• 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
"Core values"? From what source, your heart? May as well invoke God and be done with it.
I don't believe in God, but it wouldn't bother me if someone did that. This poll really isn't intended to be a debate. I just wanna know what people think.

Let me ask you something. Do you feel that rape is immoral? If you do, imagine that you were never born and every single person on Earth felt that it was moral. Do you feel that rape would be moral in that situation?
 
I don't believe in God, but it wouldn't bother me if someone did that. This poll really isn't intended to be a debate. I just wanna know what people think.

Let me ask you something. Do you feel that rape is immoral? If you do, imagine that you were never born and every single person on Earth felt that it was moral. Do you feel that rape would be moral in that situation?
What I feel and think doesn't matter with respect to proving a universal morality. Even what you and I can agree on doesn't matter because we exist in the same time within the same culture and are undoubtedly biased by it. A universal morality would have to encompass all of human history and I don't believe any one morality can do that.
 
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 ;)

Hell even a 6 yr old knows what's fair. It's less subjective than any definition of morals.
 
What I feel and think doesn't matter with respect to proving a universal morality. Even what you and I can agree on doesn't matter because we exist in the same time within the same culture and are undoubtedly biased by it. A universal morality would have to encompass all of human history and I don't believe any one morality can do that.
Can anyone prove the existence of objective morality? No. Can anyone prove that it doesn't exist? No. Does that make it wrong to opine about its existence? No.Haven't you ever believed something that you can't prove? Do you have no opinions whatsoever?
 
Hell even a 6 yr old knows what's fair. It's less subjective than any definition of morals.

A 6 yr old perhaps does. (As does that chimpanzee). When we grow up and start thinking as adults, "the knowledge" disappears.
 
Hell even a 6 yr old knows what's fair. It's less subjective than any definition of morals.

A 6 yr old perhaps does. (As does that chimpanzee). When we grow up and start thinking as adults, "the knowledge" disappears.

A 6 year old is undoubtedly going to make things simpler. We adults (less so in my case) tend to make things more complicated.
 
Can anyone prove the existence of objective morality? No. Can anyone prove that it doesn't exist? No. Does that make it wrong to opine about its existence? No.Haven't you ever believed something that you can't prove? Do you have no opinions whatsoever?
This exact same situation exists in the debate about god's existence. The second half of that statement is just as inane here as it is there. Logically, you can't prove the non-existence of something. As I've told others using this defense, I will not go chasing teapots in orbit.


I gave my opinion; There is no objective morality.
 
Do we agree that humans - objectively, universally and distinctively - are sentient, and possess volition and the ability to make choices?
We can agree that humans are animals, yes.


Do we agree that whatever particulars one or the other moral system may embrace, making choices is central to the very notion of morality - and to the very fabric of human experience?
We can agree it's central to morality since morality is an individual's guide for making choices that have no objective and/or logical conclusion.

I wouldn't say making decisions is "the very fabric of human experience".


Do we agree that an individual (a grown, mentally competent adult, at any rate) who is denied his freedom of choice is being wronged, whatever his choices are, if they do no harm to other individuals?
That would depend a great deal on what you consider "harm to other individuals". If your beliefs follow the same as many others I've been having discussions with, then the answer is most likely "no" because we probably disagree on the noted phrase.

I would also point out that for a morality to be "objective" it must hold for all societies at all times. I'm pretty sure none of them do and certainly where you're headed here doesn't.


If you answer yes to all three - there you go. Coercion is and always had been morally wrong, ever since the dawn of human sapience.
I didn't - there you go.
 
I would also point out that for a morality to be "objective" it must hold for all societies at all times.

Why?!!!

There's any number of objective truths that are ignored, forgotten, disputed, or never learned by any number of people.

For a morality to be objective it needs one thing: To be invariable within the conditions of human species - independent of subjective, temporary, conditional factors. A morality based on freedom of choice is such.
 
I wouldn't say making decisions is "the very fabric of human experience"..

If you decisions were not your own, how was your life different from a life of a frog driven by instincts, or from existence of a robot driven by a program? Even pure "passive" contemplation requires making decisions - what to focus on, how to relax to be more receptive, etc.

That would depend a great deal on what you consider "harm to other individuals". If your beliefs follow the same as many others I've been having discussions with, then the answer is most likely "no" because we probably disagree on the noted phrase.

Accepting freedom of choice as the basis for morality is not the end of it - it is the beginning. Of course we still need to do a lot of work on derivative rules and particular cases, and even then it will never be perfect. But it will be built around an objective core - as opposed to the moral systems based on authority or current consensus (and as such inherently relativist and fragile).
 
This exact same situation exists in the debate about god's existence. The second half of that statement is just as inane here as it is there. Logically, you can't prove the non-existence of something. As I've told others using this defense, I will not go chasing teapots in orbit.
I didn't ask you to chase teapots in orbit. You asked me to.


I gave my opinion; There is no objective morality.
Thank you for expressing your opinion. That's exactly what I was looking for.
 
I didn't ask you to chase teapots in orbit. You asked me to.
Incorrect. I've consistently asked for evidence of your positive claim that objective morality exists. If it's truly objective then you should have plenty of objective evidence for it's existence.

"Can anyone prove that it doesn't exist? No." - That's either asking someone to chase teapots in orbit or it's stating the obvious, that there's never any way to prove something like this doesn't exist, which in no way promotes the case for it's existence.
 
Why?!!!

There's any number of objective truths that are ignored, forgotten, disputed, or never learned by any number of people.

For a morality to be objective it needs one thing: To be invariable within the conditions of human species - independent of subjective, temporary, conditional factors. A morality based on freedom of choice is such.
Not at all. If resources are limited it may be required for the good of the whole to ration supplies, thereby curtailing freedom of choice. That's just one quick example, there are others.
 
If you decisions were not your own, how was your life different from a life of a frog driven by instincts, or from existence of a robot driven by a program? Even pure "passive" contemplation requires making decisions - what to focus on, how to relax to be more receptive, etc.
You're talking to the wrong guy to say animals don't make choices. You can slap whatever label you like on their decision making processes but except for the complexity and memory capacity they seem to be very similar to ours.

((PS I won't bother going into the whole "consciousness" thing, that's for another thread.))


Accepting freedom of choice as the basis for morality is not the end of it - it is the beginning. Of course we still need to do a lot of work on derivative rules and particular cases, and even then it will never be perfect. But it will be built around an objective core - as opposed to the moral systems based on authority or current consensus (and as such inherently relativist and fragile).
I shouldn't have to "accept" freedom of choice. If it's truly universal then it should be self-evident, no acceptance required. Our disagreement shows that it isn't.
 
Last edited:
Not at all. If resources are limited it may be required for the good of the whole to ration supplies, thereby curtailing freedom of choice. That's just one quick example, there are others.

Not for "the good of all" - out of compassion, out of empathy. Yes, of course, we are not going to let children die of hunger, even if it means stealing food from those unwilling to share. Doesn't make theft any more moral.

Empathy has to override morality sometimes. But it cannot replace it. Empathy is a feeling. Morality is a set of rules. See the difference?
 
You're talking to the wrong guy to say animals don't make choices..

If they do, they should be treated just like humans. (I already treat my dogs that way; waiting for some solid evidence, before I turn vegetarian)

I shouldn't have to "accept" freedom of choice. If it's truly universal then it should be self-evident, no acceptance required.

"Objective" doesn't mean "self-evident". The Earth is objectively orbiting the Sun.

And yes - as long as you are a human being - and not a machine or an instinct-driven animal - your acceptance is required, at every step, at every turn, in every sense.
 
Is a false concept insofar as there is no underlying moral structure to the universe or to human nature. All moral schema are devised by man and given the airy gloss of divine fiat; even secular moralities that claim universality (Objectivism's "rational egoism" or the Non-Aggression Principle advanced by some particularly philosophically flaky libertarians) are basically 'false' in the sense they cannot be demonstrated to be actually morally universal.

This doesn't mean they aren't useful. Nietzsche's division of moralities between "good and evil" and "good and bad" is particularly useful here. A moral system that makes no claim to being handed down from On High is called an ethos, and its rules are called ethics. We, in our society, need less morality and more ethics.
 
I haven't read the entire thread, so this may have already been posted.

"Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong). The philosophy of morality is ethics. A moral code is a system of morality (according to a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc.) and a moral is any one practice or teaching within a moral code. Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness." Immorality is the active opposition to morality (i.e. opposition to that which is good or right), while amorality is variously defined as an unawareness of, indifference toward, or disbelief in any set of moral standards or principles. An example of a moral code is the Golden Rule which states that, "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.""

-From Wikipedia

Semantics arguments irritate me. it's idiotic when we have serious problems in our government that require the attention and cooperation of every concerned citizen, to argue over the superiority or inferiority of any number of otherwise acceptable definitions of a word.

Morality means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. The word is fraught with meaning that makes it extremely difficult to successfully use in the realm of the political discourse without producing more misunderstanding of your views than understanding.

If you don't want to get hung up on a time-wasting debate about what the word means, either avoid using the word, or be sure to qualify it with more concise language in order to ensure that you are not misunderstood.

And if you DO want to get hung up on a time-wasting debate about word meaning, then go edit Wikipedia or work for a dictionary company or something, and stop distracting the people that come to political forums to discuss public policy.
 
Not for "the good of all" - out of compassion, out of empathy. Yes, of course, we are not going to let children die of hunger, even if it means stealing food from those unwilling to share. Doesn't make theft any more moral.

Empathy has to override morality sometimes. But it cannot replace it. Empathy is a feeling. Morality is a set of rules. See the difference?
Empathy has NOTHING to do with my example - nor does "getting robbed" :roll: You're so fixated with anti-communism (in the true sense of that word) that you failed to actually read and consider what I wrote.

Let me spell it out for you. Just because you want five bushels of apples you can only have one, because that's your ration. That leaves four other rations for the apple pickers, the truck drivers, and the store clerks - otherwise, no one gets their apples next month. Rationing, when invoked, IS "for the good of the whole", including you.
 
Last edited:
"Objective" doesn't mean "self-evident". The Earth is objectively orbiting the Sun.

And yes - as long as you are a human being - and not a machine or an instinct-driven animal - your acceptance is required, at every step, at every turn, in every sense.
Then I'll rephrase it for you. Objective means it can be demonstrated as fact, no belief or acceptance required. If it is not a fact, then it is not objective.


And again you exclude "instinct-driven animal" which is pretty much what we are. I thought I made my thoughts clear on that already.
 
It's fascinating to me that the pseudo-individualists of the libertarian Right feel the weak-willed need to universalize their value set: as if free men weren't free to choose their own.
 
And again you exclude "instinct-driven animal" which is pretty much what we are. I thought I made my thoughts clear on that already.

Wait a sec - - - you are not kidding? You are really serious?

Like, my "fixation with anti-communism" (thank you, by the way) is actually an instinctual program?
 
as if free men weren't free to choose their own.

To stay free, the "strong-willed" have to protect freedom of the "weak". Choose your own value set, by all means - but keep it off my lawn.
 
Back
Top Bottom