What is Morality? Is it Real?

Forums: Morality, Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

How do you explain the existence of morality? Does it proceed from recognizing truths about the world?

If so, then what truths are we talking about? Is it that we perceive moral principles (objectively) or do we simply recognize what things are beneficial to us?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 3,583 • Replies: 51

[+3] - layman - 11/26/2015Tuna, as I'm sure you know, a lot of great thinkers have argued for and against the concept of "natural law" (as opposed to positive law) which can be, and has been, argued by replacing...
[+3] - layman - 11/30/2015[quote]My view is that whatever "moral" system one adheres to ultimately depends upon what one "values." What is valuable, what is important?[/quote] [quote]But doesn't that...
[+3] - neologist - 12/01/2015There are many in this world, a majority, I think, whose inner voice teaches them to eschew murder, theft, and rape. They live their lives more or less according to the "golden rule"....
[+3] - neologist - 12/02/2015So how does that fit in with the rights of others? Would that be "enliightened hedonism"?
[+3] - layman - 12/02/2015[quote]So how does that fit in with the rights of others? Would that be "enliightened hedonism"? [/quote] Well, Neo, I think the idea is that if ya end up doin somebody wrong, then...

@Tuna,

Quote:

How do you explain the existence of morality?

A system by and for the humanoid to protect him from other humanoids

Quote:

Does it proceed from recognizing truths about the world?

No, Tuna, no

Quote:

Is it that we perceive moral principles (objectively)

Good gosh no

Quote:

or do we simply recognize what things are beneficial to us?

Each Moral System supposes so. Take IS for instance, who feel it's okay with God to kill somebody of a different religion

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

But moral nihilism? Surely it really is wrong to kill people just because they have a different outlook?

1 Reply

@Tuna,

Quote:

Surely it really is wrong to kill people just because they have a different outlook?

I wasn't defending the practice, Tuna

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=moral+nihilism+definition

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

No, I didn't think you were.

I don't quite understand this. How can there be a philosophy forum that doesn't have a discussion of moral nihilism going on? I'll try again.

1 Reply

@Tuna,

maybe one of the threads with the nihilism tag will have a discussion that suits your interest/s

http://able2know.org/forum/nihilism/

or morality

http://able2know.org/forum/morality/

(there are other tags that might help you in your search)

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

Is the point you're making to me that I shouldn't expect any discussion of the topic beyond the threads that have already been made?

Or that I should respond to a thread that was made a year ago?

It's ok, ehBeth. We're both on each other's ****-list. You're on mine, anyway. So thanks, anyway.

1 Reply

@Tuna,

Tuna, as I'm sure you know, a lot of great thinkers have argued for and against the concept of "natural law" (as opposed to positive law) which can be, and has been, argued by replacing the word "law" with morality

Nietzsche's thought, particularly as expressed in his book "The Genealogy of Morals," has some analysis of the "basis" for morality in it that is (or was) somewhat unique. And, of course, virtually every conceivable basis for morality from deontology to utilitarianism to egoism to divine ordination to cultural relativism to "might makes right," ad nauseum have been suggested.

I know you're not looking for a history course here. Can we start with your views on the topic, if you have any?

Or, if you prefer, let me ask you this. The authors of our declaration of independence (Jefferson, mainly) refers to our "inherent and inalienable rights." Do such things exist, ya figure? Jefferson had them as having been bestowed upon men by their "Creator." I know you claim to be an atheist, so I'm guessing you wouldn't accept that as a source, if you accept the concept at all.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

The authors of our declaration of independence (Jefferson, mainly) refers to our "inherent and inalienable rights." Do such things exist, ya figure? Jefferson had them as having been bestowed upon men by their "Creator." I know you claim to be an atheist, so I'm guessing you wouldn't accept that as a source, if you accept the concept at all.

I do affirm the existence of human rights. I admit to being unsure what I mean by that beyond an expression of what I feel.

1 Reply

@Tuna,

I was suggesting some tags that might have discussions that would interest you. I didn't look at the discussions themselves.

I apologize if the suggestion was offensive in some way.

0 Replies

@Tuna,

My view is that whatever "moral" system one adheres to ultimately depends upon what one "values." What is valuable, what is important?

As an example and illustration (only) of what I mean: Some people tend to be vary collectivist in their thinking and values, while some tend to be very individualistic. There are all shades along the continuum of course.

But people may judge particular acts or policies to be right or wrong, good or bad, wise or unwise, etc., depending on where they lie on this continuum, and hence may come away with virtually opposite conclusions.

Now, if you want to go deeper and ask why they value what they value, that's a whole other question.

Quote:

“Courage is the first of human qualities because it is the quality which guarantees all others.” (Winston Churchill)

Quote:

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety, and will lose both." (Ben Franklin)

1 Reply

@Tuna,

It's all relative, Tuna. If Porky (friendly fella with intelligence presently equalling 3-yr-old humanoid) were in charge he'd have you living in muddy pen, then after fattening, uphang you by your hind limba and slit your throat so you bleed to death before cutting you up and consuming you with gusto

As I recall is was the Christians who began using Porky it this way

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

My view is that whatever "moral" system one adheres to ultimately depends upon what one "values." What is valuable, what is important?

But doesn't that have to deriving an ought from an is?

2 Replies

@Tuna,

Just to clarify: Do you equate moral relativism with moral nihilism?

1 Reply

@Tuna,

Quote:

My view is that whatever "moral" system one adheres to ultimately depends upon what one "values." What is valuable, what is important?

Quote:

But doesn't that have to deriving an ought from an is?

I don't know. Maybe. How do you mean? In what sense is it deriving an ought from an is?

1 Reply

@FBM,

Quote:

Just to clarify: Do you equate moral relativism with moral nihilism?

In the final analysis, yes. Relativism says the truth of an ought statement depends on point of view.

Moral realism says an ought statement can be true even if people or whole societies fail to recognize that truth.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

I don't know. Maybe. How do you mean? In what sense is it deriving an ought from an is?

I tend to lean in the direction you described. I was going to say a statement of value is an "is statement." But I'm not sure that's true.

A pretty fair expression of moral realism:

0 Replies

@Tuna,

Tuna wrote:

Quote:
Just to clarify: Do you equate moral relativism with moral nihilism?

In the final analysis, yes. Relativism says the truth of an ought statement depends on point of view.

But nihilism says that nothing in intrinsically good or bad, right or wrong. That's not quite the same as moral relativity, in which things are good, bad, right or wrong relative to a conventional standard. Those aren't quite the same positions, and it seems to me that they would have different consequences. Or what am I missing?

Quote:

Moral realism says an ought statement can be true even if people or whole societies fail to recognize that truth.

Yes, and that sends us off on a search for an ultimate, objective moral imperative or standard. I haven't been able to find one. I've only been able to find conventional ones. Do you know of an objective one?

2 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

But nihilism says that nothing in intrinsically good or bad, right or wrong. That's not quite the same as moral relativity, in which things are good, bad, right or wrong relative to a conventional standard. Those aren't quite the same positions, and it seems to me that they would have different consequences. Or what am I missing?

I said "in the final analysis." What difference in behavior do you think we'd see between a relativist and a nihilist?

1 Reply

@FBM,

Quote:

Yes, and that sends us off on a search for an ultimate, objective moral imperative or standard. I haven't been able to find one. I've only been able to find conventional ones. Do you know of an objective one?

Whatever the outcome of that search may be, don't you still feel that "It's wrong to commit murder" is true for everyone?

2 Replies

What is Morality? Is it Real?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know