PDA

View Full Version : Laws of morality




Josh_LA
12-24-2008, 02:05 PM
Are there only these principles for morality?

1. What is wrong is what is undesirable
2. What is right is what you are forced to do and force decides what's right (in other words, it's desirable to not be hurt, therefore force is right)
3. Golden rule (it's undesirable to hurt others because it's undesirable to hurt yourself, so it's wrong)

So don't all moral laws come down to : MIGHT MAKES RIGHT, AND WHATEVER IS DESIRED?

I simply don't buy the "Because God said it's wrong" argument, I have yet to see ONE PERSON live that out. Plus, unless God is above reason, he follows the above, and if God is above reason, he's "2.", might makes right.

mediahasyou
12-24-2008, 02:21 PM
There is only one principle of morality. All other rules of society can be traced back to this principle.

Do not violate other's self-ownership.

Original_Intent
12-24-2008, 03:53 PM
God does not exercise his "might" to make it right. He has told us what was right and left it to us to see if we would voluntarily choose it.

Now, granted, many so-called Christians as well as other so-called followers of God (whether they have called God Allah or Jesus Christ) have neither followed nor allowed others to voluntarily choose - they have exerted force.

IMHO force should only be used in legitimate self defense, or in defense of others.

If in defense of others, it should be voluntary, in other words I should not be forced to defend someone else, it is my choice.

Isaac Bickerstaff
01-01-2009, 02:52 AM
"Moral relativism" is the globalists tool--taught in government schools--to undermine the rule of law.

Kludge
01-01-2009, 03:10 AM
Do not violate other's self-ownership.

I tend to agree with this, though almost entirely out of realizing the benefits of an orderly society (Golden Rule) and common courtesy.

Kludge
01-01-2009, 03:14 AM
"Moral relativism" is the globalists tool--taught in government schools--to undermine the rule of law.

I'm pretty sure it's a technique teachers use to prevent themselves from seeming to endorse a particular ethical view, which would then cause over-reactive parents to complain to the school board that the teacher is indoctrinating their kids.

krazy kaju
01-01-2009, 09:45 AM
I would separate morality and ethics. In my view, morality is the search for some kind of transcendental rules to live life: e.g. thou shalt not kill, don't commit adultery, etc. Morality, in essence, is the study of nonexistent rules that every being should follow. Ethics, on the other hand, is the rational study of how man can "live the good life." Man can only live the good life by using rational inquiry to discover what is his nature, and what ends he should seek to achieve to fulfill his rational nature. This undoubtedly leads us to a system of negative liberty, or a system where everyone may do as he wishes, as long as he does not interfere with others. Any violation of negative liberty would be counter to man's rational existence, and only cause psychological and physical harm and distress to humanity. In terms of "micro" ethics, the correct goal is to seek your own satisfaction. Because each man is psychologically distinct, in other words, since everyone's consciousnesses are separate from each other, pleasure and pain cannot be added up in the typical altruistic utilitarian sense. Instead, seeking your own satisfaction will not only maximize your own pleasure, but everyone elses as well.

heavenlyboy34
01-01-2009, 09:49 PM
I would separate morality and ethics. In my view, morality is the search for some kind of transcendental rules to live life: e.g. thou shalt not kill, don't commit adultery, etc. Morality, in essence, is the study of nonexistent rules that every being should follow. Ethics, on the other hand, is the rational study of how man can "live the good life." Man can only live the good life by using rational inquiry to discover what is his nature, and what ends he should seek to achieve to fulfill his rational nature. This undoubtedly leads us to a system of negative liberty, or a system where everyone may do as he wishes, as long as he does not interfere with others. Any violation of negative liberty would be counter to man's rational existence, and only cause psychological and physical harm and distress to humanity. In terms of "micro" ethics, the correct goal is to seek your own satisfaction. Because each man is psychologically distinct, in other words, since everyone's consciousnesses are separate from each other, pleasure and pain cannot be added up in the typical altruistic utilitarian sense. Instead, seeking your own satisfaction will not only maximize your own pleasure, but everyone elses as well.

Nice post! :)

Josh_LA
01-09-2009, 06:16 AM
God does not exercise his "might" to make it right. He has told us what was right and left it to us to see if we would voluntarily choose it.


Sending you to hell for being yourself isn't exactly "voluntary".

Josh_LA
01-09-2009, 06:17 AM
"Moral relativism" is the globalists tool--taught in government schools--to undermine the rule of law.

what good is rule of law without might?

Josh_LA
01-09-2009, 06:19 AM
I'm pretty sure it's a technique teachers use to prevent themselves from seeming to endorse a particular ethical view, which would then cause over-reactive parents to complain to the school board that the teacher is indoctrinating their kids.

Schools ARE indoctrination by definition, keep your children out if you have a problem with it.

Josh_LA
01-09-2009, 06:20 AM
There is only one principle of morality. All other rules of society can be traced back to this principle.

Do not violate other's self-ownership.

what is self ownership? a person's right to be happy?

LibertyEagle
01-09-2009, 07:55 AM
what is self ownership? a person's right to be happy?

No, you own your SELF.

Kludge
01-09-2009, 02:45 PM
Schools ARE indoctrination by definition, keep your children out if you have a problem with it.

I disagree. The vast majority of teachers and all textbooks remove the controversy from their teachings to try not to seem to indoctrinate. Unfortunately, this takes away the kids' ability to think critically and question others' motives. Everyone becomes common and generic. Their knowledge is limited to what is presented in textbooks (which almost always has just one point of view), they lie about almost everything without recognizing it (willful ignorance), and they fail to empathize because they don't bother to reflect on themselves. So essentially you have teachers indoctrinating kids by trying not to offend others. It's not so much that many Americans don't question authority, but that they don't question anything.

When a teacher gives a controversial opinion, it should be debated with points and counterpoints in class. Federal programs such as the "No Child Left Behind Act" (NCLB) create disincentives for teachers to give input on ethics/religion in classrooms. They don't permit teachers to educate nor allow kids to grow in character and thinking, but instead require kids to memorize useless factoids. It measures a kid's memory instead of their ability to think. Memorization is alright if you're doing something which will be mechanized within the next decade (if it isn't already), but critical thinking is what is necessary for producers. Artists, managers, and negotiators all must be able to think, analyze, and come to logical conclusions.


what is self ownership? a person's right to be happy?

Philosophy of Liberty (http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf)

Josh_LA
01-09-2009, 07:19 PM
No, you own your SELF.

where does this boundary end?

does this apply to retards, handicapped?

I mean, if a person is born without arms or legs, are we morally obligated to artificially prop up their life?

Josh_LA
01-09-2009, 07:21 PM
I disagree. The vast majority of teachers and all textbooks remove the controversy from their teachings to try not to seem to indoctrinate. Unfortunately, this takes away the kids' ability to think critically and question others' motives. Everyone becomes common and generic. Their knowledge is limited to what is presented in textbooks (which almost always has just one point of view), they lie about almost everything without recognizing it (willful ignorance), and they fail to empathize because they don't bother to reflect on themselves. So essentially you have teachers indoctrinating kids by trying not to offend others. It's not so much that many Americans don't question authority, but that they don't question anything.

When a teacher gives a controversial opinion, it should be debated with points and counterpoints in class. Federal programs such as the "No Child Left Behind Act" (NCLB) create disincentives for teachers to give input on ethics/religion in classrooms. They don't permit teachers to educate nor allow kids to grow in character and thinking, but instead require kids to memorize useless factoids. It measures a kid's memory instead of their ability to think. Memorization is alright if you're doing something which will be mechanized within the next decade (if it isn't already), but critical thinking is what is necessary for producers. Artists, managers, and negotiators all must be able to think, analyze, and come to logical conclusions.



In short, healthy brainwashing is good. PC can be harmful and avoidance can be neglect. That doesn't change the fact though, that if we believe in freedom, we shouldn't rely on collectivist education.

cheapseats
01-09-2009, 09:57 PM
In short, healthy brainwashing is good.

Yep. It IS good for children to be "brainwashed" into thinking they need to eat their fruits and vegetables if they would grow up to be strong and healthy, BECAUSE EVERYTHING YOU SAY ABOUT NUTRITION IS JUST A MOVING MOUTH TO THEM.



PC can be harmful

As much of an understatement as, "Fire can burn you."




and avoidance can be neglect.

Avoidance CAN be neglect, particularly as of Duty.

Avoidance can also be the discretion part of "Discretion is the better part of valor."

PC Edit: While discretion is certainly a mentionable-even-significant part of valor, I am not persuaded that it is the "better" part. I suppose I would also be obliged to clarify whether "better" meant "larger" or "nobler" or both.

WASTE OF TIME. This much I have learned beyond doubt or debate: You/I/We CANNOT please all the people all the time.




That doesn't change the fact though, that if we believe in freedom, we shouldn't rely on collectivist education.

I disagree completely.

History DOES exist. Things HAVE happened.

OF COURSE there will always be different recollections/interpretations/analyses/applications, BUT IT WILL BE EXTREMELY HELPFUL IF DIFFERENT PEOPLE DON'T JUST KINDA MAKE STUFF UP AND WING IT.

You don't want ignorant villagers persuaded for the next CENTURY that they dare not leave their villages because modern-day Simon Legrees are lurking right over there behind that tree. World peace, featuring a vibrant Free Market, is much jeopardized if crafty Rulers can fill their Subjects' heads with idiosyncratic information.

The advancement of collective knowledge and certainty is VITAL to advancement of civilization. INCLUDING a Free Market, Amen.

krazy kaju
01-14-2009, 04:56 PM
Talk about circular reasoning here. Healthy brainwashing is healthy (good)! O RLY?

Josh_LA
01-14-2009, 05:52 PM
Talk about circular reasoning here. Healthy brainwashing is healthy (good)! O RLY?

it's not circular if people believe that brainwashing is always wrong.

just like "justified murder is justified" means nothing for people who believe there's no such thing as justified murder.

Josh_LA
01-14-2009, 05:53 PM
I disagree completely.

History DOES exist. Things HAVE happened.

OF COURSE there will always be different recollections/interpretations/analyses/applications, BUT IT WILL BE EXTREMELY HELPFUL IF DIFFERENT PEOPLE DON'T JUST KINDA MAKE STUFF UP AND WING IT.

You don't want ignorant villagers persuaded for the next CENTURY that they dare not leave their villages because modern-day Simon Legrees are lurking right over there behind that tree. World peace, featuring a vibrant Free Market, is much jeopardized if crafty Rulers can fill their Subjects' heads with idiosyncratic information.

The advancement of collective knowledge and certainty is VITAL to advancement of civilization. INCLUDING a Free Market, Amen.

Thank you, I was baiting somebody to come up with his honest admission.

krazy kaju
01-14-2009, 09:01 PM
it's not circular if people believe that brainwashing is always wrong.

just like "justified murder is justified" means nothing for people who believe there's no such thing as justified murder.

Dude, no. "Justified murder is justified" means that murder that is justified is justified. It doesn't mean anything as a statement, it's merely a definition. It doesn't even mean that justified murder exists. You could rewrite it as the totally meaningless conditional that "if there is justified murder, then it is justified."

Statements like "healthy brainwashing is good" and "justified murder is justified" are not helpful at all. Then again, I was really making fun of only the portion that the person above me quoted in his/her post. I don't even know what else you said, nor do I particularly care. But the logical fallacy screamed at me.

asimplegirl
01-14-2009, 09:34 PM
I feel like there is only one rule of morality:

Be as good a person as you can be, without being concerned what others think about what you think is right, including God.

See, even though I know what God would think is right, as determined by my religious beliefs, I feel that the only thing that matters is being what *I* believe is right, no one else. I can worry about them later. Right?

BTW, I think *all* brainwashing is wrong. I also disagree with public schooling, but for more reasons than just the obvious bias towards teaching one way, straight and narrow.

Josh_LA
01-14-2009, 09:40 PM
Dude, no. "Justified murder is justified" means that murder that is justified is justified. It doesn't mean anything as a statement, it's merely a definition. It doesn't even mean that justified murder exists. You could rewrite it as the totally meaningless conditional that "if there is justified murder, then it is justified."

Statements like "healthy brainwashing is good" and "justified murder is justified" are not helpful at all. Then again, I was really making fun of only the portion that the person above me quoted in his/her post. I don't even know what else you said, nor do I particularly care. But the logical fallacy screamed at me.

same thing, tautology and circular reasoning by definition.

I wasn't making a statement in the beginning either, I was clarifying an obvious.

wizardwatson
01-14-2009, 09:42 PM
I kind of feel like the "Laws of Morality" just come natural to people. We veer from it as children in an experimental manner, and nature quickly whacks us back on track.

Language and theories can help polish it a little I guess, but its one of those things that is just built into us, like hearing music vs. random noise.

Josh_LA
01-14-2009, 10:32 PM
I kind of feel like the "Laws of Morality" just come natural to people. We veer from it as children in an experimental manner, and nature quickly whacks us back on track.

Language and theories can help polish it a little I guess, but its one of those things that is just built into us, like hearing music vs. random noise.

with the exception of Africans and retards?

krazy kaju
01-17-2009, 09:33 PM
?

Are all Africans immoral or something? Or did I just misunderstand what you wrote?

Josh_LA
01-18-2009, 06:01 PM
?

Are all Africans immoral or something? Or did I just misunderstand what you wrote?

No, not all Africans are immoral, but do you want to bet you'd not want to live in their society because you know you have obvious differences in preference and morality standards?

krazy kaju
01-25-2009, 09:03 AM
No, not all Africans are immoral, but do you want to bet you'd not want to live in their society because you know you have obvious differences in preference and morality standards?

"Not all Africans are immoral, but all Africans are immoral."

Africans are people like the rest of us. They don't have fundamentally different moral standards. What is different is how governments around the world promote immorality among black Africans and people of African dissent (e.g. single mother subsidies, little property rights, etc.).

Conza88
01-25-2009, 09:21 AM
The only reason Josh makes these threads is so he can be an assclown and troll the responses with his might is right bullshit as the premise.

Active participation with an open mind, and a genuine search for the truth is not josh's cup of tea.

Make sure if you have kids, don't let them near Josh - he'll steal their candy.

LibertyRevolution
01-25-2009, 10:01 AM
Do as ye will, but harm none. This is the basis of morality to me.

I do not need a god, or a body of government, to understand that I should be allowed to do anything I want, as long as my actions do not cause harm to someone else or their property.

Now I do like the idea of the golden rule, but I also understand that I have no right to ask you to treat me with compassion and respect, only that your actions not harm others or their property.

Josh_LA
01-25-2009, 04:59 PM
"Not all Africans are immoral, but all Africans are immoral."

Africans are people like the rest of us. They don't have fundamentally different moral standards. What is different is how governments around the world promote immorality among black Africans and people of African dissent (e.g. single mother subsidies, little property rights, etc.).

Yes, they certainly do have different moral standards.
Just on the fact they're in higher poverty should tell you where their daily priorities are. If you can go live in a country like Ghana, Zimbabwe or Congo for a few months and tell me it's the same, be my guest. (just because they're not the same doesn't mean they're lower than us, just because you prefer not to live there does not mean we're better, but it does mean there's something about their sanitation, laws and safety you'd rather not live in)

krazy kaju
01-27-2009, 05:31 PM
Yes, they certainly do have different moral standards.
Just on the fact they're in higher poverty should tell you where their daily priorities are. If you can go live in a country like Ghana, Zimbabwe or Congo for a few months and tell me it's the same, be my guest. (just because they're not the same doesn't mean they're lower than us, just because you prefer not to live there does not mean we're better, but it does mean there's something about their sanitation, laws and safety you'd rather not live in)

So? What if the average African lives in poorer conditions? Does that change his humanity? Even if we accept that poorer people have different morals, wouldn't it be more correct to say that poorer people have different morals, not that Africans have different morals? After all, there are Africans with varying degrees of wealth.

Josh_LA
01-27-2009, 07:45 PM
So? What if the average African lives in poorer conditions? Does that change his humanity?


Change his humanity, maybe not, but his life of choices, is enough for me.



Even if we accept that poorer people have different morals, wouldn't it be more correct to say that poorer people have different morals, not that Africans have different morals? After all, there are Africans with varying degrees of wealth.

yes, Africans have varying degrees of wealth, all of which are probably lower than we have here. And since I clarified I'm talking about POOR Africans, plus the fact they live in a different climate, culture and civilization, I didn't pick on Africans just to be racist. My point is made, take it or leave it.