Questions on morality

[Nooj]

For those of you who are familiar with law, does the legal system ever explain why murder and other crimes have been criminalised?

Okay, lets say I know that the right thing to do is to help a starving child. Why should I do the right thing? Is the answer as easy as 'because it's the right thing to do'?

Without resorting to objective morality or an ultimate moral arbiter, how would you convince another person that your morality or the morality of your society is preferable to their own? For example, how would you convince a murderer who thinks murder is good that they shouldn't murder?

If morality is about what one should or shouldn't do, is the question 'should I play Left for Dead 2 or Modern Warfare' a moral one? Is there any qualitative difference between this moral quandry and other ones like 'should I steal'? In other words, are they both equally important?

 

[underpressure]

For those of you who are familiar with law, does the legal system ever explain why murder and other crimes have been criminalised?

I'm not sure, but I don't think it does.

Okay, lets say I know that the right thing to do is to help a starving child. Why should I do the right thing? Is the answer as easy as 'because it's the right thing to do'?

We all have different perceptions of the world, some may just not care about the plight of the child, seeing them suffer just doesn't register any emotion. Most people would help though, as most people have been brought up in a loving environment, so it is in their nature to care for others. Those who have had cold childhoods, with no love, will be be more likely to just walk on. There is no right or wrong, it's just the way we are.

Without resorting to objective morality or an ultimate moral arbiter, how would you convince another person that your morality or the morality of your society is preferable to their own? For example, how would you convince a murderer who thinks murder is good that they are wrong?

I think you'd find it very, very difficult to convince someone who already thinks murder is good that it isn't. They would likely have little warmth for their fellow man, they could be quite aware that killing someone is illegal, but the reason most of us don't kill others isn't because of the law, it's because to cut a long story short, it isn't in our nature to do such a thing.

You could try explaining how society functions better when we are not killing each other, and how the victims friends and family will grieve, but they likely wouldn't care about that sort of thing if they think murder is good. Their nature would be quite different to most of the rest of us.

 

[underpressure]

If morality is about what one should or shouldn't do, is the question 'should I play Left for Dead 2 or Modern Warfare' a moral one? Is there any qualitative difference between this moral quandry and other ones like 'should I steal'? In other words, are they both equally important?

I don't really see the need for the 'morality' label, there isn't much difference though IMO, when deciding whether you are going to steal or not, or which computer game you are going to play, in both instances you'll be going through a thought process to determine which choice you make, obviously some decisions are more emotionally charged than others, saying one is a moral decision though is just putting an arbitrary label on it.

 

[Chesterton]

For those of you who are familiar with law, does the legal system ever explain why murder and other crimes have been criminalised?

No I don't believe it does, nor do I believe it ever could. Really, it should be a mystery why all animals should be allowed to kill other animals, except when one certain animal does it to its own kind, it's given a special name, "murder", and is prohibited.

Okay, lets say I know that the right thing to do is to help a starving child. Why should I do the right thing? Is the answer as easy as 'because it's the right thing to do'?

Without resorting to objective morality or an ultimate moral arbiter, how would you convince another person that your morality or the morality of your society is preferable to their own? For example, how would you convince a murderer who thinks murder is good that they shouldn't murder?

I don't think you could convince a murderer that they shouldn't murder, because apart from a supposed ultimate moral arbiter, there is no reason they shouldn't murder. You could try and talk about the good of society, but you'd just have to go back a step and try and convince him why he should care about society. Personally, I've never seen any logical argument about why I should care about anything, other than having it stated in absolute terms, that it's simply and inarguably right to care about other people, and wrong not to.

 

[Letalis]

A lot of the justice system is based on philosophical treatises from various philosophers. There isn't really a uniform or consistent application of any one system, but draws on various sources. Laws are also determined based on what society will and will not tolerate.

 

[Washington]

For example, how would you convince a murderer who thinks murder is good that they shouldn't murder?

"What goes around comes around, and you may be next." In main, our laws are created to insure the greater good for a society.

 

[grasping the after wind]

[

 

[grasping the after wind]

For those of you who are familiar with law, does the legal system ever explain why murder and other crimes have been criminalised?

Okay, lets say I know that the right thing to do is to help a starving child. Why should I do the right thing? Is the answer as easy as 'because it's the right thing to do'?

Without resorting to objective morality or an ultimate moral arbiter, how would you convince another person that your morality or the morality of your society is preferable to their own? For example, how would you convince a murderer who thinks murder is good that they shouldn't murder?

If morality is about what one should or shouldn't do, is the question 'should I play Left for Dead 2 or Modern Warfare' a moral one? Is there any qualitative difference between this moral quandry and other ones like 'should I steal'? In other words, are they both equally important?

I think the word should here has a different meaning. When deciding what to play you are really saying "what would I prefer to do" when you are using the word should and you should, under more precise English, have used the word "Shall". When asking" should I steal" your saying "is it proper or right for me to steal." One is an ethical question and the other is a question of preference.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Sorry about the triple posting

 

[quatona]

For those of you who are familiar with law, does the legal system ever explain why murder and other crimes have been criminalised?

If I am not entirely mistaken, at least in my countries preambulums and such postulate basically moral/ethical core values and "rights" from which particular laws are derived. (However, I don´t think that these postulations come with explanations as to why they have been made the basis of legislation themselves).

Okay, lets say I know that the right thing to do is to help a starving child. Why should I do the right thing?

Because that´s a tautology. If "the right thing" is not a synonym for "what to do" I actually wouldn´t know what the meaning of it could possibly be.

Is the answer as easy as 'because it's the right thing to do'?

Yes, I think so. Unless you can give me a definition of "the right thing to do" that is different from "the thing one should do".

Without resorting to objective morality or an ultimate moral arbiter, how would you convince another person that your morality or the morality of your society is preferable to their own?

I guess I would discuss the scenarios based on his morality and my morality through, hoping that one of us has missed some important implications and consequences so that a common consideration would help us towards an agreement.

For example, how would you convince a murderer who thinks murder is good that they shouldn't murder?

I suspect the most effective method of talking someone out of the idea that "murder is good" would be to offer them to murder them. If they accept the offer, I can´t think of an argument anymore.

If morality is about what one should or shouldn't do, is the question 'should I play Left for Dead 2 or Modern Warfare' a moral one? Is there any qualitative difference between this moral quandry and other ones like 'should I steal'? In other words, are they both equally important?

I think that interpersonal matters are a league of their own, ethically speaking.

 

[lawtonfogle]

For those of you who are familiar with law, does the legal system ever explain why murder and other crimes have been criminalised?

Okay, lets say I know that the right thing to do is to help a starving child. Why should I do the right thing? Is the answer as easy as 'because it's the right thing to do'?

Without resorting to objective morality or an ultimate moral arbiter, how would you convince another person that your morality or the morality of your society is preferable to their own? For example, how would you convince a murderer who thinks murder is good that they shouldn't murder?

If morality is about what one should or shouldn't do, is the question 'should I play Left for Dead 2 or Modern Warfare' a moral one? Is there any qualitative difference between this moral quandry and other ones like 'should I steal'? In other words, are they both equally important?

In the end you cannot force someone to accept your beliefs. You have to make a choice, can you agree to disagree, or do you put a bullet between their eyes. And while Christians may say that is un-Christ like, that is metaphorically what God does in the end.

A murderer who believes murder is a perfectly acceptable thing has to be removed from society, they locked up or killed.

In the end, I do not claim that might makes right, but for what ever that does make right, only might can end up enforcing it.

 

[quatona]

In the end, I do not claim that might makes right, but for what ever that does make right, only might can end up enforcing it.

Then again, for whatever that does make wrong, only might can end up enforcing it as right, as well.

 

[Verv]

For those of you who are familiar with law, does the legal system ever explain why murder and other crimes have been criminalised?

Okay, lets say I know that the right thing to do is to help a starving child. Why should I do the right thing? Is the answer as easy as 'because it's the right thing to do'?

Without resorting to objective morality or an ultimate moral arbiter, how would you convince another person that your morality or the morality of your society is preferable to their own? For example, how would you convince a murderer who thinks murder is good that they shouldn't murder?

If morality is about what one should or shouldn't do, is the question 'should I play Left for Dead 2 or Modern Warfare' a moral one? Is there any qualitative difference between this moral quandry and other ones like 'should I steal'? In other words, are they both equally important?

This is an argument that many Christians use when arguing with atheists -- there is no way to deduce a proper moral code if there is no God.

It generally makes sense.

Who is to say that the proper moral code isn't, essentially, might makes right?

I have admired some of the stranger Satanist thinkers out there -- I forget his name, Anton LeVay and the guy whose name I always forget, have some very intriguing ideas about human nature that I find to be intellectually honest and truly good analysis.

though I am a Christian I feel Satanism is philosophically legitimate and has a lot of integrity when it comes to developing a sensible ethical system based off of man's nature.

 

[underpressure]

This is an argument that many Christians use when arguing with atheists -- there is no way to deduce a proper moral code if there is no God.

It generally makes sense.

Who is to say that the proper moral code isn't, essentially, might makes right?

I have admired some of the stranger Satanist thinkers out there -- I forget his name, Anton LeVay and the guy whose name I always forget, have some very intriguing ideas about human nature that I find to be intellectually honest and truly good analysis.

though I am a Christian I feel Satanism is philosophically legitimate and has a lot of integrity when it comes to developing a sensible ethical system based off of man's nature.

Are you a professor of logic?

 

[quatona]

Who is to say that the proper moral code isn't, essentially, might makes right?

I don´t know. I guess I´d just expect those whose morality comes down to "might makes right" to be honest about it, and to stand firmly to the implications it comes with.

 

[Keres]

This is an argument that many Christians use when arguing with atheists -- there is no way to deduce a proper moral code if there is no God.

Actually, it makes perfect sense.

Tell me, why is it you 'behave yourself'?

Wait, I know the answer. Because you want the bribe of heaven and fear the punishment of god. God's might makes right.

I, as an atheist, do not need either the bribe or the threat to be a moral person, which is why I am consistently more moral and ethical than the god of the bible. All I have to do is simple: I treat people with the respect they deserve and otherwise do unto them as they do unto me, for I must assume that what they do unto me is how they desire to be treated.

'Ethics' are the rules that humans as a social animal have developed to live together in some semblance of harmony.

 

[citizenthom]

For those of you who are familiar with law, does the legal system ever explain why murder and other crimes have been criminalised?

Yes: because a majority of our elected representatives have decided it should be, and our judges have decided that the law doesn't violate any tenets of our Constitution. The criminal law is the morals--or, more typically, preferences--of the majority, plain and simple. And where do those come from? Not much of any consistent system.

 

[sidhe]

This is an argument that many Christians use when arguing with atheists -- there is no way to deduce a proper moral code if there is no God.

It generally makes sense.

Who is to say that the proper moral code isn't, essentially, might makes right?

I have admired some of the stranger Satanist thinkers out there -- I forget his name, Anton LeVay and the guy whose name I always forget, have some very intriguing ideas about human nature that I find to be intellectually honest and truly good analysis.

though I am a Christian I feel Satanism is philosophically legitimate and has a lot of integrity when it comes to developing a sensible ethical system based off of man's nature.

Would the guy you don't remember the name of be Aleister Crowley?

'Cause the first sign that someone hasn't actually read Crowley, but just about him, is that they think the philosophy is "Might makes right." Or, rather, that they're a *ahem* "savage" who does not grasp the complexities of Thelemic morality. What I propose - which you so radically oppose - is Thelemic conduct; individualism, non-interference, etc.

Lastly, on that topic, A.C. wasn't a Satanist...but he was. Just as much as he was a Christian...but he wasn't.

On topic: Criminal/civil law doesn't make statements of morality, but of permissibility. Sometimes these fall in line with moral codes ("Do not kill," "Do not steal.") and sometimes not ("Do not drive more than 70 on the highway," "You must have a warning on your menu concerning undercooked meat if you cook steaks to order or serve seafood."). When one begins to equate "legality" with "morality," it leads to trouble. As a wise dude once said, legislating morality doesn't make a society moral, it makes people criminals. So not only does the legal code not explain why, it shouldn't explain why...it is dealing in permission, not morals.

 

[Letalis]

The idea of might makes right and nature as ethics came way before that delusional occultist.

 

[[serious]]

For those of you who are familiar with law, does the legal system ever explain why murder and other crimes have been criminalised?

Okay, lets say I know that the right thing to do is to help a starving child. Why should I do the right thing? Is the answer as easy as 'because it's the right thing to do'?

perhaps the better question is 'what makes things right and wrong?' Thus, the first question would have a number of answers depending on your ethical framework. It could be "because it makes me feel good to help others" "because it decreases the suffering in the world" "because it maintains human dignity" or any other number of answers depending on the person.

Without resorting to objective morality or an ultimate moral arbiter, how would you convince another person that your morality or the morality of your society is preferable to their own? For example, how would you convince a murderer who thinks murder is good that they shouldn't murder?

depends on what I'm trying to accomplish. If I want him to not murder, I'd approach it from a self interest perspective (assuming he's an ethical egoist) "you shouldn't murder because you get jailed or executed if caught" If on the other hand I want to change the perception of morality, I must approach it by presenting inconsistencies in his stated ethical code.

If morality is about what one should or shouldn't do, is the question 'should I play Left for Dead 2 or Modern Warfare' a moral one?

There are certainly cases where it could be. if both choices are morally equivalent to you then it isn't an ethical problem. If you are approaching it from a frame work such as "the makers of game X exploit slave labor in third world countries" then it could certainly be a moral question.

Is there any qualitative difference between this moral quandry and other ones like 'should I steal'? In other words, are they both equally important?

Importance stems from a degree of moral separation between two choices. Say you've got a train heading towards a cliff. You can save it by diferting it on to a track with a man standing on it. You determine it's more moral to cause the death of one man rather than allow the death of a whole train load. Alternatively, there is also a second track with the man's twin brother on it which you can also divert the train to. The choice of which direction to divert the train or which brother to kill would not be an ethical choice as they are ethically equivalent.

Take another example in the middle. the airline you use lost your bags and you need to buy underwear. There are only 2 stores in the town. one store has poor labor practices in third world countries, the other has poor labor practices in the retail stores here. You decide it is slightly more moral to protect workers here than over seas and shop in the first store. This is a less important moral question.