Tweet
My guess is that societies made up rules to keep people in line, such as 'don't steal' and 'don't kill.' At this time religion and state were one, so I think eventually these laws became viewed as morals.
-
"The first man who, having fenced off a plot of land, thought of saying, 'This is mine' and found people simple enough to believe him was the real founder of civil society. How many crimes, wars, murders, how many miseries and horrors might the human race had been spared by the one who, upon pulling up the stakes or filling in the ditch, had shouted to his fellow men: 'Beware of listening to this imposter; you are lost if you forget the fruits of the earth belong to all and that the earth belongs to no one." - Jean-Jacques Rousseau -
yeah, but why did societies pick those rules? -
because societies must have these rules to remain a society.Originally posted by Japher
yeah, but why did societies pick those rules?
rules are necessary to maintain a large society.
In one of my magazines (discover I believe it was) they were talking about how the social structure of primates is more complex than we believe. And perhaps they do actually have a culture. But they note, primates could never form a society of the size of New York city. Even if they did have sufficient food.
To maintain over 10 million people in such a small area requires rules. And morals are a way to get people to follow those rules.
I'd say they emerged from the time people stopped hunting/gathering and moved into an agricultural society.Comment
-
Why did they pick THOSE rules? Is that what you mean? The rulers picked THOSE rules, because THOSE rules helped them rule.Originally posted by Japher
yeah, but why did societies pick those rules?I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
-
So rules come from morals, not the other way around (morals come from rules) as John suggested in the first post.And morals are a way to get people to follow those rules.
Yes, but why? You're the communist.THOSE rules helped them rule.
A rule "do not steal" requires that we believe in a) possession and b) order... is that what you are saying?
If rules are derived from morals, what morals are telling us that stealing is wrong? Are we saying don't share? This is mine?Comment
-
Maybe it all stems from the first group of cave men that realized that if they hunted together they could take down a larger animal.
This meant all of a sudden you wanted happy co-hunters - killing them, their kin, or raping their women could be detrimental to the group.Comment
-
so morals are derived from survival instincts?killing them, their kin, or raping their women could be detrimental to the group.
what about taking more than your share of the kill?Comment
-
I think a ruler can make a rule and it can become a moral.Originally posted by Japher
So rules come from morals, not the other way around (morals come from rules) as John suggested in the first post.
Because they exert the power of authority. They make the rulers subjects behave in the desired way.Yes, but why? You're the communist.
I would change the word 'requires' with enforces.A rule "do not steal" requires that we believe in a) possession and b) order... is that what you are saying?
Stealing is wrong is the moral. Don't steal is the rule. They are really one in the same though. If you have a rule though, there is legal consequences.If rules are derived from morals, what morals are telling us that stealing is wrong?I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
-
That became ok, as long as you had the power to do so. Those who had the power made it morally ok.Originally posted by Japher
what about taking more than your share of the kill?I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
-
So, Kid, you think it can be either way.
Law --> Moral
Moral --> Law
?
I guess what I am asking is why is stealing morally wrong?Stealing is wrong is the moral. Don't steal is the rule.
If the rule comes first than "Law --> Moral" works
However, if it is "Moral --> Law" than something is missing. Something that defined the moral in the first place.Comment
-
Reality?BlahComment
-
Nietzsche, "Human, All Too Human"The fable of intelligible freedom.— The principal stages in the history of the sensations by virtue of which we make anyone accountable for his actions, that is to say, of the moral sensations, are as follows. First of all, one calls individual actions good or bad quite irrespective of their motives but solely on account of their useful or harmful consequences. Soon, however, one forgets the origin of these designations and believes that the quality "good" and "evil" is inherent in the actions themselves, irrespective of their consequences: thus committing the same error as that by which language designates the stone itself as hard, the tree itself as green—that is to say, by taking for cause that which is effect. Then one consigns the being good or being evil to the motives and regards the deeds in themselves as morally ambiguous. One goes further and accords the predicate good or evil no longer to the individual motive but to the whole nature of a man out of whom the motive grows as the plant does from the soil. Thus one successively makes men accountable for the effects they produce, then for their actions, then for their motives, and finally for their nature. Now one finally discovers that this nature, too, cannot be accountable, in as much as it is altogether a necessary consequence and assembled from the elements and influences of things past and present: that is to say, that man can be made accountable for nothing, not for his nature, nor for his motives, nor for his actions, nor for the effect he produces. One has thereby attained to the knowledge that the history of the moral sensations if the history of an error, the error of accountability, which rests on the error of freedom of will.I watched you fall. I think I pushed.Comment
-
Stealing is morally wrong because rulers have desired it to be so. They created rules against it to defend what they claimed to be theirs.Originally posted by Japher
I guess what I am asking is why is stealing morally wrong?
If the rule comes first than "Law --> Moral" works
However, if it is "Moral --> Law" than something is missing. Something that defined the moral in the first place.
Morals have the same effect as laws. There are consequences for immorality. If the ruler is satisfied with something being immoral but not law, it's likely to just remain immoral. Whatever satisfies the ruler is the way it is. Of course there are limits to rulers power. That's where things get more complicated.I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
-
So morals come from the greed of a ruler?
What if that ruler liked to kill? Would that be morally acceptable?Comment
-
Yes, but only to the extent that it benefited the ruler.Originally posted by Japher
So morals come from the greed of a ruler?
What if that ruler liked to kill? Would that be morally acceptable?I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
Comment