Full Version: Morality in the Law
We had a thread on AD a while back that discussed what it means to legislate morality. I think everyone pretty much agreed that it wasn’t the province of one party or the other. Rather, "morality" manifests itself throughout the laws whether they are “liberal” or “conservative”. Ultimately, to a certain extent, our society makes a pronouncement on the “rightness” or “wrongness” of certain conduct by way of our laws. The question I’d like to discuss relates to the source and implementation of these pronouncements of “morality” in our laws. In other words, what is our authority for what we decide is right (legal) and what is wrong (illegal) when it comes to our laws. I see it as a two part question at a minimum. The first part asks about the source for the particular judgment in the first instance. The second part asks more about the process of implementing that judgment.
I can think of several answers to the first question, i.e. what is the source of “right” and “wrong”: a religious text; personal principles and philosophy; or that there is no such thing as “right” or “wrong”.
Similarly, I can think of several possible answers to the second question: i.e. how do we implement a judgment of this kind: a theocracy; some kind of representative democracy; a ruling class or elite; or in the extreme, a monarch.
I am interested to see the spectrum of views on AD as to these and other questions and their implications. For example, someone could answer the first question by saying that the source for what is “right” and what is “wrong” is in the bible. But then go on to say that the best process for implementing a judgment generally on what is “right” or “wrong” would be through the democratic process. Conversely, I could see someone answering that there is no moral right or wrong, only what a society deems it to be through a democratic process.
Questions for Debate:
(1) Is there an objective “right” or “wrong” or are these terms relative?
(2) How do you personally determine what is “right” and what is “wrong”?
(3) How do we, as a society, determine what is “right” and what is “wrong”?
(4) Should society implement its judgments in this regard, solely under democratic principles? If not democratic principles, what?
I can think of several answers to the first question, i.e. what is the source of “right” and “wrong”: a religious text; personal principles and philosophy; or that there is no such thing as “right” or “wrong”.
Similarly, I can think of several possible answers to the second question: i.e. how do we implement a judgment of this kind: a theocracy; some kind of representative democracy; a ruling class or elite; or in the extreme, a monarch.
I am interested to see the spectrum of views on AD as to these and other questions and their implications. For example, someone could answer the first question by saying that the source for what is “right” and what is “wrong” is in the bible. But then go on to say that the best process for implementing a judgment generally on what is “right” or “wrong” would be through the democratic process. Conversely, I could see someone answering that there is no moral right or wrong, only what a society deems it to be through a democratic process.
Questions for Debate:
(1) Is there an objective “right” or “wrong” or are these terms relative?
(2) How do you personally determine what is “right” and what is “wrong”?
(3) How do we, as a society, determine what is “right” and what is “wrong”?
(4) Should society implement its judgments in this regard, solely under democratic principles? If not democratic principles, what?
(1) Is there an objective “right” or “wrong” or are these terms relative?
Its rather difficult to give a easy definition to this. If you take for instance anthropology, it uses culture basically as a lense to understand the human being overall. This has basically reduced to nature or nurture being the prime questions in aspects of human behavior. The ability to answer these questions is rather complex. To rant a little more on it, we notice the behavior of a fly, is the behavior of a fly because it’s a fly, that organism biologically is a fly and express’s such behavior. This hardware if you will is a X in any formula of understanding in regards to not only humans, but a large majority of what biology tries to understand.
This of course feeds into the aspect of understanding human nature, which is a pretty old debate, its prevalent in most religions and cultures. Its unknown, so its hard to be accurate in broad scope questions like this. Now that the hardware is not understood to full capacity, what does that mean about the software, or the personality, or perception, or souls of people. If you cannot reduce, even on an individual level human nature, does that create fallacies in the explanations on nurture? You again can find a great many “idiots on a soapbox” all over the world and in history that claim to have the truth on such, but if that was so, why has not everyone come to agree with it, or be able to stand arguments against such, or even come to have negative feelings towards such human made institutions.
So in this diversity of human cultures, living in ignorance overall, you can find a broad diversity of what is right or wrong, in regards to law, family life, how government should act, so on and so fourth. So to say that relativity in perception of right and wrong does not exist, is a lie.
Does this mean that right or wrong is not absolute, well, without some absolute truth available about human nature or nurture, how can you say or speak on it really.
(2) How do you personally determine what is “right” and what is “wrong”?
Well, that kind of always changes. What I thought was right and wrong was different to me ten years ago, and will probably be different ten years from now. So with that in mind, all I can do is observe “things” and pass a personal judgment on it from what I know about anything. So basically because I did not grow up with any of the great many views you can find on the world, like a certain religious perspective, I do not perceive right and wrong the way they do, but on that note, I do not agree with murder, but that is a rather open debate, is war murder?
(3) How do we, as a society, determine what is “right” and what is “wrong”?
I feel it breaks down in a democratic position in regards to population amounts that feel certain ways on things. Like if 60% of those that vote do not agree with abortion, then it becomes illegal. I feel its like the overall in any population, the majority generates the laws or ways of life they agree with and then enforce such.
(4) Should society implement its judgments in this regard, solely under democratic principles? If not democratic principles, what?
I agree with democracy, but that will only go so far. You also have to have understanding, or the democracy will not have peace. I guess this could be applied to human behavior overall.
Its rather difficult to give a easy definition to this. If you take for instance anthropology, it uses culture basically as a lense to understand the human being overall. This has basically reduced to nature or nurture being the prime questions in aspects of human behavior. The ability to answer these questions is rather complex. To rant a little more on it, we notice the behavior of a fly, is the behavior of a fly because it’s a fly, that organism biologically is a fly and express’s such behavior. This hardware if you will is a X in any formula of understanding in regards to not only humans, but a large majority of what biology tries to understand.
This of course feeds into the aspect of understanding human nature, which is a pretty old debate, its prevalent in most religions and cultures. Its unknown, so its hard to be accurate in broad scope questions like this. Now that the hardware is not understood to full capacity, what does that mean about the software, or the personality, or perception, or souls of people. If you cannot reduce, even on an individual level human nature, does that create fallacies in the explanations on nurture? You again can find a great many “idiots on a soapbox” all over the world and in history that claim to have the truth on such, but if that was so, why has not everyone come to agree with it, or be able to stand arguments against such, or even come to have negative feelings towards such human made institutions.
So in this diversity of human cultures, living in ignorance overall, you can find a broad diversity of what is right or wrong, in regards to law, family life, how government should act, so on and so fourth. So to say that relativity in perception of right and wrong does not exist, is a lie.
Does this mean that right or wrong is not absolute, well, without some absolute truth available about human nature or nurture, how can you say or speak on it really.
(2) How do you personally determine what is “right” and what is “wrong”?
Well, that kind of always changes. What I thought was right and wrong was different to me ten years ago, and will probably be different ten years from now. So with that in mind, all I can do is observe “things” and pass a personal judgment on it from what I know about anything. So basically because I did not grow up with any of the great many views you can find on the world, like a certain religious perspective, I do not perceive right and wrong the way they do, but on that note, I do not agree with murder, but that is a rather open debate, is war murder?
(3) How do we, as a society, determine what is “right” and what is “wrong”?
I feel it breaks down in a democratic position in regards to population amounts that feel certain ways on things. Like if 60% of those that vote do not agree with abortion, then it becomes illegal. I feel its like the overall in any population, the majority generates the laws or ways of life they agree with and then enforce such.
(4) Should society implement its judgments in this regard, solely under democratic principles? If not democratic principles, what?
I agree with democracy, but that will only go so far. You also have to have understanding, or the democracy will not have peace. I guess this could be applied to human behavior overall.
(1) Is there an objective “right” or “wrong” or are these terms relative?
My opinion is, yes, there is an objective “right” and “wrong”. I should qualify this a bit, though. Some concepts of right and wrong change based on situational context (or environment). Others change with the times. Eating pork was once "wrong". We (well, Christians) eat pork today because we are no longer living in a desert environment in which massive ingestion of water-intensive pork products would have led to the demise of the entire society. Along the same lines, we don’t observe the taboo on usury today not simply because of the Protestant revolution, but because certain conditions made it possible. The ban on usury was vital in a basic, subsistence agrarian society with few or no income producing capital assets other than land and human labor. When capital markets and megapolitical conditions made large-scale investments possible, the ban on usury was lifted, and the Biblical context “reinterpreted”. That is one little example of how some concepts of right and wrong might change with time.
But that doesn’t mean everything is random. Certainly some sets of values are better and more useful than others. Murder is wrong universally because unchecked predatory violence would lead to instability. Laws are built on concepts of mutual benefit, to override incentive traps and keep things nice and civil and stable.
(2) How do you personally determine what is “right” and what is “wrong”?
Well, the Christian perspective works well for me. It is my guideline.
(3) How do we, as a society, determine what is “right” and what is “wrong”?
(4) Should society implement its judgments in this regard, solely under democratic principles? If not democratic principles, what?
I’ll answer these two together. We have the Constitution, which has established a guideline for basic rights of the individual. When it comes to conflicts between rights I tend to go with direct interests overriding indirect ones. So, for example, my (indirect) need to throw trash in the street is overridden by my neighbor’s (direct) need to keep a safe and clean area for his/her children and not depreciate his/her house property value. In the case of indirect versus indirect interests (example, public nudity), one person's right (freedom of expression) to walk naked because he/she wants to versus the rights of others to not have to be subjected to nudity everywhere, the majority wishes win.
My opinion is, yes, there is an objective “right” and “wrong”. I should qualify this a bit, though. Some concepts of right and wrong change based on situational context (or environment). Others change with the times. Eating pork was once "wrong". We (well, Christians) eat pork today because we are no longer living in a desert environment in which massive ingestion of water-intensive pork products would have led to the demise of the entire society. Along the same lines, we don’t observe the taboo on usury today not simply because of the Protestant revolution, but because certain conditions made it possible. The ban on usury was vital in a basic, subsistence agrarian society with few or no income producing capital assets other than land and human labor. When capital markets and megapolitical conditions made large-scale investments possible, the ban on usury was lifted, and the Biblical context “reinterpreted”. That is one little example of how some concepts of right and wrong might change with time.
But that doesn’t mean everything is random. Certainly some sets of values are better and more useful than others. Murder is wrong universally because unchecked predatory violence would lead to instability. Laws are built on concepts of mutual benefit, to override incentive traps and keep things nice and civil and stable.
(2) How do you personally determine what is “right” and what is “wrong”?
Well, the Christian perspective works well for me. It is my guideline.
(3) How do we, as a society, determine what is “right” and what is “wrong”?
(4) Should society implement its judgments in this regard, solely under democratic principles? If not democratic principles, what?
I’ll answer these two together. We have the Constitution, which has established a guideline for basic rights of the individual. When it comes to conflicts between rights I tend to go with direct interests overriding indirect ones. So, for example, my (indirect) need to throw trash in the street is overridden by my neighbor’s (direct) need to keep a safe and clean area for his/her children and not depreciate his/her house property value. In the case of indirect versus indirect interests (example, public nudity), one person's right (freedom of expression) to walk naked because he/she wants to versus the rights of others to not have to be subjected to nudity everywhere, the majority wishes win.
I participated in the Legislate Morality discussion. I did not agree that laws are legalized morality nor should they be. In fact, it would be a bad if this were the case. Bad as used here is not a moral judgement. It is an ethical judgement meaning the judicial system would be far from ideal.
I categorically do not agree with your opening paragraph and your statement that "everyone pretty much agrees...". I also remember I was not the only one who disagreed. In my eyes, the premises stated are misleading and incorrect.
Laws are based on ethics, not morality. Laws are not based on right or wrong. They are based upon defining rules which help society to work. I fear a court system which makes its judgements on morality. I do not want to be judged by what a court believes is right and wrong. I pray for a court which uses it judgement based on the ethical intent of the law.
Society bases it laws on the ethics of the majority excepting the limitations placed upon the majority via the Constitution. Those limitations, the soul of the Bill of Rights, are critical to protecting the minority from prejudicial law.
Having a morality law violates the concept of separating religion and government. Ethics must be the basis for law. If the ethical right and wrong of a law agrees with your own personal moral right and wrong, do not be confused this is a means to prove they are one and the same. To be the leading country of the world, it is important to strive for individual freedom and this must include resisting the temptation to incorporate ones religion into the law of the land. To do so will cripple individual freedom. It is not necessary to legislate morality. Why bloat government by making unnecessary law?
I categorically do not agree with your opening paragraph and your statement that "everyone pretty much agrees...". I also remember I was not the only one who disagreed. In my eyes, the premises stated are misleading and incorrect.
Laws are based on ethics, not morality. Laws are not based on right or wrong. They are based upon defining rules which help society to work. I fear a court system which makes its judgements on morality. I do not want to be judged by what a court believes is right and wrong. I pray for a court which uses it judgement based on the ethical intent of the law.
Society bases it laws on the ethics of the majority excepting the limitations placed upon the majority via the Constitution. Those limitations, the soul of the Bill of Rights, are critical to protecting the minority from prejudicial law.
Having a morality law violates the concept of separating religion and government. Ethics must be the basis for law. If the ethical right and wrong of a law agrees with your own personal moral right and wrong, do not be confused this is a means to prove they are one and the same. To be the leading country of the world, it is important to strive for individual freedom and this must include resisting the temptation to incorporate ones religion into the law of the land. To do so will cripple individual freedom. It is not necessary to legislate morality. Why bloat government by making unnecessary law?
1. For the sake of discussion, let's assume that morality is absolute. (Feel free to make the assumption that there is a supernatural entity which has set up an absolute system of ethics which cannot be questioned, or any other explanation for absolute morality that you like.)
Here's the problem; even if morality is absolute, human beings have to act as if it were relative.
Why? Because all systems of ethics require human interpretation, and humans beings are imperfect. Let's say, for the sake of discussion, that the King James Version of the Bible is the absolute word of God, and the final authority on all questions of morality (as some Protestants do, in fact, believe.) Now what? Well, somebody has to figure out what "Thou Shalt Not Kill" means, exactly (to give one example.) Does it mean all forms of life? (Probably not, the crowd agrees.) Just human life? (Yeah, we think so.) OK, what about war? Capital punishment? Abortion? (The crowd breaks up into small, bickering groups.)
QED: Human morality, like it or not, is relative.
Don't despair, however. Although human beings can never hope to reach absolute morality, we can get closer and closer, until the difference is meaningless for all practical purposes. A hyperbola never reachs its asymptotes, but always gets nearer and nearer, until we cannot see the difference. In the same way, for many questions of morality, there is so much general agreement that it seems as if we have an absolute standard. (Random killing of human beings; yep, we agree that this is wrong.)
2. I stumble in the dark. As I try to walk forward, I often fall down and have to get up again. I make many mistakes.
If I have to boil down my ethical system to one statement, this is as close as I can come:
Try to minimize the amount of unnecessary harm you cause.
Of course, this raises more questions. What is "harm"? What is "necessary harm"? What is capable of being harmed? (Only living things? Only animals? Only some animals? Only people?) Do I cause harm by failing to cause good? And so on.
3. We argue a lot. We make laws. We argue about the laws. We take the laws to court. We argue about the courts. It's a messy system, but it's better than anything else.
4. Not solely under "democratic" principles, although the will of the majority should be taken into consideration to some extent. Here's where we run into another seeming paradox. There seems to be a consensus that certain questions of morality cannot be decided by consensus. (Which questions are these? This is another sort of argumentation.) The rights of the majority, although they must be respected, do not trump the rights of the minority. (What are these "rights"? More arguing! More lawsuits!)
To sum up: Morality is an endless struggle.
Here's the problem; even if morality is absolute, human beings have to act as if it were relative.
Why? Because all systems of ethics require human interpretation, and humans beings are imperfect. Let's say, for the sake of discussion, that the King James Version of the Bible is the absolute word of God, and the final authority on all questions of morality (as some Protestants do, in fact, believe.) Now what? Well, somebody has to figure out what "Thou Shalt Not Kill" means, exactly (to give one example.) Does it mean all forms of life? (Probably not, the crowd agrees.) Just human life? (Yeah, we think so.) OK, what about war? Capital punishment? Abortion? (The crowd breaks up into small, bickering groups.)
QED: Human morality, like it or not, is relative.
Don't despair, however. Although human beings can never hope to reach absolute morality, we can get closer and closer, until the difference is meaningless for all practical purposes. A hyperbola never reachs its asymptotes, but always gets nearer and nearer, until we cannot see the difference. In the same way, for many questions of morality, there is so much general agreement that it seems as if we have an absolute standard. (Random killing of human beings; yep, we agree that this is wrong.)
2. I stumble in the dark. As I try to walk forward, I often fall down and have to get up again. I make many mistakes.
If I have to boil down my ethical system to one statement, this is as close as I can come:
Try to minimize the amount of unnecessary harm you cause.
Of course, this raises more questions. What is "harm"? What is "necessary harm"? What is capable of being harmed? (Only living things? Only animals? Only some animals? Only people?) Do I cause harm by failing to cause good? And so on.
3. We argue a lot. We make laws. We argue about the laws. We take the laws to court. We argue about the courts. It's a messy system, but it's better than anything else.
4. Not solely under "democratic" principles, although the will of the majority should be taken into consideration to some extent. Here's where we run into another seeming paradox. There seems to be a consensus that certain questions of morality cannot be decided by consensus. (Which questions are these? This is another sort of argumentation.) The rights of the majority, although they must be respected, do not trump the rights of the minority. (What are these "rights"? More arguing! More lawsuits!)
To sum up: Morality is an endless struggle.
QUOTE(Victoria Silverwolf @ Nov 19 2005, 11:49 PM)
1. For the sake of discussion, let's assume that morality is absolute. (Feel free to make the assumption that there is a supernatural entity which has set up an absolute system of ethics which cannot be questioned, or any other explanation for absolute morality that you like.)
Here's the problem; even if morality is absolute, human beings have to act as if it were relative.
Why? Because all systems of ethics require human interpretation, and humans beings are imperfect. Let's say, for the sake of discussion, that the King James Version of the Bible is the absolute word of God, and the final authority on all questions of morality (as some Protestants do, in fact, believe.) Now what? Well, somebody has to figure out what "Thou Shalt Not Kill" means, exactly (to give one example.) Does it mean all forms of life? (Probably not, the crowd agrees.) Just human life? (Yeah, we think so.) OK, what about war? Capital punishment? Abortion? (The crowd breaks up into small, bickering groups.)
QED: Human morality, like it or not, is relative.
Don't despair, however. Although human beings can never hope to reach absolute morality, we can get closer and closer, until the difference is meaningless for all practical purposes. A hyperbola never reachs its asymptotes, but always gets nearer and nearer, until we cannot see the difference. In the same way, for many questions of morality, there is so much general agreement that it seems as if we have an absolute standard. (Random killing of human beings; yep, we agree that this is wrong.)
2. I stumble in the dark. As I try to walk forward, I often fall down and have to get up again. I make many mistakes.
If I have to boil down my ethical system to one statement, this is as close as I can come:
Try to minimize the amount of unnecessary harm you cause.
Of course, this raises more questions. What is "harm"? What is "necessary harm"? What is capable of being harmed? (Only living things? Only animals? Only some animals? Only people?) Do I cause harm by failing to cause good? And so on.
3. We argue a lot. We make laws. We argue about the laws. We take the laws to court. We argue about the courts. It's a messy system, but it's better than anything else.
4. Not solely under "democratic" principles, although the will of the majority should be taken into consideration to some extent. Here's where we run into another seeming paradox. There seems to be a consensus that certain questions of morality cannot be decided by consensus. (Which questions are these? This is another sort of argumentation.) The rights of the majority, although they must be respected, do not trump the rights of the minority. (What are these "rights"? More arguing! More lawsuits!)
To sum up: Morality is an endless struggle.
Here's the problem; even if morality is absolute, human beings have to act as if it were relative.
Why? Because all systems of ethics require human interpretation, and humans beings are imperfect. Let's say, for the sake of discussion, that the King James Version of the Bible is the absolute word of God, and the final authority on all questions of morality (as some Protestants do, in fact, believe.) Now what? Well, somebody has to figure out what "Thou Shalt Not Kill" means, exactly (to give one example.) Does it mean all forms of life? (Probably not, the crowd agrees.) Just human life? (Yeah, we think so.) OK, what about war? Capital punishment? Abortion? (The crowd breaks up into small, bickering groups.)
QED: Human morality, like it or not, is relative.
Don't despair, however. Although human beings can never hope to reach absolute morality, we can get closer and closer, until the difference is meaningless for all practical purposes. A hyperbola never reachs its asymptotes, but always gets nearer and nearer, until we cannot see the difference. In the same way, for many questions of morality, there is so much general agreement that it seems as if we have an absolute standard. (Random killing of human beings; yep, we agree that this is wrong.)
2. I stumble in the dark. As I try to walk forward, I often fall down and have to get up again. I make many mistakes.
If I have to boil down my ethical system to one statement, this is as close as I can come:
Try to minimize the amount of unnecessary harm you cause.
Of course, this raises more questions. What is "harm"? What is "necessary harm"? What is capable of being harmed? (Only living things? Only animals? Only some animals? Only people?) Do I cause harm by failing to cause good? And so on.
3. We argue a lot. We make laws. We argue about the laws. We take the laws to court. We argue about the courts. It's a messy system, but it's better than anything else.
4. Not solely under "democratic" principles, although the will of the majority should be taken into consideration to some extent. Here's where we run into another seeming paradox. There seems to be a consensus that certain questions of morality cannot be decided by consensus. (Which questions are these? This is another sort of argumentation.) The rights of the majority, although they must be respected, do not trump the rights of the minority. (What are these "rights"? More arguing! More lawsuits!)
To sum up: Morality is an endless struggle.
This is a really interesting thread. Here is a question....are ethics an endless struggle? Gray Seal mentioned the difference between the two, but to me that is just an argument of semantics. I think the word 'morality' causes people to push away because of the religious connotation, but there are correct and incorrect ways to act. Izdaari brought this up on another thread, and I'll quote her here: QUOTE
I think there is, and there are a number of different sources for it that all pretty much agree on the most important things. You can get it from game theory, from religion (doesn't much matter which one - they mostly agree on the big things), from tradition, from cultural anthropology, from deductive reasoning from the nature of man as a being of volitional consciousness and based on rational self-interest, and all those sources agree: murder is wrong, rape is wrong, robbery is wrong, slavery is wrong. I do think there's a lot of room for subjectivity in the areas where they don't agree, but if my own personal judgements about what's moral disagree with not just one of those sources but all of them, well, I'm probably wrong and they're right, and I need to check first the soundness of my reasoning, and then my premises.
Religion's main original purpose was to establish a set of rules for people to live together in an era of ineffective and/or immature government. Those rules weren't easily enforceable another way. Taboos developed to deal with the incentive traps and unproductive behavior so the system could function (pig eating wrong, sloth wrong, non-reproductive sexual activity wrong, ect).
Today we have a strong government that takes over the role of dealing with incentive traps. That is one of the reasons (IMO, the primary one) that we are able to enjoy religious freedom. That isn't something countries with ineffective governments tend to offer because survival of the society is largely dependent on maintaining one set of underlying principles that cannot be enforced any other way. That doesn't mean (IMO) that all of the previous "rules" became obsolete and we stumble along doing whatever we want because morality is now relative. It just means there is a different means of enforcement.
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen)
I think the word 'morality' causes people to push away because of the religious connotation
Take away religion or other belief systems from the thought process and you are left with what I think ethics means in regards to this discussion. Include religion and beliefs to the determination of right and wrong and you have morality. I had a dorm mate my freshman year of college who was a friend though not a close one. You may know how it is when people on the same floor of a dorm stick together for sport teams, hanging out, doing homework, listening to tunes, etc.. Anyhow, sometime in the second semester a discussion of religion came up. I stated I did not have any belief in any sort of deity or deities. He was literally shocked. He asked me if I believed in God. I figured it was his God and I told him, "No. Nor do I believe in other's Gods." His next statement was, "How can you live?" He was pretty upset. It took hm a month to get over it. The point of my telling is that this experience and many others leads me to think that those with belief systems may not be able to see life without those beliefs. Mrs. Pigpen's quote
QUOTE
Gray Seal mentioned the difference between the two, but to me that is just an argument of semantics.
made me think of this. To me, there are two concepts designated by the terms 'morality' and 'ethics'. I wonder if those whose lives are based upon belief can not picture a world without morality? Could that be a contribution to why morality and ethics are one and the same to some? ------
I get to see the interaction of many animals. It can be hunters, herbivores, or scavengers. Most have the influence of domestication. The rules animals have in regards to interaction amongst themselves varies. Are these rules of behavior based upon morality? How about ethics? I would label them to be more of an instinct. Usually animals do not learn rules of behavior contrary to their instinct. You can not change a passive dog into a biter and you can not change an aggressive dog into a sweet one.
Humans have instincts. Additionally, their ability to learn behavior is the best of all animals. I would say most humans would instinctively not kill another human. I would not label this morality nor ethics.
Through time, humans who found a means to organize into larger cooperative groups were more successful. Hence, religion and morality came to be as these are easy concepts and are a good basis for organizing groups of people. As we have evolved, the concepts of right and wrong and how to determine them has changed. The idea of ethics came to be. Which leads to this point in time. I would say morality and ethics are both currently used by humans, even side by side.
QUOTE(Victoria Silverwolf)
We argue a lot. We make laws. We argue about the laws. We take the laws to court. We argue about the courts. It's a messy system, but it's better than anything else.
Humans can not agree which model (instinct, morality, ethics)is the best for humans to be successful and even if they agree on the model they do not agree what that model says. Time will tell which means of organizing ourselves will work the best as we evolve. I hold ethics as the best model. Who knows which will be the most successful? I certainly do not.-----
Democratic rule is a decent basis for determining right and wrong. However, just like a free market needs to monitor and eliminate coercion and monopolys, democracy needs to have limitations placed upon it where the majority may not infringe upon individual freedoms. Laisser-faire democracy and laisser-faire capitalism will lead to large inequities between humans.
I don’t understand the whole incentive trap issue. Religion providing heaven for an agreed upon behavior could be viewed as an incentive trap forcing peoples hands into certain actions. If your boss offers you a raise for good work, is that not an incentive to do good work? Heck even marriage to a point could be viewed as a culmination of incentive traps really. Its like saying people should commit to no actions that reward them in any way, or being communist maybe, after all what would Jesus do with your paycheck.
As far as the biological principles go, one can only think what it would be like to be born with say one less chromosome, it would have a profound effect, this as I pointed out is simply an unknown right now in relation to behavior overall of an organism, be it a rat or a human, though progress is being made. I feel it does have an important issue in regards to asking if humans overall have an absolute form of morality in relation to any environment. My whole hardware and the software issue as I like to refer to it.
The history and modern day version of humanity and all its variation culturally points easily towards moral relativity being very real, how else could perfectly moral people pick up guns and kill each other in mass numbers over a banner or ideology. You cant really explain human behavior unless you decided that how you view things is the absolute, and people that share such a view are correct above all else, but I guess that is where the lack of peace may come from, that and starvation or something.
If we decided to let groups of people use the government for non stop social manipulation to a state that is almost fascist, it will never allow for any form of peace or freedom truly, and most likely in my opinion continue to get worse. Ethics in a secular open minded frame of mind should be what dictates law, not if me and more like me are grossed out by having to watch movies like kingdom of heaven and wish for such to be made illegal, that’s not freedom in any sense, its play fascist dictator truly.
Thought I do not see currently how to overcome the majority rules frame of mind many can come to agree with, most be some incentive trap then.
As far as the biological principles go, one can only think what it would be like to be born with say one less chromosome, it would have a profound effect, this as I pointed out is simply an unknown right now in relation to behavior overall of an organism, be it a rat or a human, though progress is being made. I feel it does have an important issue in regards to asking if humans overall have an absolute form of morality in relation to any environment. My whole hardware and the software issue as I like to refer to it.
The history and modern day version of humanity and all its variation culturally points easily towards moral relativity being very real, how else could perfectly moral people pick up guns and kill each other in mass numbers over a banner or ideology. You cant really explain human behavior unless you decided that how you view things is the absolute, and people that share such a view are correct above all else, but I guess that is where the lack of peace may come from, that and starvation or something.
If we decided to let groups of people use the government for non stop social manipulation to a state that is almost fascist, it will never allow for any form of peace or freedom truly, and most likely in my opinion continue to get worse. Ethics in a secular open minded frame of mind should be what dictates law, not if me and more like me are grossed out by having to watch movies like kingdom of heaven and wish for such to be made illegal, that’s not freedom in any sense, its play fascist dictator truly.
Thought I do not see currently how to overcome the majority rules frame of mind many can come to agree with, most be some incentive trap then.
(1) Is there an objective “right” or “wrong” or are these terms relative?
(2) How do you personally determine what is “right” and what is “wrong”?
(3) How do we, as a society, determine what is “right” and what is “wrong”?
(4) Should society implement its judgments in this regard, solely under democratic principles? If not democratic principles, what?
I make my own morality--and am very happy with the result. I honor the laws made by others for the simple reason that I dont want to be locked in a box with subhuman animals or just flat out murdered for disagreeing with the horde of the great unwashed.
I determine how I treat others by how I want to be treated -- from this comes how I determine right and wrong. Quite often it boils down to -- If what I do causes you no physical harm get out of my face and mind your own business. Otherwise known as the Golden Principle of You leave me alone and i will leave you alone.
even better:
Democratic principles are currently the best and easiest method that the average human can understand without actually requiring any actual thought or consideration. "We got more votes so you gotta do what we say or we kill you."
I can at the least live with rules made by other humans in a fact-based reality.........
(2) How do you personally determine what is “right” and what is “wrong”?
(3) How do we, as a society, determine what is “right” and what is “wrong”?
(4) Should society implement its judgments in this regard, solely under democratic principles? If not democratic principles, what?
I make my own morality--and am very happy with the result. I honor the laws made by others for the simple reason that I dont want to be locked in a box with subhuman animals or just flat out murdered for disagreeing with the horde of the great unwashed.
QUOTE
My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.
— Ayn Rand
— Ayn Rand
I determine how I treat others by how I want to be treated -- from this comes how I determine right and wrong. Quite often it boils down to -- If what I do causes you no physical harm get out of my face and mind your own business. Otherwise known as the Golden Principle of You leave me alone and i will leave you alone.
even better:
QUOTE
"No man may initiate the use of physical force against others. No man--or group or society or government--has the right to assume the role of a criminal and initiate the use of physical compulsion against any man. Men have the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. The ethical principle involved is simple and clear-cut: it is the difference between murder and self-defense."
Democratic principles are currently the best and easiest method that the average human can understand without actually requiring any actual thought or consideration. "We got more votes so you gotta do what we say or we kill you."
QUOTE
I think the word 'morality' causes people to push away because of the religious connotation
Mrs P ya just flat out nailed that one. I can at the least live with rules made by other humans in a fact-based reality.........
(1) Is there an objective “right” or “wrong” or are these terms relative?
There is an objective right and wrong given your definition of morality. However, of course, there can be no "correct" definition. I view morality as the will of God, therefore morality is objective in that God either wills something or he doesn't. There is no room for relativity in that.
I think it is wrong to assume, however, that without an objective morality there is no justification for basing your support for a law on a moral theory. If moral feelings have no objective basis, they are simply feelings, but feelings are what cause us to act. Feelings form our desires, which are also our wants and our interests. We act based on our wants. If I want you to act a certain way, because I have a moral feeling that you should, I might very well try to force you to act that way. That doesn't mean I assume you feel the same way, in fact it means I assume you do not. But I act based on my feelings, not yours. I might take into account your feelings, and this might change my feelings, but in the end it is still my feelings that I act on.
Of course, in many cases I might not want to force you to behave in a certain way, even if I would prefer that you did. I might try to use persuasion, or I might decide that it is more important that I don't coerce you than that you act in that certain way. However, I might decide that your acting a certain way is more important than my refraining from coercing you. For example, it is more important that people refrain from killing others than that we refrain from coercing potential murderers.
(2) How do you personally determine what is “right” and what is “wrong”?
I am a utilitarian, so that given the choice of mutually exclusive actions (or nonactions) the right one is the one which, given my information, is most likely to produce the greatest net improvement (measured by gain minus harm) in the welfare of the greatest number of people. Where did this principle come from? Well, I believe that we should treat the welfare of all people as equally valuable (even our own welfare), so this principle basically derives from that. I believe that we should treat others well because I have been taught it, I have a natural instinct for compassion, and because it is in the Bible.
(3) How do we, as a society, determine what is “right” and what is “wrong”?
I don't think we do. I try to act as I think is right, and other people do the same. "Legislating morality" is used to mean, basically, passing laws which some people think will make people act in a more moral way, but others disagree with.
I think the whole concept of a society deciding a law is moral just doesn't make sense. I vote for laws which I think will produce the geatest net improvment in net aggregate welfare. I am not "legislating morality", I am simply expressing my interests through the voting process. Senators, on the other hand, pass laws which their electorate want them to pass, so they don't legislate morality, they legislate popular opinion moderated by specialized knowledge (and sometimes special interests).
Each person exerts his will to make the government do what is in his interest, whether the interest be "selfish" or moral. It is completely illogical, not to mention impossible, to do something which is against your interest. Interest may include interest in the well-being of others, or concern for the opinions of others, but it is always personal. It might be in someone's interest to let other people do whatever they want, because they are morally opposed to the use of force. But I'm not opposed to the use of force, because I am a utilitarian and my moral theory says that human welfare is the be-all and end-all.
It is wrong to assume that there is some sort of "meta-moral" saying that we shouldn't use force except in response to threats or uses of force (or some other manifestation of "not enforcing your morals on other people", whatever that means), which somehow applies to all moral theories. Some people might include this as part of their moral system, but others do not. If someone wants to get me to include it in mine they either have to show me that initiating force always reduces net aggregate human welfare, or get me to stray from utilitarianism.
(4) Should society implement its judgments in this regard, solely under democratic principles? If not democratic principles, what?
Democratic principles. Not because they are inherently more moral, but because they generally produce the best results. If everyone gets to represent their interests to the government, there is a lower likelihood that someone's welfare is going to get stepped on.
However, if I became dictator I would not hestitate in "legislating morality". I would get good advisors and try to make laws which would produce the greatest aggregate human welfare. I think that in some cases dictatorship might be a good thing. There are a few people who would actually make the right decisions. The problem is that such people are rare, and the probability is that a dictator would abuse his power. Therefore I will always act to promote democracy, even though I wouldn't mind being a dictator.
There is an objective right and wrong given your definition of morality. However, of course, there can be no "correct" definition. I view morality as the will of God, therefore morality is objective in that God either wills something or he doesn't. There is no room for relativity in that.
I think it is wrong to assume, however, that without an objective morality there is no justification for basing your support for a law on a moral theory. If moral feelings have no objective basis, they are simply feelings, but feelings are what cause us to act. Feelings form our desires, which are also our wants and our interests. We act based on our wants. If I want you to act a certain way, because I have a moral feeling that you should, I might very well try to force you to act that way. That doesn't mean I assume you feel the same way, in fact it means I assume you do not. But I act based on my feelings, not yours. I might take into account your feelings, and this might change my feelings, but in the end it is still my feelings that I act on.
Of course, in many cases I might not want to force you to behave in a certain way, even if I would prefer that you did. I might try to use persuasion, or I might decide that it is more important that I don't coerce you than that you act in that certain way. However, I might decide that your acting a certain way is more important than my refraining from coercing you. For example, it is more important that people refrain from killing others than that we refrain from coercing potential murderers.
(2) How do you personally determine what is “right” and what is “wrong”?
I am a utilitarian, so that given the choice of mutually exclusive actions (or nonactions) the right one is the one which, given my information, is most likely to produce the greatest net improvement (measured by gain minus harm) in the welfare of the greatest number of people. Where did this principle come from? Well, I believe that we should treat the welfare of all people as equally valuable (even our own welfare), so this principle basically derives from that. I believe that we should treat others well because I have been taught it, I have a natural instinct for compassion, and because it is in the Bible.
(3) How do we, as a society, determine what is “right” and what is “wrong”?
I don't think we do. I try to act as I think is right, and other people do the same. "Legislating morality" is used to mean, basically, passing laws which some people think will make people act in a more moral way, but others disagree with.
I think the whole concept of a society deciding a law is moral just doesn't make sense. I vote for laws which I think will produce the geatest net improvment in net aggregate welfare. I am not "legislating morality", I am simply expressing my interests through the voting process. Senators, on the other hand, pass laws which their electorate want them to pass, so they don't legislate morality, they legislate popular opinion moderated by specialized knowledge (and sometimes special interests).
Each person exerts his will to make the government do what is in his interest, whether the interest be "selfish" or moral. It is completely illogical, not to mention impossible, to do something which is against your interest. Interest may include interest in the well-being of others, or concern for the opinions of others, but it is always personal. It might be in someone's interest to let other people do whatever they want, because they are morally opposed to the use of force. But I'm not opposed to the use of force, because I am a utilitarian and my moral theory says that human welfare is the be-all and end-all.
It is wrong to assume that there is some sort of "meta-moral" saying that we shouldn't use force except in response to threats or uses of force (or some other manifestation of "not enforcing your morals on other people", whatever that means), which somehow applies to all moral theories. Some people might include this as part of their moral system, but others do not. If someone wants to get me to include it in mine they either have to show me that initiating force always reduces net aggregate human welfare, or get me to stray from utilitarianism.
(4) Should society implement its judgments in this regard, solely under democratic principles? If not democratic principles, what?
Democratic principles. Not because they are inherently more moral, but because they generally produce the best results. If everyone gets to represent their interests to the government, there is a lower likelihood that someone's welfare is going to get stepped on.
However, if I became dictator I would not hestitate in "legislating morality". I would get good advisors and try to make laws which would produce the greatest aggregate human welfare. I think that in some cases dictatorship might be a good thing. There are a few people who would actually make the right decisions. The problem is that such people are rare, and the probability is that a dictator would abuse his power. Therefore I will always act to promote democracy, even though I wouldn't mind being a dictator.
QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Nov 20 2005, 01:09 AM)
Laws are based on ethics, not morality.
You can't have one without the other. To put in scientific terms, right and wrong are the axioms upon which ethics are based. In order for a terms like ethical or unethical to have any meaning, there have to be certain common assumptions of morality. If some punk goes around killing people just for his own entertainment, if he actually thinks their lives are worth less than relief of his boredom, I don't think anyone with an ounce of soul would hesitate to say that his actions are wrong, or just plain hideously evil - but not merely "unethical". To speak in terms of ethics, either one way or the other, implies that there's at least some basic recognition, or at least a pretense of recognition of morality to begin with on the part of the person committing the action.
We see it differently. I know you can have ethics separate from morality. My opinion is not only can they be separate but they should be when making laws.
I agree with you that instinctively, humans will be disgusted/repelled/emotional about certain acts. I do think this is a basic sort of morality. Other morality comes from belief systems.
Laws should not be based on either. They may be a motivation to make a law but law should be structured on an ethical basis. The application of law should be calm and detected, and structured upon basic ethical standards.
Laws should not be based upon religion. Because religion has a moral code does not automatically mean it is or is not an ethical issue. However, any law should be based upon the ethical standards of all in the community and not upon a portion of the population's morales.
I know there are some who understand the difference in the two approaches and disagree it is best to keep them separate. I am aware there are those who see them as the same and are unable to grasp the difference.
This is a excellent motivation to discuss as it is a true basic means for looking at much of what we discuss on AD. Are you a person who is motivated by your own morality or are you a person who is motivated by ethical standards? There are bottom lines for all of us and this is one of them. I have come to the conclusion that ethics are less likely to infringe upon others freedom. Morality is judgemental instead of logical. There are times where instinct should control ones actions. Belief systems should never be incorporated into law.
I agree with you that instinctively, humans will be disgusted/repelled/emotional about certain acts. I do think this is a basic sort of morality. Other morality comes from belief systems.
Laws should not be based on either. They may be a motivation to make a law but law should be structured on an ethical basis. The application of law should be calm and detected, and structured upon basic ethical standards.
Laws should not be based upon religion. Because religion has a moral code does not automatically mean it is or is not an ethical issue. However, any law should be based upon the ethical standards of all in the community and not upon a portion of the population's morales.
I know there are some who understand the difference in the two approaches and disagree it is best to keep them separate. I am aware there are those who see them as the same and are unable to grasp the difference.
This is a excellent motivation to discuss as it is a true basic means for looking at much of what we discuss on AD. Are you a person who is motivated by your own morality or are you a person who is motivated by ethical standards? There are bottom lines for all of us and this is one of them. I have come to the conclusion that ethics are less likely to infringe upon others freedom. Morality is judgemental instead of logical. There are times where instinct should control ones actions. Belief systems should never be incorporated into law.
QUOTE
(1) Is there an objective “right” or “wrong” or are these terms relative?
In a basic sense yes. Murder is wrong, charity is right, theft is wrong, etc. But somewhere in the middle of the extremes, things can get a little subjective and fuzzy. Most issues, however, have a clear right and wrong solution.
QUOTE
(2) How do you personally determine what is “right” and what is “wrong”?
I determine it by answering myself these questions:A: Will I harm myself as a result of my actions?
B: Will I harm others as a result of my actions?
C: Will I be infringing on the rights or priveleges of others as a result of my actions?
D: What's the risk-reward?
E: Is it something I consider to be a "sin"?
QUOTE
(3) How do we, as a society, determine what is “right” and what is “wrong”?
We don't. Everyone, as inidividuals do.
QUOTE
(4) Should society implement its judgments in this regard, solely under democratic principles? If not democratic principles, what?
Republican principles and Constitutional principles. I can't break the law [assuming it's legitimate] and the government can't either. That seems moral to me.
CP
QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Nov 30 2005, 06:47 PM)
We see it differently. I know you can have ethics separate from morality. My opinion is not only can they be separate but they should be when making laws.
But you haven't described what the difference is between the two. The most you've said is that one is judgmental, and the other logical. I think it's far more accurate to say is that one is axiomatic, and the other derivative. All logic has to have axioms to work from. None of it can exist in completely in a vacuum, because logic involves going from premises to conclusions. You have to have first premises. With ethical reasoning, those first premises are what's known as morality.
Now this of course doesn't mean that you have to accept the same axioms as everyone else, or that they have to come from the Bible or from some other particular source. But one way or another, in one form or another, they do have to exist, otherwise your ethical reasoning is going to be completely groundless.
Ethics vs. Morality
Morality is a collection of premises stated as right and wrong.
Ethics is logical thinking based upon concepts.
For example: Freedom. Freedom is not right nor wrong. It is a concept.
For example: The Declaration of Independence begins, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." which is a concept upon which to base law. It is an example of ethics.
Morality is such as: murder is wrong, stealing is wrong, homosexuality is wrong.
When I read through the discussion of Does Same Sex Marriage Weaken Marriage I see an argument between morality and ethics. Same sex marriage is immoral to some and we should not change our morality. Others are saying it is the ethical concept of treating everyone equally which supersedes this moral position. I also see where some use ethics to support their own position but drop the same ethical argument where it conflicts with their own morality.
It is impossible to convince someone of your viewpoint if the other side comes from a moral stance as morality is inflexible. It just is. In an ethical argument, there is always a chance to convince the other side.
Morality is not so constant. It will change with time. Ethics is much more stable.
Morality is a collection of premises stated as right and wrong.
Ethics is logical thinking based upon concepts.
For example: Freedom. Freedom is not right nor wrong. It is a concept.
For example: The Declaration of Independence begins, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." which is a concept upon which to base law. It is an example of ethics.
Morality is such as: murder is wrong, stealing is wrong, homosexuality is wrong.
When I read through the discussion of Does Same Sex Marriage Weaken Marriage I see an argument between morality and ethics. Same sex marriage is immoral to some and we should not change our morality. Others are saying it is the ethical concept of treating everyone equally which supersedes this moral position. I also see where some use ethics to support their own position but drop the same ethical argument where it conflicts with their own morality.
It is impossible to convince someone of your viewpoint if the other side comes from a moral stance as morality is inflexible. It just is. In an ethical argument, there is always a chance to convince the other side.
Morality is not so constant. It will change with time. Ethics is much more stable.
QUOTE(hayleyanne @ Nov 19 2005, 07:01 PM)
Questions for Debate:
(1) Is there an objective “right” or “wrong” or are these terms relative?
(2) How do you personally determine what is “right” and what is “wrong”?
(3) How do we, as a society, determine what is “right” and what is “wrong”?
(4) Should society implement its judgments in this regard, solely under democratic principles? If not democratic principles, what?
(1) Is there an objective “right” or “wrong” or are these terms relative?
(2) How do you personally determine what is “right” and what is “wrong”?
(3) How do we, as a society, determine what is “right” and what is “wrong”?
(4) Should society implement its judgments in this regard, solely under democratic principles? If not democratic principles, what?
These are interesting question to say the least. There is certainly an objective right or wrong to any judgement you make about an event or circumstance. There is also a degree of severity that should be considered as well when creating laws.
Personally, I let my conscience decide everything. It's not hard to determine between right and wrong. I certainly don't use the Bible since there is a lack of wisdom in that book. Which leads me to my next answer......
A percentage of laws are enacted by legislators who actually believe that the standards of morality as expressed in the Bible are applicable and valuable to today's generation. Unfortunately, the morality as expressed in the Bible is completely devoid of any intelligence; save a few concepts expressed by Jesus in the gospels. This is an unfortunate situation since our livelihood is regulated by such beliefs. Ironically, the remaining percentage of our laws are created based on money.
I love America. 
This final question is a little too vague, sorry.
Your short and to the point post still has me thinking, Blackstone. I think your simplifying the question to axiomatic versus derivative is a good one.
I noticed two examples of my idea of how I separate ethics and morality here on America's Debate. Both are from the Ills of Marriage Visited Upon Homosexuals discussion.
-------Example One-------
The first is from artemise. Here are her words:
-------Example Two-------
A second example is the exchange between aevans176 and Victoria Silverwolf:
One of my clients today is a philosophy professor at St. Louis University. Her current instruction class is medical ethics. I digress. Anyhow, I asked her about ethics vs. morality. Her comment was that her peers vary on what they mean. Some consider them to be synonymous and others do not.
This is exactly the situation here on America's Debate. From your post, Blackstone, perhaps it may be better communication this difference in thinking as axiomatic morality versus derivative ethics?
-------
Another idea came to me. Maybe the difference between the axiomatic thought process and derivative thought process is a major difference between liberal/conservative or democrat/republican? I think so.
The religious right are axiomatics. Military hawks are axiomatics.
Those who support legal change in homosexuality are derivatives.
Anytime people are arguing for change they will use the derivative process. When you do not want to change, you use the axiomatic process. This seems to define conservative and liberal respectively.
However, using axioms is not just a Republican trait. Derivatives are attracted to the Democrats as the charlatans have learned to use axioms which sound like they are derivative thinkers. It is sort of a "my axiom is newer than theirs so vote for me" appeal. It seems to work for the Democrats, I suppose.
I would surmise that presenting too much derivative thinking does not work politically. The general population thinks in axiomatic terms.
-------
(1) Is there a objective "right" and "wrong" or are these terms relative?
For axiomatics right and wrong is objective and for derivatives they are relative.
(2) How do you personally determine what is “right” and what is “wrong”?
I am an oddball as I process derivatively quite often in my day to day problem solving. By far, most people do not. Axiomatic thinking is how most people problem solve in their personal lives. For most personal interactions, axiomatic is a much better means to communicate.
(3) How do we, as a society, determine what is “right” and what is “wrong”?
Both axiomatic and derivative thinking is used.
(4) Should society implement its judgments in this regard, solely under democratic principles? If not democratic principles, what?
Most of society understand axiomatic thinking and a minority process derivatively. However, we have a Constitution where derivative thinking has been applied for its interpretation. Supreme Court justices have struggled to determine which concepts are the basis for the the words in the Constitution. The axiomatic think this has been a mistake and the Constitution is literal. It means only what it says and nothing more. These justices believe there are no underlying concepts and they must determine the narrow application of the Constitution's words. They wish to determine the black and white, right and wrong intention.
-------
This leaves me wondering how we can all get along? I am a person who believes that the best thinkers, best critical minds, the best problem solvers are those who can process derivatively. If a person is unable to come from a basic concept, not a right and wrong axiom, they seem to be crippled and unable to fully analyze a problem. How do I communicate effectively and without prejudice with those who debate from the axiomatic viewpoint? There seems to be as much common ground in these two approachs as there is between those who consider abortion to be murder and those who do not.
-------
Thanks for stimulating me to think it over some more, Blackstone. I hope I am communicating my ideas better.
I noticed two examples of my idea of how I separate ethics and morality here on America's Debate. Both are from the Ills of Marriage Visited Upon Homosexuals discussion.
-------Example One-------
The first is from artemise. Here are her words:
QUOTE(artemise)
From what I see here, after reading pages and pages of runaround is that to some, same sex marriage should not be granted "because its just not right!"
followed later by QUOTE(artemise)
Its really easy to see why. Noone can find a legal argument against, only a vague moral one, which is allegedly: Its just wrong. Thats the best anyone against can come up with.
She is expressing some frustration with those who are coming from, what I have been labeling, a morality basis. There is not much of a chance to debate or convince someone who has a morality set, not derived from any concept. -------Example Two-------
A second example is the exchange between aevans176 and Victoria Silverwolf:
QUOTE(aevans176)
I believe that there are factions of the United States that believe that homosexuality is perfectly normal and acceptable, while others are more tolerant as opposed to accepting. We've discussed how incest has been a part of Western Society's history, and even debated historical and biblical account of homosexuality. However, I believe that we've negated to acknowledge that some Americans believe it to be abnormal and wrong.
QUOTE(Victoria Silverwolf)
I suppose I should commend aevans176 for being one of the few honest voices among those who oppose same-sex marriage. Can we be frank for a moment? The only reason that large majorities of Americans continue to vote against same-sex marriage is that they think that homosexuality is bad. This is why we keep getting these insane comparisons of homosexuality to "satanism" and "vampires."
This is, of course, nonsense. Same-sex relationships and opposite-sex relationships are exactly the same when it comes to ethics. Any ethical system which denies this is wrong.
This is, of course, nonsense. Same-sex relationships and opposite-sex relationships are exactly the same when it comes to ethics. Any ethical system which denies this is wrong.
QUOTE(aevans176)
I believe for this debate to get so poignant as to portray one's ethics in an air of omnipotence is no more open-minded than any other person on this board (or in your own town,etc).
QUOTE(Victoria Silverwolf)
Guilty as charged. I am not open-minded on this issue.
There is a clash between those who come from a what I have been calling morality versus what I have been calling ethics. One of my clients today is a philosophy professor at St. Louis University. Her current instruction class is medical ethics. I digress. Anyhow, I asked her about ethics vs. morality. Her comment was that her peers vary on what they mean. Some consider them to be synonymous and others do not.
This is exactly the situation here on America's Debate. From your post, Blackstone, perhaps it may be better communication this difference in thinking as axiomatic morality versus derivative ethics?
-------
Another idea came to me. Maybe the difference between the axiomatic thought process and derivative thought process is a major difference between liberal/conservative or democrat/republican? I think so.
The religious right are axiomatics. Military hawks are axiomatics.
Those who support legal change in homosexuality are derivatives.
Anytime people are arguing for change they will use the derivative process. When you do not want to change, you use the axiomatic process. This seems to define conservative and liberal respectively.
However, using axioms is not just a Republican trait. Derivatives are attracted to the Democrats as the charlatans have learned to use axioms which sound like they are derivative thinkers. It is sort of a "my axiom is newer than theirs so vote for me" appeal. It seems to work for the Democrats, I suppose.
I would surmise that presenting too much derivative thinking does not work politically. The general population thinks in axiomatic terms.
-------
(1) Is there a objective "right" and "wrong" or are these terms relative?
For axiomatics right and wrong is objective and for derivatives they are relative.
(2) How do you personally determine what is “right” and what is “wrong”?
I am an oddball as I process derivatively quite often in my day to day problem solving. By far, most people do not. Axiomatic thinking is how most people problem solve in their personal lives. For most personal interactions, axiomatic is a much better means to communicate.
(3) How do we, as a society, determine what is “right” and what is “wrong”?
Both axiomatic and derivative thinking is used.
(4) Should society implement its judgments in this regard, solely under democratic principles? If not democratic principles, what?
Most of society understand axiomatic thinking and a minority process derivatively. However, we have a Constitution where derivative thinking has been applied for its interpretation. Supreme Court justices have struggled to determine which concepts are the basis for the the words in the Constitution. The axiomatic think this has been a mistake and the Constitution is literal. It means only what it says and nothing more. These justices believe there are no underlying concepts and they must determine the narrow application of the Constitution's words. They wish to determine the black and white, right and wrong intention.
-------
This leaves me wondering how we can all get along? I am a person who believes that the best thinkers, best critical minds, the best problem solvers are those who can process derivatively. If a person is unable to come from a basic concept, not a right and wrong axiom, they seem to be crippled and unable to fully analyze a problem. How do I communicate effectively and without prejudice with those who debate from the axiomatic viewpoint? There seems to be as much common ground in these two approachs as there is between those who consider abortion to be murder and those who do not.
-------
Thanks for stimulating me to think it over some more, Blackstone. I hope I am communicating my ideas better.
I would have to admit, Gray Seal, that I also had thought quite a bit about your last post to me, #15. I think we both know what we're really talking about when it comes to ethics vs morality. The unspoken aspect that we (or at least I) have been dancing around is sexual morality. This is one of those areas where one could try to be derivative versus axiomatic, but it all gets tangled up almost inextricably in a bunch of very subtle factors. There's a reason why there are limits on it, and it's not simply to prevent out-of-wedlock babies. There's a whole emotional minefield surrounding sex, and that gives it a moral (I can't think of a better word for it right now) dimension. To demonstrate this, just imagine a society where there are no - and I mean NO - limits on sexual activity, provided that pregnancy can be definitively prevented until the right time. I think most people would be pretty repulsed by such a thought.
Now this is different from saying to what extent the law should be involved in these types of matters. But, at least by my current thinking, I have a hard time characterizing it as anything other than a matter of morality. I know we probably won't come to a resolution on this in this thread, but I just thought it important for now that I at least make myself understood.
Now this is different from saying to what extent the law should be involved in these types of matters. But, at least by my current thinking, I have a hard time characterizing it as anything other than a matter of morality. I know we probably won't come to a resolution on this in this thread, but I just thought it important for now that I at least make myself understood.
I think Gray Seal has more or less nailed the difference between morality and ethics with his poles derivative/axiomatic.
All I would add is that I don't think that anyone is completely axiomatic in all areas, or completely derivative, but that these two poles are the extreme ends of a spectrum. We all have some areas that we can consider rationally (and perhaps have our minds changed on by argument from a different view) and some areas where we just "know" x is right and y is wrong.
I'd go further, and say that axiomatic thinking (and there are axioms on the left as well as the right - the axiom that private or corporate = bad and public = good, for example) is usually entirely external - the source of the axioms is someone or something else, accepted without question. Maybe it might be the Bible, or Das Kapital, but it isn't generally questioned.
Derivative thinking, almost by definition, is arrived at by the person holding views arrived at derivatively. Often, the thought process may have been established by someone else first, but an individual still has to follow the thought process through for themselves, and - crucially to my mind - has to question most or all of the steps.
I think we instinctively understand this, and all sides appear to respect derivative opinions more than axiomatic ones. And, we all like to think that all of our opinions are held derivatively. It's only whe we are challenged to justify them, and we find ourselves either using logical fallacy or getting disproportionately angry that we might be able to see that some of our views, at least, are founded on other people's axioms.
(1) Is there an objective “right” or “wrong” or are these terms relative?
It's nuanced, but I am not so sure that objectivity and subjectivity fit exactly onto the derivative/axiomatic spectrum. I think it depends on what assumptions and premises are used in a derivative argument, especially when we move into areas where they are scientific or other clearly empirical real-world facts.
In such cases, it's easy to spot derivative and axiomatic thinkers.
I do think that derivative thinking is less likely to involve binary choices of right/wrong, even in such scientific cases. Just taking Darwinian evolution as an example*, where axiomatic thinkers might be more typically found in the Creationist camp, and derivative thinkers in the evolutionist camp.
For Creationists to change their minds, the founding axiom - the literal truth of the Bible - has to be disproven. It doesn't do to prove some bits wrong, the whole thing would have to be factually proven to be wrong not only in their heads, but in their guts (which is where most of us "know" things to be true). As such, it isn't really open to rational argument, because it wasn't arrived at that way. I think this is true of all such axiomatic opinions.
On the Darwinian side, there are axioms too. Evolution itself has indeed occurred, over many millions of year. The derived empiricism comes into play when considering the mechanisms at play - was it gradual, or punctuated equilibrium, or a mix of the two. Questioning one part of the evidence doesn't undermine the whole theory, because it doesn't rest on a single piece of evidence. And, since it was arrived at through a process of questioning anyway (even if not by all supporters of the idea) this is not an especially insulting or disrespectful process. Indeed, it may help to clarify the mechanism and further understanding of the process.
*Let's not get into an evolutionary debate here.
Here is where the relative/absolute line doesn't quite fit over the derived/axiomatic line, and where I am not sure I agree with Gray Seal. At a point in time, I don't think derivative thinkers necessarily have a more flexible view of right and wrong than axiomatics. Which brings me to...
...(2) How do you personally determine what is “right” and what is “wrong”?
Here, I think that "right" and "wrong" are determined best by whether or not they fit with the rules we have to describe the way we think the world works. However they are arrived at. Sometimes those rules can even be derived from an axiomatic position.
Taking another example, I believe killing to be wrong. Axiomatically. I can think of precisely no occasions where killing someone would be praiseworthy or desirable in and of itself. However, I then take a derivative view that sometimes, circumstances might dictate that killing someone is necessary - in immediate self-defence, for instance. Even then, it wouldn't become praiseworthy - it's still wrong, but it's a lesser wrong than a premeditated killing. (This coincides with the laws on murder, for the most part, which is why murder is illegal and killing isn't necessarily.)
One area where I think there is absolutely no cross-over between axiomatic and derivative thinking is that while both can have, and sometimes (often) agree on, a strong and fixed sense of right and wrong, only axiomatic thinkers (and people trying to appeal to them) ever talk in terms of "good" and "evil".
I would like to think I deduce all of my ethical positions from empirical facts. But then I'd like to think that I am the most sought-after love god of the entire pre-menopausal female world. I'd like to think that, but there is (at best) very patchy evidence in support of it, and plenty to the contrary.
Better to realise I'm just an averagely attractive bloke and behave accordingly, though, than to live in a fantasy world where I am Mr Luuuuuuurve and constantly find myself confounded by reality.
(3) How do we, as a society, determine what is “right” and what is “wrong”?
For the most part, we come to a workable compromise between supportable axioms and solidly-derived theories. We come into disagreements when we use axioms that have little or no real-world support, or derived theories that have little solidity, or combinations of the two.
(4) Should society implement its judgments in this regard, solely under democratic principles? If not democratic principles, what?
I think that non-partisan representative democracy is about the best system we've come up with for sober and reasoned consideration of both axiomatic and derivative views. By this I mean where there is no party policy on a subject, and no application of party discipline or expectation of loyalty to one particular position, and representatives can decide their positions freely and according to their own consciences.
Even here, different democratic cultures can arrive at different views - for example, the absence of Capital Punishment in Europe and its use in the USA - because all but the dustiest scientific debates rely on at least some axioms, and it's axioms that differ by culture, not deductive (or inductive) reasoning.
All I would add is that I don't think that anyone is completely axiomatic in all areas, or completely derivative, but that these two poles are the extreme ends of a spectrum. We all have some areas that we can consider rationally (and perhaps have our minds changed on by argument from a different view) and some areas where we just "know" x is right and y is wrong.
I'd go further, and say that axiomatic thinking (and there are axioms on the left as well as the right - the axiom that private or corporate = bad and public = good, for example) is usually entirely external - the source of the axioms is someone or something else, accepted without question. Maybe it might be the Bible, or Das Kapital, but it isn't generally questioned.
Derivative thinking, almost by definition, is arrived at by the person holding views arrived at derivatively. Often, the thought process may have been established by someone else first, but an individual still has to follow the thought process through for themselves, and - crucially to my mind - has to question most or all of the steps.
I think we instinctively understand this, and all sides appear to respect derivative opinions more than axiomatic ones. And, we all like to think that all of our opinions are held derivatively. It's only whe we are challenged to justify them, and we find ourselves either using logical fallacy or getting disproportionately angry that we might be able to see that some of our views, at least, are founded on other people's axioms.
(1) Is there an objective “right” or “wrong” or are these terms relative?
It's nuanced, but I am not so sure that objectivity and subjectivity fit exactly onto the derivative/axiomatic spectrum. I think it depends on what assumptions and premises are used in a derivative argument, especially when we move into areas where they are scientific or other clearly empirical real-world facts.
In such cases, it's easy to spot derivative and axiomatic thinkers.
I do think that derivative thinking is less likely to involve binary choices of right/wrong, even in such scientific cases. Just taking Darwinian evolution as an example*, where axiomatic thinkers might be more typically found in the Creationist camp, and derivative thinkers in the evolutionist camp.
For Creationists to change their minds, the founding axiom - the literal truth of the Bible - has to be disproven. It doesn't do to prove some bits wrong, the whole thing would have to be factually proven to be wrong not only in their heads, but in their guts (which is where most of us "know" things to be true). As such, it isn't really open to rational argument, because it wasn't arrived at that way. I think this is true of all such axiomatic opinions.
On the Darwinian side, there are axioms too. Evolution itself has indeed occurred, over many millions of year. The derived empiricism comes into play when considering the mechanisms at play - was it gradual, or punctuated equilibrium, or a mix of the two. Questioning one part of the evidence doesn't undermine the whole theory, because it doesn't rest on a single piece of evidence. And, since it was arrived at through a process of questioning anyway (even if not by all supporters of the idea) this is not an especially insulting or disrespectful process. Indeed, it may help to clarify the mechanism and further understanding of the process.
*Let's not get into an evolutionary debate here.
Here is where the relative/absolute line doesn't quite fit over the derived/axiomatic line, and where I am not sure I agree with Gray Seal. At a point in time, I don't think derivative thinkers necessarily have a more flexible view of right and wrong than axiomatics. Which brings me to...
...(2) How do you personally determine what is “right” and what is “wrong”?
Here, I think that "right" and "wrong" are determined best by whether or not they fit with the rules we have to describe the way we think the world works. However they are arrived at. Sometimes those rules can even be derived from an axiomatic position.
Taking another example, I believe killing to be wrong. Axiomatically. I can think of precisely no occasions where killing someone would be praiseworthy or desirable in and of itself. However, I then take a derivative view that sometimes, circumstances might dictate that killing someone is necessary - in immediate self-defence, for instance. Even then, it wouldn't become praiseworthy - it's still wrong, but it's a lesser wrong than a premeditated killing. (This coincides with the laws on murder, for the most part, which is why murder is illegal and killing isn't necessarily.)
One area where I think there is absolutely no cross-over between axiomatic and derivative thinking is that while both can have, and sometimes (often) agree on, a strong and fixed sense of right and wrong, only axiomatic thinkers (and people trying to appeal to them) ever talk in terms of "good" and "evil".
I would like to think I deduce all of my ethical positions from empirical facts. But then I'd like to think that I am the most sought-after love god of the entire pre-menopausal female world. I'd like to think that, but there is (at best) very patchy evidence in support of it, and plenty to the contrary.
Better to realise I'm just an averagely attractive bloke and behave accordingly, though, than to live in a fantasy world where I am Mr Luuuuuuurve and constantly find myself confounded by reality.
(3) How do we, as a society, determine what is “right” and what is “wrong”?
For the most part, we come to a workable compromise between supportable axioms and solidly-derived theories. We come into disagreements when we use axioms that have little or no real-world support, or derived theories that have little solidity, or combinations of the two.
(4) Should society implement its judgments in this regard, solely under democratic principles? If not democratic principles, what?
I think that non-partisan representative democracy is about the best system we've come up with for sober and reasoned consideration of both axiomatic and derivative views. By this I mean where there is no party policy on a subject, and no application of party discipline or expectation of loyalty to one particular position, and representatives can decide their positions freely and according to their own consciences.
Even here, different democratic cultures can arrive at different views - for example, the absence of Capital Punishment in Europe and its use in the USA - because all but the dustiest scientific debates rely on at least some axioms, and it's axioms that differ by culture, not deductive (or inductive) reasoning.
(1) Is there an objective “right” or “wrong” or are these terms relative?
I suppose I must take issue with the phrasing of this question. You're implying "objective" and "relative" to be in opposition. I don't think this is necessarily the case. Why can't there be an objective (that is, existing in reality) yet relative notion of right and wrong? I think what you want is "absolute".
There are a number of moral theories and meta-theories proposed by philosophers throughout history. Moral theories fall into four broad categories: consequentialist, teleological, deontological and virtue-based. Moral meta-theories try to address the nature of statements within moral theories -- moral subjectivism, absolutism, skepticism, nihilism, contractualism -- among others. The link above is from the wikipedia and has lots of good discussion.
(2) How do you personally determine what is “right” and what is “wrong”?
I suppose I'm a teleologist (intentions matter) with a smattering of consequentialism and consider myself a meta-moral skeptic.
(3) How do we, as a society, determine what is “right” and what is “wrong”?
Hmm... This question is one for a doctoral thesis. I think I'll skip this one
.
(4) Should society implement its judgments in this regard, solely under democratic principles? If not democratic principles, what?
There is a type of moral meta-theory known as "contractualism" with democratic principles being a specific implementation. The link I provided above discusses this. There's also a meta-ethics link on that page containing more discussion.
I suppose I must take issue with the phrasing of this question. You're implying "objective" and "relative" to be in opposition. I don't think this is necessarily the case. Why can't there be an objective (that is, existing in reality) yet relative notion of right and wrong? I think what you want is "absolute".
There are a number of moral theories and meta-theories proposed by philosophers throughout history. Moral theories fall into four broad categories: consequentialist, teleological, deontological and virtue-based. Moral meta-theories try to address the nature of statements within moral theories -- moral subjectivism, absolutism, skepticism, nihilism, contractualism -- among others. The link above is from the wikipedia and has lots of good discussion.
(2) How do you personally determine what is “right” and what is “wrong”?
I suppose I'm a teleologist (intentions matter) with a smattering of consequentialism and consider myself a meta-moral skeptic.
(3) How do we, as a society, determine what is “right” and what is “wrong”?
Hmm... This question is one for a doctoral thesis. I think I'll skip this one
. (4) Should society implement its judgments in this regard, solely under democratic principles? If not democratic principles, what?
There is a type of moral meta-theory known as "contractualism" with democratic principles being a specific implementation. The link I provided above discusses this. There's also a meta-ethics link on that page containing more discussion.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.