Judging morality

[quatona]

What are the criteria for judging a certain set of morals good?

 

[cantata]

Why, my personal set of morals, of course.

In all seriousness, the only thing I have to go on is my "subjective motivational set" - that is, all the things tucked away in my psyche that might motivate me one way or another, such as my empathy, my self-interest, my stubbornness, my desire to alleviate suffering, &c.

And I'll go along with Hume and say I don't think there's a lot anyone can do about their subjective motivational set. It is what it is.

So, in conclusion, we're all just atoms bumping into each other. Tadaaa.

 

[Dogbean]

I could see this thread getting really interesting and heated....

 

[Beanieboy]

Personally, I think it all boils down to "Am I loving my neighbour as myself?"
Am I loving my neighbor by illegalling downloading his songs? Am I loving my neighbor by keeping change when I was given too much? Am I loving my neighbor in caring for my partner in sickness? Am I loving my neighbor when I am polite?

It's rather easy, actually. It's getting into the pettiness of law and legality that makes it complicated. You could say that to understand morality, one must become like a child.

 

[The Nihilist]

Expediency?

 

[Beanieboy]

Font size?

 

[Washington]

What are the criteria for judging a certain set of morals good?

One criterion: How well they agree with my own.

 

[ArchaicTruth]

Coming up with a universal moral standard is hard, but I had a debate as a final for my speech class last year, the topic being "Gays are not normal". I was the 2nd affirmative for the negative side of the debate (I crushed the other team btw), and I came up with an attack centering around the governments ability to take away rights. Normally the government takes away rights to ensure the stability and wellbeing of the nation. Slavery was one of these things, and since it was good for the nation's economy and racism, laws were made to uphold and protect it. However, it caused a portion of the nation to become unhappy, and through empathy and protest, it was changed, and the right to hold slaves was taken away. We see many other examples of this, and eventually the government's ability to take away the rights of others should go something like this:

The only right that exists with the power to take away the right of another sentient being exists under the control of the government, to be used only to take away the right to take the rights of others from those who are not the government.

Simplistically put, if I want to smoke weed, so long as I don't harm anyone else, I'm a-ok. If I hate gays and try to take away their right to marriage, I'm wrong because I'm trying to take away the rights of another person when I'm not the government, and the right I'm trying to take does not impede on the rights of others.

Now, after trudging through my thought process, I would have to say that the universal moral standard (or something really close to it) would have to be derived from that.

 

[jayem]

What are the criteria for judging a certain set of morals good?

You examine the consequences of following such morals. How else can you judge them?

 

[Dogbean]

Personally, I think it all boils down to "Am I loving my neighbour as myself?"
Am I loving my neighbor by illegalling downloading his songs? Am I loving my neighbor by keeping change when I was given too much? Am I loving my neighbor in caring for my partner in sickness? Am I loving my neighbor when I am polite?

It's rather easy, actually. It's getting into the pettiness of law and legality that makes it complicated. You could say that to understand morality, one must become like a child.

And where does "love my neighbor as myself" come from?

 

[FlamingFemme]

And where does "love my neighbor as myself" come from?

Um... From every major religious text written since the dawning of mankind? I mean, in some form or another, pretty much every religion (and even some philosophies, like Humanism) embraces this basic rule of life. Hell, it probably existed even before the written word! Call it the Golden Rule, 'Do unto others...", etc., it all means the same thing: Treat other people/animals the way you would want to be treated.

 

[PetersKeys]

What are the criteria for judging a certain set of morals good?

God

the 10 Commandments and the Gospel

 

[Dogbean]

Um... From every major religious text written since the dawning of mankind? I mean, in some form or another, pretty much every religion (and even some philosophies, like Humanism) embraces this basic rule of life. Hell, it probably existed even before the written word! Call it the Golden Rule, 'Do unto others...", etc., it all means the same thing: Treat other people/animals the way you would want to be treated.

But where do you think such an absolute moral standard originates?

 

[Kyrisch]

From basic observations regarding what makes for the most benefit of the community (i.e. what makes everyone 'happy').

 

[quatona]

You examine the consequences of following such morals. How else can you judge them?

How do you judge the consequences of following those morals good (or bad)?

 

[quatona]

God

the 10 Commandments and the Gospel

What were the criteria you applied when you concluded that god, the 10cc and the gospel were good criteria for judging a set of morals?

 

[Dogbean]

From basic observations regarding what makes for the most benefit of the community (i.e. what makes everyone 'happy').

For some people, killing makes them happy. For some people, raping makes them happy. How did we come to a universal worldwide consensus that these things are bad before the human race destroyed itself?

 

[Illuminatus]

And where does "love my neighbor as myself" come from?

The Buddha said it quite a long time before Judaism/Christianity. I'm pretty sure the Hindus came up with it a couple thousand years before the Buddha.

 

[Washington]

But where do you think such an absolute moral standard originates?

"Do not to your neighbor what you would take ill from him." (Pittacus)[640-568 BC]

"Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing." (Thales)[624-546 BC]

"What you wish your neighbors to be to you, such be also to them." (Sextus the Pythagorean)[ca 550 BC]

"Do not do to others what would anger you if done to you by others." (Isocrates)[436- 338 BC]

"What thou avoidest suffering thyself seek not to impose on others." (Epictetus)[ca 75 AD]

Confucianism: Surely it is the maxim of loving kindness: Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you. [6th cent. BC]

Buddhism: Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful. [5th cent. BC]

Jainism: In happiness and suffering, in joy and grief, we should regard all creatures as we regard our own self, and should therefore refrain inflicting on others such injury as would appear undesirable to us if inflicted upon ourselves" [5th cent. BC]

Zoroastrianism: That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself. [5th cent. BC]

Taoism: Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain and your neighbor's loss as your own loss. [4th cent. BC]

Plato: May I do to others as I would that they should do to me. [4th cent. BC]
​

Brahmanism (Hinduism): This is the sum of duty: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you. [3rd cent. BC]

Hillel: What is hateful to yourself, do not do to your fellow man." [1st cent. BC]

Christianity: So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. [1st cent. AD]

Islam: No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself. [7th cent. AD]

Sikhism: Treat others as you would be treated yourself. [16th cent. AD]

source
​

 

[JustMeSee]

Great list Washington.