Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou can't have a justice system unless you standardize some moral values.
Sorry, but I can't let you off that easy.
You didn't answer the question.
Instead, you compounded the issue.
If "most human beings recognize the benefits" why is there a need to establish standards of behavior?
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by FreakyKBHi would say the main purpose of man having a standard morality is for the people who subscribe to it. it means on the whole we can feel safe and that we are all on a similar page, otherwise we would still be moving around in small groups terrified of all the other groups we meet. as for those who dont subscribe we implement laws based on the morality to imprison them.
Seems like a colossal waste of time.
If some people don't get it, what does the standard of morality do for those who simply don't subscribe to it?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNo, I don't see an issue here.
Sorry, but I can't let you off that easy.
You didn't answer the question.
Instead, you compounded the issue.
If "most human beings recognize the benefits" why is there a need to establish standards of behavior?
It is a question of fact (which I believe is true but you may disagree with) that most people accept that there are benefits to be gained by maximising human happiness and minimising human suffering.
However, this is not the same thing as saying that the people who do see these benefits, and believe that society should aspire to this, know what standards of behaviour will meet this overall aim.
Morals are not static, they change over time, respond to changes in our society (e.g. stem cell research), some people are just plain wrong about what is moral/immoral, some issues are complex and finely balanced, and some people just don't give a toss.
If you set no standards of expected behaviour, we would all be operating to different standards. This would quickly cause all sorts of problems and misunderstandings and undermine the achievement of the ultimate goal.
We can minimise these by setting standards. Those that are sufficiently important and clear cut are made subject to criminal sanctions, others may be made matters for civil law, others left to peer pressure etc.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Morality is a code of conduct, and/or a set of rules and principles that govern actions
of sentient beings when interacting with other sentient beings with the intention and
design of maximising the wellbeing of those sentient beings.
The effectiveness of particular rules and principles can be objectively tested via the
application of various sciences to determine which of various competing rules and
principles lead to the greatest wellbeing with the least inequality.
Not all rules and principles are inherently obvious, and in cases where multiple rules
and principles conflict, the best solution may very well not be obvious or even extant.
There is always the possibility of multiple solutions of equal effectiveness.
In such cases where there are multiple equally good options, so long as all adopt the same
option, it may very well need to be decided which option to pick and then stick to it.
Requiring the codifying of moral codes within a society.
The codifying of moral rules and principles within a society allows those non-specialist in
the field the benefit of access to the best knowledge from the specialists in ethics without
having to waste time dedicating themselves to the study, which allows them to spend time
on their speciality/interests. It also means that standardised practices and laws can be formed.
As conditions change, science improves, new technologies emerge, our environment changes,
morality will also adapt as new conditions change the optimum moral code or codes for the
maximising the wellbeing of the people in the current environment.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by SuzianneTwo reasons.
But atheists here call God a 'monster' for doing so.
First your god is imposing 'his' system on us. We have no say, and his rules apply to
us and not him.
Second. your god is immoral, the moral standards your god is expecting are LOWER
than ones I/we accept.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHDo you have some actual argument that purports to show that in the absence of God morality is not needed? If so, I would recommend starting a thread that presents the argument, and then let the forum goers have at it.
Still missing the point.
If most of us understand and recognize the upside of (lots of license here) being kind to others, why is the standard needed at all?
Originally posted by SwissGambitI'll respond to yours since all of the other responses are indicative of still not getting it.
It's always cute when you play dumb for a whole thread.
It's not playing dumb as much as it is an attempt to get folks to question why morals would be needed at all. If we all (or even mostly) get that cooperation benefits us, that's tantamount to saying we are wired/programmed/coded to cooperate. We therefore wouldn't require any additional outside stricture on our behavior: it's just what we do.
The idea that we 'get it' (the value of morality) certainly doesn't have the same universality of, say, language or communication--- concepts which surely entail/require a certain level of cooperation.
Originally posted by LemonJelloNo, LJ, I do not have an actual argument which purports that thing you just said.
Do you have some actual argument that purports to show that in the absence of God morality is not needed? If so, I would recommend starting a thread that presents the argument, and then let the forum goers have at it.
I'm asking the folks why they think morality is something that is needed at all: what does morality advance or keep at bay?
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
Originally posted by SuzianneNot all of us do.
But atheists here call God a 'monster' for doing so.
The stories about God enforcing rules exist to justify human enforcement of rules by harming people, in the case of moral evil, and to justify physical catastrophes such as floods, in the case of physical events that harm people. At least the FAQ would say some atheists believe this underlies the stories.