Morality

[Ahab]

Where does one derive morality from? That's the question.

My opinion is that we derive it from reasoning, based on what has failed and flourished over the years from the results of societies. The less successful laws we found we could live without slowly left while the successful ones tend to be essential. This, to me, would be a moral.

[rAnx]

I believe morality stems from the consideration of reciprocation, i.e. the golden rule. Most people don't kill, don't rape, don't steal, etc. because they would find it bad if it happened to them. Basically, we do not intentionally treat others in any way that we would consider adverse if we were to be treated in the same way.

That is, unless you're a pandering politician.

[Abandoning Ship]

rAnx Wrote:I believe morality stems from the consideration of reciprocation, i.e. the golden rule. Most people don't kill, don't rape, don't steal, etc. because they would find it bad if it happened to them. Basically, we do not intentionally treat others in any way that we would consider adverse if we were to be treated in the same way.

That is, unless you're a pandering politician.

I've always wondered if there's anything fundamentally wrong with the Golden Rule of "treat others as you'd like to be treated."

[i-am-the-liquor]

from basic instincts

[thoughtmaker]

Quote:I've always wondered if there's anything fundamentally wrong with the Golden Rule of "treat others as you'd like to be treated."

depends what you mean by 'wrong'. if wrong is doing something to someone that don't like, then stabbing someone is wrong even if you yourself would enjoy being stabbed. the rule should probably be closer to 'treat others as they wish to be treated.'

[liq3]

I personally base all my morals off of "Cause the least pain."

Thus if someone was about to stab me, I'd try to disable them or run away. If they were about to shoot me, I'd probably kill them, or run away (or disable if I can).

I never intentionally hurt someone else unless they are first hurting me, or about to.

That is my definition of morals.

[SoulRiser]

Quote:I personally base all my morals off of "Cause the least pain."

Same here, mostly. It can get a bit complicated when you have 2 options and each of them will cause someone pain, and you're not completely sure how much pain, or there are other factors to consider... (and sometimes people need pain to grow stronger and all that stuff)... But in general it works pretty well.

[Gorebell]

For most people....
Anything you like: Good
Anything you don't like: Evil

[akdonn]

AHAB:

If you are wondering about how "moral development" occurs, then you might want to look at the theories of Piaget and Kohlberg. Here is the wikipedia link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg's ... evelopment

[Ahab]

akdonn Wrote:AHAB:

If you are wondering about how "moral development" occurs, then you might want to look at the theories of Piaget and Kohlberg. Here is the wikipedia link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg's ... evelopment

I dig it.

[SoulRiser]

That right there is a really good link.

Quote:In Stage six (universal ethical principles driven), moral reasoning is based on abstract reasoning using universal ethical principles. Laws are valid only insofar as they are grounded in justice, and that a commitment to justice carries with it an obligation to disobey unjust laws. Rights are unnecessary as social contracts are not essential for deontic moral action. Decisions are not met hypothetically in a conditional way but rather categorically in an absolute way (see Immanuel Kant's 'categorical imperative'[13]). This can be done by imagining what one would do being in anyone's shoes, who imagined what anyone would do thinking the same (see John Rawls's 'veil of ignorance'[14]). The resulting consensus is the action taken. In this way action is never a means but always an end in itself; one acts because it is right, and not because it is instrumental, expected, legal or previously agreed upon. While Kohlberg insisted that stage six exists, he had difficulty finding participants who consistently used it. It appears that people rarely if ever reach stage six of Kohlberg's model.

Sad but true. I know a few though...

[mudkip liek]

I think morality comes from aging and experience. Toddlers don't know anything about it, they could, for instance, kill another toddler accidentally and not know/care about it. But as you grow, you experience things and you either get positive or negative feelings as a result of the event that just occurred. And you decide what is bad and good. Like if you have something stolen from you, you get angry, and decide that it's a horrible thing to do.

Also, to " rAnx", I think you're wrong. We do intentionally treat others the way we DON'T want to be treated ourselves from time to time. Everybody, in fact, has done this. You can't tell me you've never made fun of someone or judged someone by the way the look or by the way they're dressed on purpose (I mean, how could it be unintentional?). I know you have because everyone does it. It's in our nature.

[liq3]

chemistry_hater Wrote:I think morality comes from aging and experience. Toddlers don't know anything about it, they could, for instance, kill another toddler accidentally and not know/care about it. But as you grow, you experience things and you either get positive or negative feelings as a result of the event that just occurred. And you decide what is bad and good.

I disagree with the bolded text. Age is irrelevant to morals. Even babies know when someone is in pain.

[NiteRaidah]

My theory is that one's view of morality comes from his/her opinion of what right & wrong is, with some "input" from society. Not in all cases, of course.

[mudkip liek]

liq3 Wrote:

chemistry_hater Wrote:I think morality comes from aging and experience. Toddlers don't know anything about it, they could, for instance, kill another toddler accidentally and not know/care about it. But as you grow, you experience things and you either get positive or negative feelings as a result of the event that just occurred. And you decide what is bad and good.

I disagree with the bolded text. Age is irrelevant to morals. Even babies know when someone is in pain.

Nope, you're wrong. Everything babies do, is in fact a reflex. They do not think. They do not feel.

Can you remember anything from when you were a baby? Neither can I.
And I'm talking about being 8 months old or so. Not 3 years old....because that's not much of a baby. Sorry, I shouldn't have said "toddlers" in my last post.

[liq3]

chemistry_hater Wrote:Nope, you're wrong. Everything babies do, is in fact a reflex. They do not think. They do not feel.

I take it you think killing babies is ok then, since, ya know they are just empty vessels with no thoughts or feelings.

[Darthmat]

When a 3 month old sees his mother, does he react differently towards her then others? Yes, he does. So he does feel.

[mudkip liek]

liq3 Wrote:

chemistry_hater Wrote:Nope, you're wrong. Everything babies do, is in fact a reflex. They do not think. They do not feel.

I take it you think killing babies is ok then, since, ya know they are just empty vessels with no thoughts or feelings.

Nope, but I'm for abortion, but that's a whole different story.

Just because they don't think and feel, doesn't mean they're not gonna. What I'm actually getting at is not so much that they can't feel as in they don't feel happy or angry (I mean they smile and cry). They just don't assimilate it and will not remember the experience. Yes, I realize I sounded like a moron, but I just couldn't find the right word, till now. Sorry, my vocab's not good enough. So of course it's not ok to kill babies. Don't assume stupid things.

Quote:When a 3 month old sees his mother, does he react differently towards her then others? Yes, he does. So he does feel.

I don't think you know the meaning of reflex....
It's an instinct, they've always relied on their mother so of course they'd feel different towards her.

[liq3]

chemistry_hater Wrote:

liq3 Wrote:

chemistry_hater Wrote:Nope, you're wrong. Everything babies do, is in fact a reflex. They do not think. They do not feel.

I take it you think killing babies is ok then, since, ya know they are just empty vessels with no thoughts or feelings.

Nope, but I'm for abortion, but that's a whole different story.

Just because they don't think and feel, doesn't mean they're not gonna. What I'm actually getting at is not so much that they can't feel as in they don't feel happy or angry (I mean they smile and cry). They just don't assimilate it and will not remember the experience.

Thoughts don't have to be in words. Just because babies have the comprehension of a glass of water doesn't mean they don't think.

I agree they don't remember the experience, like we don't remember dreams. Doesn't mean it never happened though, *dramatic pause* or does it?

[cryptevah72]

wat you said about babies, which isnt true really, doesnt have to do with abortion anyway, because before the baby is born, none of that can really apply, and abortion takes place BEFORE the baby is born.
babys have emotions, i dont know what would make anyone think otherwise. they may not have as advanced emotions or cognition as they will soon have, as the nature of growth and develoupment goes, but they feel, and think, and make choices. its not the SAME as older humans, but just because something is not the same as you doesnt make it lesser (honestly if anyone thinks that i dont know why they are on this site)

do u think animals think and feel?

look, abortion is a touchy subject, because soetimes its right, sometimes its wrong, and sometimes its really neither. its wrong to get pregnant by accident by doing immoral and stupid things, but then its not the baby's fault, but u have to realize that perhaps it'd be better off if it werent born. true its giving the stupid mother the easy way out, but i think we can afford someone not dealing with the punushments of there actions when compared with the wellbeing of a child. i have many other points and proofs about abortion, but they probably wouldnt be respected by some (im actualy not implying anyone in specific, btw), because they are slightly religious, though i dont see it that way. really though, some poeple are so non conformist that they conform to not conforming.

[Ahab]

There are lots of creatures which think. Insects think. Surely they are not near the intelligence of that of a human baby but I don't think libertarian morality as a rule of law nessecarily becomes in effect when something thinks. Rather, morality is much more empirical and that which is based on what has proved most effective for the individual and, almost always mutually, society. Most people are incredibly selfish about morality and only will do something when they are directly affected/have no choice. After this habit is established I believe it will slowly turn into a moral if it is indoctrinated enough and has some logical foundations for which the individual can reason without much harm. When it comes to selectivity and reasoning of these morals, people become more divided. The existence of a loving, caring God or not seems to change the picture drastically in many ways how people function morally, even if they end up obeying the same laws and going by most similar forms of conduct.