Poll: Where do you stand ethically/morally?
Ethical Egoism
Moral Relativism
Kantianism/Categorical Imperative
Utilitarianism
Emotivism
Hobbes' Social Contract Theory
Religious Based
Other
[Show Results]
 
Moral Philosophy: Where do you stand?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-05-2012, 06:58 AM
RE: Moral Philosophy: Where do you stand?
(28-05-2012 03:26 PM)Thomas Wrote:  Some believe ethics and morals are the same. I like to take them apart for argument.
Ethical behavior is what we do when no one is looking, based on what we think is ethical.
Moral behavior is what we do when others are watching, based on what others think is moral.
...
I would place those definitions almost exactly in the reverse. Ethical behaviour is the behaviour that you exhibit that is correct in relation to your function in society, especially to your job function. Ethical behaviour is what you do in public as a consequence of your position. Moral behaviour is what you do when noone is watching, a more personal consideration. Your morals may conflict with the morals and ethics of others, and may even conflict with your own ethics. When ethics and morals disagree either a compartmentalisation is required between the two or a crisis may result.

Ethics are easier to define and evaluate than morals because they are those set behaviours in relation to what role you fill in society. A judge needs to be fair, regardless of what she thinks of the accused. A doctor must represent their patient's best interests. An engineer needs to build a functioning solution regardless of who their employer is. An executioner must kill. A soldier must stand and fight. These ethics define the properties of an individuals behaviour that if not complied with would make the individual unsuitable for their role.

Morals are harder to pin down due to being primarily exercised outside of the strict requirements of a societal role. They cover how we deal with personal relationships and their consequences are often private, though clearly there is a connection between ethical and moral behaviours.

Me, I go for the model that society itself is a shared survival strategy for our species. Our morality is part of the social integration that makes up the society. This makes morality partially derived from social norms, partially from genetic traits that lead us to be successful social animals. Dawkin's idea of a "lust for good" that is inherent in most people rings true to me, and I think that society and history shape how that lust for good is expressed and how good is self-evaluated. To the extent that there are universal moral choices across our societies I think that these stem from a common strategy for survival and are underpinned by common genetics.

Our survival strategy has some firm edges, such as if you kill everyone who you don't like the society will crumble. These boundaries that our strategy cannot cross over without imploding can even be considered absolute morals in relation to that strategy. However I consider the strategy itself to be innate only to our line of descent and even some of our most firmly held moral values may have ended up quite differently had similar intelligence emerged on a different branch of the evolutionary tree.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-05-2012, 08:49 PM
RE: Moral Philosophy: Where do you stand?
Question:
Should we always help others in need when we can?
If you answer yes and are a Utilitarian, then the following choice shoud be obvious.
90,375 people in the US are waiting a kidney transplant.
You only need one kidney to live.
Someone will die without one of your kidneys.
Write back after the operation and tell me how it went.

The old gods are dead, let's invent some new ones before something really bad happens.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-05-2012, 09:03 PM
RE: Moral Philosophy: Where do you stand?
Actually just utilitarianism wouldn't say yes to that. You need to accompany the proper value. You actually aren't describing a fallacious situation unless you attach some sort of value like "personal health," then the situation would become fallacious.

As stated previously, these are all fallacious, and fail the logic test, but they do work with some values on some issues. None is all encompassing, and anyone who believes they are is a fool.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2012, 12:49 PM (This post was last modified: 31-05-2012 01:58 PM by TrulyX.)
RE: Moral Philosophy: Where do you stand?
(30-05-2012 09:03 PM)TheKetola Wrote:  As stated previously, these are all fallacious, and fail the logic test, but they do work with some values on some issues. None is all encompassing, and anyone who believes they are is a fool.

I call bullshit on that.

It might be that I don't quite know what you mean. Describe how they are fallacious, and I'll tell you if I agree.

Also, how are they not, when applied to morality, all encompassing? Wouldn't they be all encompassing by default?

edit: I didn't mean bullshit, as in it is not true what you're saying, I just don't completely understanding what you are trying to say.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2012, 10:53 PM
RE: Moral Philosophy: Where do you stand?
I am a moral nihilist (amoral)
I have no beliefs in morality what-so-ever.

I am of the position that belief in morality is the cause of all religious wars.

Without morality all religions would be benign. People would pray and worship their gods or what ever and would look towards themselves rather than worrying about the morality of others, judging and controlling, oppressing and killing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Stevil's post
01-06-2012, 11:21 AM
RE: Moral Philosophy: Where do you stand?
(31-05-2012 10:53 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I am of the position that belief in morality is the cause of all religious wars.

Without morality all religions would be benign. People would pray and worship their gods or what ever and would look towards themselves rather than worrying about the morality of others, judging and controlling, oppressing and killing.

You're missing the point.

Morality isn't the cause of religion; religion is the cause of immorality.

People don't run planes into buildings, blow themselves and other people up, fight in crusades, or hate and kill other people, in the name of morality. They do it in the name of God.

Also, if you don't believe morality exists, why use the phrase "without morality"?

Without morality, how can you have a problem with the choices religious people make? If it is neither right nor wrong, you shouldn't have a problem with religion "judging and controlling, oppressing and killing" people. At least, it should be a problem on the same scale as someone liking a different color than you or preferring to eat different food. That could be how you were trying to come off, but to me, it seems as if you were coming off in a way that was implying that you felt what religion does is wrong.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TrulyX's post
01-06-2012, 12:17 PM
RE: Moral Philosophy: Where do you stand?
Where would the "golden rule" fit in here? Seems like it's a relativistic stance. Am I right in that?

That mostly fits where I stand.

Godzilla Kitten, Directed by J.J. Abrams
[Image: Kineoprojectfinished3_zps79916ea4.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like kineo's post
01-06-2012, 05:41 PM
RE: Moral Philosophy: Where do you stand?
(01-06-2012 11:21 AM)TrulyX Wrote:  You're missing the point.

Morality isn't the cause of religion; religion is the cause of immorality.
I claimed that belief in morality is the cause
of religious wars, which is different to claiming that belief in morality is the
cause of religion.



To claim that anything is immoral is to claim knowledge of absolute right and
absolute wrong. This claim, implies you are at one with the cosmos and that the
cosmos inherently defines right and wrong, or maybe that you are at one with
the human genetics that define human morality, that these genetics are bound to
all humans and that you have knowledge of what these rights and wrongs are.
Quote:People
don't run planes into buildings, blow themselves and other people up,
fight in crusades, or hate and kill other people, in the name of
morality. They do it in the name of God.

I disagree

People worship and pray in the name of god. They bow their heads, press their
hands together, spin prayer wheels and make wishes in the name of their god.



In this way religion is rather benign, merely an eccentric set of rituals and
beliefs.



Religion becomes dangerous with belief in morality. With this moral belief they
then think it is their purpose to be morality agents. To ensure all of humanity
conforms to their morality belief. This moral belief forces them to influence law, to
oppress people (such as the homosexual community) whom the religious believe
are acting immorally. They are also driven to fight wars against people, cultures, races and countries that do not worship their god. For Christianity and Muslims, belief in other gods is deemed immoral therefore as moral agents they deem it their duty to stamp out the immoral.


Without morality, people would not judge others, we would simply go around living our own lives and not worrying about how other people live their lives.
Quote:Also, if you don't believe morality exists, why use the phrase "without morality"?
For brevity. I should have used the term "without belief in morality"
Quote:Without
morality, how can you have a problem with the choices religious people
make? If it is neither right nor wrong, you shouldn't have a problem
with religion "judging and controlling, oppressing and killing" people.
I don't deem this a moral issue. It is an issue of survival. I don't want a moral society, I couldn't care less if people are deemed as being immoral.
I only want to survive. This is selfish I know, but important to me. I need to live in a society which discourages people from murdering or raping me and my family.
Oppression of gay people affects me, because I have gay friends and work collegues, because I can see conflict in my society due to this oppression, conflict can escalate to riots and wars which makes life dangerous for me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-06-2012, 08:29 PM (This post was last modified: 01-06-2012 08:43 PM by TrulyX.)
RE: Moral Philosophy: Where do you stand?
Quote:I claimed that belief in morality is the cause of religious wars, which is different to claiming that belief in morality is the cause of religion.

Religion becomes dangerous with belief in morality.

You're still missing the point then.

Have you ever seen the movie The Book of Eli??

Carnegie wanted the Bible. Why?

Have you ever heard of the Euthyphro dilemma? Religion isn't morality.

I really can't go into detail explaining it all to you, I have better things to do, but you're way off. Go back to the drawing board.

Quote:To claim that anything is immoral is to claim knowledge of absolute right and absolute wrong.

I know morality like I know math and language/description.

Quote:I don't deem this a moral issue. It is an issue of survival. I don't want a moral society, I couldn't care less if people are deemed as being immoral. I only want to survive. This is selfish I know, but important to me. I need to live in a society which discourages people from murdering or raping me and my family. Oppression of gay people affects me, because I have gay friends and work collegues, because I can see conflict in my society due to this oppression, conflict can escalate to riots and wars which makes life dangerous for me.

I knew (no I can't actually see the future) that was how you were going to respond; I was going to defeat that view prior to you responding, but I didn't feel like it, still don't.

If you think it's wrong, you are challenging your own view.

If it's survival, kill them. If you can't kill them, because of law and fear of justice, law also helps protect you, so your survival isn't an issue.

Also, human beings don't have a survival problem, so you can just kill yourself or let them kill you; we don't really need you. Also, given that you're questioning your survival, that already shows that we are past the point, evolutionarily, where we can be thrown into the same boat as other animals; they don't question, they just react. If you want to degrade yourself to an animal, react; kill them off, if they threaten your survival. Otherwise, stop bitching about it. If you don't believe in morality, then you can't have a legitimate gripe with religion when it comes to any of the issues you raised with them.

My friend always would say: "have you tried to stop being a bitch". I think that is the solution to your problem.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-06-2012, 09:28 PM
RE: Moral Philosophy: Where do you stand?
(01-06-2012 08:29 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  
Quote:I claimed that belief in morality is the cause of religious wars, which is different to claiming that belief in morality is the cause of religion.

Religion becomes dangerous with belief in morality.
You're still missing the point then.

Have you ever seen the movie The Book of Eli??

Carnegie wanted the Bible. Why?

Have you ever heard of the Euthyphro dilemma? Religion isn't morality.
Huh? When have I ever said that religion is morality?
Quote:
Quote:To claim that anything is immoral is to claim knowledge of absolute right and absolute wrong.
I know morality like I know math and language/description.
Great, so I would expect that you think your morality is the correct one and everyone else's in the world's is wrong.
Quote:
Quote:I
don't deem this a moral issue. It is an issue of survival. I don't want
a moral society, I couldn't care less if people are deemed as being
immoral. I only want to survive. This is selfish I know, but important
to me. I need to live in a society which discourages people from
murdering or raping me and my family. Oppression of gay people affects
me, because I have gay friends and work collegues, because I can see
conflict in my society due to this oppression, conflict can escalate to
riots and wars which makes life dangerous for me.
I
knew (no I can't actually see the future) that was how you were going
to respond; I was going to defeat that view prior to you responding, but
I didn't feel like it, still don't.
Value offered in this response = 0, arrogance = 100%

Quote:If you think it's wrong, you are challenging your own view.
Where have I said that anything is wrong?
I am not in tune with a cosmically defined right or wrong, I have no belief in absolute right or absolute wrong.
Quote:
If
it's survival, kill them. If you can't kill them, because of law and
fear of justice, law also helps protect you, so your survival isn't an
issue.
The rules of our society, our governing laws are mostly in place for survival. In order to create a stable and functional society. Some people look to put their belief in morality into law, because they think they know what is right and what is wrong. If this is their focus and if you agree with morality then you cannot possible argue against it. Who is to say your sense of morality is better than the morality of your government?
I would say that gay marriage does not create a threat upon the stability or functionality of society therefore there ought not to be a law against it. Same thing goes for prostitution, polygomy, euthanasia, incest, stem cell research, genetic research...
If you think laws ought to be based on morality despite whether it causes society instability or disfunction then again, if your government thinks something is immoral and creates a law against it, you have no grounds to complain other than you think your morality is right and you think the government's morality is wrong.
Quote:Also, human beings don't have a survival problem
There are millions of human beings fighting for their survival each and every day.

Quote: If you
don't believe in morality, then you can't have a legitimate gripe with
religion when it comes to any of the issues you raised with them.
I don't have a problem with religions.
I have a problem with the imposed rules/laws that some religious people want to enforce on society. Hence I have a problem with the belief that some religious people have in their brand of religious morality.
As I have stated, my problem is not that I think religious morality is immoral. Nothing is immoral.
My problem is that religious morality causes instability and dysfunction within society. It makes society unsafe. Opression of people such as gays or people not belonging to the "right" religion causes conflict and instability, this threatens my survival.

Quote:
My friend always would say: "have you tried to stop being a bitch". I think that is the solution to your problem.
Value offered in this response = 0, arrogance = 100%
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: