Where did morals come from?

[Berzerker]

I don't know if it comes from anywhere. I just believe that we would all believe the same way if it weren't for our prejudice and self-interest.

But given these natural tendencies, do we all believe the same way on some things? For example, does anyone want to be murdered or enslaved? Wouldn't these - life and liberty - qualify as the basis for this "true morality" you speak of?

Societies have different moralities, yes. Actually, what I learned in college is that morality is an individual thing, and ethics is a social thing, but whatever. Anyway, that doesn't make those moralities true or false.

What does make those moralities true or false?

I don't care about this. You win.

I know Work on injecting a bit of logic into your jabs.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
But given these natural tendencies, do we all believe the same way on some things? For example, does anyone want to be murdered or enslaved? Wouldn't these - life and liberty - qualify as the basis for this "true morality" you speak of?

The basis is equal treatment, and I don't believe that you can take any of the rights to the extreme and have equal treatment. Right to life for example isn't absolute. I believe that killing to make a better world is morally right, if the person you aim to kill has commited a crime that fits. I believe to a much lessor extent that pursuing a course of action that will result in the deaths of innocents is justified. The ends don't always justify the means, but I'm not an absolutist.

What does make those moralities true or false?

You just have to take each one individually. You can't really say that a certain thing makes a moral true. Generally though, the more unequal the power structure is in a society the more immoral the laws and ethics will be, because those with none or little power will be oppressed.

[David Floyd]

Berz is doing so well, I have no need to butt in, but I just HAVE to respond to this one:

The ends don't always justify the means, but I'm not an absolutist.

Oh yes you are - you already said that society's morality can be right or wrong. "Right" and "wrong" are absolutes, and one who was not an absolutist would certainly not use those words to talk about morality.

[chequita guevara]

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

A few, but again you miss the point. Wars aren't necessarily started because a countries moral sensiblities are offended, though it does happen. The wars start because the conduct in the offending nation makes war necessary for survival.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Oh yes you are - you already said that society's morality can be right or wrong. "Right" and "wrong" are absolutes, and one who was not an absolutist would certainly not use those words to talk about morality.

I do believe that there is 'right' morality. It's just that I don't believe that you can say that it is always right that, for example, the ends justify the means, or the ends never justify the means. It depends on the situation. For every situation there is an absolute 'right' moral.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
A few, but again you miss the point. Wars aren't necessarily started because a countries moral sensiblities are offended, though it does happen. The wars start because the conduct in the offending nation makes war necessary for survival.

Morals follow people's/nation's self/national-interests though. It's the conflict in interests that cause conflict, not the conflict in morals. Nations can, and often do have opposing morals, but they hardly, if ever, go to war, unless their interests cause them to fight. Morals just go along for the ride, as they should. Chirst, we would destroy ourselves if we fought everyone who had different morals than ourselves.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Morals follow people's/nation's self/national-interests though.

The problem here is that you see morals as a mere fig-leaf for naked self-interest. What you fail to understand is that the primary self-interest most people have is survival. The purpose of morality isn't to justify unequal social relations, but to ensure survival. Survival is best guaranteed by being a member of a social group, and those behaviors that best ensure group survival are what we call morals: don't murder, don't steal, etc.

That doesn't mean that morality doesn't get hijacked by the self-surving. Anything can get hijacked. Socialism got hijacked.

A leader has the power and ability to proclaim he can take what he wants. By definition, it's no longer stealing. People will put up with a certain amount, but when it threatens the stability society itself, he will either be deposed or the society will collapse.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The problem here is that you see morals as a mere fig-leaf for naked self-interest. What you fail to understand is that the primary self-interest most people have is survival. The purpose of morality isn't to justify unequal social relations, but to ensure survival. Survival is best guaranteed by being a member of a social group, and those behaviors that best ensure group survival are what we call morals: don't murder, don't steal, etc.

Interest in survival of one's self is exactly why we don't go around killing people and conquering nations whenever we are offended by their morals. We only do so when we have the power to do so, and the cost/risk is low, and always there is some benefit in it for us. Only irrational people risk their own survival on crusades.

That doesn't mean that morality doesn't get hijacked by the self-surving. Anything can get hijacked. Socialism got hijacked.

A leader has the power and ability to proclaim he can take what he wants. By definition, it's no longer stealing. People will put up with a certain amount, but when it threatens the stability society itself, he will either be deposed or the society will collapse.

If a ruler is morally offensive why should they care if the society is unstable. Instability brings opportunity. Only then can they do something about their oppresion. Until the society becomes unstable though, they will not do anything, because they will risk their survival and prosperity. They will not only put up with what they consider immoral, but they may very well accept the behavior as moral. Because accepting it as moral will allow them more easily to do the things in that society that insure survival and create prosperity for themselves.

[chequita guevara]

I give up.

[Berzerker]

The basis is equal treatment, and I don't believe that you can take any of the rights to the extreme and have equal treatment. Right to life for example isn't absolute. I believe that killing to make a better world is morally right, if the person you aim to kill has commited a crime that fits.

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.

You just have to take each one individually. You can't really say that a certain thing makes a moral true.

Aside from "equal treatment" (which is part of the Goledn Rule) what is your rationale? Why is murder immoral?

Generally though, the more unequal the power structure is in a society the more immoral the laws and ethics will be, because those with none or little power will be oppressed.

You're getting into politics, if we are to have a moral political system we need to first understand the basis of morality.

I believe to a much lessor extent that pursuing a course of action that will result in the deaths of innocents is justified. The ends don't always justify the means, but I'm not an absolutist.

Those who instigated the war are responsible for the innocent dying.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
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.

It's much more complicated than that. Our rights conflict with each other. We both have to sacrifice our rights, and work something out that is fair to have a just system.

Aside from "equal treatment" (which is part of the Goledn Rule) what is your rationale? Why is murder immoral?

Secondarily, murder is immoral because it doesn't benefit us.

You're getting into politics, if we are to have a moral political system we need to first understand the basis of morality.

Coming to that understanding is easier said than done. We need to eliminate conflict first.

Those who instigated the war are responsible for the innocent dying.

Actually, both sides are usually responsible, even though they both place complete blame on their enemies.

[Berzerker]

It's much more complicated than that. Our rights conflict with each other. We both have to sacrifice our rights, and work something out that is fair to have a just system.

Does my right to life conflict with yours? You're getting political again, let's stick to this origin and definition of morality.

Secondarily, murder is immoral because it doesn't benefit us.

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

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Does my right to life conflict with yours?

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.

You're getting political again, let's stick to this origin and definition of morality.

Do you really think that I'm the only one being political?

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

By using the word murder instead of kill you load the question. Again, do you really think that I'm the only one being political?

[Berzerker]

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.

Your 1 example of this alleged conflict was killing a murderer - a murderer who violates the absolute right to life of their victim. I see no conflict... Try again...

Do you really think that I'm the only one being political?

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

By using the word murder instead of kill you load the question. Again, do you really think that I'm the only one being political?

Again, yes I do. And I'm using the word "murder" to distinguish between justifiable killing and unjustifiable killing. Now, I'll repeat my question:

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

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Your 1 example of this alleged conflict was killing a murderer - a murderer who violates the absolute right to life of their victim. I see no conflict... Try again...

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.

-Drachasor