User Controls
Morality and Law
-
2015-09-19 at 10:18 PM UTCDo laws that enforce moral beliefs serve any significant purpose in modern times? Please explain your opinion.
-
2015-09-19 at 11:18 PM UTCLaws are opinions with a gun, morality should not be relative i.e. subjective. Therefore a framework of ethics should be employed to derive morality from.
-
2015-09-22 at 4:12 PM UTC
Laws are opinions with a gun, morality should not be relative i.e. subjective. Therefore a framework of ethics should be employed to derive morality from.
Why? How would that make your morality not relative? -
2015-09-22 at 4:19 PM UTC
Why? How would that make your morality not relative?
Because ethics aren't subjective when based on the principle of universally preferable behavior. -
2015-09-22 at 4:44 PM UTCThere is no universally preferable behavior. I don't think there's any one thing that most of a specific country would agree upon, let alone the entire globe. There are still tribes that would disagree murder or cannibalism or baby-mutilation are unethical. Ethics and morals, to me, will always be very relative. That being said, laws that enforce a specific group's agreed upon code-of-ethics clearly serves a purpose, modern times or otherwise. It's not necessarily fair to everyone because there will likely always be the minority who disagree with a particular law, such as meth-addicts would prefer meth to be legal though most of the surrounding populous would disagree. There are some more black and white issues and some a bit more gray, but these issues are always subject to change (see: slavery, cannabis, age of consent, etc).
-
2015-09-22 at 4:55 PM UTC
Because ethics aren't subjective when based on the principle of universally preferable behavior.
I would have to agree more with mmQ on that.
Universally preferable behavior sounds something like God given morality. -
2015-09-22 at 5:23 PM UTC
There is no universally preferable behavior. I don't think there's any one thing that most of a specific country would agree upon, let alone the entire globe. There are still tribes that would disagree murder or cannibalism or baby-mutilation are unethical. Ethics and morals, to me, will always be very relative. That being said, laws that enforce a specific group's agreed upon code-of-ethics clearly serves a purpose, modern times or otherwise. It's not necessarily fair to everyone because there will likely always be the minority who disagree with a particular law, such as meth-addicts would prefer meth to be legal though most of the surrounding populous would disagree. There are some more black and white issues and some a bit more gray, but these issues are always subject to change (see: slavery, cannabis, age of consent, etc).
Of course there's universally preferable behavior. It doesn't mean however every one acts according to it. Consider the following.
A thief may want to steal your wallet but he doesn't want everyone to be a thief, because he'd lose his profits that way. Therefore everyone agrees that not stealing is the universally preferable behavior. If you take the universally preferable behaviors you can derive a universal standard of ethics. -
2015-09-22 at 5:28 PM UTCThen let's just follow the Ten Commandments and abolish all other laws; call it good. XD
-
2015-09-22 at 5:35 PM UTC
Then let's just follow the Ten Commandments and abolish all other laws; call it good. XD
It would be better than the current system that's for sure. -
2015-09-22 at 5:52 PM UTC
Then let's just follow the Ten Commandments and abolish all other laws; call it good. XD
That's too many rules. You only need one.
"An ye harm none, do what thou wilt"
-
2015-09-22 at 7:32 PM UTC
Of course there's universally preferable behavior. It doesn't mean however every one acts according to it. Consider the following.
A thief may want to steal your wallet but he doesn't want everyone to be a thief, because he'd lose his profits that way. Therefore everyone agrees that not stealing is the universally preferable behavior. If you take the universally preferable behaviors you can derive a universal standard of ethics.
How is that any different or better than the current system?
Also, consider this. All predetors consume other animals. But nobody wants to be eaten. According to your logic, not eating other animals is the universally preferred behavior. But you can't make a predator stop being a predator. So how is "universally preferred behavior" useful? -
2015-09-22 at 11:03 PM UTC
How is that any different or better than the current system?
Also, consider this. All predetors consume other animals. But nobody wants to be eaten. According to your logic, not eating other animals is the universally preferred behavior. But you can't make a predator stop being a predator. So how is "universally preferred behavior" useful?
If you really think predators(Animals) have the mental capacity for reason and morality then you're a silly nigga'. Also, UPB is useful in the same way morals are useful, you can't stop psychopaths from murdering people, does that mean we have to abandon morality or ethics for that matter entirely? -
2015-09-22 at 11:35 PM UTC
If you really think predators(Animals) have the mental capacity for reason and morality then you're a silly nigga'. Also, UPB is useful in the same way morals are useful, you can't stop psychopaths from murdering people, does that mean we have to abandon morality or ethics for that matter entirely?
We are predators. -
2015-09-22 at 11:41 PM UTC
We are predators.
Difference being, we have the capacity for reason. -
2015-09-22 at 11:54 PM UTCLets be for real. We must first accept that there is a difference between theory and practice. For example we can take the moral relativistic theory and say that under a certain scope it is true that all moral mores and normalities are just a consequence of culture. From this we derive that living in a world with diverse cultural morality and normativity means that we must regard each and every cultures moral doctrine as relevant to its own people and only its own people leading to the idea that no culture or civil moral code is "correct". And people whip this out at every turn to destroy the conversation that needs having on morality. Think of the greatest empires and what their greatest accomplishments were. We still benefit from the language, sciences, philosophy and even things like architecture from these empires. They were bold empires, expanding at great rates. Had an advanced law and justice system and a strong morality. Technology was viewed as an improvement. Advanced religious doctrine and social hierarchy. And now think of the cultures who never even got to the empire stage. Think of the cultures who's language is exotic, its sciences and philosophy revolve solely around survival, its architecture was at best mud huts. They were meek tribes, with no change from generation to generation. Their law is the wild and their justice the stone. Technology is viewed as foreign and devilish.
Even in the relative view the majority of the entire globe can relate closer to the former than the latter. The developed countries of the world are a complex social dance that constructs cities and operates on order. In the current day, justice is a farce because our morality is a farce. You see it is around the time of abundance any empire in history declines. Abundance leads to over-consumption and a basic moral tenant of all civilized peoples is restraint. This results in conflict where the people idiotically remove restraint from their moral inventory and keep enjoying indulgence. But the time of indulgence comes to an end. This brings about a time of vitriol and hate for their own mistakes. But each defends its self from the conception that they were of the mistaken party. And in this time the country divides itself by removing unity from their moral inventory. With an unrestrained and divided populous there is nothing short or barbarism. Propriety becomes law and just men become thieves. Charity is lost. Then faith. And at last, so is hope.
Looking at our situation western nations are in the stage of division and have already passed the abundance phase. The sad thing is if just readopted our previous national moral inventory we would make it out of this mess. But the commies wont let that shit fly. -
2015-09-23 at 12:18 AM UTC
If you really think predators(Animals) have the mental capacity for reason and morality then you're a silly nigga'. Also, UPB is useful in the same way morals are useful, you can't stop psychopaths from murdering people, does that mean we have to abandon morality or ethics for that matter entirely?
Many animals, especially predators, do have an ability to reason and will use it to hunt and assess various situations. The real problem is that they are driven to be predators by forces beyond their control, despite whatever UPB or morals. So are we.
You see, morality is like a luxury only those who have plenty can afford. It is easy to say theft is wrong when your belly is full. Much harder to say that when you are starving. Humans like to imagine that there is this magical thing called free will that separates them from other animals. But according to science, basically every process including mental processes are driven by forces beyond your control. People are driven to commit crime, they don't decide to.
Therefore, I see a subjective morality as being much more useful. I can punish someone for stealing from me, and avoid punishing myself for stealing from someone else if I needed to. So, again I ask, how is UPB useful? And how is it better or different than the current system? -
2015-09-23 at 1:03 AM UTC
You see, morality is like a luxury only those who have plenty can afford. It is easy to say theft is wrong when your belly is full.
No. You see, morality is like a luxury only those who think rationally can afford. Its easy to say its easy to say theft is wrong when your belly is full. But can you imagine how difficult it is to dictate what is wrong when the bellies of the entire nation are going on empty? Mayhaps a threat to survival modifies the acceptance of how food is obtained traded and bought but to the moral man it mean that that way must be the right way. One cannot say "people are driven to commit crime, they dont decide to" when the decision to commit crime is unrelated to their hunger level. People actually driven to break moral bounds are those who are truly driven by the situation. Those who decide to commit crime indeed make the decision. Can you really say that that gang banger who shot a three year old because he missed a rival drug dealer with his tek-9 was driven into the situation? No, the situation is the logical conclusion of a larger product composed of all the decisions he previously made, therefore if he made different decisions the crime would have not occurred and a child would not have been killed.
Also "according to science" is not a legitimate viewpoint. According to science we can make determinations based on what we think we can interpret from tests and their results to fit them into a model of the phenomena. According to science is nothing more than faith rebranded and most likely misplaced.
-
2015-09-24 at 7:31 PM UTC
No. You see, morality is like a luxury only those who think rationally can afford. Its easy to say its easy to say theft is wrong when your belly is full. But can you imagine how difficult it is to dictate what is wrong when the bellies of the entire nation are going on empty? Mayhaps a threat to survival modifies the acceptance of how food is obtained traded and bought but to the moral man it mean that that way must be the right way. One cannot say "people are driven to commit crime, they dont decide to" when the decision to commit crime is unrelated to their hunger level. People actually driven to break moral bounds are those who are truly driven by the situation. Those who decide to commit crime indeed make the decision. Can you really say that that gang banger who shot a three year old because he missed a rival drug dealer with his tek-9 was driven into the situation? No, the situation is the logical conclusion of a larger product composed of all the decisions he previously made, therefore if he made different decisions the crime would have not occurred and a child would not have been killed.
Also "according to science" is not a legitimate viewpoint. According to science we can make determinations based on what we think we can interpret from tests and their results to fit them into a model of the phenomena. According to science is nothing more than faith rebranded and most likely misplaced.
A persons ability to think rationally can sometimes be affected by factors they cannot control. How can you suggest that people are not driven to commit crime without considering the forces that drive them? A theif might not be driven by hunger in his belly, but many are driven by a desire to be viewed as a tough thug nigga rather than a little bitch nigga. Man can do as he desires, but he cannot control his desires. Some people desire to be criminals. You're right, they do decide to commit crimes. But all the desicions any of us ever make are determined by processes out of our control, not my some magical "free will". Yes, the thug who missed his shot and killed the child was driven into that situation. The same way the forces of the universe turned basic matter into the planet that we live on and the evolution of the life that surrounds us. We are like dust blowing in the wind. According to science every decision you make is determined by forces beyond your control.
Sophie, I am still awaiting your explanation for how UPB is at all useful, and why it should be considered any different or better than the current system. -
2015-09-24 at 10:19 PM UTC
A persons ability to think rationally can sometimes be affected by factors they cannot control. How can you suggest that people are not driven to commit crime without considering the forces that drive them? A theif might not be driven by hunger in his belly, but many are driven by a desire to be viewed as a tough thug nigga rather than a little bitch nigga. Man can do as he desires, but he cannot control his desires. Some people desire to be criminals. You're right, they do decide to commit crimes. But all the desicions any of us ever make are determined by processes out of our control, not my some magical "free will". Yes, the thug who missed his shot and killed the child was driven into that situation. The same way the forces of the universe turned basic matter into the planet that we live on and the evolution of the life that surrounds us. We are like dust blowing in the wind. According to science every decision you make is determined by forces beyond your control.
Lol you're a determinist, why are we even discussing things if everything is deterministic? Can't do anything about it, might as well just let it go.
Any counter-argument i could type would not be my doing, but the predestined end result of an infinite number of previous events and causes, so what's the point?Sophie, I am still awaiting your explanation for how UPB is at all useful, and why it should be considered any different or better than the current system.
Read a book on UPB No i will not summarize the points within the book. -
2015-09-25 at 12:10 AM UTC
why are we even discussing things if everything is deterministic?
Because that's how it is. You might as well be asking why does anything exist. Why is there gravity?
Maybe we don't need to ask what the reason for everything is. Maybe the only reason we look for reasons and purposes is because we just happened to evolve an ability to think that way and question things and talk about stuff with each other.Any counter-argument i could type would not be my doing, but the predestined end result of an infinite number of previous events and causes, so what's the point?
Who cares? What's the point of life? What's the point of these forums? Maybe it doesn't matter what the point is. Maybe it's all relative. Maybe if you can't think of a counter argument, you could consider the possibility that my argument is just better.Read a book on UPB No i will not summarize the points within the book.
Why did you even mention it then? I'm actually familiar with UPB and freedomainradio. I'm already of the opinion that UPB is bullshit. It's useless and not any better or different than our current system. Morality can never be anything other than subjective, and if there are universally preferable behaviors, they are meaningless because they don't change anything. Killers are still going to be killers. Laws are still going to be opinions with guns. So what were you even thinking when you suggest UPB as some sort of alternative?
