice.
 
Exactly. Just like Cain had killed Abel out of "fairness", and denied him his choice to stay alive. "Fairness" is a lousy guide.

Cain killed Abel out of envy, not lack of opportunity.


are tyrannical and oppressive, if they deny the freedom of choice.

This makes no sense because there can be no freedom, unless there are laws protecting peoples rights.
 
Cain killed Abel out of envy, not lack of opportunity.

And for how many people "fairness" and "envy" are one and the same?

there can be no freedom, unless there are laws protecting peoples rights.

Absolutely. But laws based on the (inherently subjective) "fairness" will not protect people's rights - they will enable envy, vengeance, lust for power and other such nice things.
 
Last edited:
I define ethics and morality differently, although there is overlap.

Ethics are rules and/or philosophies that allow human societies to create complex relationships with each other and grow more prosperous. Without being able to trust each other, our progress would be much more limited. Trust requires believing that those around you have an ethic that woud prevent them from harming you. I believe that at least some of our ethics are instinctual/genetic since they can also be observed among some animals.

Morals are more about cultural identity. In order to create a unified culture amongst a group of people, leaders establish and/or enforce rules for how to dress, sexual behavior, family structures, acceptable public behavior etc. These rules may be traditons and/or they may purportedly be dictated by a supernatural authority.

Ethics are the practices that have remained relatively constant throughout time, place and across cultures, although that does not mean that people don't occassionally choose to violate their ethics. Morals are more specific to particular times, places and cultures.
 
Last edited:
Morality exists in many forms. The the definition of the word morality is very subjective. And as this thread has shown is that most people are not on the same page when they discuss morality. But itt doesnt matter why or where morality comes form or any of the many details that people assign morality too, as long as people get the basics correct and live by them. Dont lie, dont cheat, dont harm other people, dont kill (through action or inaction).
 
And for how many people "fairness" and "envy" are one and the same?

You're confusing fairness with everything being equal. If all things were equal there would be no diversity.
Fairness does not create envy but a lack of it might create a feeling of injustice.


Absolutely. But laws based on the (inherently subjective) "fairness" will not protect people's rights - they will enable envy, vengeance, lust for power and other such nice things.

Rights are based on fair treatment. Laws are written and rights guaranteed, so that there is no confusion about what is fair.
 
You're confusing fairness with everything being equal.

No, I don't. I am saying that "fairness" is subjective, and cannot be a cornerstone of morality. Let's stick with the axiomatic value of life and of freedom of choice.
 
It is not a matter of losing. Law was never in a position to have to make a decision. If one or the other would have taken action to dissolve the marriage Law would have. This was an example of two people deciding for whatever reason to stand pat and hold their hands. I did though in a different post make this point. Someone had said if a poor person steals food or stays inside a building that is off limits to survive and is arrested no one really wants to see this person punished. A judge may well decide to show leniency and not punish this person. He may back off the strict letter of the law in favor of his personal feelings. In a case such as this it gives the appearance that Law lost. It is really not the case. It is a personal decision maybe wrongly given by a judge. So there may well be some exceptions but they are few and far between. Thanks
I wouldn't say that they are few and far between, especially if you're talking about people not doing things that are perfectly legal, because it goes against their personal morals. There are also examples of people breaking the law.
 
It certainly does address it. That is my belief about what morality is. A person's individual beliefs about what sort of behavior is acceptable and what isn't. If we're speaking of morals on the scale of a society, it is simply a gestalt of the moral views of the individuals that make up that society.
Merely by creating the poll and asking the question, I acknowledged that everyone has their own opinions about morality. This is analogous to asking about subjective and objective beauty. The existence of subjective beauty, doesn't guarantee that objective beauty doesn't exist. We know that subjective morality exists, but what about objective morality?
 
.....what about objective morality?

There generally is, and should be, a consensus behavior that humans are expected to exhibit that allows them to safely walk the streets of most of the world without being hassled. You can not have anything resembling civilization without being able to trust other people to some degree. This same type of basic mutual respect is also found among many animals.
 
Back
Top Bottom