|
Morals
Jun 12, 2010 21:04:17 GMT -5
Post by Ryan on Jun 12, 2010 21:04:17 GMT -5
In the Beyond Good and Evil thread, an interesting discussion has arisen relating to morals. And I find that this topic is commonly reoccurring, and yet never been debated here on the moon, and so now I wish to begin the discussion.
For this discussion, it is important that we define morals because, there are so many interpretations that I would rather not be misconstrued.
Moral - Relating to duty or obligation; pertaining to those intentions and actions of which right and wrong, virtue and vice, are predicated, or to the rules by which such intentions and actions ought to be directed; relating to the practice, manners, or conduct of men as social beings in relation to each other, as respects right and wrong, so far as they are properly subject to rules. [1913 Webster]
Now, beyond all the dictionary speak - that means that a moral is basically an obligatory rule in which one should follow when it comes to treating a fellow human. The rule is created out of virtue of what is considered right and wrong.
To start off this discussion - I would like to call to attention that what is right and what is wrong, is subjective - please don't argue this, as it is a fact. What is more worth discussion is what we as a human species should hold as morals (not right and wrong), what rules are worth following. So I would like to call upon those of you who read this thread, to post something you would like to make as a moral rule, and please support your rules with why you think this rule should be a moral rule. Do not base your support in things that are very subjective, such as religion, or personal beliefs, but instead on reasons that you would think the entire species would agree on.
If you see a rule posted that you agree with, but would like to slightly modify, please quote it, and then bold the section you would like to change, and append as necessary.
If you see a rule that you disagree with, quote it and explain why you think that it should not be a moral rule. The goal for this discussion will be to generate a list of rules that everyone (here on the moon, as well as the entire species) could agree to follow, so if you see a rule that you do not think that everyone could agree on, please point it out and explain your reasoning.
Go.
|
|
|
Morals
Jun 13, 2010 16:04:53 GMT -5
Post by KipEnyan on Jun 13, 2010 16:04:53 GMT -5
Could you ever reach universal agreement on such things? I mean, you said it yourself, right and wrong are entirely subjective, and if morals are based on them, aren't they, in turn, entirely subjective?
|
|
|
Morals
Jun 13, 2010 19:52:14 GMT -5
Post by Ryan on Jun 13, 2010 19:52:14 GMT -5
what is right and wrong is subjective, but rules to live by - can be universally agreed upon.
While morals are based in what is right and what is wrong, they do not fully define these subjective concepts, more realistically the concepts define morals, and thus morals need not be subjective - and that's what I'm asking for ideas on. What rules can we set forth that we think that no matter what you consider right or wrong, you would be able to agree to these moral rules.
|
|
|
Morals
Jun 13, 2010 20:22:10 GMT -5
Post by brumagem on Jun 13, 2010 20:22:10 GMT -5
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
This is simple and exemplifies empathy. I think it is a very easy and agreeable moral standard to live by.
|
|
|
Morals
Jun 13, 2010 21:10:54 GMT -5
Post by Joey on Jun 13, 2010 21:10:54 GMT -5
Quick note: I have said this time and again, that we should make a common good list and that is our Nobel cause, and get it approved by the un or something like that. I think this goes right in that section.
War is never the answer. (I am 100% behind the men and women that fight for me, but I mean by this rule that war isn't needed, we can solve our problems without violence)
|
|
|
Morals
Jun 13, 2010 21:31:57 GMT -5
Post by KipEnyan on Jun 13, 2010 21:31:57 GMT -5
what is right and wrong is subjective, but rules to live by - can be universally agreed upon. While morals are based in what is right and what is wrong, they do not fully define these subjective concepts, more realistically the concepts define morals, and thus morals need not be subjective - and that's what I'm asking for ideas on. What rules can we set forth that we think that no matter what you consider right or wrong, you would be able to agree to these moral rules. Not to detract from the point of the thread too much, but I still don't follow. If I were to set forth a moral rule like "You should treat everyone equally.", how could we say that is universal, if some people don't think everyone else is equal, and there's no way to objectively prove that they are?
|
|
|
Morals
Jun 14, 2010 0:03:28 GMT -5
Post by Ryan on Jun 14, 2010 0:03:28 GMT -5
then that isn't a rule kip - easy as that. I'm not saying that we should follow moral rules that have been set forth by others (treat everyone equally) - but instead make our own that everyone could accept. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I like this one - like you said it exemplifies empathy, but I think it should be more specific - people will misconstrue vague rules. How about, give others the respect that you would wish to receive and grant others the kindness that you would wish done unto you. War is never the answer. (I am 100% behind the men and women that fight for me, but I mean by this rule that war isn't needed, we can solve our problems without violence) While this is your opinion - it is not the opinion of many, and many people agree with war (or at least that war is a necessary thing) so how would you make this into a rule that humanity could follow? Also, some rules may follow from others - like one about war might follow from the one brumagem posted, but we should not just say - oh this follows from that, we should be specific. So in the case about the one Picnic suggested - perhaps make a rule that applies to societal groups? (just a thought) Kip - if you still don't understand PM me and I'll try to explain it better.
|
|
|
Morals
Jun 14, 2010 0:32:57 GMT -5
Post by brumagem on Jun 14, 2010 0:32:57 GMT -5
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I like this one - like you said it exemplifies empathy, but I think it should be more specific - people will misconstrue vague rules. How about, give others the respect that you would wish to receive and grant others the kindness that you would wish done unto you. This rule is meant to make empathy an over-arching and almost subconscious mindset toward others. Limiting it certain aspects makes it more complicated and thus makes a detriment to the rule. What exactly about it is vague enough to misconstrue?
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Morals
Jun 14, 2010 0:45:59 GMT -5
Post by Nakor on Jun 14, 2010 0:45:59 GMT -5
Example: You wish someone to give you money, so you give them money.
Perhaps a better wording for the rule would be "Treat others in a manner you would wish to be treated."
My own submission:
You must allow others to act as they please, so long as by doing so they are not in turn impinging on the rights or freedoms of others.
Or, short version, if there is no good moral reason to prevent someone from an act, that act should not be banned. A basic right to freedom.
|
|
|
Morals
Jun 14, 2010 1:39:25 GMT -5
Post by swan on Jun 14, 2010 1:39:25 GMT -5
You must allow others to act as they please, so long as by doing so they are not in turn impinging on the rights or freedoms of others. I agree with this one This rule is meant to make empathy an over-arching and almost subconscious mindset toward others. Limiting it certain aspects makes it more complicated and thus makes a detriment to the rule. What exactly about it is vague enough to misconstrue I would say that it's vague in the sense that it can be manipulated to justify immoral actions. For example a criminal could use it to convince a judge not to convict him since, conceivably, the judge himself would not want to be convicted (although this may be the kind of subjective judgement we are trying to avoid in this particular thread). So it may be beneficial to develop a set of rules based on this (kind of like tyme said, one could be based on respect and another on kindness, etc). So far we have more or less come up with the first two formulations of the categorical imperative so we're definitely on the right track. Perhaps a rule that involves courage would be good, like "be courageous in the presence of injustice" or "stand up for what you believe in". Thoughts? Does this even count as a moral code?
|
|
|
Morals
Jun 14, 2010 10:20:42 GMT -5
Post by ladystardust on Jun 14, 2010 10:20:42 GMT -5
As a slight digression, might I suggest that instead of speaking of accepting rules universally - which as kipenyan says, is highly unlikely, if not impossible - you simply seek out the majority. After all, the majority is all that is needed in government decisions, the creation of new legislation, etc. Moral decisions are almost never made unanimously - if they were, theories such as Alexis de Tocqueville's Tyranny of the Majority would not have been created, let alone discussed so extensively over the years.
|
|
|
Morals
Jun 14, 2010 11:07:45 GMT -5
Post by KipEnyan on Jun 14, 2010 11:07:45 GMT -5
Yeah, universal rules will never happen, the initial concept of this thread is a little to idealist to ever really work. The great majority of people, maybe, but everyone, no.
Par exemple: "You must allow others to act as they please, so long as by doing so they are not in turn impinging on the rights or freedoms of others."
Someone who believes in slavery would not agree to this rule.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Morals
Jun 14, 2010 15:53:20 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2010 15:53:20 GMT -5
I think this thread is supposed to be about what you think would be good universal rules, not about whether or not they are feasible..
|
|
|
Morals
Jun 14, 2010 18:37:04 GMT -5
Post by brumagem on Jun 14, 2010 18:37:04 GMT -5
Example: You wish someone to give you money, so you give them money. Perhaps a better wording for the rule would be "Treat others in a manner you would wish to be treated." Your example would still apply to your own revision, but a more modern wording makes it more understandable and harder to literalize, so, agreed. I would say that it's vague in the sense that it can be manipulated to justify immoral actions. For example a criminal could use it to convince a judge not to convict him since, conceivably, the judge himself would not want to be convicted (although this may be the kind of subjective judgement we are trying to avoid in this particular thread). So it may be beneficial to develop a set of rules based on this (kind of like tyme said, one could be based on respect and another on kindness, etc). Not an apt analogy, there is no place for morals in a court of law, only for facts. The rule is supposed to prevent treating others in a demeaning or inhumane way, not encourage you to inflate the standing of others to that of your ambition. You're taking the rule far too literally. Perhaps a rule that involves courage would be good, like "be courageous in the presence of injustice" or "stand up for what you believe in". Thoughts? Does this even count as a moral code? If everyone stood up for what they believed, it would only lead to more conflict in the world.
|
|
|
Morals
Jun 14, 2010 22:05:28 GMT -5
Post by swan on Jun 14, 2010 22:05:28 GMT -5
Not an apt analogy, there is no place for morals in a court of law, only for facts. The rule is supposed to prevent treating others in a demeaning or inhumane way, not encourage you to inflate the standing of others to that of your ambition. You're taking the rule far too literally. Morals are the foundation of law, they are contained within any law that is the concern of a court of law. I don't think I'm not taking it too literally so much as I'm taking it for what it is. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" implies no empathy unless the person employing it values empathy. An example could be something like someone who wants to fight with others, or someone who genuinely believes the strong should exploit the weak. (Again this may be the kind of subjective judgement Tyme wants us to avoid, so in that case these criticisms can be ignored.) Both "Do unto others" and "Treat others" implies interaction between multiple people, which gives rise to the criticism I voiced earlier. If we are not gonna make the rule more specific towards values, how making it a little less ambiguous: "Always take into consideration the well-being of others in your actions, as you would like others to do the same" This may not be entirely universal but I think it conveys the message you want it to and I think it will remove the possibility of "being taken too literally", while avoiding the kind of direct interaction that (I think) can create problems. Thoughts? Another alternative is the negative version of the rule that doesn't imply any direct action, "Do not do to others what you would not like to be done to you". If everyone stood up for what they believed, it would only lead to more conflict in the world. Fair criticism, but I intended it to be of a "never be afraid to voice who you are or what you believe" rule, not one that implies creating conflict.
|
|
earth
Moon
the awesome
Posts: 245
|
Morals
Jun 14, 2010 22:32:17 GMT -5
Post by earth on Jun 14, 2010 22:32:17 GMT -5
if everyone stood up for what they believed but still accepted others opinions and agreed on things with others, the world would be pretty awesome.
|
|
|
Morals
Jun 14, 2010 23:32:15 GMT -5
Post by brumagem on Jun 14, 2010 23:32:15 GMT -5
Morals are the foundation of law, they are contained within any law that is the concern of a court of law. Legislation creates the law using morals as a base. The courts interpret the law, taking only the black-and-white of it into consideration (while doing their best to discern where the greys in-between go). I don't think I'm not taking it too literally so much as I'm taking it for what it is. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" implies no empathy unless the person employing it values empathy. An example could be something like someone who wants to fight with others, or someone who genuinely believes the strong should exploit the weak. (Again this may be the kind of subjective judgement Tyme wants us to avoid, so in that case these criticisms can be ignored.) www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literal Taking something for what it is = Literalizing. Besides, do you honestly believe anyone actually thinks like that? "I'm rich! Poor people are worse than scum and deserve slow agonizing death!" *stock market crash* "Well, out the window then..." (That never happened, www.slate.com/id/2200633/, www.cracked.com/article_18487_6-ridiculous-history-myths-you-probably-think-are-true.html ) Both "Do unto others" and "Treat others" implies interaction between multiple people, which gives rise to the criticism I voiced earlier. If we are not gonna make the rule more specific towards values, how making it a little less ambiguous: "Always take into consideration the well-being of others in your actions, as you would like others to do the same" This may not be entirely universal but I think it conveys the message you want it to and I think it will remove the possibility of "being taken too literally", while avoiding the kind of direct interaction that (I think) can create problems. Thoughts? Another alternative is the negative version of the rule that doesn't imply any direct action, "Do not do to others what you would not like to be done to you". Such rewordings only inspire inaction and idleness when the rule is supposed to produce an action such as giving first-aid to a drowning victim. Fair criticism, but I intended it to be of a "never be afraid to voice who you are or what you believe" rule, not one that implies creating conflict. Agreed. It is active enough to produce conviction, but passive enough to allow for tolerance.
|
|
|
Morals
Jun 15, 2010 0:54:08 GMT -5
Post by swan on Jun 15, 2010 0:54:08 GMT -5
Such rewordings only inspire inaction and idleness when the rule is supposed to produce an action such as giving first-aid to a drowning victim. I would argue that this can also be negative in some circumstances but I think we are spending a little too much time on a minor disagreement, so if you have no problem with the rule Nakor proposed ("You must allow others to act as they please, so long as by doing so they are not in turn impinging on the rights or freedoms of others.") then I will concede my argument, since I suppose that other rule will more or less take care of the problems I feel this rule can create.
|
|
|
Morals
Jun 15, 2010 23:42:56 GMT -5
Post by brumagem on Jun 15, 2010 23:42:56 GMT -5
I would argue that this can also be negative in some circumstances but I think we are spending a little too much time on a minor disagreement, so if you have no problem with the rule Nakor proposed ("You must allow others to act as they please, so long as by doing so they are not in turn impinging on the rights or freedoms of others.") then I will concede my argument, since I suppose that other rule will more or less take care of the problems I feel this rule can create. That's a completely separate rule in and of itself. It's about how you should be tolerant of the actions of others if they are nondestructive. The empathy rule is about how you should react to the needs of others. "Treat others in a manner you would wish to be treated" (a rewording by Nakor) emphasizes empathy, is not ambiguous, and is still lyrical enough to easily keep in constant memory (which is important if it's a rule you want to follow and apply in your everyday life).
|
|
|
Morals
Jun 16, 2010 7:59:34 GMT -5
Post by bombmaniac on Jun 16, 2010 7:59:34 GMT -5
you say that we should specify rules worth following. my question is..."Treat others in a manner you would wish to be treated"...is that an ideal? or real world practice? would that apply to a terrorist, or not? would it apply to a criminal or not? you would not want to be locked up in jail...or do we say that if you violate that and treat others as you would not want to be treated you lose your right to be treated that way? but suppose that IS genuinely how the person wants to be treated?or better...who decides how people ought to be treated? everyone has different ideas about that...and everyone has different ideas on how they want to be treated? it's not that simple coming up with global values is it...this is so subjective and open for interpretation that i don't think it would accomplish anything...you chose to leave religion out of this discussion, and i understand why. but ask yourself this...can logic REALLY give us morals? and where do our concepts of morals come from? assuming it was indeed logic that gave us morals, could that same logic negate them as well? food for thought...
by the way, you do realize that do unto others as you would have them do unto you is a concept from the old testament right? keep that in mind as you contemplate my above questions
|
|