What should morality be based on

[Scott]

I generally agree with the sentiment of the non-harm principle. Whether most people would say so or not, I think to a large degree most people agree with it as well. But why does that make any of you want to extrapolate the generally pleasing idea of not causing involuntary harm to each other into so-called morality? Why use it as the so-called "base of morality"? I am happy you do not want to hurt me against my will, but why base "morality" on that?

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

To reiterate my question to the original post at this reply, isn't that statement nonsensical due to circularity? If you think not, then can you please define the word "should" as you are using it in that statement?

I generally agree with the sentiment of the non-harm principle. Whether most people would say so or not, I think to a large degree most people agree with it as well. But why does that make any of you want to extrapolate the generally pleasing idea of not causing involuntary harm to each other into so-called morality? Why use it as the so-called "base of morality"? I am happy you do not want to hurt me against my will, but why base "morality" on that?

If "morality" is the differentiation among intentions, decisions and actions between those that are good (right) and bad (wrong), then who am I to tell you, or you to tell me what is good or bad? I would like to think that morality is something universal because if I have a personal idea of what is moral, and you have another, then we have a contradiction where if one of us is capable, we will inflict our version morality on the other by force. This initiation of force, at least for the person being forced to comply, is itself immoral. It would seem that in order to have any sort of concensus between us so as to approximate the more universal form of morality, we would have to begin with the non-harm principle and interact voluntarily.

Asking what morality "should" be reminds me of apophatic or negative theology which attempts to define god (or the universal good) by negation, to speak only in terms of what may NOT be said about the perfect goodness that is god. Defining god, and morality for that matter, with positive affirmations seems too tricky. A man in a coma cannot be immoral, but the situation gets tricky when you start affirming that he should be doing particular things in order to be moral.

Morality...the ability to see things as they would see you. One ought to guard themselves with morals, without them, you become open game, and easy prey. If I have to kill you, I can still remain pleasant about it. I guess.

Dr. Katz, yours truly, has a definition for the term morality. It agrees with what Jellymeat said in his first post in this thread , and with what PhDummy said when he pointed out that the concept "morality" should be based upon the concept "goodness." {To speak to Scott's concern, "should" here means: "overlaps in meaning with." I learned that from Robert S. Hartman who has a thorough logical analysis (in B. Russell's sense of analysis) of the term ought. I assume the latter is synonymous with "should." Here is that analysis of the ought-judgment, for those who may be interested. See pages 43-45 at this link: - http://tinyurl.com/24cs9y7 } As to what morality should be based on, I'll give you a link to that definition later on in this post.

I needed a word to convey the transition when value becomes moral value. Morality seemed to be the ideal choice. As you will note when you study the paper, "What is Morality?", first I had to define 'value' and 'goodness'. Fortunately, the polymath genius Robert Hartman had already done so in a quite definitive manner. So I employed his definitions for the analysis.

It assumes that everyone has a physical body and a self-image; then it calls "morality" the relationship between the two. Associated with the self-image (the Self) is a name and a self-identity. Because value is a matter of degree, morality is hence a matter of degree: one can possess more or less morality. If one lives up to his own true Self, to that degree he is moral. If he fully does so, he is a real person, is genuine, is honest, sincere, authentic, etc. The details are explained in the paper and in the links offered.

I posted my definition - under the title WHAT IS MORALITY? - and the argument for it here.:
philosophy101.freeforums.org/what-is-mo ... t1180.html

I used the nickname 'deepthot' for the posting. I'd really love to hear from you all as to whether the paper made sense, seemed reasonable, was clear, and appropriate to the topic. Did the supporting argument back up the case for the acceptance of that definition? If so, can you agree to accept it?

Morality should be based on reason. I don´t mean personal "reason", rather "objective" reason. What in latín is called "ratio" and in greek "logos".

Equality, truth, liberty, or justice are the moral foundations of the universe or me.

=
MJA

Equality, truth, liberty, or justice are the moral foundations of the universe or me.

=
MJA

But what is equality, truth, liberty or justice based on??? You run into a circular argument without an end.

It all circles right back to me.
Without a beginning,
Without an end,
Measureless,
Infinity!

=
MJA

It all circles right back to me.
Without a beginning,
Without an end,
Measureless,
Infinity!

=
MJA

Could you please explain yourself? Try to be a little more clearer.

The simple truth is me

=
MJA

OK, I guess you are not able to have a good discussion.

Thats as good as I get,
Sorry you don't aprove.
The foundation of morality is the goodness of me.
Nothing more, nothing less,
Just me.

=
MJA

OK, you explained yourself a little better now. It is not that I don´t approve of you, I just don´t agree with your reasoning.
If you are the sole foundation of morality then morality becomes totally relative and what is good for you might be bad for me, how do you reconcile this? It might be that to kill is good for you...
I think that even from experience you can see that morality is not relative, there are things we all know are wrong like killing others for example...

My reasoning is truth as I am true.
My goodness has no relativity, uncertainty, or doubt.
Do you?

=
MJA

Great answer!!! You are funny and misterious at the same time!!!