Morality - Your Opinion!

[Egu]

Hey, everyone!

The question is very simple, yet so complicated to answer because there is no right or wrong answer. The answer is completely based upon yourself and your personal morals. My apologies if the question has already been put out there.


Question: What makes something morally right or wrong in society?


My answer: Absolutely nothing. The world we're currently living in is a very biased and opinionated world. We were taught by our forefathers that killing one other is obscene, that speaking the lord's name is sinful, and that smoking marijuana is bad for you. We've accumulated to these signs over the years, and it eventually created what we call society, today. What if our forefathers said that killing one other is right, that there is no God, and that smoking marijuana is good for you? Then it would merely adapt into our modern day society, and we would think it was right -- all because there wasn't that third party to say it was morally wrong.



That's just my opinion on morality. I'm looking forward to reading others. Remember: IT'S YOUR OPINION!!!​

 

[malakadang]

I think that if you violate the natural rights of others, then you're probably in the moral wrong.

There aren't really many problems when applying this to pragmatic scenarios.

 

[T M]

^ Who invented natural rights? Our forefathers.

In a world with no moral standard (Bible, Qur'ran (sp?), Bill of Rights) morals are what you want them to be. This is inarguable.

Note how morals change over time, they are how people teach them.

 

[malakadang]

^ Who invented natural rights? Our forefathers.

Natural rights are universal and thus cannot be invented, only discovered. Natural rights are derived from reason through the application of logic. Positive law is what I believe the American forefathers bestowed unto the people. Positive law is man-made and thus can never be considered the same as natural law/rights.

 

[mtn dew]

Hey, everyone!

The question is very simple, yet so complicated to answer because there is no right or wrong answer. The answer is completely based upon yourself and your personal morals. My apologies if the question has already been put out there.


Question: What makes something morally right or wrong in society?


My answer: Absolutely nothing. The world we're currently living in is a very biased and opinionated world. We were taught by our forefathers that killing one other is obscene, that speaking the lord's name is sinful, and that smoking marijuana is bad for you. We've accumulated to these signs over the years, and it eventually created what we call society, today. What if our forefathers said that killing one other is right, that there is no God, and that smoking marijuana is good for you? Then it would merely adapt into our modern day society, and we would think it was right -- all because there wasn't that third party to say it was morally wrong.



That's just my opinion on morality. I'm looking forward to reading others. Remember: IT'S YOUR OPINION!!!​

You have hit the nail right on the head. That's why freedom is never free.

 

[Herman Li]

Natural rights are universal and thus cannot be invented, only discovered. Natural rights are derived from reason through the application of logic. Positive law is what I believe the American forefathers bestowed unto the people. Positive law is man-made and thus can never be considered the same as natural law/rights.

We have no 'natural' rights. We have only the rights given to us by those more powerful. Why do animals not have natural rights? Because we are more powerful than them thus we disregard any 'natural' animal rights.

All of morality is subjective.

 

[malakadang]

We have no 'natural' rights. We have only the rights given to us by those more powerful. Why do animals not have natural rights? Because we are more powerful than them thus we disregard any 'natural' animal rights.

Animals do not have natural rights because they do not have any qualities worthy of a logical argument for them to have natural rights.

Humans however do. Humans have rationality. Rationality allows human to be consciously aware of themselves. Being aware of your self means implies property rights because it's axiomatic that you therefore own yourself. Owning yourself gives you the right to life.

There are certain parts of morality that are pretty much objective (obviously there will always be people that disagree). For example, stepping on a plant is not morally wrong. A plant is a lifeform, but that does not grant it the right to life because it has no qualities worthy for said right. Stepping on a human however is morally wrong, this is because you are initiating force on them. Obviously, if it's an accident then it isn't immoral because of the lack of a 'guilty mind'.

Whether morality is ultimately objective is still up for debate. Regardless, even if there was proof that it was, due to the pragmatic nature of human nature (fail wording) there will never be unanimity.

 

[T M]

Natural rights are universal and thus cannot be invented, only discovered. Natural rights are derived from reason through the application of logic. Positive law is what I believe the American forefathers bestowed unto the people. Positive law is man-made and thus can never be considered the same as natural law/rights.

Who invented reason? Who invented logic?

 

[T M]

Animals do not have natural rights because they do not have any qualities worthy of a logical argument for them to have natural rights.

Humans however do. Humans have rationality. Rationality allows human to be consciously aware of themselves. Being aware of your self means implies property rights because it's axiomatic that you therefore own yourself. Owning yourself gives you the right to life.

There are certain parts of morality that are pretty much objective (obviously there will always be people that disagree). For example, stepping on a plant is not morally wrong. A plant is a lifeform, but that does not grant it the right to life because it has no qualities worthy for said right. Stepping on a human however is morally wrong, this is because you are initiating force on them. Obviously, if it's an accident then it isn't immoral because of the lack of a 'guilty mind'.

Whether morality is ultimately objective is still up for debate. Regardless, even if there was proof that it was, due to the pragmatic nature of human nature (fail wording) there will never be unanimity.

Who is to say that animals do not have any qualities that are worthy for them to have natural rights? If you would have been taught from the time you were 2 that animals had natural rights just like humans you would instead be arguing they do have natural rights.

It is all perspectives. Perspectives that we have been taught. Many of our "natural rights" actually come from the Bible.

Just inform me of a few reasons why, naturally, you should be allowed to live and not be killed.

 

[mexistaniX]

Really?
Animals having rights?
That's moronic if you cannot live in a Utopian society.

 

[Jimmy]

In a world with no moral standard (Bible, Qur'ran (sp?), Bill of Rights) morals are what you want them to be. This is inarguable.

In a world without morals, there are no morals. The aforementioned texts don't give people their rights, but promote the recognition and protection of them (at least to some extent).

Note how morals change over time, they are how people teach them.

That doesn't mean they don't exist objectively.

Many of our "natural rights" actually come from the Bible.

No they don't. The concept of natural rights dates to the Enlightenment; it's erroneous to point to a nomadic culture from several thousand years ago and claim that they recognized the topic.

 

[mexistaniX]

First of all, it is illogical in itself to ask why animals do not have rights.
I am religious, but let's think from an evolutionary/scientific mindset.
Animals form their own groups, and they are intrinsically moral towards each other. They do not help other animals out out of free will. Ants do not courteously open the door to bees, unless there is a mutual benefit for a more efficient survival. Evolution would not be the way it is if it wasn't for survival.

Looking at chimps, they show intrinsic morality in the way that they will give a human a block if the human drops and points at it for five seconds. That's great and all, but it proves nothing that they can

However, their brains cannot develop the cognitive complexity that we have to open doors for others.
So don't compare humans to animals.

And as for general morals, think of it that morals are in the form of rules which act as a stabilizer, therefore regulating the philosophical entropy in society.

 

I think the right thing is the choice which makes most people content with your choice. Majority happiness in whatever place you're in. Which varies depending on the society/culture..

 

[malakadang]

Who is to say that animals do not have any qualities that are worthy for them to have natural rights?

Is there any logical reason that they should?

If you would have been taught from the time you were 2 that animals had natural rights just like humans you would instead be arguing they do have natural rights.

Possibly, but what logical reason is there for having natural rights? Saying animals have natural rights without justification is an arbitrary statement.

It is all perspectives. Perspectives that we have been taught. Many of our "natural rights" actually come from the Bible.

It doesn't matter where they come from, if they have been logically argued then they should held to be true. Failing that, they are pretty axiomatic themselves.

Just inform me of a few reasons why, naturally, you should be allowed to live and not be killed.

Because you have the right to life as a resultant of your right to property which means you axiomatically own yourself. Denying this fundamental right means that law aside, that mass-murderers aren't that bad.

In order for you to show that animals have natural rights, you must present qualities worthy for them to have natural rights, and argue that these qualities must grant them natural rights.

 

I'd say peoples respect for others forms their basic morals. They are also influenced alot by the media though.

 

[T M]

No they don't. The concept of natural rights dates to the Enlightenment; it's erroneous to point to a nomadic culture from several thousand years ago and claim that they recognized the topic.

I'm sorry, I meant more, American morals. Since we, as a Country, were founded on Biblical principals.

 

[T M]

Is there any logical reason that they should?

Well, I'm not arguing that they should I'm actually arguing that they do not and we do not.

Possibly, but what logical reason is there for having natural rights? Saying animals have natural rights without justification is an arbitrary statement.

Sorry, I'm merely stating that it is interpretation. I do not believe animals have natural rights. Also, if animals do not have natural rights, then we as humans do not either (without a morality standard). We are evolved from monkeys. At which point did we gain natural rights and monkeys lose them?

It doesn't matter where they come from, if they have been logically argued then they should held to be true. Failing that, they are pretty axiomatic themselves.

Well, I mean we can logically argue that society works better when murder is illegal; however, who is to say it is immoral to murder someone? Who is to say morality is doing what makes society work better? What if morality was actually people suffering? We do not know.

Because you have the right to life as a resultant of your right to property which means you axiomatically own yourself. Denying this fundamental right means that law aside, that mass-murderers aren't that bad.

Well, I do not believe (without a moral stick) that we have the right to property. And yes, I would argue, without a Judge, mass-murderers are not bad. Who is to say what they are doing is immoral? Again, it affects society, it affects other people, it ruins their lives; however, at what point did this become wrong? Natural selection right?

In order for you to show that animals have natural rights, you must present qualities worthy for them to have natural rights, and argue that these qualities must grant them natural rights.

Sorry, I mispoke (typed ^.^) I do not believe there are natural anything.

Well, technically I do, because I am a Christian. Because of this, my viewpoint is probably skewed, because this is not something I have to deal with. I have my morality stick.

 

[malakadang]

Well, I'm not arguing that they should I'm actually arguing that they do not and we do not.

Do you agree that humans have rationality?

Sorry, I'm merely stating that it is interpretation. I do not believe animals have natural rights. Also, if animals do not have natural rights, then we as humans do not either (without a morality standard). We are evolved from monkeys. At which point did we gain natural rights and monkeys lose them?

Monkeys never had natural rights because they did not possess rationality. Humans however do possess rationality.

Well, I mean we can logically argue that society works better when murder is illegal; however, who is to say it is immoral to murder someone? Who is to say morality is doing what makes society work better? What if morality was actually people suffering? We do not know.

It is immoral to murder someone because you violate the non-aggression principal (I can guess what you want to say, I'll get to it in future posts).

Well, I do not believe (without a moral stick) that we have the right to property.

So you wouldn't mind it if I chopped off your arm? I'm sorry, it's not your arm, so you should have no worry?

And yes, I would argue, without a Judge, mass-murderers are not bad.

You believe judges regulate morality?

Who is to say what they are doing is immoral?

Well, you could try evaluate morality with logic. Unfortunately in order to apply logic one must be rational (this is why animals don't have natural rights but only humans do).

Again, it affects society, it affects other people, it ruins their lives; however, at what point did this become wrong? Natural selection right?

At what point did impinging on the rights of others become wrong? I'm sorry, you said that others didn't have (natural) rights. I'll just argue this point (I've said it above), do you agree that humans have rationality?

Sorry, I mispoke (typed ^.^) I do not believe there are natural anything.

Natural food?

Well, technically I do, because I am a Christian. Because of this, my viewpoint is probably skewed, because this is not something I have to deal with. I have my morality stick.

I really enjoy this quote: "When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized that the Lord does not work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me." I don't really want to debate morality that is derived from religion as it'll probably get off-topic. If you'd like to, however, then sure.

 

[T M]

Do you agree that humans have rationality?

Yes. Humans are able to rationalize.

Monkeys never had natural rights because they did not possess rationality. Humans however do possess rationality.

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?

It is immoral to murder someone because you violate the non-aggression principal (I can guess what you want to say, I'll get to it in future posts).

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

So you wouldn't mind it if I chopped off your arm? I'm sorry, it's not your arm, so you should have no worry?

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?

You believe judges regulate morality?

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

Well, you could try evaluate morality with logic. Unfortunately in order to apply logic one must be rational (this is why animals don't have natural rights but only humans do). At what point did impinging on the rights of others become wrong? I'm sorry, you said that others didn't have (natural) rights. I'll just argue this point (I've said it above), do you agree that humans have rationality?

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

Natural food?

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

I really enjoy this quote: "When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized that the Lord does not work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me." I don't really want to debate morality that is derived from religion as it'll probably get off-topic. If you'd like to, however, then sure.

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.

 

[Jimmy]

I'm sorry, I meant more, American morals. Since we, as a Country, were founded on Biblical principals.

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.