What are high moral values?

[Japher]

Perhaps, by saying that some one has "high moral values" all they are saying is that someone has defined their society with greater detail and scrutiny.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Japher


you have to have that belief in order to even begin to discuss morals. Since, morals are defined as good or bad based off of the stability of the society... If it disrupts the stability it is bad, if it promotes the stability it is good.

Eh. Much too limiting. Morality as a concept was invented by humans, and consequently has to do with humans, but there just might be some ultimate and true concept of what is right and what is wrong that has absolutely nothing to do with us and our societies.

[General Ludd]

The way I view it, the Golden Rule of "Do unto others that which you would have done unto you" is the only "high moral value" that is congruant with nature. Life survives and thrives when little to no harm is done.

And by extension you can say that pacifism, veganism, and social-anarchism are what loosely define high moral values within the doctrine of the arbitrary labels we like to use.

[Lorizael]

Arbitrary labels

That's how I want to live my life. Based on random things I made up!

[Pekka]

I think moral values are to protect our property and health. That is, without moral values, there's only survival really. But then, societies have grown, become more wealthier and have had chances to experience all kinds of things other than just survival. Now, in that state, the greedy and the 'criminals' will exploit others, and well I think we have dealt them more harshly earlier but slowly we have developed some rules to protect ourselves beyond survival and many of those things are considered today moral codes.

Some people draw them from religions too, there are some moral codes there as well, but I'd say moral is still subjective with few universal ones.

But this isn't so much about religion stating what the moral codes are, because they do that, but atheist and straight out organized religion haters often have the same moral codes, and would have, religion or no religion.

This is more about boy scouts, and people trying to own these moral codes and claiming superiority, while at the same time being discriminatory against gays (using the high moral values as the reason where as tolerance is overridden in the same sentence.. what should be a moral code).

[Imran Siddiqui]

High moral values are the morality of marijuana

[Pekka]

Right

I just wish they didn't call discrimination 'high moral values' as opposed to 'moral values'.

Seemed like hateful people to me.

[Agathon]

What are high moral values?

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.html

[Pekka]

I know you mean good but we are busy and lazy at the same time so give us the basic idea of that. We want it fast, warm and tasty.

[Dr Strangelove]

You know it's weird, but I remember an article about a teen who was abducted and molested at age 13 by a pair of men. He suffered horribly at their hands. They tortured and sodomized him repeatedly for over a week before abandoning him for dead. He survived, helped the police capture them and testified against them. The strange thing is that the kid is now openly gay.

Who knows what role pain and domination plays in the development of a child's mind?

[Ben Kenobi]

Flip:

What is this overarching morality code in nature? Does it apply only to humans? Why haven't all humans found this overarching code of nature?

Well CS Lewis calls it the Tao, but the idea that there are a set of universal moral principles that have existed with Creation is an old idea. Human beings are made to work in a particular way, and if they follow these principles they will work more closely to the way they should.

So what it is, well I think the most part of it is pretty clear, but what belongs and what does not is a topic for a whole thread in itself.

I would say it applies to people, in the sense that they have the free will to make decisions that other animals do not.

Not everyone has found these ideas, but I think everyone has some familiarity with these ideas, even as they can choose to disregard them. This is what conscience is all about.

Firstly they will do what they need too to survive. They will find water, food, shelter. Without any predators to hinder their development this won't be too hard, really. Thriving is for people with leisure.

I'm talking about love, companionship, company, which I think is an essential part of survival. Sure people can try to live for a long time by themselves, and they can scrape by, but in order to thrive, people need love. That's why I brought up neglect against David Rose, it is not enough merely to leave everyone alone, that is insufficient to make us happy.

Well depends, sometimes its called what DRoseDARs said. Inciting violence.

All the scoutmaster says is that he sees many of the problems in today's society associated with gay people. Now, you may agree or disagree with that notion, but he is not saying that we ought to kill gay people, or harm them. That is an essential component of inciting violence, there actually has to be some sort of threat, not just an unpalatable opinion.

It's not what he's saying that's the problem. It's where he's saying it. Being a scoutleader, by spouting anti-gay stuff he's basically partaking in a propaganda campaign to influence the minds of young people in the scouts.

So because he is in a position of authority, he has no right to speak on certain issues in his capacity as a private citizen? I don't get the impression that he is teaching this to the kids, rather this is his opinion on the issue, and he is answering the question that has been honestly put to him.

Secondly, if we followed your logic, there could be no teachers, since teaching is all about influencing young minds. Of course, your opposition is to the influence he has over young minds, and not because you disagree with his opinions.

[Ben Kenobi]

But this isn't so much about religion stating what the moral codes are, because they do that, but atheist and straight out organized religion haters often have the same moral codes, and would have, religion or no religion.

Pekka:

That's the thing. If there is just one code, then it should stand to reason that everyone has some knowledge. I would argue that the advantage of Christianity is not because they have the code, and others do not, but because they have a much more thorough understanding.

Christianity shouldn't be so much of an imposition but rather speak to those ideas to which one already knows about to some degree.

The disagreement really isn't over whether there is a moral code, but what that moral code contains.

[Flip McWho]

A moral code, is essentially just a list of ways in which we conduct our affairs relative to one another. A morality only comes into existence once we enter into a society.

BK,

Human beings are made to work in a particular way, and if they follow these principles they will work more closely to the way they should.

You're working of the assumption that we are made firstly, and then that we work in a particular way. In so far as we work in a particular way, this way is our biological survival. Everything above what we do biologically is something we've made up.

Free will, is the thing that sets us apart from our biological survival. Our free will enables us to look at things in a light that is abstract from our survival. However, I cannot see a moral code that exists from our biological nature. A moral code exists once we arrive at society (which is from the beginning granted, as the family is a type of society, and we are societal animals afterall, but this does not make it a natural part of ourselves).

But the way in which we conduct ourselves is an arbitrary moral code based on, well historically the ruling class.

Campanionship and love are human inventions. Besides they aren't a part of survival. A part of thriving sure, but not survival. Happiness is also a human invention. (what defines happiness besides the aviodance of pain?)

That is an essential component of inciting violence, there actually has to be some sort of threat, not just an unpalatable opinion.

I agree with everything you said in this part. The scoutmaster ain't inciting violence and shouldn't be told to shut up as such.

In his role as a scout leader he's not really a private citizen. How would you like it if the president starting saying he thought all Christians were insane and they all believed in a load of crap? Thats fine for the president as a private citizen to hold that opinion, but in his role of president he cannot hold that opinion. (there isn't a contradiction here, just a line drawn between private and public life).

The scoutmaster can believe what he desires in his private life. Once a scoutmaster, he assumes a public mantle and his opinions should be guarded.

Though I didn't read the part in Pekka's post where he mentioned that he was just explaing scout policy concerning gays, so overreact I did.

Also with the teachers part. Teachers don't teach their own opinions. They teach to a cirriculum. This scoutmaster was teaching what he thought. (but now I realise he was espousing the scouts general policy on gays so this part of the debate doesn't really apply no more I suppose)

But this isn't so much about religion stating what the moral codes are, because they do that, but atheist and straight out organized religion haters often have the same moral codes, and would have, religion or no religion.

Pekka, (and BK's reply)

Thats because we need a moral code in order for society to survive and thrive. Atheists and religious people all recognise this. Religious people prefer to rely on something they consider arbitrary (god) to give us our moral code. Atheists don't believe this arbitrary factor (god) exists and thus we must get our moral code from something else.

What things they have in common is not evidence of some overarching moral code. It's simply because certain 'morals' are generally very good at preserving society. (such as don't kill, steal). Without these moral codes society would fall apart.

General Ludd,

I don't see how veganism and socio-anarchism flow from the 'golden rule'. Pacifism I agree does.

[Ben Kenobi]

You're working of the assumption that we are made firstly, and then that we work in a particular way. In so far as we work in a particular way, this way is our biological survival. Everything above what we do biologically is something we've made up.

I work from the assumption that we are made, and that we are made to live in a certain way, like a toy has instructions. We can still operate outside those instructions, but we do much better when we do the things that we were made to do.

Society develops around this physical reality, as a way to encourage individuals to adapt to these ways, not the other way around. If we take it that society comes first, that doesn't explain why people have better lives for following this moral code, because one would also assume that different societies will provoke very different moral codes. There is no reason why two societies should share anything, unless there is a basis that exists outside of a particular society.

I don't really make a distinction between physical and psychological well-being, the two are connected.

Free will, is the thing that sets us apart from our biological survival. Our free will enables us to look at things in a light that is abstract from our survival. However, I cannot see a moral code that exists from our biological nature. A moral code exists once we arrive at society (which is from the beginning granted, as the family is a type of society, and we are societal animals afterall, but this does not make it a natural part of ourselves).

The key is in our physical well-being. Sure it would make sense if our moral codes did not have a physical effect, but the truth is that they have a huge effect. Therefore I think there is a connection between our biology and the moral code.

But the way in which we conduct ourselves is an arbitrary moral code based on, well historically the ruling class.

Hardly. There will be variations certainly, but you will find pretty much the same basic structures across very diffferent civilisations in terms of moral behaviour. There's a much more significant rationale for adhering to these codes of conduct then simply emulating a ruling class.

Campanionship and love are human inventions. Besides they aren't a part of survival. A part of thriving sure, but not survival. Happiness is also a human invention. (what defines happiness besides the aviodance of pain?)

Oh, I would beg to differ. They are hardly more human inventions then our own physical needs and desires. We do not say, it is a human invention that makes us hungry, yet why would we also say that the desire to love and be loved is?

What things they have in common is not evidence of some overarching moral code. It's simply because certain 'morals' are generally very good at preserving society. (such as don't kill, steal). Without these moral codes society would fall apart.

So why then do societies change? Why do they refine their codes over time? I agree with you that these things do make it better for the society, but is that really why we have a law against murder? For example, if the reason why murder is wrong is because society is better off, what does that mean for the individual? Murder is wrong because it kills an individual person, not because it is harmful to society.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Well CS Lewis calls it the Tao, but the idea that there are a set of universal moral principles that have existed with Creation is an old idea.

He's wrong. There's no moral behaviour observed in nature. In fact, some behaviour observed are utterly immoral, if you could call it that. For example, male lions gladly kill cubs when they take over a pride. Another example, some chimps kill and eat babies recently born in their own groups.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Human beings are made to work in a particular way, and if they follow these principles they will work more closely to the way they should.

Yes, humans tend to behave in certain ways, but that's not because we are made [by some supreme creator] that way. It's called evolutionary behaviour. Simply, humans that behaved in certain ways, ways that were beneficial to the survival of their own group/tribe, were more likely to survive themselves.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Not everyone has found these ideas, but I think everyone has some familiarity with these ideas, even as they can choose to disregard them. This is what conscience is all about.

That's because such awareness is in the genes. For example, psychopaths cannot feel empathy towards other individuals. This is a result of a genetic defect.