What is Morality

Alright get ready to take a big bite outta crome Yall

Moralty-Concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct

I belive Morality isnt just going with whats hip or cool things such as (among many) marrige and human courrtesy which recently have been hijacked As sit here and type The moral decay IMO has already started in Europe and America is starting to show cracks and I belive this lax apporach to life will be the end of us

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Morality is common sense. Those who have it will always have it, those who don't will always undermine it. Laws which seek to impose morality are nothing more than thinly disguised tyranny.

Its not just common sense basic laws should be enacted some of which America has freedom is one thing but anarchy is quite another

so from where did morality arise? If we look at humans in a evolutionary sense (ignoring the God concept for a second, if you'll bear with me) when did we become moral? Are fish moral? are monkeys? are humans?

or is moral relative, depending on circumstance and situation?

if you say morality is good and bad, then please define good and bad, thank you.

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Where did I say anything about Anarchy? Morality means alot of things to alot of people. But the only universal truths to it all are the only ones that should translate into law. Don't kill. Don't lie to authority. Don't cheat, commit fraud, or otherwise falsify things, ect. Basically: Be an honest and good citizen.

When you start making laws against people's personal lives, claiming a "Moral" high ground, that's debasing the ideas of morality right there.

alright I thought you meant anarchy

Originally Posted by Sjakihata

so from where did morality arise? If we look at humans in a evolutionary sense (ignoring the God concept for a second, if you'll bear with me) when did we become moral? Are fish moral? are monkeys? are humans?

or is moral relative, depending on circumstance and situation?

if you say morality is good and bad, then please define good and bad, thank you.

Relative usually not Human moratily should at least be common sense and courtesy to your fellow man and not doing just what you want because the other thing is tough or just dosent fit in with your so called lifestyle

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

WBut the only universal truths to it all are the only ones that should translate into law. Don't kill. Don't lie to authority. Don't cheat, commit fraud, or otherwise falsify things, ect. Basically: Be an honest and good citizen.

interresting, especially since SFTS define US as the last stronghold of morality. They kill (death penalty), they lie (iraq war, recent example, but many others), they cheat (clinton and also many other cases im sure), fraud (i dont even think I have to comment here) etc etc, every thing apparent immoral the US is guilty of - somehow Im sure SFTS disagree here, no?

Originally Posted by strike for the south

Relative in most cases no but in some and good and bad should be common sense and courtesy to your fellow man and not doing just what you want because the other thing is tough or just dosent fit in with your so called lifestyle

phew, I didnt get that. one big sentence, could you please re-write it and structure it? Im too stupid to get your point.

Originally Posted by Sjakihata

interresting, especially since SFTS define US as the last stronghold of morality. They kill (death penalty), they lie (iraq war, recent example, but many others), they cheat (clinton and also many other cases im sure), fraud (i dont even think I have to comment here) etc etc, every thing apparent immoral the US is guilty of - somehow Im sure SFTS disagree here, no?

The people are the best hope nearly everyone in the goverment is euro commie bastard or a fat oil tycoon who gets a chubby everytime he sees green The good moral people need to hold there ground

I belive the death penalty is justifably. As for Iraq pherpas Bush didnt lie maybe he acted on bad intellegince as for the rest see above

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

In a functioning democracy, the people invest in the state the power to kill those who would do the people harm. That's as old as time, and has never had any trouble functioning alongside morality.

For the rest, however, you are abhoringly correct.

I disagree. Let's take an ancient example. Socrates. Sentenced to death. In a democracy. Plato didnt think that very moral or fair.

As Im sure, like Socrates was a great person, many great (and innocent) persons die in american execution rooms. this cannot be moral, and you can scream all night long, it isnt (as you yourself argued) common sense to kill innocents.

But, let's not turn this into a death penalty thread - for gods sake - but focus on morality.

no one so far gave me a clear definition.

Originally Posted by strike for the south

The people are the best hope nearly everyone in the goverment is euro commie bastard or a fat oil tycoon who gets a chubby everytime he sees green The good moral people need to hold there ground

I belive the death penalty is justifably. As for Iraq pherpas Bush didnt lie maybe he acted on bad intellegince as for the rest see above

so you mean that the overly fat, lazy, stupid, ignorant, selfish, and greedy modern man is morality's best hope? I disagree.

Originally Posted by Sjakihata

so you mean that the overly fat, lazy, stupid, ignorant, selfish, and greedy modern man is morality's best hope? I disagree.

and many got that way by being immoral and that needs to change like I said its already begun we need to stop it

Originally Posted by strike for the south

and many got that way by being immoral and that needs to change like I said its already begun we need to stop it

And how will you stop it? Just curious. Perhaps turning your state into a fachist one.

Originally Posted by Soulforged

And how will you stop it? Just curious. Perhaps turning your state into a fachist one.

No enact laws instill it in the younger genration

Originally Posted by strike for the south

No enact laws instill it in the younger genration

The state cannot tell you how to live your life, they only can punish you for making the same assumption over others's lives. From that wrong misundestanding of the state is from where the "car belts" come from.

I think I pretty much agree with Kant.

In wich part...

Robert Heinlein once wrote that for something to be "moral" it had to promote survival of the individual and/or species.

Seamus

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Robert Heinlein once wrote that for something to be "moral" it had to promote survival of the individual and/or species.

What I remember of Kant said that the moral is different from the law. He defined morals as the rules that reing over the individual, and the law those who rule over the relationships of the individual. He had also some obsolete ideas of society.
In any case I disagree with Robert Heinlein. The human sees many things as being good or bad, without having any material substantial reference to look at. The fact that for so many time (and even now) some people banned sexual liberation, is enough proof to refute Mr. Heinlein statement, and of course the irony is that without sex we couldn't reproduce...

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Sounds like something out of Starship Troopers.

wait you dont base your morals and ethics off of Starship troopers

I don't know.

Originally Posted by Soulforged

What I remember of Kant said that the moral is different from the law. He defined morals as the rules that reing over the individual, and the law those who rule over the relationships of the individual. He had also some obsolete ideas of society.
In any case I disagree with Robert Heinlein. The human sees many things as being good or bad, without having any material substantial reference to look at. The fact that for so many time (and even now) some people banned sexual liberation, is enough proof to refute Mr. Heinlein statement, and of course the irony is that without sex we couldn't reproduce...

Heinlein would argue that such strictures may have, at one time, been necessary in order to produce a stable environment for child-rearing and societal improvements (survival on the larger level). He would also agree that it will have become immoral if survival no longer requires such restrictions on sexual liberation.

And yes, this was the argument he advanced in Starship Troopers. A fun read, and only tangentially linked to the film of the same name.

Seamus

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

And yes, this was the argument he advanced in Starship Troopers. A fun read, and only tangentially linked to the film of the same name.
Seamus

The film was much deeper

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Heinlein would argue that such strictures may have, at one time, been necessary in order to produce a stable environment for child-rearing and societal improvements (survival on the larger level). He would also agree that it will have become immoral if survival no longer requires such restrictions on sexual liberation.

However, even with your correction, this doesn't refute my statement. You're banning the same idea of sex, society in large is doing it, and this moral is the very counter part of all survival. As banning gay "marriage" (i would call it union, because marriage comes from "mater", wich means "mather") is the very counter point of evolution, and thus the suvival of society. For so many times the chirstian had taken it all wrong: the morals should (because it's axiological, because it comes from it's very essence) be the rules of the individual, the relationship of he with himself, thus the moral can have infinite connotations, even going beyond rationality (like ritual death, seppuku), it doesn't has to have any drop of survival idea. So my point is that what this Mr. is proposing is unbearable, because if you're arguing that it's well to just ban something for the sake of the rest of society, because of some ideal or eventual instability, then the state (or society in any case) will have so much power that in the name of safety, stability or whatever reason that they think appeals to survival (in it's ample sense as you took it), then they'll be able to involve in your personal affairs, saying what you can and you cannot do with yourself, or even with others, because we must understand that the meaning of privacy so respected in the Constitution (brought from the very inmemorial past to our Constitutions) also includes all relationships that doesn't directly damages others rights.

Originally Posted by strike for the south

America is starting to show cracks and I belive this lax apporach to life will be the end of us

More likely airborne infectious disease is a far greater risk. I've been amazed at how efficient small children are at spreading disease. My kids are healthiest when they don't go to school/daycare...or church. Sad and unworkable, but true.

Bugs go global in a hurry now and there really aren't many good firewalls to insulate the spread of disease from one region to the next...unless it presents some rather severe obvious (& specific) warning signs.

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Robert Heinlein once wrote that for something to be "moral" it had to promote survival of the individual and/or species.

Seamus

Exactly. Everything else is an illusion anyway.

Moral is something we want everyone else to have......

Morals are personal, something a state should not interfere with unless they become damaging to others. It's easy to state that but just how far can you go? If taken too far it means problems don't get tackled at the source, yet if it's not seen that way minority views get suppressed by a majority on hazy issues such as drug use. As far as I'm concerned just learn to accept that some people don't have the same views as you, and learn to live with it.

bmolsson: nice one.

Originally Posted by bmolsson

Moral is something we want everyone else to have......

untrue

clarification:

morality is something we want to have ourselves - is more true.

because morality ultimately lead to the good and happy life, so why dont we want, ourselves instead of others, to lead the happy life?

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Seemed like a fair assessment to me. Consider: Bush promotes "Morality" Bush also dodged the draft (in a manner of speaking), did drugs in his youth, and makes millions off the backs of the poor, while promoting the continued making of millions off the backs of the poor by other people.

All politicians who proclaim morality have similar holes in their logic.

Morality is out of politics. Politics looks for the improvement of the society not of the self. Machiavelli putted it very clear, nothing has changed from those moments. Weber confirmed it.