Morality

[geko]

Personally, i actually think that most of the people i know seem to have a pretty strong sense of right and wrong for themselves and the people around them (even though definitions can be ambiguous). Id also wager a bet that this assumption will include the 'majority' of the citizens of a country.

 

Stealing from family and friends = wrong.

Helping and giving thanks to friends and family = right.

 

Sleeping and fooling around with your mates misses' = wrong.

Befriending and welcoming your mates misses' = right.

 

Bullying = wrong.

Helping = right.

 

etc.,

etc.,

 

Definitions are important when it comes to specifics. It doesnt really matter how these terms are interpreted because that's not really why ethical systems were created. Ethics, after all the rhetoric and religious connotations have been taken out of the definition and understanding of the idea, are simply to do with how to treat members of your own group. There's millions of groups so to me it's understandable that there's going to be just as many millions of principles/morals ie. ethical systems.

 

Also, because it's how to treat members of our group we dont really seem to give a flying **** of where the tenet came from in the first place in my opinion, as long as the outcome of which is perceived as increasing happiness within the group, which itself usually translates into an agreement by consensus. Sure, i may not agree in the whole with a belief system where a particular moral and principle came from, but that doesnt necessarily mean that i cant agree with the idea. Christianity, for example, states that 'thou shalt not kill', which, to anyone's guess i will assume, is an idea to try and influence behaviour for the benefit of our 'neighbours'. The philosophy of objectivism would be another example. It speaks volumes with reason and is very intuitive i feel, but taken to the extreme it becomes a cult. This surely doesnt mean that we, if we dont agree with cultic fashions, we cant pick and choose what we like from the system and implement it into our own day-to-day lives? I know this is what i do.

 

The objective and relative nature of morals and principles can only be said to be inaccurate anyway. The reason for this is that they violate obvious observations; the wide variety of ethical systems about right and wrong moral behaviour; arguments between ethical systems as to what constitutes right and wrong both between and within them; humans behave both morally and immorrally. We also want a set of guidelines to guide us between right and wrong; a lot of systems agree on certain rights and wrongs. Any viable theory must observe and account for these. Most dont, no matter if they're assumed to be objective or relative.

 

Also, lets not forget that in science claims are not true or false in any kind of absolute sense. Levels of probability are assigned to claims. Why is ethics not treated the same? People do search for such a system, and it has been dubbed 'Provisional Ethics'.

 

Geko

 

The concept of provisional ethics was first thought of by Michael Shermer i think

[Aquagem]

Any chance you could publish some of your stuff here at Hypography?

 

I find Hypography a stimulating source of thought because of diverse backgrounds of people who are involved in the many threads of conversation. Their questions often provoke me to examine my own ideas and synthesize new information. The basic format of the site, that of short posts to very deep and elusive questions, is something I find problematic, because a lot of the questions asked need a deeper treatment and thoughtful reflection to get beyond a surface understanding of the subject at hand. But then:

• Short posts get buried in a hurry. A good point made one day is three pages back by the next. That makes it very hard to maintain a continuous thought or build on a previous point. So we see the same term defined a dozen times by people with different agendas and who can never connect to talk about what's really going on.
  
• I haven't found a convenient way to refer to a former message that might contain the best description of some current topic. Morality, as a topic of the humanities, overlaps in a major way with evolution, with the conflicts of science and religion, and further, with life on Mars and its effect on our philosophy. It's hard enough even to find some previous posts (yours or those of others), let alone pulling several threads together into a coherent whole.
  

Working within these constraints is limiting, but also has its good points. I'm not complaining -- just wondering. As I study, I find enormous amounts of great new findings in a lot of areas, and I can see that many other do, too. I'd love to share my "Gee Whiz!" findings on, say, neuroscience and what it shows about our religious leanings, and to gather the same kind of information from other people that can illuminate the dark corners I haven't seen clearly yet.

 

I'd be curious, though, if there might be another approach here that would support more in-depth analysis, more like a "quiet-room", less like a "cross-fire".

[Tormod]

You should check out the News section and also the Hypographies section. Those are for publishing content in a more relaxed manner. The "News" section in the top menu contains news from prior to a recent upgrade. Under the "Announcement Forum" you will find our new news section, which is currently being developed. I am open for suggestions as to how these can be changed to fit your needs.

 

The "quiet room" idea is rather clever, though. But I guess the only way to manage something like that would have to be to limit access to only those who are prepared for it.

[IrishEyes]

The "quiet room" idea is rather clever, though. But I guess the only way to manage something like that would have to be to limit access to only those who are prepared for it.

I really LOVE this idea. Of course, it would be somewhat along the lines of the 'private threads' in the old forums, where people were only allowed access if invited.

Another thing to let Killean and alex figure out, huh?

[IrishEyes]

"Quiet room" could also be a "special" feature... like the ones we've talked of recently in the Admin forum...

[lindagarrette]

I was first attracted to this website by the hypographies and if they were promoted more, then people would have a place to store long narratives and backup material for their arguments. I still use them for reference.

[IrishEyes]

I was first attracted to this website by the hypographies and if they were promoted more, then people would have a place to store long narratives and backup material for their arguments. I still use them for reference.

 

We're trying, linda, we're trying. There are a few members that really should write for us, it's just a matter of convincing them to do so. Hopefully, that will happen in the very near future.

 

In the mean time, please feel free to contribute a few more yourself. :)

[pgrmdave]

How would one go about compiling and contributing a hypography?

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Freethinker:

But what I was talking about was NOT how any number of the different types/ approaches to/ of morality there may be. I was discussing the existence of an objective "most benefitial to the human race and it's survival" approach.

Thank you for connecting survival to morality. Most people connect morality with kudos from God. How about 'graceful survival'?