Morality - Your Opinion!

[malakadang]

Yes. Humans are able to rationalize.

So, if humans have rationality, then they have a concept of self. This concept of self is where the natural right called Property Rights comes from. From property rights, you get the right to life.

When did rationality come into the picture? There must have been some instant where they went from not being rational to being rational. Why'd it change?

I suppose it must've been an evolutionary advantage.

What is the non-aggression principal? And how do we know it is right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle How do we know it's right? First, I ask, do you disagree with it?

No, I would mind. What I am stating is this: why would it matter? Who is to say having two arms is better than having one arms but humans? What if, truly, it is the other way? How can we know for sure we are interpreting morality correctly?

It's interesting to note that you say we don't have property rights, yet you continue to use the world I. I implies ownership, you don't own anything because you don't have the right to property. There are a multitude of advantages for a human to have two arms as opposed to one. Remember, I said human. If a human arm magically appeared on a bird, then would die very quickly simply because it would presumably be unable to fly. Also, you need to understand, when you ask the question "how do we know we are right", you are implying that there is an objective answer, and ultimately, that morality is objective. This is WIDELY debated. I'm not arguing that morality is objective, I have my own reservations. What I am arguing however is that natural rights exist, and if you violate ones natural rights, you're probably in the moral wrong.

Sorry, I meant Judge, as in God/Gods/ect.

Well, I'm atheist, so I'm not going to press this line further.

Yes, Humans can rationalize. What happened to survival of the fittest? In this case, not helping someone would not be immoral.

What about survival of the fittest?

Sorry, just a brief general statement as in natural right to live, natural right to property, ect.

K.

I understand the quote, as that is how most people view Christianity. I do not view it like that. God is a wrathful God. People confuse his infinite love with infinite mercy. God does not have infinite mercy. What the kid in your story did is still wrong, and technically, God has every right to strike him down where he stands and cast him into Hell. I believe it is through Jesus' death on the cross we are forgiven. Antinomianism (using God's forgiveness to pardon sin) creates sin.

From my perspective, it is a fundamental flaw to have all your 'sins' cleansed by a priest, instead of trying to make restitutions. If you stole something from someone, you give it back, you don't plead for forgiveness. Anyway, as an atheist, and the fact that this is tangential to the topic, I'll leave it.


You must remember, that when you ask the question 'how do we know it's right', you imply objectivity to a topic where so much subjectivity in its discourse exists. The best way to approach morality IMO is to have a foundation then be realistic. For example, the non-aggression principal is a great foundation. Don't you agree, that if you initiate force on someone, you are morally wrong? In almost all facets of life, this holds true. There are some flaws to it however, the one example that criticises the principal: If someone said that 1 million people would die, unless you kill this person, is it morally right to kill that person? The NAP says no, but if you be realistic about it, it seems morally ok.

It needs to be said, that some actions are morally objective. Stealing a child and raping it repeatedly for fun is objective morally wrong. You cannot provide any justification for it to be morally neutral, or right. Morals are a lot like beauty. Everyone has a sense of what is beautiful, as do they to what is moral. There is rarely any objectivity in beauty, and it's hard to rationalize and give reasons why this is beautiful and that isn't. People just have an innate sense of what is beautiful, and some have that sense heightened. The same could be said for morals. Asking the question 'how do we know if we are right' implies objectivity in morality. You will never ever get anywhere if you ask that question first, and don't apply what people postulate it's insane to progress in the field of morals.

 

[T M]

What do you mean by this? Many individuals did not accept Biblical morality at the time of the country's founding, and the United States government is in no way founded on Christianity.

Many of our initial policies were derived from Christian principals.

Just read the beginning of the Declaration of Independance (My argument that we were founded on the prinicpals and inalienable rights of "some" creator) I will assume they are meaning the Christian God. If you object say so.

We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[T M]

So, if humans have rationality, then they have a concept of self. This concept of self is where the natural right called Property Rights comes from. From property rights, you get the right to life.

To be honest, I am not familiar with these rights. I will research tomorrow. I'm assuming the concept of self is just, basically, the understanding that you are alive. I'm not sure how property rights are derived from this. I understand how property rights ---> right to live. I believe these are interpretations that we have been taught, if we were taught the exact opposite, we would be advocating differently. Think of how some people are raised. There are areas in Africa that abide by a completely different set of morals then we do here. It is their interpretation of how things should be.

I suppose it must've been an evolutionary advantage.

Technically, it would be an evolutionary advantage to execute all people who hold back the human race (incapable of supporting/futhering, people who only take without giving, ect). However, we do not do this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle How do we know it's right? First, I ask, do you disagree with it?

Well, if what I'm understanding, is that all threatening and execution of the threating is wrong. No, I do not believe this. If someone had a gun to my wifes head, I would probably kill them. I'm sure I misunderstood the principle however.

It's interesting to note that you say we don't have property rights, yet you continue to use the world I. I implies ownership, you don't own anything because you don't have the right to property. There are a multitude of advantages for a human to have two arms as opposed to one. Remember, I said human. If a human arm magically appeared on a bird, then would die very quickly simply because it would presumably be unable to fly. Also, you need to understand, when you ask the question "how do we know we are right", you are implying that there is an objective answer, and ultimately, that morality is objective. This is WIDELY debated. I'm not arguing that morality is objective, I have my own reservations. What I am arguing however is that natural rights exist, and if you violate ones natural rights, you're probably in the moral wrong.

Understood, also, keep in mind that I do believe in natural rights, from a Christian perspective however.

And yes, there are advantages that we see to having two arms, driving is easier for one. However, who is to say that driving is easier is the way to go.

Now, we can argue these two points until the cows come home. I have my beliefs, you have yours.

Taking someones right to live may be a poor way to act in society; however, I do not believe that, without a moral judgement, it can be considered wrong. Basically, if I was not a Christian, I do not believe life has a purpose (nor can you say it has one). If it does not matter if you die, then why is it morally wrong for me to kill you? You say right to live, I believe otherwise.

You say

Well, I'm atheist, so I'm not going to press this line further.

Understood

What about survival of the fittest?

Basically, the Darwinian princple is that we are just the most advanced animal. Therefore, we still abide by survival of the fittest. If I am a rich business owner, and I see a dying person who "takes my money" (through welfare, medicare, ect) I would be better off without him. I could let him die right in front of me. Technically, this is better for me, this is helping the fit survive.

From my perspective, it is a fundamental flaw to have all your 'sins' cleansed by a priest, instead of trying to make restitutions. If you stole something from someone, you give it back, you don't plead for forgiveness. Anyway, as an atheist, and the fact that this is tangential to the topic, I'll leave it.

Understood. However, it is stated differently in Christianity. I mean the ideal "Christian" thing to do would be give it back and plead for forgiveness.

You must remember, that when you ask the question 'how do we know it's right', you imply objectivity to a topic where so much subjectivity in its discourse exists. The best way to approach morality IMO is to have a foundation then be realistic. For example, the non-aggression principal is a great foundation. Don't you agree, that if you initiate force on someone, you are morally wrong? In almost all facets of life, this holds true. There are some flaws to it however, the one example that criticises the principal: If someone said that 1 million people would die, unless you kill this person, is it morally right to kill that person? The NAP says no, but if you be realistic about it, it seems morally ok.

Again, you have your beliefs, I have mine.

It needs to be said, that some actions are morally objective. Stealing a child and raping it repeatedly for fun is objective morally wrong. You cannot provide any justification for it to be morally neutral, or right. Morals are a lot like beauty. Everyone has a sense of what is beautiful, as do they to what is moral. There is rarely any objectivity in beauty, and it's hard to rationalize and give reasons why this is beautiful and that isn't. People just have an innate sense of what is beautiful, and some have that sense heightened. The same could be said for morals. Asking the question 'how do we know if we are right' implies objectivity in morality. You will never ever get anywhere if you ask that question first, and don't apply what people postulate it's insane to progress in the field of morals.

What you call an "innate sense" I call a God-Given intuity. TBH, it's hard for me to argue this point. Even if we are given an innate sense however, without an authority why does it matter? Basically, your saying that basically everyone feels like murdering someone is wrong, so it is. Even if it is hardwired into humans, all that means is that it is hardwired into humans, who gave authority that whatever is hardwired into us must be true?

 

[malakadang]

To be honest, I am not familiar with these rights. I will research tomorrow. I'm assuming the concept of self is just, basically, the understanding that you are alive.

It's the understanding that you own yourself; self-ownership.

I'm not sure how property rights are derived from this. I understand how property rights ---> right to live.

How property rights are derived from self-ownership? The fact that you own yourself is evidence that you have a right to property, namely, yourself.

I believe these are interpretations that we have been taught, if we were taught the exact opposite, we would be advocating differently.

You can be taught something, that doesn't mean it's right, and that doesn't mean it's wrong. You need to evaluate for yourself and look at the evidence to determine the answer.

Think of how some people are raised. There are areas in Africa that abide by a completely different set of morals then we do here. It is their interpretation of how things should be.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. The fact is, whether or not people accept, or agree with a postulate does not make it wrong. There needs to be reason for non acceptance, or acceptance.

Technically, it would be an evolutionary advantage to execute all people who hold back the human race (incapable of supporting/futhering, people who only take without giving, ect). However, we do not do this.

What's your point. You asked about rationality, and I said that humans developed rationality over time as it would've been advantageous for our species in an evolutionary sense. We made no conscious choice to suddenly become rational. What you are implying is a conscious choice. You're comparing apples and oranges.

Well, if what I'm understanding, is that all threatening and execution of the threating is wrong. No, I do not believe this. If someone had a gun to my wifes head, I would probably kill them. I'm sure I misunderstood the principle however.

Self-defense is fine, the initiation of force is not.

Understood, also, keep in mind that I do believe in natural rights, from a Christian perspective however.

K.

And yes, there are advantages that we see to having two arms, driving is easier for one. However, who is to say that driving is easier is the way to go.

What are you talking about? If you don't want two arms, go cut one of yours off, no one is stopping you. What's up with this 'the way to go'?

Now, we can argue these two points until the cows come home. I have my beliefs, you have yours.

Your beliefs stem from religion and faith as an epistemology, mine stem from logic and reason as an epistemology. I don't want to go off topic and pursue the validity of your beliefs, suffice to say, you believe that a being in a book gave us everything, I do not.

Taking someones right to live may be a poor way to act in society; however, I do not believe that, without a moral judgement, it can be considered wrong. Basically, if I was not a Christian, I do not believe life has a purpose (nor can you say it has one). If it does not matter if you die, then why is it morally wrong for me to kill you? You say right to live, I believe otherwise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I'm_entitled_to_my_opinion

Basically, the Darwinian princple is that we are just the most advanced animal. Therefore, we still abide by survival of the fittest. If I am a rich business owner, and I see a dying person who "takes my money" (through welfare, medicare, ect) I would be better off without him. I could let him die right in front of me. Technically, this is better for me, this is helping the fit survive.

No, that's incorrect. From wikiepdia: Darwin meant it as a metaphor for "better adapted for immediate, local environment", not the common inference of "in the best physical shape"

Understood. However, it is stated differently in Christianity. I mean the ideal "Christian" thing to do would be give it back and plead for forgiveness.

What is the reward for forgiveness? Do they go to heaven if they atone for their sins? What of those who sin but do not atone?

Again, you have your beliefs, I have mine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I'm_entitled_to_my_opinion

What you call an "innate sense" I call a God-Given intuity. TBH, it's hard for me to argue this point. Even if we are given an innate sense however, without an authority why does it matter?

You would have to show that your God exists for it to be called 'God-Given' intuity. What do you mean without an authority why does it matter?

Basically, your saying that basically everyone feels like murdering someone is wrong, so it is.

No, murder is wrong because it violates the non-aggression principle. The fact that we show disdain to murderers, and deplore it confirms the validity of the application of the principle.

Even if it is hardwired into humans, all that means is that it is hardwired into humans, who gave authority that whatever is hardwired into us must be true?

Again, you imply objective morality.

 

[Egu]

Wow! I never expected answers like this. Definitely had a good read.


Here's another opinion of mine, that may or may not make sense.

Human beings are nothing but another species born on this planet. Whether we choose to admit it or not, we were initially brought into the world with little-to-no knowledge. We had to rely on our natural human instinct to survive. We brought out the animal inside of us. We killed, and did naturally whatever it possibly took to survive. Does it make it wrong because we as a species evolved over time? It doesn't make it wrong for an animal. Animals meaninglessly bicker and brawl among themselves. Often times, one will get hurt and die. Do they go to prison? Do they mourn? No. They continue living like it was nothing. They have no sense of morality or self control.

It's like the saying: "We are dying to live, and born to die". When you look passed all other details, our initial purpose is to live and die. How you choose to live is completely based upon yourself. There is nothing physically binding you from doing so. But, no matter, you WILL die.

 

[malakadang]

Wow! I never expected answers like this. Definitely had a good read.


Here's another opinion of mine, that may or may not make sense.

Human beings are nothing but another species born on this planet.

Agreed.

Whether we choose to admit it or not, we were initially brought into the world with little-to-no knowledge.

I'd be careful here, we weren't so much brought into the world, rather, we evolved over time and from that, acquired knowledge very slowly increasing at an exponential rate.

We had to rely on our natural human instinct to survive. We brought out the animal inside of us.

Yes, however we did reach 'behaviour modernity' approximately 50,000-60,000 years ago. To be fair, humans are still animals, we just act less like animals now due to our rationality.

We killed, and did naturally whatever it possibly took to survive. Does it make it wrong because we as a species evolved over time? It doesn't make it wrong for an animal. Animals meaninglessly bicker and brawl among themselves. Often times, one will get hurt and die. Do they go to prison? Do they mourn? No. They continue living like it was nothing. They have no sense of morality or self control.

At the time, we didn't know any better. All animals I believe are hard wired to want to survive. Morals are rather interesting, they are quite literally like an invisible barrier that stops us from doing 'bad things'. The thing is, we will break them when we are in need. Take this event for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruguayan_Air_Force_Flight_571 I'm sure many people would regard devouring another dead human being to be immoral (I disagree, but it would certainly make me cringe to contemplate such an act). These people did so anyway in order to survive.

It's like the saying: "We are dying to live, and born to die". When you look passed all other details, our initial purpose is to live and die. How you choose to live is completely based upon yourself. There is nothing physically binding you from doing so. But, no matter, you WILL die.

Well, ever organism dies eventually, and it's true, nothing physically stops anyone from doing anything. It's our mind, and 'sense of morality' that do. Survival has been embedded into animals for millions of years. Morality, I'd wager is only a human phenomenon (I'm sure however you could find some animals exhibiting it). When push comes to shove, when it comes down to survival or being moral, people will survive do all they can to survive.

 

[Jimmy]

Just read the beginning of the Declaration of Independance (My argument that we were founded on the prinicpals and inalienable rights of "some" creator) I will assume they are meaning the Christian God. If you object say so.

Thomas Jefferson was a deist who, though he thought highly of the historical person of Jesus of Nazareth, rejected the supernatural claims surrounding him, believing them to be later additions by scribes who fundamentally misunderstood his message.

If it does not matter if you die, then why is it morally wrong for me to kill you?

I certainly care if I die, so your premise is flawed. One's disbelief in an afterlife is all the more reason to cherish the life that they currently live.

 

[mexistaniX]

I would like to say that the "human touch" is what makes us human.

Morality is relative, but there still remains a constant of morality. This means that we became human because our survival was easier, therefore we became courteous, etc, which is necessary to progress.