How Do You Define Morality?

[Flint]

According to the Muslims, it's all written down in this one book, and you can kill people that disagree with you.

According to the Christians, it's all written down in this one book, and you can kill people that disagree with you.

[orthodoc]

Originally Posted by Flint

According to the Muslims, it's all written down in this one book, and you can kill people that disagree with you.

According to the Christians, it's all written down in this one book, and you can kill people that disagree with you.

Since you're neither Muslim nor Christian (safe to assume, since you've got both groups wrong), you are in no position to categorically state what they believe and on what they base those beliefs.

[Griff]

The Golden Rule

[9th Engineer]

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

And in your infinite wisdom you are capable of actually knowing what those are?

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by DanaC

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

That line sums up my basic philosphy of life and underpins my moral code.

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

And in your infinite wisdom you are capable of actually knowing what those are?

What if each individual were honorable enough to judge his own possessions and needs, and deposit or withdrawl fairly?

I agree that morals change, and the golden rule is a good guide.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by orthodoc

Since you're neither Muslim nor Christian (safe to assume, since you've got both groups wrong), you are in no position to categorically state what they believe and on what they base those beliefs.

Not only do I reject the premise that I am incapable of having knowledge of clubs of which I am not explicitly a member, I submit that you haven't provided a substantiation for that premise; IE, by what mechanism is this knowledge restricted from entering my brain, and, were I to declare "I am a _______" by what mechanism would the information then be allowed? Your casual "you are in no position" claim will not be accepted at face value.

Justify your statement:

[orthodoc]

Originally Posted by Flint

Not only do I reject the premise that I am incapable of having knowledge of clubs of which I am not explicitly a member, I submit that you haven't provided a substantiation for that premise; IE, by what mechanism is this knowledge restricted from entering my brain, and, were I to declare "I am a _______" by what mechanism would the information then be allowed? Your casual "you are in no position" claim will not be accepted at face value.

Justify your statement:

I didn't say you're incapable of having knowledge; I said you're in 'no position' to categorically state what they believe, i.e. no position of authority or integrity to speak for either group. Your lack of authority is self-evident. Your lack of integrity is reflected in the fact that you haven't informed yourself about either religion to the point where you can provide a short, 'public' summary of either faith's beliefs accurately. Either that, or your words are simply meant as an insult to both groups.

[Cloud]

I try pretty hard not to.

[DanaC]

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

That line sums up my basic philosphy of life and underpins my moral code.

[skysidhe]

Originally Posted by DanaC

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

That line sums up my basic philosphy of life and underpins my moral code.

Originally Posted by Griff

The Golden Rule

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

And in your infinite wisdom you are capable of actually knowing what those are?

Originally Posted by Pie

"Mirror neurons" (aka empathy) are what allow us to "know" what someone else wants/needs. If you can't make an educated guess at what is going on in someone else's head, you're probably autistic or have some other such disorder.

Originally Posted by Griff

Is it because DanaC's philosophy crosses the line from personal to active imposition of her beliefs on others?

[wolf]

Originally Posted by DanaC

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

That line sums up my basic philosphy of life and underpins my moral code.

I knew you were a commie.

That's doomed to failure, of course, because of the inevitable human confusion between "needs" and "wants."

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by wolf

I knew you were a commie.

That's doomed to failure, of course, because of the inevitable

conservative

Originally Posted by wolf

human confusion between "needs" and "wants."

[orthodoc]

Originally Posted by DanaC

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

That line sums up my basic philosphy of life and underpins my moral code.

I can understand some people reacting strongly on reading this, either from emotional reaction or from frustration (or both). Those with family who survived (and didn't survive) the horrors of communism in Russia, which began with the philosophy stated above, will react as strongly as WWII holocaust survivors would to a statement of Nazi belief. (NB I am not directly comparing communism with Nazism here, just comparing survivor reaction.) Their families have lived that social construct and suffered under it.

The trouble is that someone does have to decide what each person shall contribute, and what each person shall 'need'. That's absolute power, something we've been trying to liberate ourselves from (as a system of government) for quite a while.

[piercehawkeye45]

I agree with the majority that morals are completely subjective. There is an illusion because our base morals come from society so there will be common morals between a group of people giving an illusion that it is universal and there will be a few morals that won't show up (killing all your offspring for example) since the society that makes that practice moral will die out in a few decades, making it seem like a universal immoral. I believe we shouldn't look for "universal morals" but the morality that helps our society and the world the best in whatever goal we pursue.

If you live in a society that is very production based, then worker rights will not seem like a big issue but if you live in a society that is more socialistic, worker rights will become a big moral issue. One is not more "barbaric" or "advanced" than the other, but just pursuing different goals.

I personally try to do what is best for the greatest number of people or society in general and with personal decisions I'll weigh that against my own personal want/freedom and make a decision.

And in your infinite wisdom you are capable of actually knowing what those are?

Whats the point of saying this anyways? Besides trying to be an asshole? In terms of morality, no one knows what is best for the other person and have to make assumptions.

[orthodoc]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

I believe we shouldn't look for "universal morals" but the morality that helps our society and the world the best in whatever goal we pursue.

But how can you define 'best' unless you refer to some objective concept that places choices on a continuum?

One is not more "barbaric" or "advanced" than the other, but just pursuing different goals.

Do you truly believe that there is no possibility of one morality being better than another, or that no concept of 'good' or 'better than' exists? So that Nazi morality, for example, was just a choice, like choosing to dye your hair blond or red, and there was no right or wrong involved?

I personally try to do what is best for the greatest number of people or society in general and with personal decisions I'll weigh that against my own personal want/freedom and make a decision.

What would be the drive to do what is 'best', even if you could define it, for others? Won't they all be pursuing their individual 'bests'? If their 'best' means killing your children and eating them, is that just a choice, or does it have moral value?

I'm still master of the uneducated multi-quote post. Can someone please help?