General morals.

[saltinespike]

There are no such thing as "morals in general", because morals are confined to each individual. There may be common morals that people share, but not everyone has the same morals.

Anyways, seeing as this is the case, what is the best way to use morals for something (laws, for example) effectively. Majority of the population's decision? Wrong, according to some. Some say that morals do not depend upon the majority. If the majority of the population agreed that murder was right, would it be right.

I believe the answer to that question is, yes, though that is a hyperbole and would never happen, which is why I'm not concerned.

How do we decide somewhat-general morals?

[Yarn]

Some people believe that there is such thing as absolute morality, and hold that as axiom. How are you going to convince them that morals are subjectively derived, that thou ought not do this and thou ought do this, is as engrained in the Universe as E=MCsq?

Now it being taken as truth, that morals, those things which one uses to define somethings as either right or wrong or neither-that they are just things of our imagination (as I personally believe)...how can we answer the question of what is the moral way to decide which subjectively fashioned morals should be considered true in the sight of the law, or in the sight of whatever they might be required for?

There is no way to empirically prove any answer to that question right or wrong, under an assumption absolute morality does not exist.

[Technosoul]

If the population was told that it is right to murder thousands of people in Iraq, out of fear, then the majority of the populaton might beleive it is the right thing to do and even view supporting such a war as a moral obligation to country and God.

In the deep Amazon jungle folks might run around totally naked and even have sex in their small huts with no private bedrooms for the kids. By our standards here in the USA that is not moral, even unlawful perhaps.

Now sex and violence are the main two activities that we adopt morality standards for. And whatever might be relative to those two activities.

Next in line for morality standards would involve money, wealth and poverty. Stealing or being corupt, etc. Which somewhat is linked to the morality about the ranking systems of dominance.

Sex, violence, power, and materialism. Then drawing lines of what is acceptable and what is not in each classification of behaviorism.

Basically sex, violence, and materialism are all factors for gaining the power to control other people or to gain "respect" or "resentment".

Morality is respect and non-morality is resented - but relative to how we draw the line with our perspectives from where we stand in the ranking order of the "system". As the standards for morality also become part of that system for the power to dominate the thoughts and behaviorims of others in a culture. The Boss and those who obey the boss.

Laws are to set standards so that we can maintain a life style we are used to having without it becoming irratated by outside factors. You move into an apartment complex and they do not allow people to make too much noise, no loud music, keep the TV turned down, nice and quite after 9 oclock. So no one can enjoy having lots of fun because someone else might want to sleep or read a book.

Morality controls how you can go about having fun. (in one aspect). And so they set aside a holiday (4th of July) or Friday night as the time when you can "let off steam" making racket and then the rest of the time loud noise is unlawful because people need their sleep. In some religious sects even "talking" during family meal time is "immoral" and so they must "hush up and eat what is on your plate".

Well, I am extending too many comments.

[Osborn F Enready]

In order to have common morals, individuals must be able to see the qualities they share unique to man, but universal among men.

What could be common morals without hypocrisy, exclusion or denial of nature?

Individual rights.

[Slevin57]

I don't think you can treat morals on an individual basis.

I prefer to treat morals on a societal level.

For instance, on a societal level, it is wrong to murder someone.

It is also wrong to steal.

We tend to put our morals into law. This can have good and bad consequences.

[saltinespike]

Quote by: Slevin57 I don't think you can treat morals on an individual basis. I prefer to treat morals on a societal level. For instance, on a societal level, it is wrong to murder someone. It is also wrong to steal. We tend to put our morals into law. This can have good and bad consequences.

Is it wrong to murder the theif, rapist, or murderer? Is it wrong to steal from them? How about rape them?

Sorry. Off-topic. Basically what you are saying is that morals should be for the society to decide and not an individual? Might as well kick religion out of the race, then.

[Osborn F Enready]

saltinespike said: Is it wrong to murder the theif, rapist, or murderer? Is it wrong to steal from them? How about rape them? Sorry. Off-topic. Basically what you are saying is that morals should be for the society to decide and not an individual? Might as well kick religion out of the race, then.

As well as reason......since it would become an issue of majority rule by force or dictatorship in the end.

[saltinespike]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready As well as reason......since it would become an issue of majority rule by force or dictatorship in the end.

My thoughts exactly. Communism, fascism, dictatorship. Many other types of government that that violate freedom would become popular. Excuse me if you disagree Slevin, but I am personally a huge fan of freedom.

[Zhavric]

As well as being a huge fan of freedom, I'm a huge fan of the truth.

To find the truth about morality, we have to start from a Darwinian context. Why do humans even care about morality? Why don't we just act like cats or alligators; care for our young and then avoid one another until it's time to mate?

Humans who are able to work together for the good of the group have a tremendous advantage over humans who keep to themselves. We know our super-specialized society would have never developed if everyone did their own thing.

So, we know we evolved to be moral creatures. We see similar evolution is canines, whales, elephants, some cats, and (of course) apes.

Our morality has evolved to assist in our survival. Actions which help the group are seen as good while actions which hinder the group are bad. Help and hinder can very wildly, but today group does mean society for one simple reason: Laws are created on a societal level and we tend to legislate according to our morality.

So, if everyone suddenly decided that murder was okay, then it would be okay... and we've seen hundreds of examples of this through out history... from ancient wars to the modern day death penalty. We tend to instinctively shy from murder, but we are also capable of convincing ourselves that killing can be for the good of the group.

Morals don't come from religion. Instead, religion seeks to take credit for morality. This is obvious by the fact our morality changes. Death penalties come and go. Acceptable levels of casualties in conflict change. Richard Dawkins points out in the God Delusion that Dick Chenney, when talking about the handfuls of civilial casualties in the early days of the Iraq war, would have been seen as a bleeding heart liberaly hippy peacenik by the standards of WWII where large scale civilian bombing was the norm.

We decide our morals by making collective (on a societal level) interpretations of our social instincts.

[Osborn F Enready]

Sanction, compliance and rebellion define national morals.

[tinybear]

Quote by: saltinespike There are no such thing as "morals in general", because morals are confined to each individual. There may be common morals that people share, but not everyone has the same morals. Anyways, seeing as this is the case, what is the best way to use morals for something (laws, for example) effectively. Majority of the population's decision? Wrong, according to some. Some say that morals do not depend upon the majority. If the majority of the population agreed that murder was right, would it be right. I believe the answer to that question is, yes, though that is a hyperbole and would never happen, which is why I'm not concerned. How do we decide somewhat-general morals?

Morals is what is generally accepted by the community within which it applies. So, yes, strange as it may seem, if everybody accepts murder is right, then it is right.