Do Morals Matter?
Moderator: Fist and Faith
-
Zarathustra
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 19842
- Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:23 am
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 1 time
I agree that rape is both illegal and immoral. However, by saying it is immoral, I'm merely saying that I don't like people doing it to other people. It's my personal preference. This is entirely different from saying something like, "the universe abhors rape," or "God disapproves of rape," or "rape is universally, absolutely wrong as an inherent property of reality."
Again, in voicing my opinion that it is immoral, I'm not imposing my views on another, but instead arguing for the protection of another's rights (the right to not be raped).
It sounds like we may not be so far apart than you might think. I'm arguing against an absolutist view toward morality, whether the basis of that absolutism is founded upon God or upon the universe itself. In other words, it's not fundamentally "Wrong," just "wrong" because we don't like it. We DECIDE what right and wrong is, we don't DISCOVER it pre-existing in the world.
Again, in voicing my opinion that it is immoral, I'm not imposing my views on another, but instead arguing for the protection of another's rights (the right to not be raped).
It sounds like we may not be so far apart than you might think. I'm arguing against an absolutist view toward morality, whether the basis of that absolutism is founded upon God or upon the universe itself. In other words, it's not fundamentally "Wrong," just "wrong" because we don't like it. We DECIDE what right and wrong is, we don't DISCOVER it pre-existing in the world.
So obviously, you do believe in morals.Malik23 wrote:I agree that rape is both illegal and immoral.
Oh, wait... you're saying that rape is immoral for you, because you believe it's wrong - but if someone else doesn't believe it's wrong, then it's fine for them to go ahead and rape whomever they want to?Malik23 wrote:Again, in voicing my opinion that it is immoral, I'm not imposing my views on another...
I'm arguing against an absolutist view toward morality, whether the basis of that absolutism is founded upon God or upon the universe itself. In other words, it's not fundamentally "Wrong," just "wrong" because we don't like it. We DECIDE what right and wrong is, we don't DISCOVER it pre-existing in the world.
- because God forbid you impose your moral standards on anyone else...
Check out my digital art at www.brian.co.za
Yeah Malik, you're actually saying that rape isn't universally wrong?
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." - PJ O'Rourke
_____________
"Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas." - Charles Stewart
_____________
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison
_____________
_____________
"Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas." - Charles Stewart
_____________
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison
_____________
-
Avatar
- Immanentizing The Eschaton
- Posts: 62038
- Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
- Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 32 times
- Contact:
No, I don't think that he's saying it's not wrong, only that it's wrong because of reasons that we've decided for ourselves, rather than being an "absolute" pre-existing wrong, in the sense that gravity is "pre-existing." Afterall, until not so long ago, historically speaking, it was apparently perfectly acceptable for invading soldiers to rape, loot and pillage.
It's an interesting question. I firmly believe in the subjectivity of morality, as many of you know. I believe that we have created a framework for what is right and not, acceptable and not.
However, that's not to say it's (usually) a bad thing, if we keep the over-riding principle of "who is getting hurt" in mind. Perhaps the basis of all "morality" that deals with actions toward others is the fundamental question, "How would I feel if somebody did it to me?" Or perhaps, more acurately, "how would most people feel if it were done to them?"
As far as Edge's comment above goes, I think it's a little deeper than that. It's not that what that person is doing is right overall, but it is certainly that the person who believes it is right will not see it as wrong.
Morals matter. But as was said, we can't codify measure or list them, because they're based on subjective world views. Now it's easy enough when you talk about murder and rape, but what about simple prejudice? Is it immoral to be racist? The racists certainly don't see it that way.
As always, I'm against an "absoluteism." That doesn't mean we can't uniformly agree that certain things are wrong, but it should require that we be able to define why they're wrong, rather than simply saying "because they are."
In that way, we can reach consensus on why rape is wrong for example, (because of the harm it causes) and so forth. Absolutes are as dangerous as opinions and expectations and certainty.
--Avatar
It's an interesting question. I firmly believe in the subjectivity of morality, as many of you know. I believe that we have created a framework for what is right and not, acceptable and not.
However, that's not to say it's (usually) a bad thing, if we keep the over-riding principle of "who is getting hurt" in mind. Perhaps the basis of all "morality" that deals with actions toward others is the fundamental question, "How would I feel if somebody did it to me?" Or perhaps, more acurately, "how would most people feel if it were done to them?"
As far as Edge's comment above goes, I think it's a little deeper than that. It's not that what that person is doing is right overall, but it is certainly that the person who believes it is right will not see it as wrong.
Morals matter. But as was said, we can't codify measure or list them, because they're based on subjective world views. Now it's easy enough when you talk about murder and rape, but what about simple prejudice? Is it immoral to be racist? The racists certainly don't see it that way.
As always, I'm against an "absoluteism." That doesn't mean we can't uniformly agree that certain things are wrong, but it should require that we be able to define why they're wrong, rather than simply saying "because they are."
In that way, we can reach consensus on why rape is wrong for example, (because of the harm it causes) and so forth. Absolutes are as dangerous as opinions and expectations and certainty.
--Avatar
-
bossk
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 1426
- Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 6:46 pm
- Location: Charlottesville, VA
- Contact:
I think what MOST if not ALL of us are saying is that rape - and all of these other "morally wrong" concepts we're debating - cause the victim pain, and are forced upon them without their acquiesence.Cail wrote:Yeah Malik, you're actually saying that rape isn't universally wrong?
The absolutists are right - there's nothing fundamental and omnipresent in our universe that tells us these things are morally wrong - morals are a creation of humanity. However, most people can make that connection "I wouldn't want it happening to me, so let's just not do it to anyone", whereas sociopaths say "It isn't happening to me, I'm doing it to others, and what's more, doing it satisfies some of my baser needs!"
In short - morals are obviously not a universal constant of any sort. It takes empathy and willpower to live up to a moral code - it's something we impose upon ourselves.
Misanthropes of the world, unite!
-
Zarathustra
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 19842
- Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:23 am
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 1 time
Yes, exactly. Bossk and Avatar are right. The difference between deciding and discovering.No, I don't think that he's saying it's not wrong, only that it's wrong because of reasons that we've decided for ourselves, rather than being an "absolute" pre-existing wrong, in the sense that gravity is "pre-existing."
Just to be clear, I think it is wrong to impose your morality for issues in which no one's rights are being violated. Obviously, in the case of rape, someone's rights are being violated. So it is perfectly alright to impose restrictions on people for things like this. But what is NOT right is to say that this restriction is justified by a deity or by the laws of the universe. That is an unfounded claim, something invented to make the law sound absolute when in fact it's just something we won't stand for.
No offense Malik, but saying that morality isn't provided by the universe or deity is unfounded as well.
Let me ask you this. 200 years ago, blacks were not considered human, so therefore had no rights to violate. They were property. In historical context you or I could rape away without anyone looking at us sideways. It's still morally wrong, isn't it, or did it only become wrong when the government admitted that blacks were human too, and had all the rights as white folk?
Let me ask you this. 200 years ago, blacks were not considered human, so therefore had no rights to violate. They were property. In historical context you or I could rape away without anyone looking at us sideways. It's still morally wrong, isn't it, or did it only become wrong when the government admitted that blacks were human too, and had all the rights as white folk?
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." - PJ O'Rourke
_____________
"Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas." - Charles Stewart
_____________
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison
_____________
_____________
"Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas." - Charles Stewart
_____________
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison
_____________
-
Avatar
- Immanentizing The Eschaton
- Posts: 62038
- Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
- Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 32 times
- Contact:
Government has nothing to do with it. People have everything to do with it.
Of course it was wrong. And I'm sure that when it was being done, there were people who opposed it. Who made that connection. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right.
Hell, this is almost impossible to explain clearly. We're looking at it from the inside. From within a framework in which it is and always has been wrong. Why is it wrong?
Because somebody once said, "it's not nice to hurt other people. It must be not nice to hurt other people, because it's not nice to be hurt."
That's all. Sure, it's bad for you to hurt others too, (although the people who do it don't seem to notice) but there is no alteration in the course of the physical universe if you hurt somebody. The sun will come up, you will live and die, and hundreds of millions of people will never be affected in the slightest.
That does not make it right. But we are the people who said so. It has no effect except on the person you do it to, and yourself, and maybe a few ancillary people to some extent. Morality is purely human.
I don't believe in god, yet I have morals. It must be human. Universal? We already know that that can't be true, because we see different (often opposing) moral and ethical codes in operation all the time. The only possible conclusion is that humans decide on what is moral.
--A
Of course it was wrong. And I'm sure that when it was being done, there were people who opposed it. Who made that connection. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right.
Hell, this is almost impossible to explain clearly. We're looking at it from the inside. From within a framework in which it is and always has been wrong. Why is it wrong?
Because somebody once said, "it's not nice to hurt other people. It must be not nice to hurt other people, because it's not nice to be hurt."
That's all. Sure, it's bad for you to hurt others too, (although the people who do it don't seem to notice) but there is no alteration in the course of the physical universe if you hurt somebody. The sun will come up, you will live and die, and hundreds of millions of people will never be affected in the slightest.
That does not make it right. But we are the people who said so. It has no effect except on the person you do it to, and yourself, and maybe a few ancillary people to some extent. Morality is purely human.
I don't believe in god, yet I have morals. It must be human. Universal? We already know that that can't be true, because we see different (often opposing) moral and ethical codes in operation all the time. The only possible conclusion is that humans decide on what is moral.
--A
No Av, you're missing the point. Rape of a black 200 years ago wasn't hurting anybody. Look at it in historical context, blacks weren't human 200 years ago, they were property.
Now we can look back with wisdom and say, "of course it's wrong", and it was wrong then too, even though most people thought it was fine.
And again, you can't prove that there is no alteration to the physical universe either. You're taking that on faith (or lack therof).
Now we can look back with wisdom and say, "of course it's wrong", and it was wrong then too, even though most people thought it was fine.
And again, you can't prove that there is no alteration to the physical universe either. You're taking that on faith (or lack therof).
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." - PJ O'Rourke
_____________
"Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas." - Charles Stewart
_____________
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison
_____________
_____________
"Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas." - Charles Stewart
_____________
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison
_____________
-
Avatar
- Immanentizing The Eschaton
- Posts: 62038
- Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
- Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 32 times
- Contact:
In terms of the law, it wasn't hurting anybody. But we've already established that the law has nothing to do with morality.
If morality is "natural" and inbuilt, then we wouldn't have so much discussion of it, because everybody would know that some things are moral, and some aren't.
On the other hand, as soon as we come across one instance where somebody accuses somebody else of immorality, then we must accept that it depends on the individual interpretation thereof by each person.
Person A believes that homosexuality (or smoking a joint) is immoral. Person B believes that it is not immoral.
Who is right? And why?
--A
If morality is "natural" and inbuilt, then we wouldn't have so much discussion of it, because everybody would know that some things are moral, and some aren't.
On the other hand, as soon as we come across one instance where somebody accuses somebody else of immorality, then we must accept that it depends on the individual interpretation thereof by each person.
Person A believes that homosexuality (or smoking a joint) is immoral. Person B believes that it is not immoral.
Who is right? And why?
--A
I am, of course. Because I said so.
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." - PJ O'Rourke
_____________
"Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas." - Charles Stewart
_____________
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison
_____________
_____________
"Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas." - Charles Stewart
_____________
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison
_____________
-
Cagliostro
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 9360
- Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 10:39 pm
- Location: Colorado
Yeah, but you've got a great avatar and .sig.
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." - PJ O'Rourke
_____________
"Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas." - Charles Stewart
_____________
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison
_____________
_____________
"Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas." - Charles Stewart
_____________
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison
_____________
-
bossk
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 1426
- Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 6:46 pm
- Location: Charlottesville, VA
- Contact:
Don't listen to this lying turd. I have it on good authority that he attends secret, underground "whistling on Tuesday" clubs. His wanton, shameless behavior makes me sick! Sick, I tell you!Cagliostro wrote:I think whistling on a Tuesday deserves hanging.
But then again, I am a silly person.
Misanthropes of the world, unite!
-
Cagliostro
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 9360
- Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 10:39 pm
- Location: Colorado