• 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
Cyrylek said:
We kind of are.

A few years ago, I was visiting my friends in Tallinn. A bunch of loud Russians barge into the café, swearing in their native tongue. The waitress goes: "Hey, you, speak English! This is Estonia!"
Click to expand...
Not really, no. Nice try.
 
mpg said:
When it comes to core values, neither side should be asking the other for proof.
Click to expand...
Then you admit that, like any other belief, this is all subjective. That's what I've been saying all along.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Then you admit that, like any other belief, this is all subjective. That's what I've been saying all along.
Click to expand...
I have a subjective belief in objective morality. I've been saying that all along.
 
mpg said:
I have a subjective belief in objective morality. I've been saying that all along.
Click to expand...
Well, you've been showing the subjectivity all along, anyway.
 
Cyrylek said:
This thread is growing long in tooth, but if you browse back a little, you will see details of my position on this.

In a nutshell: There should be a moral code, and a very demanding one, based on freedom of choice as the central value.

It's not a question of government "making" people moral or immoral: government is there to enforce and inspect, not to preach or teach.

Liberalism (libertarianism) becomes an empty shell without its moral imperatives. Sure, one may prefer to emphasize the pragmatic side of libertarian thought: the "diversification of risk", the realization that no government, corporation or individual can have all information necessary for successful manipulation of systems as complex as human society or economy. But even then, you have a moral aspect to it: the pretended knowledge of central planners and social engineers is, basically, fraud. Combatting coercion and fraud is the essence of libertarianism.
Click to expand...

you and i agree ,but you just express it differently than i do.
 
marduc said:
In a word - at its basal form - it is empathy.
Click to expand...

Empathy is not morality. Morality is a set of rules. Empathy is a feeling. "Brain and heart"
(Both are necessary, and should keep each other in check)
 
Cyrylek said:
Empathy is not morality. Morality is a set of rules. Empathy is a feeling. "Brain and heart"
(Both are necessary, and should keep each other in check)
Click to expand...

Empathy is the foundation for morality. And morality is not necessarily a set of rules, but rather a set of principles, the rules are extensions of these principles which are an extension of our empathy.


And I am talking only about our core morality here, the foundation morality is built upon. Man, society and organizations have extended and codified extended versions of "morality" based on subjective interpretations of right and wrong - in some cases this can be and is a bastardization of the concept.
 
Last edited:
marduc said:
Empathy is the foundation for morality. And morality is not necessarily a set of rules, but rather a set of principles, the rules are extensions of these principles which are an extension of our empathy.
Click to expand...

I think we can agree that empathy is the foundation in the sense that it motivates us to be moral. Why bother at all? Because we don't want to hurt others. (But there are also other motivations: self-preservation, the desire to make the future society safe for our descendants and cultural legacy, even just the aesthetic sense of harmony).
 
Cyrylek said:
I think we can agree that empathy is the foundation in the sense that it motivates us to be moral. Why bother at all? Because we don't want to hurt others. (But there are also other motivations: self-preservation, the desire to make the future society safe for our descendants and cultural legacy, even just the aesthetic sense of harmony).
Click to expand...

I did not claim otherwise. I essentially stated in the post you responded to you that it was a necessary component of our survival and proliferation as a social animal - which is why I stated that it is a product of both our evolutionary and social heritage.

As our "tribes" and our societies got larger and larger, morality has been expanded above and beyond the core mechanisms driving it, but the underlying theme remains the same, cohesion, stability, and success as social animals (who was it that used the term "suffering" that also fits here). Now granted not all of these "extended" morals actually manage to accomplish this though.
 
mpg said:
Does it exist? If so, what is it?
Click to expand...

Yes it is exists. Morals are basically what people consider right and wrong.Most laws are based on morals that we as a society agreed should be law.
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
Presumably because you don't like it?
Click to expand...

Nope: because it is nonsensical. The notion of freedom unshared, freedom given to one individual but not another makes no sense. Liberty is not something you can have all to yourself. We could as well say that the Soviet Russia in 1937 was a free country, because the freedom of choice on whatever occasion was pretty much unimpeded - for Comrade Stalin.
 
Cyrylek said:
Nope: because it is nonsensical. The notion of freedom unshared, freedom given to one individual but not another makes no sense. Liberty is not something you can have all to yourself. We could as well say that the Soviet Russia in 1937 was a free country, because the freedom of choice on whatever occasion was pretty much unimpeded - for Comrade Stalin.
Click to expand...
You can pretty much say the same thing about white males when Constitution was written, too.
 
MoSurveyor said:
You can pretty much say the same thing about white males when Constitution was written, too.
Click to expand...

Yep. Which is why emancipation and suffrage were two most important liberal (libertarian) projects of the 19th century.
 
Cyrylek said:
Yep. Which is why emancipation and suffrage were two most important liberal (libertarian) projects of the 19th century.
Click to expand...
19th century? You'd better check the date on the 19th Amendment again - it hasn't even been 100 years, yet.


Libertarian? :lamo
 
Let's see --

choice A indicates one is a nihilist.

Choice B indicates one is a relativist

Choice C indicates one is arbitrary and dogmatic

Choice D indicates one does not have a clue what the word even means.

I think I will go with Choice E -- Morality is a product of reason, applied in such a way as to extend the same consideration towards others that one would wish for themself, and based upon certain precepts that govern human interaction. It is neither the arbitrary mores of a specific society nor falling within the domain of religion, but someting more complex.

I see it as the product of self-awareness extrapolated in such a way as to abandon one's own self interest long enough to see the needs of others.
 
MoSurveyor said:
19th century? You'd better check the date on the 19th Amendment again ...
Click to expand...

Before bringing its fruits, a project has to be started and has to gain momentum. J.S.Mill wrote The Subjection of Women in 1869 - the same year the Territory of Wyoming became the first polity in the world to grant women their right to vote. (Of course Condorcet advocated it some hundred years earlier)
 
MoSurveyor said:
Libertarian? :lamo
Click to expand...

Yes, of course. "Libertarian" is classical liberal. Liberals in Poland or France are still called liberals. In America, the word was hijacked by social democrats.
 
Cyrylek said:
Yes, of course. "Libertarian" is classical liberal. Liberals in Poland or France are still called liberals. In America, the word was hijacked by social democrats.
Click to expand...
Not from what I've seen. Maybe you should have a long talk with some of your fellow Libertarians.
 
Cyrylek said:
Before bringing its fruits, a project has to be started and has to gain momentum. J.S.Mill wrote The Subjection of Women in 1869 - the same year the Territory of Wyoming became the first polity in the world to grant women their right to vote. (Of course Condorcet advocated it some hundred years earlier)
Click to expand...
And how many centuries ago did some cultures consider slavery improper? It doesn't matter much what small groups do if the larger groups don't recognize it.
 
Cyrylek said:
Nope: because it is nonsensical. The notion of freedom unshared, freedom given to one individual but not another makes no sense. Liberty is not something you can have all to yourself. We could as well say that the Soviet Russia in 1937 was a free country, because the freedom of choice on whatever occasion was pretty much unimpeded - for Comrade Stalin.
Click to expand...

How does it make no sense? You can be have liberty all to yourself, as, by your own example, Stalin.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Not from what I've seen. Maybe you should have a long talk with some of your fellow Libertarians.
Click to expand...

Why are you using the capital letter "L"? Don't tell me you think that all classical liberals in America are affiliated with the Libertarian (rather: Radical Infantile) Party.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom