Where did morals come from?

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

where do you think those "basic rules of humanity" come from?

The $64 Million Question. Unfortunetly no one has been able to claim the prize yet .

Well, buckle your seatbelt, because here it is:

Those things violate the basic rules because once a society possesses them, it will inevitable collapse of its own accord even if no outside force stops it. It might take some time, but it will eventually happen. In more modern days other countries are much more likely to go and try to intervene when one country is doing something bad.

In other words, there are basic principles that all societies must largely honor in order to survive and function as a society. There are then other principles that must exist for the society to really thrive and remain vibrant. As anyone should be able to see, some laws and systems are very good for a society, some are good, some are ok, some are bad, and some are suicide, etc. This is basically where the idea of law and morality originates.

Of course, not everyone feels like this is enough, so they try to invent more convoluted reasons for where things originate and how they work. It really starts out as just an issue of pragmatism.

-Drachasor

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'd personally lean toward Berz's argument about universal shared desires

I note the 'lean toward' . Indicating that no one knows for sure.

While I somewhat agree with Drach's response, there too, no one can really 'prove' moral precepts .

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I'd personally lean toward Berz's argument about universal shared desires

I note the 'lean toward' . Indicating that no one knows for sure.

While I somewhat agree with Drach's response, there too, no one can really 'prove' moral precepts .

I wasn't trying to "prove" anything, I was just stating an origin for the idea of morality and why some precepts simply can't be tolerated because they are anti-thetical to what keeps a society together.

Social evolution, if you will. It isn't "right" or "wrong" per se, it merely is.

-Drachasor

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yeah, I know... but you can't win the $64,000 Question prize without proof... you know that

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yeah, I know... but you can't win the $64,000 Question prize without proof... you know that

Why bother for only 64k?

Dang, I thought it was a million dollars.



-Drachasor

[David Floyd]

I note the 'lean toward' . Indicating that no one knows for sure.

Very true, but I don't think anyone has really claimed that yet.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Drachasor
Why bother for only 64k?

Dang, I thought it was a million dollars.



-Drachasor

Hey, I don't make the rules .

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by David Floyd
I actually agree with you, but where do you think those "basic rules of humanity" come from?

I've answered that several times in this thread.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian
And how did Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany fare? Not well.

I think that was Che's point.

-Arrian

How does the US fare?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Yes, but my point is, once a society allows such wholesale behavior, it is not long for the world. Either its own people or its neighbors will do away with it. The point I was making is, once such a society begins violating the basic rules of humanity, it undermines its own ability to survive.

How many wars have really started because of morals? How many immoral nations exist while others do nothing?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Kid, I've got a question.

You believe that each society either has or could have different morals.

Fair enough.

The logical question, though, is whether or not you believe that each moral standard is equally valid, objectively speaking. That is, does any one society's moral standard have an objective claim to being more correct/valid, or are they all pretty much the same?

If they are all the same, then it's pretty tough for you to criticize Nazi Germany from a moral standpoint, and if that's the case, then objectively speaking, there was no moral basis for the Nuremburg trials.

The only way around this is to say that the overriding moral principle is that might makes right. This not only destroys the belief that all morals are equally valid, because we just found an overriding moral principle, but it also makes the concept of morals pretty much irrelevant anyway.

Now, on the other hand, maybe you believe that there IS some way to judge a society's morals, other than on the basis of might makes right. Granted, you seem to have been arguing against this, but I could have misunderstood you, and I'm interested in a clarification.

So which is it? Do you want to admit that ultimately you believe "might makes right" is the overriding moral principle, or do you want to admit that there is some other overriding moral principle?

I do believe that morality is either right or wrong. Whether morality is right or wrong has a limited effect on what people believe however. They mostly follow their self-interest. Believing something actually helps you survive and prosper. So people fool their mind into believing that killing is not murder under certain circumstance, for example.

[Spiffor]

I take it you oppose abortion and euthanasia then? Unless you are willingly fooling yourself into believing these killings aren't murders.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Kidicious

How does the US fare?

Think that one up all by yourself? Whaddya got, a team of monkeys hooked up to your keyboard?

But what the hell, I'll respond in a serious manner:

First off, the USA =! IJ or the Nazis. Putting aside the differences between, say, the Holocaust or the Rape of Nanking and the current operation in Fallujah (why even bother debating that if you think they are comparable?), let's look at it from another angle. The Nazis and the IJ had policies which led directly to them facing major world powers in open warfare. Thus far, our policies are not set up that way. In fact, much wailing and gnashing of teeth has resulted from our tendancy to "pick on" weak and/or failed countries. Terrorism, the irritation we are much preoccupied with, is the result of wackos without political power trying to hurt us. Tactics of the weak, Kid. We're not fighting the USSR here.

Now, one could claim that a continuation of our current policies might result in our downfall, but that's far from certain. Personally, I do think our government has made several policy mistakes that have hurt us - but that's a far cry from the concept of Lebensraum which led the Nazis into the Russian winter and to their doom.

-Arrian

[Sandman]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Societies very much do follow the rules of evolution. How many slave or feudal societies do you see lying around? As for structures and customs which aren't useful, evolution is driven by traits which aren't useful (and aren't harmful) which become useful when the environment changes.

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. Hey, you could probably make a case that societies follow the rules of geophysics; social upheavals, social pressure leading to a social eruption, glacier-like social change, tidal fashions and trends. But you'd still be thinking in metaphors.

Societies are not living things. Nor are they geographical phenomenon. Or ecosystems (which is another obvious metaphor). Societies are societies.

Ballet isn't just a 'mutation' which appeared one day. It's a social institution, with its own history, language and infrastructure, bound together by in an assortment of ways.
If you think society 'evolves' in the same way as living creatures, it's about as likely to appear in a society as a mountain goat is to develop fully-functioning gills.

Oh, and was Bush's re-election evolution?

[Odin]

Morals are a set of rules needed by society to funtion properly based on basic human desires and the conditions a society develops.