Natural of Morality

Gricksigger · Post by **Gricksigger** » 2002-11-29 05:13pm

Does there exist an objective moral code?

Isn't raping and killing a newborn baby bad? Isn't giving up one's life for the sake of others good?

Do you repect firefighters and policemen, for example, for risking their lives for citizens' safety? Without an objective moral code, these people are being stupid by giving up their time, energy, etc. and risking their lives for nothing.

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2002-11-29 05:18pm

No, but there's a subjective moral code.

Is abortion, homosexuality, capital punishment right or wrong?

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2002-11-29 05:25pm

Yes, there is an objective moral code. It is moral for certain things in every culture to happen and immoral for other things, whether it is socially acceptable or not.

Subjective moral codes are inherently contradictory. If it is moral in one culture to kill black people and not in another, then what is moral?

Gricksigger · Post by **Gricksigger** » 2002-11-29 06:01pm

Crap, I meant "Nature of Morality."

Neoolong, do you believe in the existence of a higher being?

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2002-11-29 06:04pm

You will find most people here dont believe in a higher power.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2002-11-29 06:49pm

Gricksigger wrote:Crap, I meant "Nature of Morality."

Neoolong, do you believe in the existence of a higher being?

No because there is no proof. And by higher I assume you mean a deity.

And it is irrelevant to the nature of morality. Morality comes about because of a society's needs and eventually becomes an objective code based on the needs of everyone in society. It is not a construct of some deity.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2002-11-29 06:50pm

Gricksigger wrote:Does there exist an objective moral code?

Yes, it does.

Isn't raping and killing a newborn baby bad?

Yes. From a humanist point of view, the human life is what matter most. Therefore, any suppression of life is objectively wrong.

Humans are also pack animals. In our genes is the instinct to care for each other as an whole.

The Apologist · Post by **The Apologist** » 2002-11-29 06:52pm

No because there is no proof.

Can you prove that, please?

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2002-11-29 06:54pm

The Apologist wrote:
No because there is no proof.
Can you prove that, please?

There has not been any proof that there is a deity in existence. Real proof mind you. And I have looked. And you can't prove a negative dipshit.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2002-11-29 06:56pm

The Apologist wrote:
No because there is no proof.
Can you prove that, please?

Demanding proof of a negative is a logical no-no (else, prove that I don't have a fire breathing dragon in my garage).

You must concede that the believe in a higher being (God) is irrational. You can call it faith. There is no rational reason to sustain that belief.

data_link · Post by **data_link** » 2002-11-29 07:04pm

<Fundie impression>Colonel Olrik has a fire breathing dragon in his garage. I know this because Colonel Olrik says so, and his word is infallible. </Fundie impersonaion>

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2002-11-29 07:10pm

The Apologist wrote:
No because there is no proof.
Can you prove that, please?

I have seen your God anally rape a donkey in my garage. Wanna try proving that he didn't?

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2002-11-29 08:18pm

I have seen, though I wish I hadn't, RayCav anally rape God while God anally rapes a donkey. Can you disprove that?

data_link · Post by **data_link** » 2002-11-29 08:19pm

neoolong wrote:I have seen, though I wish I hadn't, RayCav anally rape God while God anally rapes a donkey. Can you disprove that?

Would this be before or after RayCav dissected said donkey?

lgot · Post by **lgot** » 2002-11-29 09:54pm

There is no objective moral code. Morals are by nature subjective. Relative to the culture they belong. They mean anything outside that space even if you find some morals be more present in other moral codes or anything.
Moral are relatives. The first rule to study as different society in the antropology is to avoid cultural judgement such as those because that will prevent the understanding of the formaiton of such society, because the moral rules are born from different sittuations and conflicts.
Now, Ethics are objectives. They are rules that will be the same . no matter when or where. There is no need for any god giving us those rules therefore.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2002-11-29 10:11pm

neoolong wrote:Yes, there is an objective moral code. It is moral for certain things in every culture to happen and immoral for other things, whether it is socially acceptable or not.

Morality is a creation of civilization. Humans were never designed to function crammed together inside of cities, but instead as hunter-gatherers in small, loose, and disparate groups. I think that morality is sort of an unwritten code of how to behave in a civilized (IE: city-building), culture, so that humans can function when they're unnaturally compressed beyond what we've been used to for most of our race's lifespan.

That's why all civilizations have broadly the same moral codes: Because roughly the same things are needed for a large group of humans to function together inside of a city, no matter what culture you're from. You can get a lot of variation within that, of course, but there are certain basics that don't change, and those are the common building blocks of morality in the whole of humanity.

So morality as we understand it is a result of civilization.

lgot · Post by **lgot** » 2002-11-29 10:20pm

You are right, morals are unwritten codes to how to behave in human society.

But you are wrong. No civilization have the same moral codes, actually we have a lot of different ones, even today and even inside the same society.
There can not be bigger example than the evolution of matrimonal status.
Inside some societies it was immoral to have more than one woman. Inside some it was immoral to cheat your legal wife. Inside some it was not. With time It was immoral to abandon your wife, but with the 20 century, the divorce turned things. In the past it was a huge stigma inside societies to be a wife from a divorce (in some places still) because it was seen as immoral. TOday it is no longer and people care little about this .
This is enough to show that it is false the premise that all societies have the same moral. We do not have.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2002-11-30 02:51am

data_link wrote:
neoolong wrote:I have seen, though I wish I hadn't, RayCav anally rape God while God anally rapes a donkey. Can you disprove that?
Would this be before or after RayCav dissected said donkey?

Gah, after. *Shudder*

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2002-11-30 02:53am

Hmm. I was under the impression that the mores of a culture are subjective. If you want to call that morals, then yes. However, I term morality differently, and probably closer to ethics then you.

Marcus · Post by **Marcus** » 2002-11-30 05:03am

Hmm... I keep wanting to say something to the effect of..

"That which tends towards the survival of the species is Moral."

Though that is a statement simply pregnant with the possibility for abuse, I cannot help but think that most of our deeply ingraned social-structure Morals come from that which was best for the society, in the long run.

Classic Examples-
Incest, usually taboo, and for some argueably good genetic reasons.
Cannibalism-again, considered a bit outre in most societies. If it IS accepted in a society, its usually either ritualistic in nature, or limitied to those outside the 'group', with in-group aggressive cannibalism being every bit as forbidden as it is in modern america.

Beyond that, of course, societies do tend to grow up their own fairly silly taboos/rules over time. usually started for at least seemingly good reasons, they have an inertia all their own. Sometimes malignant, usually harmless, and if the situation calls for it you sit down and rub blue mud in your belly button with the rest of the natives.

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2002-11-30 05:13am

Well I'm going to change that to:

'that which promotes the survival of the culture is moral'

because morality is primarily a feature of extelligence, not intelligence, and subject to the selfish meme.

Marcus · Post by **Marcus** » 2002-11-30 06:04am

True, but arent cultures ultimately vehicles for making sure more of the genes of people like us (IE, in our culture) make it into the next generation?

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2002-11-30 10:25am

Nah, culture is a side effect of intelligence, and therefore of biological evolution, not a means in itself...

Of course, if a meme has a biologically detrimental effect, it probably won't survive.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2002-11-30 12:36pm

Morality is a creation of civilization. Humans were never designed to function crammed together inside of cities, but instead as hunter-gatherers in small, loose, and disparate groups. I think that morality is sort of an unwritten code of how to behave in a civilized (IE: city-building), culture, so that humans can function when they're unnaturally compressed beyond what we've been used to for most of our race's lifespan.

Hunter/Gather groups have plenty of morays and social norms. Morality has nothing to due with living in cities. Living in cities just means we need to come up with new rules. Taboos in hunter/gather tribes abound.

lgot · Post by **lgot** » 2002-11-30 01:38pm

Of course, since moral is a trait of one society, its needed to exist to that society.
But the other way around is also correct: Morals also will help to end of group or society.
In the end because the vallue of evolution in biology, that we only keep what is needed for survival is not true in social levels. The rules that darwin set can not be used freely in the study of human societies.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Natural of Morality

Natural of Morality

Re: Natural of Morality