What should morality be based on

I also believe that quote you introduced to me and i have some kind of similar statement which is "A emotionlessness could serve humanity best". It is similar to the statement to what jose ortega y gasset had said and he is right because Science and Truth are the hardest of all things in the world, and they seems to be barbaric but they serve best. The truthful or scientific always appears harder.

The point is we have to be logical at the time of discussion and not accusive. We have to concentrate on other opinion while giving our opinion and not have to concentrate on their personality traits.

Let it go

There could not exist moral dilema against every action. But when ever it arises the course of action that one should to choose must be measured from the resultant (combined) net effect perspective with reasonably predictable out come whom against/for the action has a consquence. The action with the highest magnetude regardless of +/- relative value becomes the best action.

Well established morality is always based on survival, big time. The survival of civilization. And now there is basically only one of latter. Hence of the former.

That seems too vague and subjective to me.

-- Updated December 8th, 2012, 9:56 pm to add the following --

Morality strikes me as grounded in what Foucault would have called an 'historical a priori', a sort of 'spirit of the age'. Morality is therefore transitory and therein resistant to objectivity. All normative systems which perform something like the role we associate with morality share certain structural characteristics, even as the meaning and value of these normative systems varies considerably over time. This is problematic insofar as the normative, prescriptive dimension of morality is inductively arrived at from a necessarily interpretive description of human agency. It is not that this description is necessarily wrong, but it is the distinctive commitments that arise from the descriptive elements as normatively unobjectionable; that is where the problem lies.

There is here the presuppositions of moral universality, human free agency and complete self-awareness at work in morality and all can be shown to be found wanting. Universality relies on One morality for all which disregards the fundamentally different types of experiential chains subjects encounter and are thereby formed. 'Free will' can be shown as definitionally wrong, as for willing to be free it must be self-causing and the subject does not cause itself. Self-awareness is open to the same criticism, thoughts are not consciously motivated, that is, a thought cannot think itself. So, a morality based on unchanging, universal social norms will always be lacking. I have seen suggestions that perhaps biological survival could be broached, such leads to social Darwinism which is inherently ammoral and is therefore outside the purview of morality- such was the intuition of Niezscthe i.e. that morality restricts human excellence.

In closing, morality seems to have grounding in the epistemic community of concrete intersubjective relations from which it emanates, and therefore, intersubjectivity seems like the area to investigate for comparative similarities between disparate moral codes and through identifying the connections that obtain, we then may be able to draw out a historically grounded universality that holds within it, somewhat contradictorily if you think about it too hard, an indeterminate core but definite, potentially transient, values independent of the subjectively arrived at notions of right and wrong,; notions that have the deletrious effect of unjustifiably imposing restrictions on 'freedom' that many worry is inextricable from the presence of morality. What i have argued for is a morality that avoids this issue, while not claiming infallibility, yet positing a quasi-objective (inter-subjective) base for value-judgement and duty generation. There is no impetus, i believe, for basing morality in science.

I categorically reject any sentence which contains more than one hundred words.

The foundation should rest on the concepts of: goodness,justice, and right and wrong.

There is an objective "good" upon which morality should be based. Classic example of which is afforded by the principles enshrined in the Universial Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Right to life, to property and freedom. These are universally recognised and arise from the principles found in the early Greek thinkers of antiquity. Although, Euthyphro's dilemma proposes a significant difficulty at the heart of defining morality by reference to an external authority, but insofar "rightness and wrongness" are discerable in themselves as right and wrong, then there must be some non-external source of values which we might come to know independently of its existence. In my view, this could either be theological or secular suffiecent to act as a proper basis for morality.

THINK OF IT THIS WAY: If the whole world were blind, we would be BETTER OFF THIS WAY. We are TOO egotistically driven to COMPROMISE FOR OUR BIOLOGICAL ADVANTAGES.

Different cultures of different times have set their own rules in deciding right or wrong. But what is True right and True wrong? On what "foundation" should society make rules of do's and don'ts? God? Tradition? Knowledge? Feelings?

I would say that morality or ethics is based on an agreement between two or more of how they will treat each other, in a anticipated situation or circumstance. You go in to a store, it is agreed already that you are invited on the owners property as long as you pay for anything you try to take from the property. It is also agreed that the marked price on items you are interested in purchasing is what the cashier will expect, no more. That is in the U.S. of A. Culture. In other cultures it may be different. The particulars of the same situations maybe different, such as negotiating price is expected in some cultures, but the situation that there is some sort of understood agreement still stands, or there is no reasonable way to conduct simple business.

Some look to the Ten Commandments as a set of morals, but its called by those involved, a covenant, meaning agreement. And that agreement is between a people, their God, and each other. The Ten Commandments are an agreement not morals, truly morals are relative to the person who agrees. If one doesn’t agree to the Ten Commandments then the Ten Commandments mean nothing to that person, they are not bound to it by their agreeing. A nation, or a group of people agree, then it’s a matter of who seeks to keep the agreement, and who doesn’t.

The U.S. Constitution is a good example. Some try to keep and or preserve it. Some try to change its meaning, or pervert it to serve their own purposes. So on and so forth, but if you agree to stay in the U.S. of A. Then you agree to the U.S. Constitution, or at least the enforcement thereof.

(Nested quote removed.)

I would say that morality or ethics is based on an agreement between two or more of how they will treat each other, in a anticipated situation or circumstance.

IMO, Ethics is based on more than just an agreement. Many agreed that it was ok to discriminate & kill based on race, even made it legal, but I don't consider that ethical.

I'd define ethical as something that is undefinable, because it is always circumstancial. There are times when it is necessary, even important to kill, but most circumstances we come across daily (when it comes to human beings) - we have agreed it isn't.

Ethics, to me, is about looking at all of the options, and potential consequences, & choosing that which does the greatest good & least harm, no matter what laws dictate. Of course, it will always be subjectively decided, not only what is ethical, but what is "good" or "bad" - but that is the world we live in. Live and hopefully: learn!

Morals SHOULD BE BASED ON CAREFUL, DILIGENT AND LONG TERM OBSERVATIONS. To do our best to AVOID MOST CONSENQUENCES, ASTRAY FROM OUR EGO AND PERSONAL GAIN, DEFINE THE ''I'', LEARN HOW TO KEEP IT RECIPROCAL (a.k.a mutual), DEFINE ''others'', LEARN HOW TO SHARE THIS WORLD WITH OTHERS, AND STOP MAKING UP EXCUSES TO BE ''DIFFERENT'' FOR THE SAKE OF BEING DIFFERENT.

Morals are a very important aspect of human nature and it continues to be pushed aside from critical activity and is only WATERED DOWN by people who aren't even secure about themselves. We need to remember that we aren't saints, and we CAN BE MONSTERS, if we do not THINK before we ACT. Morals are GUIDELINES to our actions, no more and no less!!

Morals are GUIDELINES to our actions, no more and no less!!

It is more than that, which is what your previous statements suggest. Guidelines in themselves are rigid... as a line. Morals, are based on considering circumstances, that are ever-changing. Thus morality is not static, but dynamic.

Thus morality is not static, but dynamic.

Aren't all guidelines dynamic in their nature and only vague based on how we perceive them? We use them when building stuff, we use them when cooking stuff, we use them when we're piecing something together, we use them in art, in music, in writing... COME ON! How are is there ANY way to say more than ''MORALS ARE GUIDELINES''. When you say ''there is more to that'', I would've expected you to add more than the word ''dynamic'', ahahahahaha.

Cheers and welcome back to the boards!

(Nested quote removed.)


IMO, Ethics is based on more than just an agreement. Many agreed that it was ok to discriminate & kill based on race, even made it legal, but I don't consider that ethical.

I'd define ethical as something that is undefinable, because it is always circumstancial. There are times when it is necessary, even important to kill, but most circumstances we come across daily (when it comes to human beings) - we have agreed it isn't.

Ethics, to me, is about looking at all of the options, and potential consequences, & choosing that which does the greatest good & least harm, no matter what laws dictate. Of course, it will always be subjectively decided, not only what is ethical, but what is "good" or "bad" - but that is the world we live in. Live and hopefully: learn!

It is true that those who seek agreement to treat others as they would hate to be treated could be considered a form of wickedness. But that isn’t what I said. An agreement on how two or more treat each other is what I said. Not those who agree on how to treat those out side the agreement.

Therefore your example is not included, you speak of those who treat others as they would not be treated. The discriminater and the discriminated against are not in agreement with each other in their dealings with each other.

Now if it’s a law of the land issue, then it still is about the agreed to law.

(Nested quote removed.)


Aren't all guidelines dynamic in their nature and only vague based on how we perceive them? We use them when building stuff, we use them when cooking stuff, we use them when we're piecing something together, we use them in art, in music, in writing... COME ON! How are is there ANY way to say more than ''MORALS ARE GUIDELINES''. When you say ''there is more to that'', I would've expected you to add more than the word ''dynamic'', ahahahahaha.

Cheers and welcome back to the boards!

Thank you for the welcome back.

I prefer the word, "principle" over "guideline." Guidelines is too often associated with strict rules. Principles - imply more flexibility in moral expression, although I imagine there's an even better word, though I'm not sure what it is at the moment.

-- Updated January 7th, 2013, 7:34 pm to add the following --

It is true that those who seek agreement to treat others as they would hate to be treated could be considered a form of wickedness. But that isn’t what I said. An agreement on how two or more treat each other is what I said. Not those who agree on how to treat those out side the agreement.

Still, I would disagree with you. IE: Some (esp. the "LGBT") are trying to push normalizing pedophilia and adult-child sexual relations, stating that if children like and want adult sexual attention, than it is ok. I disagree with this, because children are not developmentally able to discern what is healthy and what is not, especially if they have been mistaught.

Newme

No, from what I can see you do agree, that there is no basis for morality or ethics if some one is not included in the agreement to agree with the agreement. The child has no say nor ability to agree, to the said proposed agreement. The child or children are not a part of making the agreement (rule or law).

In other words the agreement is not with the children.

"What should morality be based on?" - The constant debate and battle between the utmost intelligent and comprehensive beings, morality should be constantly questioned and changed and revised, the effects of which must be constantly studied and observed! There's no end or absolute! We play God..