Morals.

[InfiniteNow]

Just to be complete, and not be accused of overlooking the obvious, let's consider modern research to build a fast-spreading malignant super-virus that cannot be stopped. The only tacit purpose of this research would be to enable someone to eradicate huge swaths of human life. Is that unethical science? I would say 'yes'. But now you are told that the Evil Empire of Zardoz is doing the very same research, and we desparately need to know if there is some way to counter such a bug. Is it unethical now? Then you think, the Zardozians aren't really that smart, and their economy sucks. The chances of them doing this kind of research is pretty small. How small, you don't know. And there is always the chance that your bosses have lied about the Zardozians. Or maybe they didn't. Is it unethical now? What are your ethical alternatives?

YES!!! Zardoz reference! Go Connery! Go Pyrotex!!! :Waldo: :Waldo: :beer: :confused: :confused:

[Pyrotex]

...let's take one that I give. Let's strip it down to essentials....

Steve. Not stripped down enough. Let's take a simpler hypothetical scenario:

 

There are no people, no sentient beings at all. The Earth has only its mindless animals and plants, its winds, its waters, and the sun.

 

Is there any need of a moral code?

[TheBigDog]

Steve. Not stripped down enough. Let's take a simpler hypothetical scenario:

 

There are no people, no sentient beings at all. The Earth has only its mindless animals and plants, its winds, its waters, and the sun.

 

Is there any need of a moral code?

I would need a moral code if I had any hope of survival and reassociation with my own kind. Even if that reassociation were to be finding records of my existance and learing from them long after my death. If I don't have such a hope, then I would only need a moral code if I felt compelled to live up to a previous standard that I carried over from another place. But without either of those things I would not need a moral code in the situation described.

 

Bill

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Pyrotex:

There are no people, no sentient beings at all. The Earth has only its mindless animals and plants, its winds, its waters, and the sun.

lol. You've outdone me again and added a little more depth to the identity of morality.

Animals have no choice involved in their identities. They don't choose to be good or to be evil.

Morality only applies to people. Animals are just what they are and they can neither be good nor evil.

So no.

BigDog, you mentioned a moral code as opposed to behaving in a moral manner. A moral code implies a list that makes up the fence of which Southtown speaks. I agree with both of you. So a moral code would be a precursor to a set of 'laws'?

[TheBigDog]

Pyrotex:lol. You've outdone me again and added a little more depth to the identity of morality.

Animals have no choice involved in their identities. They don't choose to be good or to be evil.

Morality only applies to people. Animals are just what they are and they can neither be good nor evil.

So no.

BigDog, you mentioned a moral code as opposed to behaving in a moral manner. A moral code implies a list that makes up the fence of which Southtown speaks. I agree with both of you. So a moral code would be a precursor to a set of 'laws'?

All laws are based upon a moral code with some underlying purpose for the society they govern. The boundaries of acceptable moral conduct and the underlying purpose of the laws are the basis of all politics. We each have an internal set of morals that we use to guide our own way though life. We in turn want the laws of our society to reflect how we feel things should be. Because everyone cannot have it their own way, we learn to make compromise, and to deal with some adversity. In a democracy we have the luxury of holding our law makers accountable to our wishes through elections. As sensibilities change, laws change to match the tide of human opinion. But laws are never totally perfect, they are always trying to be the "best fit".

 

In the end, democracy and limited government are the best solution. They empower the best individual rights by enableing political control at a local level, and allowing for a diversity of opinioins to find "best fits" under a large umbrella. With that comes a need to respect differences of lifestyle, be thick skinned, and sometimes to move to where people like you are, instead of changing people who don't think like you where you are now.

 

Bill

[TheBigDog]

A moral code is something that should be written down so you are not changing it each time it gets too hard to follow. Sometimes it is hard to do the right thing, and you cannot turn wrong into right because it is inconvenient.

 

Bill

[Pyrotex]

YES!!! Zardoz reference! Go Connery! Go Pyrotex!!! :beer: :Waldo: :lol: :Waldo: :(

 

WHAT am I going to do with you guys?!?!?!?! :hihi: :confused: :lol: :Waldo: :hihi:

[Southtown]

Then you think, the Zardozians aren't really that smart, and their economy sucks. The chances of them doing this kind of research is pretty small. How small, you don't know. And there is always the chance that your bosses have lied about the Zardozians. Or maybe they didn't. Is it unethical now? What are your ethical alternatives?

That would depend entirely on the amount of control I have over the situation.

 

By the way, we shouldn't confuse consequences with intended consequences. Morality involves intentions toward certain outcomes, not the outcomes themselves. Mr. Mad Scientist could try to rule the world, but accidentally cure cancer. That doesn't make him of noble character. The opposite would also hold true in my opinion, even though the real world might not work that way.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Pyrotex:

Hmmm... I don't think a truly "rational" moral code CAN ignore this scenario...... (Southtown: Unethical Science)

The moral code and what it means to be moral are not exactly the same thing. Please help me work this out.

The moral code allows us simple guidelines to character formation. But that should always be followed up with further understanding of what morality is - and, modification to the guidelines in light of better understanding.

And that's the problem here. We're confusing the two.

Memorizing a moral code does not make one a moral being.

How one person relates to another can be guided by a moral code. But how a person relates to a rock can be too.

Morality is something inherent in our identity as one of the species of Man. Maybe a moral code is the implementation of the fundamental choice we all make: to live or die.

We abandon true understanding of morality because we fail to see that our identity requires it. So, what is it about our identity that drives the need for a moral code?

I'm getting closer. Help me here.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Mankind is a species requiring a moral code. Why?

[ldsoftwaresteve]

BigDog:

With that comes a need to respect differences of lifestyle, be thick skinned, and sometimes to move to where people like you are, instead of changing people who don't think like you where you are now.

But laws, by definition, should be for people. Not just people in this region and with this lifestyle. They should not be lifestyle specific and they should not limit or reward any particular lifestyle. Morality is a universal characteristic of Mankind. It doesn't apply to dogs or cats. Just people. Why? What is the part of our identity that is moral?

[Pyrotex]

Mankind is a species requiring a moral code. Why?

Yes we do!

 

Because we CAN make choices.

Because we CAN see the consequences of our actions.

Because we CAN understand that other people also feel joy and pain.

 

We need a moral code because we know what it is to live without one.

[questor]

we need a moral code so we can live together in peace and not hurt one another. is there really more to it than this statement?

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Questor:

we need a moral code so we can live together in peace and not hurt one another. is there really more to it than this statement?

Well, you see, I think there is.

People are only one of the things we relate to.

If there weren't any other people around, we'd still need morality not because we want to look good 'in the eyes of God' but because we'd need to survive.

I think the reason that morality is so misunderstood is that we've left out the wider context in which it operates: our relationship to existence.

It's a characteristic of Mankind. It's part of our nature the same as flying is part of a birds nature.

If morality applies to our relationship with existence but you believe it only applies to our relationship with other people, are you being immoral?

[Pyrotex]

we need a moral code so we can live together in peace and not hurt one another. is there really more to it than this statement?

So we can live together in peace with: each other, ourselves, the natural world, and those (virtual) folks in the future who may be positioned to judge us. That's FOUR distinct entities that we can be at peace with. I think his point is, your question reflects only the first entity: "others".

 

And, I would like to bring up another point we keep stepping over. "A" moral code. There any number of moral codes (MC). Your MC and my MC may be identical except that your MC forbids you to eat oysters and mine doesn't. Or my MC demands that I pray only in private and yours encourages you to pray anywhere.

 

I do acknowledge that at the CORE of all workable and effective MCs, there are similar constraints on the BIG tickets: violence, murder, sex, stealing, deception, fair trade, etc.

[questor]

i can't see any connection between morality and eating or drinking anything. this is more of a custom than a moral issue. morals are basically about interplay among people so they can deal with each other. the easiest places to look for morals are in religious tracts. the atheists among you may hate

that it is so, but that's the way it is. these religious teachings are also the basis of our constitution and legal system. regardless of your views about religion, that's how it all began.

[Pyrotex]

i can't see any connection between morality and eating or drinking anything. ... the easiest places to look for morals are in religious tracts. the atheists among you may hate that it is so, but that's the way it is. these religious teachings are also the basis of our constitution and legal system. regardless of your views about religion, that's how it all began.

Lessee, the Bible states that you should treat your body as the temple of God. That is typically interpreted to mean, don't abuse or destroy your body, don't overeat, overdrink, get drunk, get tattoos, body piercings, chop off fingers, etc. Then there's the Biblical injunction not to eat meat sacrificed to idols, or any blood. So, morality definately includes eating and drinking.

 

Christian theology rarely points to "life building" as an act of morality. But Eastern religions do. Learning to control your emotions, balancing the forces within mind/body, becoming accomplished at, say, art or music. These are also moral actions in that they improve the quality of your own health and mental maturity, and thereby increase your ability to do good and avoid evil.

 

As for law and constitution coming from religion, well, if you go back far enough, there are *some* connections to be sure. The ancient Hebrews had a combined legal/religious system. Islam does today to a great extent. But the foundations of our modern legal systems, such as trial by jury of peers, innocence until proven guilty, property rights, etc, do NOT come from religion, but often DO come from the injustices that religion enabled.

 

For example, the "modern" separation of church and state came out of the Thirty Years War in northern Europe, 1600-1650, a bloodbath fought between the Catholic Church and the nascient Protestantism favored by England, northern Germany and what became The Netherlands. At the end of that war, they established for the first time in Europe that the local "state" had the right to choose the religion of that state, and that in any disagreement between state and religion, precedence would thereafter be given to state law. Many states went even further and forbade any religious entity from having its own army -- a move that turned out to be a pretty good idea.