Discussion on morality

[saitenyo]

Soo.. Why even bring up the topic of a divine moral authority if we agree it's a non-factor..? Anyway, nevermind then.

I was just mentioning that I acknowledge that I cannot prove such a viewpoint is outright false, for the benefit of those that do believe in divine moral authority.

It seems that your view is then almost identical to mine, except you seem to be hesitant about setting any truth-value to your beliefs outside your own perspective. Understandable carefulness.. but I've got nothing better to do, so I'll challenge it anyway :

Is there really any question whether or not morality relates to human and animal well-being? Why do you think we don't have enough knowledge about life and the way conscious entities work to make this conclusion?
Just like with medical sciences, we don't have to competely understand what "perfect health" is in order to make objective decisions regarding to healthcare. We know that health relates to functions of the human body. If someone disagrees, we don't say that they "just have another perspective" of what health is. We simply say that they are wrong and no respectable professional doctor has to take that person seriously.

I think it comes down to a question of whether or not everything we can see and measure and experience is all there is to life. We can never know whether or not there exists something beyond our ability to understand and observe by the very nature of what that would be, so my acknowledgement of that possibility is more a hypothetical one than anything else. I personally don't believe in a divine moral authority in the sense of a God setting rules we must follow because it simply does not make sense to me, in my mind, that this is how things would work. The notion of morality being about how actions affect others makes far more sense to me. But I guess having been in these discussions enough times, I decided to preemptively acknowledge that I could not empirically prove this belief as a fact and was therefore not prepared to defend it as such, but only to defend my personal moral beliefs within the context of the moral system which I ascribe to.

I think it's pretty clear-cut on things like actions that cause obvious harm to others, but the grey areas of morality, where things get more fuzzy, is where I maintain that it's more difficult to say there is a clear objective answer to this. For example: issues like the death penalty, killing of other living things for food, etc. Things people would consider "necessary evils," where harm must come to one living thing to prevent harm from coming to another. How do we judge that objectively? I don't know if we really can, and that's where I have take a step back and say, I may feel one way about it, but clearly others may feel quite differently and I cannot state my moral views on that issue as an undisputed fact.

In situations like those, people tend to rely on more varied methods of determining what the correct moral answer is, ranging from "How does this affect me or those I am close to?" to "What does this mean in the grand scheme of life?" or for some "What might a divine moral authority have to say about this in regards to how it fits into the rest of life's intended function?"

Just as an example question to prod around a bit outside your own perspective.. Do you think westerners are justified in critiquing Middle-Eastern countries for forcing their women to clothe themselves in burkas? Do you or do you not think it is not our business to meddle into the cultural quirks of other societies?

I don't think this has one easy answer. I support meddling in certain circumstances, but not in others. In this instance it would come down to how the primary affected party feels about the policy, and for this specific example, I don't support the notion of forcing women to dress a specific way to adhere to cultural standards. I believe women should be free to dress as they please. At the same time, and for the same reason, if a Middle-Eastern woman preferred to adhere to her traditional clothing requirements as a personal choice, I do not feel it would be any westerner's place to tell her she should not do that. I support the freedom of personal choice either way in that scenario.

[Revo]

I think it's pretty clear-cut on things like actions that cause obvious harm to others, but the grey areas of morality, where things get more fuzzy, is where I maintain that it's more difficult to say there is a clear objective answer to this. For example: issues like the death penalty, killing of other living things for food, etc. Things people would consider "necessary evils," where harm must come to one living thing to prevent harm from coming to another. How do we judge that objectively? I don't know if we really can, and that's where I have take a step back and say, I may feel one way about it, but clearly others may feel quite differently and I cannot state my moral views on that issue as an undisputed fact.

In situations like those, people tend to rely on more varied methods of determining what the correct moral answer is, ranging from "How does this affect me or those I am close to?" to "What does this mean in the grand scheme of life?" or for some "What might a divine moral authority have to say about this in regards to how it fits into the rest of life's intended function?"

The way I see it, these "gray areas" are simply just more complicated versions of simpler quandaries, rather than another beast entirely. Just like the unsolved mathematical mysteries of today (like the Travelling Salesman Problem for example). These are things that we certainly don't yet have the intellectual capacity to comprehend, and it might be that we never will.
From our current perspective it might seem like any approach is as good as another, but in reality there is one way or several that are simply better than others. This we can determine from the model for objectively evaluating moral solutions I provided in post #7. And the only way we're ever going to have a chance at finding that solution is if we thrive to search for it.
The fact that we are as of now unable to see a clear answer to the issues in the "gray areas" simply shows that there is a horizon beyond which our current sight of understanding morality falls short. Throughout human history we have been broadening our horizons in mathematics, biology, medicine and even morality. People of today are generally speaking more moral than we were 2000+ years ago (for example, slavery was not seen as a problem back then).
Saying that all approaches are ultimately equal (which I acknowladge you didn't explicitly state, I'm just reading between the lines) is just counter-productive to the progress of our moral understanding of the world.

I don't think this has one easy answer. I support meddling in certain circumstances, but not in others. In this instance it would come down to how the primary affected party feels about the policy, and for this specific example, I don't support the notion of forcing women to dress a specific way to adhere to cultural standards. I believe women should be free to dress as they please. At the same time, and for the same reason, if a Middle-Eastern woman preferred to adhere to her traditional clothing requirements as a personal choice, I do not feel it would be any westerner's place to tell her she should not do that. I support the freedom of personal choice either way in that scenario.

Good answer. This is exactly how I see it, except I do think this is the one easy answer. It depends on the particular issue. I think Pnt put it well:

Cultural sensitivity does play a part in ethics. If one society buries their dead and one society burns their dead, that may not be a moral problem. Both societies intend to honor their dead in their own way, and no real harm is being done. If one society wears clothes and the other is naked, that is likely so morally benign that cultural sensitivity applies. Abortion, slavery, capital punishment, etc... do not fall under the umbrella of cultural sensitivity -- a person is potentially being harmed (that is the debate) and the moral dilemma is far too serious to write off as a cultural quirk. Where you draw the line can be fuzzy, but it does not allow for absurdity.

And yes I would too put mandatory burkas as something that does not fall under cultural sensitivity. Of course they can wear them if they want to, that's a given. But under the cohersion from men they are receiving nowadays it's not guaranteed that their decision to wear burkas is entirely genuine.

[Shadow]

Very nice thread Revo i think i want in on this.

My Moral, compared to the "common" one is one that is strictly down the toilet, i mean so far down that a person with a normal moral probably wouldn't like me very much, okay its not THAT bad but let me lay down how i think on things.

well having no....erh....great litrature guide, or divine figure to influence me or my "Moral Rule book" all my Moral basis come from being raised and basically my own idea and influences.

but lets see if i can take a...ehh..good example where my family and i have had some heated arguments.

in the world of gaming, shooting people is about as well accepted as buying a fruit at the grocery store, and why shouldn't it be? i mean its not real, i completely agree with that and i myself play Violent video games every day, and i myself havent been in a fight my entire life "good 22 years"

but thats not the point, now we get to the real "icky" stuff i guess ya could say, im sure you all remember a good while ago there came out this "sick" game from the Japanese market called "Rapelay" or something like that.

in short the game basically went on about how you were supose to seduce young girls and then eventually rape them.

now before anything i want to say that this game is tasteless, wrong, immoral, and should not have been made in the first place.

do i want it banned?

no.

Why you may wonder then?, well the thing is i live by my own "Moral" code that as long as its not real its okay, no matter what it encourages
And why you say do i not fight for the case of this game not being around?.
Well its the same with violent video games, Is it so vastly different to blow someones brains out, and then to rape someone ? (im talking morality diffrence here) I mean you cant measure that in anyway.

Every time i hear some house wife wanting to ban the next GTA game becouse its immoral for the children, or uses one or a fiew events off people going " bonkers" and starting to run over people GTA Style, then i always find myself saying.

"Just becouse a fiew people who obviesly do not have proper mental health cant handle the game, dose that mean we other "normal" people should be banned from our simple and plain fun?.

No i dont think so, and though it pains me to say it the same should apply for this "rape game".

just because its not of my taste or Alley, what right do i have to call a BAN on it?, im sure there are alot of people who played that game who are in no way or sense a rapist , i mean there are couples who do "Rape fantasy's" in the bed shouldn't that be banned as well?

I guess this is a good example on a "trapped by your own Moral" kind of sense, i belive in the freedom of speech but even more so do i believe in the freedom of fantasy, moraly i think there is 200000 miles between having a fantasy and actually doing it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On a general topic on my Moral, i kind of go with a fiew requirments.

- The people involved have to have enough life experience and intelligence to make their own choose
on the subject matter (general rule is 18)

- They know the consequent s in doing it

- As long as it don't hurt anyone else directly or in-directly its ok.

im trying to think up more "rules" but ...i really cant, im a very Open person, and i think that if people enjoy what little immoral thing they are doing, they should keep at it as long as everyone's on the clear, and no one gets hurt " Mentally, Economicly, Physicality, AKA in all subjects"


then of course there are the Moral Stalemates ( i think its called?)

For example, if A Fathers child gets kidnapped and they have to do horribul stuff, or even kill an other human to get thier child back, otherwise the child will die, i mean whats the right thing to do here?.

Morally there is no right thing to do, all i can say is that i would do anything to save a loved one, and i mean Anything. Morally right or not, i would not care.



hope you guys don't hate me for this, and manage to get throw this cluster F#"¤" wall of text of mine