|
Morals
Jun 16, 2010 16:24:41 GMT -5
Post by brumagem on Jun 16, 2010 16:24:41 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 You're being very nit-picky about this. You are taking the rule literally and in a context that is simply illogical. Read what I've already posted please. I may have forgotten, however, that when applying the rule it is important to take the other party's background into account. Your extremely proud friend falls off his wheelchair. You patiently wait for him to help himself back on before resuming your stroll. I remember hearing it on Veggie Tales long ago, but not where the saying originated. That very well could be (a specific citing would be helpful). I won't pretend I know the answers to anything else from your rant, let alone how to verbalize them.
|
|
theeverbored
Meteor
if a nerd has no avatar, does she still have a face?
Posts: 81
|
Morals
Jun 16, 2010 17:09:10 GMT -5
Post by theeverbored on Jun 16, 2010 17:09:10 GMT -5
"Do to others what you would have them do to you" --Jesus, (Matthew 7:12)
|
|
|
Morals
Jun 16, 2010 20:07:38 GMT -5
Post by Ryan on Jun 16, 2010 20:07:38 GMT -5
The point for which I intended this thread, was so we could come up with universal rules for which everyone could follow. What this means, is that we have to look beyond the normal rules, we must be nit picky, and we must not only re-evaluate how the current moral rules of different views/religions came into being, but also rewrite these rules into more specific ones. With any luck, and time, the rules we make could not be misconstrued like the 'do unto others' rule.
Logic cannot provide moral judgment - logic is not subjective like morals are. Logic can help us provide rules to live by though. Even if it's a short list, I'd like us to try to come up with rules that, in fact, EVERYONE can follow.
So, please - bombmaniac is right, and don't lash at him, instead take what he's said and apply it to the rule - edit it, make changes, leave nothing to subjectiveness.
|
|
|
Morals
Jun 17, 2010 15:10:27 GMT -5
Post by KipEnyan on Jun 17, 2010 15:10:27 GMT -5
I've said it before, and I may say it again Tyme:
I think you will be VERY hard-pressed to find just ONE "universal" rule.
|
|
theeverbored
Meteor
if a nerd has no avatar, does she still have a face?
Posts: 81
|
Morals
Jun 17, 2010 20:15:31 GMT -5
Post by theeverbored on Jun 17, 2010 20:15:31 GMT -5
I've said it before, and I may say it again Tyme: I think you will be VERY hard-pressed to find just ONE "universal" rule. Maybe one universal rule would be a little difficult to narrow down but morals in my opinion are different then rules. I think of them more as principles and so, religiously based or not, I think that the principle of "do unto others...." is a fairly realistic benchmark for morals. While our opinions about how we would want to be treated vary, it seems pretty logical that we all want to be treated well--what ever "well/good" means to us. In that way we set the grid of relative good and evil in our out looks on life. If we treat others with the good we would like to receive for our selves then it's safe to assume that we will treat others with our interpretations of honor, respect, and kindness. Of course just because we show each other our interpretations of morality it doesn't mean they will be received that way. Unless we then extend our credo of treating others as we would like to be treated to how we would like to be treated if we had misunderstood someone. At any rate it seems like a fairly simple and applicable moral to live by.
|
|
|
Morals
Jun 17, 2010 22:00:17 GMT -5
Post by Ryan on Jun 17, 2010 22:00:17 GMT -5
I've said it before, and I may say it again Tyme: I think you will be VERY hard-pressed to find just ONE "universal" rule. Think impossibly big. If it is going to be so hard to find just one rule, then the one rule is worth finding, and who knows, maybe one rule is enough.
|
|
|
Morals
Jun 20, 2010 4:50:06 GMT -5
Post by bombmaniac on Jun 20, 2010 4:50:06 GMT -5
morals are absolute. moral relativity is very flawed. moral absolutes are the ones that work. therefore, to say that you cannot come up with a moral, because they are not logical, and the best you can do is coming up with a rule, you open things up for subjectivity...thus making them more like suggestions, and non- binding. with logic, almost everything is relative. as i said before, the every same logic that leads you to create the rule can lead you to disregard it.
|
|
|
Morals
Jun 24, 2010 13:05:54 GMT -5
Post by bombmaniac on Jun 24, 2010 13:05:54 GMT -5
the question now becomes...if logic cannot dictate moral absolutes...where do they come from? talk amongst yourselves...
|
|
|
Morals
Jun 24, 2010 13:32:33 GMT -5
Post by Ricky on Jun 24, 2010 13:32:33 GMT -5
Asher you are back!
*reads post*
Asher you are back...
|
|
|
Morals
Jun 24, 2010 13:37:04 GMT -5
Post by chelseeyuh on Jun 24, 2010 13:37:04 GMT -5
the question now becomes...if logic cannot dictate moral absolutes...where do they come from? talk amongst yourselves... Hi. I haven't read most of this thread, but I'm going to intervene anyway. Why can't logic dictate moral absolutes? Why doesn't everyone just agree with Kant's moral philosophy? Why?!
|
|
|
Morals
Jun 24, 2010 14:06:36 GMT -5
Post by bombmaniac on Jun 24, 2010 14:06:36 GMT -5
think about it...logic can tell you not to kill...but what if you have a situation where you can kill 20 people to save 21?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Morals
Jun 24, 2010 15:37:29 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2010 15:37:29 GMT -5
the question now becomes...if logic cannot dictate moral absolutes...where do they come from? talk amongst yourselves... Hi. I haven't read most of this thread, but I'm going to intervene anyway. Why can't logic dictate moral absolutes? Why doesn't everyone just agree with Kant's moral philosophy? Why?! Kant's morals? Preferences utilitarianism is waaaaay better! (and here starts the most boring flamewar in history) (actually it doesn't, because I'll admit ahead that I think the way we choose what we think to be the most acceptable moral philosophy includes subjective criteria, so we can't really say one is better than the other until we completely remove subjectiveness from the equation) Anyway, here is my hypothesis I quickly thought of: Moral was a man's invention, based on society rules. A bit like the difference between being an acceptable citizen and a good citizen. This is why there is no moral on the animal kingdom. So theoretically it would be subjective. But, it is the best option for us to make it objective, even if it isn't. Living on a world where moral was subjective would be a chaos (the western world has some induced ground rules for moral, even if some are wrong and less important ones are not agreed upon, thus making it somewhat possible to live decently). So, if we resort to an objective criteria to decide what is moral and what isn't, we are just making it easier for everybody to coexist. As I said above in the parenthesis, I think moral philosophies are currently chosen based on some objective and subjective criteria. So, until we can define completely what are the objective criteria to replace the subjectiveness, we aren't able to completely agree on a philosophy. If you want to know, I'm a preferences utilitarianism (if you don't know what it is look up utilitarianism on wikipedia). In my opinion, utilitarianism is made to simply work, making ethics simpler to handle (not simple, simple r, it is still pretty messed up), with fairer results than the alternatives. Of course, some people, like Chelsea, will think that preferences utilitarianism is totally unfair and not an acceptable option. The fact is, nether I or she is wrong, at least, not until we can agree on objective criteria to replace our subjectiveness. I'd also like to propose a base rule to decided other moral rules: Morals are what allow us to live in society, and so, any moral ideology should base itself on trying to make life better universally (this doesn't mean that the rule should be part of the moral code itself, for example, Kant's ideology, aka, deonthologism, does not have that rule, but tries to reach it). At least those are my 2ยข. EDIT: "Do to others what you would have them do to you" would work if it was universally practiced. But it is not, and there relies the problem.
|
|
|
Morals
Jun 24, 2010 16:05:04 GMT -5
Post by chelseeyuh on Jun 24, 2010 16:05:04 GMT -5
I dislike utilitarianism because it's consequential. I think morals should be based on intention, not consequences. If a person has "evil" intentions, but it goes wrong and they do something "good," that doesn't mean that that person is moral. I've never heard of preference utilitarianism before, but based its wikipedia page, it sounds just like normal utilitarianism. And Kant's theory is similar to "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," except it removes the possibility of people who would argue that they would want to be hurt, raped, murdered, etc.
|
|
|
Morals
Jun 24, 2010 23:02:16 GMT -5
Post by Lyserg Zeroz on Jun 24, 2010 23:02:16 GMT -5
^I agree with most of this. The rule would have to be something like "do unto others as they would like to be done" or "don't do unto others as they wouldn't like it to be done" (but I think this is kind of a simplified rule), and as for an example of this, there is no need to go to the extremes of rape and murder '-'. Example: Let's say I have an apple tree, I don't care that much about the apples because there's plenty to take, anyone is free to take an apple. I would even like people to take my apples. My neighbour has an orange tree. But my neighbour really likes oranges, my neighbour uses oranges to make juices, pies, and stuff, so my neighbour eats and drinks as much oranges as possible. He wouldn't want people to take the oranges. But I don't know this, I don't even ask, and take an orange. My neighbour would see this as stealing.
So the right thing wouldn't be to "do unto my neighbour as I would like my neighbour to do unto me". It also depends a lot on context. We could say the rule could be "do unto others as you blablabla" if we clarify that one would want others to do unto oneself what oneself likes. So you would have to do unto others what they would like.
|
|
|
Morals
Jul 17, 2010 18:33:12 GMT -5
Post by pepsicola1295 on Jul 17, 2010 18:33:12 GMT -5
I think that morals are a very personal thing. Each person forms their own conscience over time, and this affects how they see things as good or bad. Although I do like the idea of the golden rule, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." I think that's a good place to start from.
|
|
|
Morals
Jul 18, 2010 2:01:19 GMT -5
Post by Enemynarwhal on Jul 18, 2010 2:01:19 GMT -5
As far as universal laws of morality go here is the best I can do.
You should never intentionally hurt someone emotionally or physically unless it is in self defense, or in the defense of others, and you deal the least amount of damage possible.
Intentionally is a good word because it covers you accidentally hurting someones feelings, and it would cover you breaking someones heart by dumping them or refusing to go into the family buisness ect.
Emotional and physical pain covers everything bad you could do to someone.
And you try to protecrt yourself and others while dealing the least amount of damage possible. We can all agree defense is good yes? Now I say least amount of damage as possible but thats rather hard to moniter when someone is chasing you with a knife because the least amount of damage possible wouldn't be you killing them just you rendering them unable to harm you. This is why I'm tempted to change it to "while only dealing a reasonable amount of damage" but then you have to define reasonable wouldn't you and thats different for every case. Maybe I'm putting too much thought into this. It's not like if someone overreacts they're a bad person depending on the senerio. Maybe it can be least or reasonable. I dont know.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Morals
Jul 18, 2010 8:41:02 GMT -5
Post by speakmouthwords on Jul 18, 2010 8:41:02 GMT -5
Eventually I will make a youtube series about creating a moral system from scratch, but let me just give you a quick rundown of my thoughts on the matter.
There are two widely followed rules that people claim to live by throughout many parts of the world: The Golden Rule and The Silver Rule.
The Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you The Silver Rule: Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you.
Now, for reasons that would take a little too long to explain here, I have come to the conclusion that we all should seek to be on average more altruistic than hedonistic. Take this as an axiom for my next argument.
My issue with the Golden Rule is that it devalues altruistic actions. If one was to follow the Golden Rule to the letter, then the underlying motivation behind altruistic actions is that you'd like people to act that way towards you, which is in itself not selfless and therefore not altruistic. Thus, if all good actions are completely neutral on the altruism/hedonism scale due to the Golden Rule, then the net value of all your actions lies on the side of hedonism.
However, with the Silver Rule, this isn't the case. Nowhere in the Silver Rule does it mention good actions. All it does is rule out any bad action that you wouldn't like to happen to you. This allows you to commit good, selfless actions without any self-interest whilst ruling out overly bad actions. If somebody followed the Silver Rule to the letter, then the net value of all of their actions would lie on the side of altruism, which is in my mind a good thing.
Bleurgh, hope that made sense, I still haven't fully fleshed out my ideas on morality.
|
|
|
Morals
Jul 18, 2010 11:20:45 GMT -5
Post by bombmaniac on Jul 18, 2010 11:20:45 GMT -5
yeah i WAS nitpicking, just because i think the actual word "morals" may not apply...but carry on with your discussion
|
|