16-11-2004 08:37									#151
	Tired of ads?

quote: I don't know if it comes from anywhere. I just believe that we would all believe the same way if it weren't for our prejudice and self-interest.

But given these natural tendencies, do we all believe the same way on some things? For example, does anyone want to be murdered or enslaved? Wouldn't these - life and liberty - qualify as the basis for this "true morality" you speak of?

quote: Societies have different moralities, yes. Actually, what I learned in college is that morality is an individual thing, and ethics is a social thing, but whatever. Anyway, that doesn't make those moralities true or false.

What does make those moralities true or false?

quote: I don't care about this. You win.

I know Work on injecting a bit of logic into your jabs.

	16-11-2004 09:04									#152
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker But given these natural tendencies, do we all believe the same way on some things? For example, does anyone want to be murdered or enslaved? Wouldn't these - life and liberty - qualify as the basis for this "true morality" you speak of?

The basis is equal treatment, and I don't believe that you can take any of the rights to the extreme and have equal treatment. Right to life for example isn't absolute. I believe that killing to make a better world is morally right, if the person you aim to kill has commited a crime that fits. I believe to a much lessor extent that pursuing a course of action that will result in the deaths of innocents is justified. The ends don't always justify the means, but I'm not an absolutist.

quote: What does make those moralities true or false?

You just have to take each one individually. You can't really say that a certain thing makes a moral true. Generally though, the more unequal the power structure is in a society the more immoral the laws and ethics will be, because those with none or little power will be oppressed.

	16-11-2004 10:22									#153
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Berz is doing so well, I have no need to butt in, but I just HAVE to respond to this one:

quote: The ends don't always justify the means, but I'm not an absolutist.

Oh yes you are - you already said that society's morality can be right or wrong. "Right" and "wrong" are absolutes, and one who was not an absolutist would certainly not use those words to talk about morality.

	16-11-2004 10:26									#154
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious How many wars have really started because of morals? How many immoral nations exist while others do nothing?

A few, but again you miss the point. Wars aren't necessarily started because a countries moral sensiblities are offended, though it does happen. The wars start because the conduct in the offending nation makes war necessary for survival.

	16-11-2004 10:26									#155
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Oh yes you are - you already said that society's morality can be right or wrong. "Right" and "wrong" are absolutes, and one who was not an absolutist would certainly not use those words to talk about morality.

I do believe that there is 'right' morality. It's just that I don't believe that you can say that it is always right that, for example, the ends justify the means, or the ends never justify the means. It depends on the situation. For every situation there is an absolute 'right' moral.

	16-11-2004 10:32									#156
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara A few, but again you miss the point. Wars aren't necessarily started because a countries moral sensiblities are offended, though it does happen. The wars start because the conduct in the offending nation makes war necessary for survival.

Morals follow people's/nation's self/national-interests though. It's the conflict in interests that cause conflict, not the conflict in morals. Nations can, and often do have opposing morals, but they hardly, if ever, go to war, unless their interests cause them to fight. Morals just go along for the ride, as they should. Chirst, we would destroy ourselves if we fought everyone who had different morals than ourselves.

	16-11-2004 10:54									#157
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Morals follow people's/nation's self/national-interests though.

The problem here is that you see morals as a mere fig-leaf for naked self-interest. What you fail to understand is that the primary self-interest most people have is survival. The purpose of morality isn't to justify unequal social relations, but to ensure survival. Survival is best guaranteed by being a member of a social group, and those behaviors that best ensure group survival are what we call morals: don't murder, don't steal, etc.

That doesn't mean that morality doesn't get hijacked by the self-surving. Anything can get hijacked. Socialism got hijacked.

A leader has the power and ability to proclaim he can take what he wants. By definition, it's no longer stealing. People will put up with a certain amount, but when it threatens the stability society itself, he will either be deposed or the society will collapse.

	16-11-2004 11:09									#158
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara The problem here is that you see morals as a mere fig-leaf for naked self-interest. What you fail to understand is that the primary self-interest most people have is survival. The purpose of morality isn't to justify unequal social relations, but to ensure survival. Survival is best guaranteed by being a member of a social group, and those behaviors that best ensure group survival are what we call morals: don't murder, don't steal, etc.

Interest in survival of one's self is exactly why we don't go around killing people and conquering nations whenever we are offended by their morals. We only do so when we have the power to do so, and the cost/risk is low, and always there is some benefit in it for us. Only irrational people risk their own survival on crusades.

quote: That doesn't mean that morality doesn't get hijacked by the self-surving. Anything can get hijacked. Socialism got hijacked. A leader has the power and ability to proclaim he can take what he wants. By definition, it's no longer stealing. People will put up with a certain amount, but when it threatens the stability society itself, he will either be deposed or the society will collapse.

If a ruler is morally offensive why should they care if the society is unstable. Instability brings opportunity. Only then can they do something about their oppresion. Until the society becomes unstable though, they will not do anything, because they will risk their survival and prosperity. They will not only put up with what they consider immoral, but they may very well accept the behavior as moral. Because accepting it as moral will allow them more easily to do the things in that society that insure survival and create prosperity for themselves.

	16-11-2004 11:46									#159
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I give up.

	16-11-2004 12:38									#160
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: The basis is equal treatment, and I don't believe that you can take any of the rights to the extreme and have equal treatment. Right to life for example isn't absolute. I believe that killing to make a better world is morally right, if the person you aim to kill has commited a crime that fits.

Every natural rights philosopher and moral absolutist understands that rights may be taken from those who violate the rights of others, that doesn't mean the right to life is not absolute. It is absolute, that's why it's moral to kill in self-defense (and in retribution) if need be... The would-be murderer is trying to violate someone else's absolute right to life.

quote: You just have to take each one individually. You can't really say that a certain thing makes a moral true.

Aside from "equal treatment" (which is part of the Goledn Rule) what is your rationale? Why is murder immoral?

quote: Generally though, the more unequal the power structure is in a society the more immoral the laws and ethics will be, because those with none or little power will be oppressed.

You're getting into politics, if we are to have a moral political system we need to first understand the basis of morality.

quote: I believe to a much lessor extent that pursuing a course of action that will result in the deaths of innocents is justified. The ends don't always justify the means, but I'm not an absolutist.

Those who instigated the war are responsible for the innocent dying.

	16-11-2004 12:50									#161
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker Every natural rights philosopher and moral absolutist understands that rights may be taken from those who violate the rights of others, that doesn't mean the right to life is not absolute. It is absolute, that's why it's moral to kill in self-defense (and in retribution) if need be... The would-be murderer is trying to violate someone else's absolute right to life.

It's much more complicated than that. Our rights conflict with each other. We both have to sacrifice our rights, and work something out that is fair to have a just system.

quote: Aside from "equal treatment" (which is part of the Goledn Rule) what is your rationale? Why is murder immoral?

Secondarily, murder is immoral because it doesn't benefit us.

quote: You're getting into politics, if we are to have a moral political system we need to first understand the basis of morality.

Coming to that understanding is easier said than done. We need to eliminate conflict first.

quote: Those who instigated the war are responsible for the innocent dying.

Actually, both sides are usually responsible, even though they both place complete blame on their enemies.

	16-11-2004 13:55									#162
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: It's much more complicated than that. Our rights conflict with each other. We both have to sacrifice our rights, and work something out that is fair to have a just system.

Does my right to life conflict with yours? You're getting political again, let's stick to this origin and definition of morality.

quote: Secondarily, murder is immoral because it doesn't benefit us.

How does one determine when a murder does benefit us thereby making it moral?

	16-11-2004 16:22									#163
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker Does my right to life conflict with yours?

Let's just say that it's possible for any of our rights to come into conflict. That's why I don't think they should be absolute.

quote: You're getting political again, let's stick to this origin and definition of morality.

Do you really think that I'm the only one being political?

quote: How does one determine when a murder does benefit us thereby making it moral?

By using the word murder instead of kill you load the question. Again, do you really think that I'm the only one being political?

	16-11-2004 18:24									#164
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Let's just say that it's possible for any of our rights to come into conflict. That's why I don't think they should be absolute.

Your 1 example of this alleged conflict was killing a murderer - a murderer who violates the absolute right to life of their victim. I see no conflict... Try again...

quote: Do you really think that I'm the only one being political?

In our debate, yes. I want to debate the origin and basis of (your) morality and you keep venturing into the political realm...

quote: By using the word murder instead of kill you load the question. Again, do you really think that I'm the only one being political?

Again, yes I do. And I'm using the word "murder" to distinguish between justifiable killing and unjustifiable killing. Now, I'll repeat my question:

quote: How does one determine when a murder does benefit us thereby making it moral?

	16-11-2004 18:28									#165
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker Your 1 example of this alleged conflict was killing a murderer - a murderer who violates the absolute right to life of their victim. I see no conflict... Try again...

You just contradicted yourself. You say everyone has an absolute right to life, but then say it is ok to kill murderers. Clearly it isn't absolute if you can get it taken away.

-Drachasor

	16-11-2004 18:40									#166
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker In our debate, yes. I want to debate the origin and basis of (your) morality and you keep venturing into the political realm...

I'm not verturing off anywhere. We are already in the political realm, and you are being just as politcal as anyone else. And I've already answered that question. You just haven't followed through and made any point.

	17-11-2004 04:26									#167
	Suffering from ads?

quote: For every situation there is an absolute 'right' moral.

Then you aren't a relativist. Case closed.

	17-11-2004 04:41									#168
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious It goes beyond conservatives convincing conservatives that they are conservatives. The purpose is to make people conservative. I think that's pretty obvious. I mean otherwise the content of the speeches would consist of things like "I'm a conservative because I want to cut your taxes" not things like "I want to cut your taxes because government doesn't deserve it, you do." It's not hard to presuade someone that you are politically alligned with them. You can just send something out in the mail for that. You don't need any presuasive political talk at all.

You don't get it. There are a number of basic things people conceive of as "good" - most of the time they conflict, too, and the point is to make a balance between them. What politicians do is say that they support some policy because it's consistent with one of those principles and then downplay the principles with which it is inconsistent. And to some degree, they can change society slightly. Very, very few people have done that though - most of the time it occurs do to the concerted efforts of many people.

quote: Jesus wasn't powerless. He was very influencial. Money and position aren't the only source of power, but they are source.

Jesus had precious little secular power. Most of his power came after he died, in his words. He spread a philosophy. And he wasn't a ruler anyway. The reason I brought him up was to show how rare such people are, that do alter in any significant way the fundamental principles of a society.

	17-11-2004 04:45									#169
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Sandman
Bad reasoning. There are far fewer volcanoes around today than there used to be, is that the result of evolution? No, it's the result of physical processes.[/q]

Evolution is a physical process. And it is geological evolution - those geological features which continue or reproduce themselves, continue of reproduce. Volcanos don't. Precious few geological features do, in the very long run, but evolution by natural selection is true of any system, because it is a tautology.

	17-11-2004 06:44									#170
	Remove this text

Drach -

quote: You just contradicted yourself. You say everyone has an absolute right to life, but then say it is ok to kill murderers. Clearly it isn't absolute if you can get it taken away.

I'll just repeat what I said to Kid,

"Every natural rights philosopher and moral absolutist understands that rights may be taken from those who violate the rights of others, that doesn't mean the right to life is not absolute. It is absolute, that's why it's moral to kill in self-defense (and in retribution) if need be... The would-be murderer is trying to violate someone else's absolute right to life."

Absolute doesn't mean a right can never be taken, it means it can never be taken from the innocent. The victim has an absolute right to life, the murderer does not have an absolute right to murder.

Kid -

quote: I'm not verturing off anywhere. We are already in the political realm, and you are being just as politcal as anyone else. And I've already answered that question. You just haven't followed through and made any point.

I'm debating morality - it's origin and meaning. You keep talking about politics, not me. And you are not answering my questions. Look for yourself:

quote: How does one determine when a murder does benefit us thereby making it moral?

What was your answer?

quote: Does my right to life conflict with yours?

What was your answer? Here it is:

quote: Let's just say that it's possible for any of our rights to come into conflict. That's why I don't think they should be absolute.

This isn't a debate, it's pulling teeth.

	17-11-2004 18:16									#171
	Re: Where did morals come from? Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by johncmcleod My guess is that societies made up rules to keep people in line, such as 'don't steal' and 'don't kill.' At this time religion and state were one, so I think eventually these laws became viewed as morals.

Morality = subjective truth. It's always been that way.

If you dont bother to define what is true for yourself then you will have a difficult time not only processing reality but also managing your life. But if you are not up for the task, you can always cop out by choosing from one the many prescribed moral systems (aka religions) available today.

The strong and the powerful assert their morality and compromise the morality of society's sheep.

	17-11-2004 23:17									#172
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Then you aren't a relativist. Case closed.

What the hell? What case? I'm not claiming to be a relativist.

	17-11-2004 23:21									#173
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker I'm debating morality - it's origin and meaning. You keep talking about politics, not me.

Claiming that one side is being political and you aren't in a debate about morality is just a cheap trick, and I doubt that anyone is falling for it.

	17-11-2004 23:48									#174
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Gepap, True, no one believes that they should kill anyone who is part of their group, because they get benefit from those people. As soon as they don't get a benefit from members of that group killing those exmembers becomes possible. It's nothing but self-interest. That's no kind of basic morality. That's just making and breaking alliances.

Self-interest is the basis of morality, since self-interest is the basis of life.

	18-11-2004 00:31									#175
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Not true. If you only act in your own self-interest you have no principles at all. Therefore you have no morality. Acting in your own self-interest is not a principle.

	18-11-2004 00:38									#176
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Of course it is.

	18-11-2004 00:40									#177
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Not true. If you only act in your own self-interest you have no principles at all. Therefore you have no morality. Acting in your own self-interest is not a principle.

What is a principle? And once you answer that, what is the point of a principle?

	18-11-2004 00:42									#178
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker Of course it is.

No acting in your own interest is amoral .

	18-11-2004 00:47									#179
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara I give up.

You have chosen WISELY.

-Arrian

	18-11-2004 00:47									#180
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by GePap What is a principle? And once you answer that, what is the point of a principle?

A principle is a basic truth or assumption. A moral principle is used to determine what action we should take to act ethically. People may believe that acting in their self-interest is for a greater good, but you can hardly say that it's the basis for morality.