Morality

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Ahhh! What it means to be human(?) ...Morality is one of the key defining points in understanding that

I used the term "equals" because there are cases where humans are not treated as equals and thus morality no longer applies to them, or is subtly downgraded. For example, in the past, people treated slaves or people of other races as not equal and therefore that affected the way they applied their morals to those people. Even today, there is an ongoing argument about the morality of killing foetus' and this is directly tied up to whether we see them as equals.
To some extent, you may be using the word "human" to mean "equal", but then what happens when you meet an alien or a highly intelligent computer?

Originally posted by whodey
Then you would agree with Christ.

Yes I do agree with Jesus.

Of course, he used the example of the "Good Samaritan" when asked who our neighbor is. Of note is the fact that a Samaratin was seen as beneath the Jews present to hear the parable, yet, it was the Samaratin who helped the dying man as where the others just walked passed. In effect, he was calling them out for not visualizing others as their equals.
Again, I agree.

This has occured time and again like with the slaves of the deep south as they were seen more as animals than human beings. In Nazi Germany the Jews were seen as vermon and in current times many are referred to as "infidels". Of course, being a pro-lifer I would argue that the same thing is being done to the unborn by referring to them as a lowly undeveloped "fetus". It robs them of their humanity which they plainly are apart of.
I must also point out that there are examples from the old Testament where slaves or non-Jews were not treated as equals.

Originally posted by josephw
I'm sorry, but I had an entire post typed out, and due to the poor wifi connection it was lost. I'm so mad I could ring someones neck.

If you wring a chickens neck it would be less morally wrong.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I used the term "equals" because there are cases where humans are not treated as equals and thus morality no longer applies to them, or is subtly downgraded. For example, in the past, people treated slaves or people of other races as not equal and therefore that affected the way they applied their morals to those people. Even today, there is an ongoing ar ...[text shortened]... n "equal", but then what happens when you meet an alien or a highly intelligent computer?

How about this: What if we appoint ourselves,(humans), at the bottom of all 'morality'? So then only morally equal or higher beings can exist. Where would that lead us?

(I'm not agreeing with myself here because in some way I think humans are morally superior to say... mosquitoes (oooh!just makes me want to start a whole new thread), anyhooo there has to be some sort of intelligent way forward on this issue)

Originally posted by karoly aczel
How about this: What if we appoint ourselves,(humans), at the bottom of all 'morality'? So then only morally equal or higher beings can exist. Where would that lead us?

(I'm not agreeing with myself here because in some way I think humans are morally superior to say... mosquitoes (oooh!just makes me want to start a whole new thread), anyhooo there has to be some sort of intelligent way forward on this issue)

I don't think it is entirely a matter of choice. I think it is more complicated than that. I certainly don't see any logic behind trying to cheat ourselves into respecting animals more than we currently do.
Thats rather like one theist I knew who said she was Christian because she was afraid that if she wasn't she would loose all morality. I also think knightmeister sometimes expresses similar sentiments (that belief is a tool to convince oneself to do the right thing). I find such logic to be rather circular and unnecessary. If you want to treat animals well then do so, you don't need some fancy moral framework to help you.

As for cases where we respect a given group of people as equals but another group does not, I think the best way forward is to increase peoples understanding of each other. For example, many places have societies which separate people into groups, the main one that comes to mind is Israel where there are two groups of people, who go to separate schools, etc and never really interact in a meaningful way and so often end up not respecting each other as equals. The same problem probably applies between Christians and Muslims in many parts of the world. Luckily my son goes to a school where there are multiple races and multiple religions.

My mum is white, and grew up in Rhodesia (what is now Zimbabwe). She says that until she got to university, she never interacted with any black person socially. The only black people she would meet were maids or gardeners and they were generally treated as inferior.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Due to various discussions on morality in recent threads I would like to summarize my thoughts on the matter and get some input.
I believe there are two types of morality.
1. It is wrong to harm your equals. It is also wrong to deliberately allow harm to come to your equals through inaction, though this may be adjusted according to the amount of effort ...[text shortened]... lves as equal to humans or sometimes almost inferior, who see it as immoral to harm humans.

I find this account of morality a bit puzzling. Could you answer a couple of questions?

a) The use of the term 'equals' seems a bit problematic. I'm not sure what it can mean other than 'those whom we are obliged to treat as moral patients'. This makes your 1) a tautology. So what do you mean by 'equals'?

b) You said upthread that you regard your 1) as universally true. Could you clarify what allows your 1) to take a truth-value?

Thanks.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I don't think it is entirely a matter of choice. I think it is more complicated than that. I certainly don't see any logic behind trying to cheat ourselves into respecting animals more than we currently do.
Thats rather like one theist I knew who said she was Christian because she was afraid that if she wasn't she would loose all morality. I also think k ...[text shortened]... k people she would meet were maids or gardeners and they were generally treated as inferior.

I think its ENTIRELY a matter of choice, for God is not some guy on a cloud,(not that I think you think that), but all of us and every other thing that exists.
More importantly the humans on this planet at this time have a decision to make. Each and every one of us. And that is the decision to answer the question. And the question is: Do you want to be ...'with God' ? Will the planet become united as a result of our collective and individual understanding? And all along these questions have been permeating our subconciosnesses. And all along we have been saying "no". And the journey is from the "no" to the "yes".

But we all get to the "yes" in the end.

I know this answer doesn't address your whole post but I like to simplify.

Originally posted by josephw
I think robbie has had his feeling anesthetized by this forum.

Just kidding robbie. You know I love you. Don't get any funny ideas either. 🙂

its true Joseph, i came here as human, with human weakness and frailties and now i am half man half Borg! 🙂

Originally posted by Lord Shark
a) The use of the term 'equals' seems a bit problematic. I'm not sure what it can mean other than 'those whom we are obliged to treat as moral patients'. This makes your 1) a tautology. So what do you mean by 'equals'?

I am not sure what you mean by 'moral patients'.

By 'equals' I mean someone we respect as being equal to us. I think morality largely derives from the realization that others are like us, and thus causing a feeling of empathy.


b) You said upthread that you regard your 1) as universally true. Could you clarify what allows your 1) to take a truth-value?
What I mean is that I think 1) is what we all really mean by morals and is what we all more or less believe even though we frequently make it far more complicated than it really is.
When I said 'universally true' I meant that morals are not relative, but that 1) can be applied to anyone at any time in history.

If A is a moral patient then a moral agent can have a moral responsibility toward A. Typically, a moral patient is something that can be harmed or benefited.

I'm not sure 'equals' is a good term for what you mean. I think you mean beings that are like us in morally relevant ways perhaps? I agree with you that empathy is an indispensable element though.

When I said 'universally true' I meant that morals are not relative, but that 1) can be applied to anyone at any time in history.
So are you saying that if people had all the relevant facts about who qualifies as our 'equals' they:
i) Ought to not to harm their equals or,
ii) Would mostly, all things being equal, not harm their equals?

Originally posted by Lord Shark
If A is a moral patient then a moral agent can have a moral responsibility toward A. Typically, a moral patient is something that can be harmed or benefited.

I'm not sure 'equals' is a good term for what you mean. I think you mean beings that are like us in morally relevant ways perhaps? I agree with you that empathy is an indispensable element though.

The concept I am getting at has to do with why we do not always consider it wrong to harm an insect, an animal, a slave or even someone who we consider inferior either due to race or caste or other social system.

So are you saying that if people had all the relevant facts about who qualifies as our 'equals' they:
i) Ought to not to harm their equals or,
ii) Would mostly, all things being equal, not harm their equals?
I was after:
iii) would consider it morally wrong to harm their equals - even though they may nevertheless actually do so. Many people are willing to be deliberately immoral for the sake of personal gain.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you mean like,

(Romans 1:24-27) . . .Therefore God, in keeping with the desires of their hearts, gave them up to uncleanness, that their bodies might be dishonored among them,  even those who exchanged the truth of God for the lie and venerated and rendered sacred service to the creation rather than the One who created, who is blessed forever. Am ...[text shortened]... en declared righteous in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and with the spirit of our God.

🙂

For crying out loud man, didn't you read TOO's post? I wish you would read his post before responding!! 😠

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne


And as a modern example, those who support the ostracization of homosexuals. Which, if I recall correctly, is something that you support.

Jesus also had many teachings against hypocrisy with which you should familiarize yourself.[/b]

You have judged me to be a hypocrite and bigot against them. That is noted. We have been through this time and again and I see no reason to rehash and rehash and rehash our differences, do you?

The concept I am getting at has to do with why we do not always consider it wrong to harm an insect, an animal, a slave or even someone who we consider inferior either due to race or caste or other social system.
I think most of us are agreed that it is wrong in all but the first two cases these days. Now you could argue that this is due to the fact that we have come to the conclusion that all people are our equals, so we shouldn't have slaves or harm people of other races and so on. My problem with the term 'equals' is that it is potentially misleading. I think you are using it in an 'equals before the law' sense, where of course we don't require any actual literal parity between people.

That makes sense but I think there is a problem if you are going to use this as an explanation of why people harmed people of a different skin colour in the past because they considered them to be inferior. This is because now 'equals' actually does mean parity.

This is why I think using the term 'equals' can lead to confusion. To take another example, it might be the case that one person is manifestly superior to another along a number of dimensions and across several domains. But we wouldn't want to conclude that the superior one need not feel it would be wrong to harm the inferior one. This reveals that 'equals' is a prescriptive rather than descriptive term in your 1)

I was after:
iii) would consider it morally wrong to harm their equals - even though they may nevertheless actually do so. Many people are willing to be deliberately immoral for the sake of personal gain.
Ok, but leaving aside the problem with 'equals', how is this universal, non-relative and true? Is it not the case that some people consider it morally acceptable to harm equals in some circumstances?

Originally posted by whodey
You have judged me to be a hypocrite and bigot against them. That is noted. We have been through this time and again and I see no reason to rehash and rehash and rehash our differences, do you?

I was pointing out a modern day example of those who try to justify breaking the Golden Rule by viewing those they oppress as being beneath them and the hypocrisy of your pointing to slave owners and Nazi's as if your position is any different.

No need to rehash it.