Does might make right?

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
there is one flaw in this line of reasoning. you see, there is an absolute authority on morality. that authority is you.

in every single case, you decide what is moral or immoral. you may agree with some concept you've read about, but ultimately it is you who make that decision.

The trouble with your reasoning is that there are a billion plus you's that do not
see eye to eye, so there isn't really an authority according to you.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, I said 'evolved', not 'evolving'. And more importantly, the morals didn't evolve, our compass to determine them did.

So it was changing, then it stopped changing, what do you really mean?
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, I said 'evolved', not 'evolving'. And more importantly, the morals didn't evolve, our compass to determine them did.

I'm trying to understand you, morals never changed, but we did?
So we are figuring out what this high standard of morals are as time goes
by? How is that possible? Seriously, your saying we are figuring out this static
moral compass with our evolving species? How again is it we cannot change
our moals to suit ourselves by ourselves that there is some standard of
morals that are static and we have to figure them out, who came up with
that standard, no one, then why do we have to follow it?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm trying to understand you, morals never changed, but we did?

Yes.

So we are figuring out what this high standard of morals are as time goes
by? How is that possible?
Evolution. All animals that benefit from living in society, must develop an understanding of morals, or they will be unable to live in society. Humans are not unique in understanding morals.

How again is it we cannot change our moals to suit ourselves by ourselves that there is some standard of
morals that are static and we have to figure them out, who came up with
that standard,
Morals are basically some of the rules required to live in society. They are not the only ones. Things like 'respect for authority', or 'respect for class', are important rules too, but are not called 'morality'.

no one, then why do we have to follow it?
We don't have to, and we don't actually. We do mostly follow it, largely because of our moral compass, and partly because we see the potential benefits of society. But there are always 'cheaters', people who behave immorally for their own benefit. Some do benefit, some get 'caught' and end up loosing.

Why do you behave morally? Self preservation? A desire to please God? A desire to live in society? To set an example to others so that they will reciprocate? Because you feel you should? Other?

Originally posted by twhitehead
So you have two, very different, definitions of morality. General consensus, and 'the golden rule'. Which are you going to pick? I think the problem you are having is you are trying to believe both, and because you see that they don't fit together, you need God to use his might, to massage one of them to fit the other.

I on the other hand believe there wever exceptions are often allowed. Certain things 'override' morality especially love.

I suppose we all choose and pick every day which morality we wish to live by. Is it the Golden Rule or mob/state/my rule? All of these morals have power as we embrace them, but the Golden Rule ultimately is far more powerful and will prevail in the end. As we have seen historically, regimes who deviate too far from the Golden Rule get crushed, as in the case of Nazi Germany.

So I presume we both agree that we have a moral compass even though we dispute the exact way to define it and attribute its origins. So what happens if in a given society there is no way to enforce these morals? Is there not the need for "might" to intervene as they try to make things right?

As for your utopia where everyone does as they should, good luck with that!! 😵

Originally posted by twhitehead
Evolution. All animals that benefit from living in society, must develop an understanding of morals, or they will be unable to live in society. Humans are not unique in understanding morals.

[/b]

Speaking of evolution, what do you make of Darwin by this quote taken from "The Descent of Man"?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

"We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination, we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert utlmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propogate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly detected, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man itself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel compelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient, but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contengent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The way I read it, Darwin is saying that letting the weak live and then reproduce only further weakens the human race overall. However, the "nobelst" part of our nature does not allow us to do so as we show compassion instead. It is then that "hard reason" gives way to such nobility in order to avoid the invitation of abject evil into society.

It is interesting indeed hearing Darwin seem to say that "reason" should be stopped at the door in favor of stopping "evil" from entering into the world.

Originally posted by whodey
I suppose we all choose and pick every day which morality we wish to live by.

I disagree. We all choose how to live. But how we live is not necessarily moral. Yes I know your whole premis for the thread is that whatever you do is morally right, but I think that just makes the whole concept meaningless.

All of these morals have power as we embrace them, but the Golden Rule ultimately is far more powerful and will prevail in the end.
Not in ordinary human society it wont. It doesn't punish cheats.

As we have seen historically, regimes who deviate too far from the Golden Rule get crushed, as in the case of Nazi Germany.
They were deviating from morality, not from the golden rule. That is why they were crushed. Morality is needed for society to operate.

So what happens if in a given society there is no way to enforce these morals?
Morals are never fully enforced. When society deviates too far from morals however, we get societal collapse.

Is there not the need for "might" to intervene as they try to make things right?
No. I much prefer democracy.

As for your utopia where everyone does as they should, good luck with that!! 😵
Huh? I never said anything about a utopia where everyone does as they should. What gave you that idea?

Originally posted by LemonJello
Thanks. I still have a game in progress for now.

Start up some more games. 😛

Originally posted by whodey
It is interesting indeed hearing Darwin seem to say that "reason" should be stopped at the door in favor of stopping "evil" from entering into the world.

Its the age old morality problem, which is greater, the good of the group or the good of the individual.
Would you advocate killing everyone with HIV? What about quarantining them? It worked quite well for leprosy.

But as regards morality, what weighting is given to different benefits or harms to individuals or groups varies from person to person and society to society and can be very hard to judge.

But I disagree with Darwin who seems to say that 'reason' dictates the good of the species over the good of the individual. Reason only dictates that current breeding practice is bad for the species as a whole. It doesn't dictate that this is the morally correct, or desirable course of action.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I disagree. We all choose how to live. But how we live is not necessarily moral. Yes I know your whole premis for the thread is that whatever you do is morally right, but I think that just makes the whole concept meaningless.

[b]All of these morals have power as we embrace them, but the Golden Rule ultimately is far more powerful and will prevail in th ...[text shortened]... ver said anything about a utopia where everyone does as they should. What gave you that idea?

The premise of the thread is not that whatever you do is morally right, the premise is that the more powerful you are the more sway you have in deciding what is right for yourself and those around you.

Of course, laws and rules will be broken because they are made with the premise that they will be violated, but without consequences for such violations those laws and rules are pretty much meaningless. For example, if you wish to be a cheat and are not held accountable, what do you care? In fact, many will watch what you do and watch the success you have and you become a walking advertisement for those who wish to follow in your foot steps. Even in a "democracy" there have to be laws that are enforced, otherwise there is anarchy.

Originally posted by twhitehead
.
Would you advocate killing everyone with HIV? What about quarantining them? It worked quite well for leprosy.

.[/b]

Of course not, and neither was Darwin.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But I disagree with Darwin who seems to say that 'reason' dictates the good of the species over the good of the individual. Reason only dictates that current breeding practice is bad for the species as a whole. It doesn't dictate that this is the morally correct, or desirable course of action.[/b]

So reason dictates that the current breeding practice is bad for the human species as a whole because the "weak" are allowed to live and reproduce. However, reason does not dictate that this is morally correct, or a desirable course of action?

Since when does reason or science have a say in what is moral? Science is merely studying the material universe. So what Darwin was saying is that such observation in regards to breeding livestock show us that the human race is hurting itself by letting the weak reproduce. So what scientific evidence are you using to argue that there may be deleterious effects on the human race for proceeding with this eugenic utopia?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes.

[b]So we are figuring out what this high standard of morals are as time goes
by? How is that possible?
Evolution. All animals that benefit from living in society, must develop an understanding of morals, or they will be unable to live in society. Humans are not unique in understanding morals.

How again is it we cannot change our moals example to others so that they will reciprocate? Because you feel you should? Other?

[/b]So trying to recap what I think you said.
1. Morals are static they really don't change but we do so our morals views or
thoughts on what is moral are in a state of flux because we are always changing.
2. You think morals are required to live in society, but to do that more than just
morals are required.
3. We don't have to follow these morals.
4. There are cheaters who don't follow rules that we don't have to follow.
5. People who don't follow these rules that we don't have to follow are immoral.

To answer your question yes a desire to please God which has as part of His
nature and guiding force love for both Him and all of those around me.

Did I actually understand your point?
Kelly

Originally posted by whodey
The premise of the thread is not that whatever you do is morally right, the premise is that the more powerful you are the more sway you have in deciding what is right for yourself and those around you.

And how do you 'decide what is right' even when you are powerful? The premise of the thread is that if someone does something and gets away with it, then it is morally right.

Of course, laws and rules will be broken because they are made with the premise that they will be violated, but without consequences for such violations those laws and rules are pretty much meaningless. For example, if you wish to be a cheat and are not held accountable, what do you care?[/b]
A remarkable number of people do things because of their moral compass, not because of fear of punishment. Interestingly I find that almost all the people I have met who believe strongly that a punishment system is essential for good behaviour, are fundamentalist Christians.

Even in a "democracy" there have to be laws that are enforced, otherwise there is anarchy.
Yes, but it is supposedly enforced by the masses, not by a dictator.

Originally posted by whodey
Of course not, and neither was Darwin.

Yet we did it for leprosy, and probably would for other infectious diseases. Its all about what the perceived threat to the collective is as opposed to the harm to the individual and how we weigh the two.