Where did morals come from?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
In our debate, yes. I want to debate the origin and basis of (your) morality and you keep venturing into the political realm...

I'm not verturing off anywhere. We are already in the political realm, and you are being just as politcal as anyone else. And I've already answered that question. You just haven't followed through and made any point.

[David Floyd]

For every situation there is an absolute 'right' moral.

Then you aren't a relativist. Case closed.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kidicious
It goes beyond conservatives convincing conservatives that they are conservatives. The purpose is to make people conservative. I think that's pretty obvious. I mean otherwise the content of the speeches would consist of things like "I'm a conservative because I want to cut your taxes" not things like "I want to cut your taxes because government doesn't deserve it, you do." It's not hard to presuade someone that you are politically alligned with them. You can just send something out in the mail for that. You don't need any presuasive political talk at all.

You don't get it. There are a number of basic things people conceive of as "good" - most of the time they conflict, too, and the point is to make a balance between them. What politicians do is say that they support some policy because it's consistent with one of those principles and then downplay the principles with which it is inconsistent. And to some degree, they can change society slightly. Very, very few people have done that though - most of the time it occurs do to the concerted efforts of many people.

Jesus wasn't powerless. He was very influencial. Money and position aren't the only source of power, but they are source.

Jesus had precious little secular power. Most of his power came after he died, in his words. He spread a philosophy. And he wasn't a ruler anyway. The reason I brought him up was to show how rare such people are, that do alter in any significant way the fundamental principles of a society.

[Kuciwalker]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Sandman
Bad reasoning. There are far fewer volcanoes around today than there used to be, is that the result of evolution? No, it's the result of physical processes.[/q]

Evolution is a physical process. And it is geological evolution - those geological features which continue or reproduce themselves, continue of reproduce. Volcanos don't. Precious few geological features do, in the very long run, but evolution by natural selection is true of any system, because it is a tautology.

[Berzerker]

Drach -

You just contradicted yourself. You say everyone has an absolute right to life, but then say it is ok to kill murderers. Clearly it isn't absolute if you can get it taken away.

I'll just repeat what I said to Kid,

"Every natural rights philosopher and moral absolutist understands that rights may be taken from those who violate the rights of others, that doesn't mean the right to life is not absolute. It is absolute, that's why it's moral to kill in self-defense (and in retribution) if need be... The would-be murderer is trying to violate someone else's absolute right to life."

Absolute doesn't mean a right can never be taken, it means it can never be taken from the innocent. The victim has an absolute right to life, the murderer does not have an absolute right to murder.

Kid -

I'm not verturing off anywhere. We are already in the political realm, and you are being just as politcal as anyone else. And I've already answered that question. You just haven't followed through and made any point.

I'm debating morality - it's origin and meaning. You keep talking about politics, not me. And you are not answering my questions. Look for yourself:

How does one determine when a murder does benefit us thereby making it moral?

What was your answer?

Does my right to life conflict with yours?

What was your answer? Here it is:

Let's just say that it's possible for any of our rights to come into conflict. That's why I don't think they should be absolute.

This isn't a debate, it's pulling teeth.

[Brundlefly]

Re: Where did morals come from?

Originally posted by johncmcleod
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.

Morality = subjective truth. It's always been that way.

If you dont bother to define what is true for yourself then you will have a difficult time not only processing reality but also managing your life. But if you are not up for the task, you can always cop out by choosing from one the many prescribed moral systems (aka religions) available today.

The strong and the powerful assert their morality and compromise the morality of society's sheep.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Then you aren't a relativist. Case closed.

What the hell? What case? I'm not claiming to be a relativist.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
I'm debating morality - it's origin and meaning. You keep talking about politics, not me.

Claiming that one side is being political and you aren't in a debate about morality is just a cheap trick, and I doubt that anyone is falling for it.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Gepap,

True, no one believes that they should kill anyone who is part of their group, because they get benefit from those people. As soon as they don't get a benefit from members of that group killing those exmembers becomes possible. It's nothing but self-interest. That's no kind of basic morality. That's just making and breaking alliances.

Self-interest is the basis of morality, since self-interest is the basis of life.

[Kidlicious]

Not true. If you only act in your own self-interest you have no principles at all. Therefore you have no morality. Acting in your own self-interest is not a principle.

[Kuciwalker]

Of course it is.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Not true. If you only act in your own self-interest you have no principles at all. Therefore you have no morality. Acting in your own self-interest is not a principle.

What is a principle? And once you answer that, what is the point of a principle?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Of course it is.

No acting in your own interest is amoral .

[Arrian]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I give up.

You have chosen WISELY.

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by GePap
What is a principle? And once you answer that, what is the point of a principle?

A principle is a basic truth or assumption. A moral principle is used to determine what action we should take to act ethically. People may believe that acting in their self-interest is for a greater good, but you can hardly say that it's the basis for morality.