Quebec bans religious teaching in publicly subsidized daycares

[Elok]

In effect, yes. There are other, coincidental reasons for moral behavior, of course--acting like a complete dick is a good way to alienate all one's friends and/or go to jail. But that's the prime focus of my morality. It's what gives meaning to an otherwise nonsensical inclination.

[C0ckney]

well at least you're honest. i confess to finding it a little strange that you feel a reason like not alienating your loved ones/friends or alienating yourself from society in general is coincidental.

[Elok]

well at least you're honest. i confess to finding it a little strange that you feel a reason like not alienating your loved ones/friends or alienating yourself from society in general is coincidental.

Those are not relevant to moral behavior. There may be circumstances where immoral behavior earns me the approval of my friends and family, or a higher status in society, but that does not render immoral behavior moral. Likewise doing a good thing may be shameful in the eyes of the world.

[C0ckney]

if you act in a moral way towards others then that will generally benefit others. if others act in a moral way towards you then it will generally benefit you. so it benefits everyone to act in a moral way.

now you might make thrasymachus' argument that the unjust man is better off for being unjust, but that can be answered of course.

[Elok]

That would generally be the case if the vast majority of people could be relied on to behave morally. But really, they can't, except to the limited extent that most will avoid incarceration and try not to alienate their acquaintances too much. A good portion of society will always misbehave--telling tales at work to get promoted over others, neglecting responsibilities, taking home the girl who's just a little bit too drunk to say no--and reap substantial rewards from doing so. Civilization wouldn't last long if everyone behaved in a completely anarchic fashion, of course, but it can take a good amount of petty dickishness and keep on ticking. Call it "the tragedy of the moral commons."

EDIT: I just Wikied Thrasymachus. Just to be perfectly clear, I'm talking about individual justification for moral behavior here. I'm not making any argument that immoral behavior is ultimately better or anything. I'm asking, how can you go up to a guy who's prospering at wickedness and tell him to stop when he's enjoying himself?

[KrazyHorse]

The way I see it, it does. I've never been able to see how morality can be meaningful without an explicit purpose to it, and "you should be moral because you should be moral" makes no more sense to me than "you should stuff cheese up your nose because you should stuff cheese up your nose." Which is not to say that I despise the irreligious or think they're all immoral or whatever, I just don't see the logical consistency in believing in a set of behaviors without clear justification for them.

Holy ****, are you seriously this blind?

YOU BELIEVE IN A MAGIC MAN IN THE SKY. I BELIEVE IN A SMALL SET OF RULES WHICH ALLOW ME TO JUDGE THE VALUE OF ACTIONS. YOUR SET OF POSTULATES IS FAR MORE COMPLICATED THAN MINE.

[Elok]

YES, BUT I FAIL TO SEE THE VALUE OF YOUR LESS-COMPLICATED POSTULATES. ESPECIALLY THE ONE THAT TELLS YOU SHOUTING MAKES YOU MORE PERSUASIVE.

[KrazyHorse]

Is there some kind of blockage in your brain? What the **** do you mean by saying that "you fail to see the value of" something?

You need some guide to your actions. Whether that is "I am going to do whatever benefits me the most" or something else, THAT IS YOUR MORALITY.

Mine places value on the well-being of all human beings. When I or somebody else acts in a way that violates this principle, they are acting immorally in my view. Pretty plain and simple.

[Lorizael]

But there's no particular reason to believe that there is any objective value in valuing the well-being of all human beings. So while your set of rules can produce value for your objectives, it doesn't necessarily have any meaning beyond, essentially, your own well-being.

[KrazyHorse]

Do you mind saying that in a way which makes some kind of sense?

It is impossible to create any kind of moral system without a set of axioms. Mine are pretty straightforward. Elok's involve a bunch of supernatural entities.

Axioms are by definition UNPROVABLE ASSERTIONS

If you want to argue "only white human beings have value", or more commonly "only I have value" then THERE IS NO WAY TO PROVE TO YOU THAT YOU ARE WRONG

[Lorizael]

Yes, it's impossible to create moral systems without unprovable assertions, which might suggest that going about creating moral systems is a silly thing to do.

[Kuciwalker]

I disagree.

xpost, but it works in response to both

[KrazyHorse]

Please elaborate (Kuci, not Lori)

[Elok]

Is there some kind of blockage in your brain? What the **** do you mean by saying that "you fail to see the value of" something?

You need some guide to your actions. Whether that is "I am going to do whatever benefits me the most" or something else, THAT IS YOUR MORALITY.

Mine places value on the well-being of all human beings. When I or somebody else acts in a way that violates this principle, they are acting immorally in my view. Pretty plain and simple.

But if the morality cannot be more or less universally prescribed, with reason to follow it, it's useless. It's just your personal opinion, and carries no more weight than your preference for sweet foods over spicy ones, or boxers over briefs. You say to Bob, "Don't do [X]," and he asks you "Why not?" You tell him, "Because it's immoral in my view." And Bob says, "Gee, Kitty, that means all of Jack **** to me, my morality says to do [X] twice as much if it irritates others," and keeps on doing [X] until you threaten to hit him, pay him to stop, or give him some other incentive.

[Kuciwalker]

Please elaborate (Kuci, not Lori)

Humans almost universally have strong personal beliefs about right and wrong, educed from their moral sentiments. These moral sentiments are essentially similar to all of the other inputs to our brain (in a Descartes-style picture of the mind). To the same degree that abduction from sights, sounds, etc. to testable hypothesis about a physical reality is true, so is abduction from these sentiments to testable hypotheses about right and wrong. The fact that these sentiments are even strongly consistent between individuals and cultures makes an even better case for a shared, objective, true morality.