What is the basis for morality?

Fundokiller · 09-27-2005, 03:44 AM

What makes a person "unethical" or moral? Is there any universal set of ethics or is it relative? I hope we can try and answer these questions

Drax_reborn · 09-27-2005, 02:02 PM

I believe that ethics are "set" by the society in which people live, this is turn affects the morals of the individual. well that is what I was told during my ethics lecture in uni, but I may be wrong as it was a while ago and I was half asleep.

Xal · 09-27-2005, 06:03 PM

Actually taking my freshman seminar on this topic... well, bioethics, genetics, reproductive choice, all that crap.

Moral principles are the ground rules on which a society operates; the universal ones seem to be 'no incest' and 'put some effort into solving a problem without killing someone else.'
The idea basically being to guarantee that the guy you're looking at can be trusted to play by the same rules you are, which is pretty much the foundation of non-killing people interaction.

Nique · 09-27-2005, 08:00 PM

Basic morals are acts of self-preservation, they then escalate into empathy. Most soceity's have the same basic set of morals (No stealing, no murdering, no rapeing, etc).

If there are any unviersal set of morals above those, no one will agree on what they are.

mxyzptlk · 09-27-2005, 09:12 PM

Ethics is the basis for morality.

Branches of ethics, off the top of my head
Hedonism
Utilitarianism
Virtue
Moral Relativism
Rule of Law
Religion-based

Google the ones you're not familiar with. I'm sure you can find better definitions for them than I could give you.

TheSpacePope · 09-28-2005, 08:45 AM

Quote:

If there are any unviersal set of morals above those, no one will agree on what they are.

this would be me worried about this thread.

Quote:

Moral principles are the ground rules on which a society operates; the universal ones seem to be 'no incest

actually a common practice in other parts of the world. Something like a set of values is to narrow for humankind. From culture to culture we are so different, that one rule would be called something else and be backwords. It's hard to put a pin on it, because it is ceertianly not black and white.

*clears throat
Morality comes from many sources. It can neither be intrinsic, no strictly a product of environment. It is a mixture.*loses bass voice

I think this was the conclusion when we last had this discussion. check back farther, i think there is a post much like this one, pretty recently. i don't know though and I am too busy to look. MAybe that was personality, intrin/extro
but be careful, because a lot of people will mention spirituality and you cannot put someones belifs down based on that, not fair. Just because people believe in something does not give you the right to tear them down. I learned my lesson on that, that As long as they are talking about morality, The G-man and Jee-Whiz are going to show up. So be nice to everyone, and make sure you don't argue about religion, your topic is Morality.
Just don't fan any flames

Gorefiend · 09-28-2005, 03:43 PM

Well, actually I think every society has a "No murders unless..." rule in there. I'm sure some older societies didn't have that. That's why we refer to them in the past tense.

The question is: what is that unless? Some societies think that murdering someone you don't even know to appease your gods is perfectly fine. Others don't. Some would view revenge as a perfect excuse. Others wouldn't. Others yet would ask what the initial offense was, and work from there. Some societies believed that duels of honor to the death were perfectly fine. Others would object. Some would say that execution is perfectly acceptable. Others would not. All, however, would say that going into your neighbor's home and butchering all inside is wrong. Unless you have a good reason, or are powerful enough, or the gods demanded it, or....

See what I mean? There's also, the belief that childer are a social responsability. I think just about every culture out there believes that their children deserve protection. The key word being "their." Other's children... not so much at times...

Those are the only things I can think of that are probably universal.

My 2 cents for now.

Xal · 09-28-2005, 06:55 PM

This is the part that I hate doing.

"actually a common practice in other parts of the world"

Back that one up with something besides "I heard once..." and I'll be impressed. Got a professor who did one of the confirmation studies (the one that proposes it first gets the press, the confirmation study's there to say "yeah, looks like he wasn't pulling that out of his ass.") on that subject. It's a damn near universal taboo... there are always exceptions, but they seem to be mostly limited to royalty and small groups of (pardon the expression) pervs who get press thanks to their wierdness.

It seems to be almost an article of faith among a lot of people that no moral/law/whatever can be 'right.' The problem I have with this is simple: it's fundamentally hypocritical to say that. Think about it for a second. The statement seems to be "It is absolutely right to say that nothing is absolutely right."

Tyler-The-Wizard · 09-28-2005, 09:37 PM

Quote:

"actually a common practice in other parts of the world"

Yep. America. Remember dueling? The not so ancient practice of homicide to defend your honor? Founding father Alexander Hamilton died in a duel with Vice President Aaron Burr!

krade2k20 · 09-28-2005, 10:48 PM

Wow, Tyler saying something intellectual? That's a new one for me.
But enough of bashing friends...

The question of what morals are based on is obviously a tough one. For me, I always felt it was more instinctual, like how animals know they shouldn't eat dirt. Many would argue that it's from, for lack of a better word, "Divine Inspiration," but that's not really my area of expertise (come to think of it, I don't even have one anyway), so I won't go any farther than that. However for those of us who disagree, it would really have to depend on how you're raised as individual. By those standards, I'd say I was raised pretty well, as I can't even force myself to do things like litter. But, I don't remember any rigorous teachings on morals from my parents, which strengthens my "instinctual" belief of where morals come from.

09-27-2005, 03:44 AM	#1
Fundokiller Troopa Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 28	What is the basis for morality? What makes a person "unethical" or moral? Is there any universal set of ethics or is it relative? I hope we can try and answer these questions

09-27-2005, 02:02 PM	#2
Drax_reborn Rocket Scientist Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Preston, United Kingdom Posts: 48	I believe that ethics are "set" by the society in which people live, this is turn affects the morals of the individual. well that is what I was told during my ethics lecture in uni, but I may be wrong as it was a while ago and I was half asleep. __________________ Fear the Furby of Death "The internet, where men are men, women are men and children are the F.B.I"

09-27-2005, 09:12 PM	#5
mxyzptlk Raving lunatic Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: DNE Posts: 238	Ethics is the basis for morality. Branches of ethics, off the top of my head Hedonism Utilitarianism Virtue Moral Relativism Rule of Law Religion-based Google the ones you're not familiar with. I'm sure you can find better definitions for them than I could give you. __________________ When the issue is not critical to the life of the society, yet the youngest offender, the smallest offender, must get a brutal, life-ruining penalty in the same way as the hardened and wicked offender, you are unfit to be legislators and unfit to be in charge of human beings, human lives in a civilized country.

09-28-2005, 03:43 PM	#7
Gorefiend That Guy Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: The city that doesn't sleep Posts: 1,039	Well, actually I think every society has a "No murders unless..." rule in there. I'm sure some older societies didn't have that. That's why we refer to them in the past tense. The question is: what is that unless? Some societies think that murdering someone you don't even know to appease your gods is perfectly fine. Others don't. Some would view revenge as a perfect excuse. Others wouldn't. Others yet would ask what the initial offense was, and work from there. Some societies believed that duels of honor to the death were perfectly fine. Others would object. Some would say that execution is perfectly acceptable. Others would not. All, however, would say that going into your neighbor's home and butchering all inside is wrong. Unless you have a good reason, or are powerful enough, or the gods demanded it, or.... See what I mean? There's also, the belief that childer are a social responsability. I think just about every culture out there believes that their children deserve protection. The key word being "their." Other's children... not so much at times... Those are the only things I can think of that are probably universal. My 2 cents for now. __________________ The world of truth has no certainty. The world of fact has no hope. "Environmental laws were not passed to protect our air and water... they were passed to get votes. Seasonal anti-smut campaigns are not conducted to rid our communities of moral rot... they are conducted to give an aura of saintliness to the office-seekers who demand them." - Frank Zappa, prelude to Joe's Garage Ever wonder THE TRUTH ABOUT BLACK HELICOPTERS?

09-27-2005, 06:03 PM	#3
Xal Caiaphas Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 96	Actually taking my freshman seminar on this topic... well, bioethics, genetics, reproductive choice, all that crap. Moral principles are the ground rules on which a society operates; the universal ones seem to be 'no incest' and 'put some effort into solving a problem without killing someone else.' The idea basically being to guarantee that the guy you're looking at can be trusted to play by the same rules you are, which is pretty much the foundation of non-killing people interaction.

09-28-2005, 06:55 PM	#8
Xal Caiaphas Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 96	This is the part that I hate doing. "actually a common practice in other parts of the world" Back that one up with something besides "I heard once..." and I'll be impressed. Got a professor who did one of the confirmation studies (the one that proposes it first gets the press, the confirmation study's there to say "yeah, looks like he wasn't pulling that out of his ass.") on that subject. It's a damn near universal taboo... there are always exceptions, but they seem to be mostly limited to royalty and small groups of (pardon the expression) pervs who get press thanks to their wierdness. It seems to be almost an article of faith among a lot of people that no moral/law/whatever can be 'right.' The problem I have with this is simple: it's fundamentally hypocritical to say that. Think about it for a second. The statement seems to be "It is absolutely right to say that nothing is absolutely right."

09-28-2005, 10:48 PM	#10
krade2k20 The Captain was Here!! Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Key West, Florida Posts: 65	Wow, Tyler saying something intellectual? That's a new one for me. But enough of bashing friends... The question of what morals are based on is obviously a tough one. For me, I always felt it was more instinctual, like how animals know they shouldn't eat dirt. Many would argue that it's from, for lack of a better word, "Divine Inspiration," but that's not really my area of expertise (come to think of it, I don't even have one anyway), so I won't go any farther than that. However for those of us who disagree, it would really have to depend on how you're raised as individual. By those standards, I'd say I was raised pretty well, as I can't even force myself to do things like litter. But, I don't remember any rigorous teachings on morals from my parents, which strengthens my "instinctual" belief of where morals come from.