@maxdancona,
Where do moral values come from? they come from agreements. hence, morals relative to those in the agreement.
The society establishes the morals in which they live, and it changes from generation to generation, from religion to religion, and the politics of the country.
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
The society establishes the morals in which they live, and it changes from generation to generation, from religion to religion, and the politics of the country.
morals are the rules or agreement, that is established by those in the said agreement. could be societies and so on, but a agreement such as household rules or a marriage agreement are also morals, establish by those in the agreement.
if one is contracted (agreement) to build a bridge according to plain and contract and cheats on material quality and later the bridge falls, its plain to see that the contract is the morals or rules agreed to, and it was unethical to deceive the others in the agreement that he fulfilled or was fulfilling the agreement. not because some one might be harmed crossing that bridge but because he agreed to make good on the contract. the reason for this is that if the contract was written or plain drawn with errors the contracted builder was not immoral even though some might have died.
morals are the agreement established by the agreed, doesn't have to be a society or a religion or nation. all it takes is two or more in agreement.
@dpmartin,
Quote:that is established by those in the said agreement.
Country's controlled by tyrants do not care what the public wishes. Even in the US, the president makes deals that the population do not agree with. Look at Trump's tariffs. He created a trade war that ended up costing more for consumers. How and when did consumers agree with Trump's tariffs?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_tariffs. And,
https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/23/opinions/trump-is-taking-us-down-the-path-to-tyranny-sachs/index.html. Do you agree with Trump's actions? Finally, do you agree with Trump's morals?
@cicerone imposter,
I do believe politics is discussed in another section on this site.
besides in the US the term "tyrant" is relative to the voter's view which has nothing to do with reality. Americans really don't know tyrant like a south American or African would. true tyrants exist because its not agreed otherwise by the populous to not allow such in their lands. hence they won't risk what it takes to do so. the US constitution will not let what a tyrant is to rule. but Trump is president because enough voters agreed with him, isn't he? and that is the agreement known as the Constitution of the US isn't it?
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
The society establishes the morals in which they live, and it changes from generation to generation, from religion to religion, and the politics of the country.
That implies that moral rules are infinitely maleable without adverse consequences of adopting bad morals.
The morality of averting harm/sin is universal. If you change morality to accept and/or promote harm/sin, there is going to be harm caused.
There's no getting around objective cause and effect of choices/actions.
@livinglava,
You're equating religion to morals. Morals is secular.
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
You're equating religion to morals. Morals is secular.
That has nothing to do with my previous post.
@livinglava,
Quote:The morality of averting harm/sin is universal. If you change morality to accept and/or promote harm/sin, there is going to be harm caused.
"Sin" is a religious concept. Many tyrannical countries, past and present, have no concept of morals; they kill their own citizens at will. They do not operate on "universal" concepts of morals.
https://reason.com/2014/05/15/be-antigovernment-and-proud/ Also,
https://www.theroot.com/here-s-how-many-people-police-killed-in-2018-1831469528
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
Quote:The morality of averting harm/sin is universal. If you change morality to accept and/or promote harm/sin, there is going to be harm caused.
"Sin" is a religious concept. Many tyrannical countries, past and present, have no concept of morals; they kill their own citizens at will. They do not operate on "universal" concepts of morals.
https://reason.com/2014/05/15/be-antigovernment-and-proud/
'Sin' is just another word for harm. It is a word associated with religion, but there's no reason to launch into a debate about religion vs. secularism any time the word is used.
@livinglava,
"Harm" is a term that changes with what you are talking about, and can have moral and/or legal interpretations. Your "harm" might be my "reward." That's the reason politics is never black and white as it pertains to right and wrong. Trump has a 40% approval rating and a 55% disapproval rating. Is Trump a moral president? Ask his supporters?
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
"Harm" is a term that changes with what you are talking about, and can have moral and/or legal interpretations. Your "harm" might be my "reward." That's the reason politics is never black and white as it pertains to right and wrong. Trump has a 40% approval rating and a 55% disapproval rating. Is Trump a moral president? Ask his supporters?
Harm is objective, but different people exhibit different levels of indifference toward different kinds of harm.
I might not harm my body with tobacco or alcohol but you might. You know it's causing harm, but you are just indifferent for whatever reason.
@livinglava,
Quote:Harm is objective, but different people exhibit different levels of indifference toward different kinds of harm.
You just contradicted yourself. You said morality is universal.
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Is_morality_objective%3F. Aren't all conclusions about morality subjective? Which side of criminal punishment do you stand on? How about war criminals? Even the jury system is fraught with errors, and many innocent people have been charged with crimes they did not commit. Harm is subjective even in the case of the atomic bombing of Japan during WWII. Those are the realities of why harm is subjective.
@coldjoint,
"No" is not an adequate answer.
57% Say Yes
43% Say No
Morality is a man-made concept. Morality is a man-made concept that is defined by the society you live in; it is subjective. There is nothing called morality in nature. You cannot observe morality or test it in a laboratory. There is no absolute "morality."
Many religious fanatics have tried to prove that morality is an absolute, just like God is real. They have even developed philosophies to prove it, e.G., metaphysics, and epistemology, which use meaningless circular propositions to prove their points. They use word games to prove their points. Both assume that knowledge, morality, Good and Evil exist 'a priori'.
What does 'a priori' mean: 'a priori' knowledge, in Western philosophy since the time of Immanuel Kant, knowledge that is independent of all particular experiences, as opposed to a posteriori knowledge, which derives from experience. The Latin phrases a priori (“from what is before”) and a posteriori (“from what is after”) were used in philosophy originally to distinguish between arguments from causes and arguments from effects.
Even murdering or killing humans is not an absolute; it is societal, e.G., killing in war is OK, killing someone attacking you with deadly force where you are in fear of your life is OK. Finally, If it can't be universally applied, it's 'ethics', not 'morals'
@cicerone imposter,
How did I contradict myself?
Quote:Aren't all conclusions about morality subjective? Which side of criminal punishment do you stand on? How about war criminals?
There are complex moral questions about using violence/sin to discipline violence/sin, but harm is objective. A spanking does a certain amount of harm, as does the behavior that incurred the spanking.
Quote:Even the jury system is fraught with errors, and many innocent people have been charged with crimes they did not commit.
That doesn't change the fact that actual harm is what it is. Just because you can't figure out the truth doesn't mean there's no truth to find.
Quote:Harm is subjective even in the case of the atomic bombing of Japan during WWII. Those are the realities of why harm is subjective.
There is subjective harm, i.e. suffering. Some people suffer a lot due to violence/harm that others would consider negligible. Feelings heal, but the longer-term psychological consequences can last. It is difficult if not impossible to exactly know all the details, but there are objective facts that exist, even if they are ultimately too complex for humans to have full objective knowledge about them at the level of every specific detail.
That doesn't make harm subjective.
@livinglava,
Quote:
There are complex moral questions about using violence/sin to discipline violence/sin, but harm is objective. A spanking does a certain amount of harm, as does the behavior that incurred the spanking.
Your example is laughable at best. Spanking? How about killing innocents?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/zq7yg82 Quote:One argument supporting the case that dropping the nuclear bomb was the right thing to do, is that the immediate deaths that it caused are outweighed by lives potentially saved in the long run by the quick end of the war. An argument against using the bomb is that the deliberate killing of civilians on this scale violates the principles of just war.
From Khanacademy.org:
Quote:Was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki necessary?
Truman’s decision was framed by his belief that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would shorten the war and thereby save the lives of tens or hundreds of thousands of American soldiers as well as untold numbers of Japanese soldiers and citizens.
However, in the years following the war—and to this day—the United States’ use of nuclear bombs against the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki has had both proponents and detractors. Many questions remain about the necessity of using the bomb and its moral implications: Would the United States have acted so quickly to use nuclear weapons against Europeans? Was racism against the Japanese an element in the decision? Might the United States have exploded a nuclear bomb on an uninhabited island to demonstrate the bomb’s terrible power instead of destroying two cities? Might the United States have been able to gain Japan’s unconditional surrender by other means?
But there was no question that the development and use of the atomic bomb changed the nature of world warfare forever. Though the bombings of Japan remain the only wartime use of nuclear weapons, since 1945 the threat of nuclear war has loomed over international conflicts, promising a level of "prompt and utter destruction" never before seen in the world.
. Racism is a good possibility during that time in our country's history. The government put us Japanese Americans into concentration camps, but not German and Italian Americans. It was a time when the white majority and the media were racists. I was in the US Air Force from 1955 to 1959, and worked with nuclear weapons. I never saw another Asian in my specialty during the four years I was in the Air Force stationed at Travis AFB, Ben Guerir AFB, and Walker AFB in New Mexico (where the Enola Gay and the atomic bombing of Japan was planned). I had no objection working with nuclear weapons, because it was my responsibility in the military. We maintained, handled, and loaded them onto B47's, B36's and B52's. Today, the top military brass declared they will not follow any illegal order from Donald Trump to use nuclear weapons for the first time in our country's history. I support their decision, because enough psychiatrists have declared Donald Trump "mentally unstable." Ethics and morals are more important than following any illegal order from the president.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/12/21/mattiss-resignation-isnt-a-crisis-yet-but-it-probably-will-be-syria-afghanistan/
