My ethic is to try always to support Greatest Overall Freedom. That is, to do whatever I believe will support the most amount of freedom I am capable of supporting. Unless, of course, human frailty gets in the way. What sort of code do you live by? If my code is flawed, why is it flawed? What I'm requesting is a direct debate of ethics and morals. Let's debate what makes something "right" or "wrong".
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
What makes right and wrong?
- Thread starter KalithAlur
- Start date
Vene
In memory of ChordatesLegacy
From how I look at my morality if something helps others, then it's moral. If it causes harm to somebody, then it's immoral. If it doesn't create harm or benefit, then it's amoral and falls completely outside of morality and ethics.
It's pretty simple, but it seems to be working for me.
It's pretty simple, but it seems to be working for me.
Upvote
0
I think something is right if it is loving toward others and wrong if it is not. Freedom should be limited in some cases. For example I don't think it is right to bother people at funerals protesting the iraq war.
Upvote
0
I don't think it's right to bother people at funerals about the Iraq War because doing so betrays more freedom than it promotes. Less people don't stop dying and the war doesn't end any quicker, and you cause suffering in the funeral-goers... to suffer is usually not desired, so it is to limit the freedom of the people in the funeral to promote your own self-righteousness.
.
on the other hand, I can think of some hypothetical scenarios where it would be the best move to protest at a funeral, and i don't think funeral-protests should be outlawed.
.
Vene: what if some people are hurt by it, but other people benefit? or what if it risks significant harm to others in some indirect way (like if drinking might result in a dui-related death) ?? where do you draw the line in the sand?
.
that's why I think the Freedom Equation is so necessary for me. It's a way to evaluate complex situations and draw the line in the sand.
.
on the other hand, I can think of some hypothetical scenarios where it would be the best move to protest at a funeral, and i don't think funeral-protests should be outlawed.
.
Vene: what if some people are hurt by it, but other people benefit? or what if it risks significant harm to others in some indirect way (like if drinking might result in a dui-related death) ?? where do you draw the line in the sand?
.
that's why I think the Freedom Equation is so necessary for me. It's a way to evaluate complex situations and draw the line in the sand.
Upvote
0
Stinker
Senior Veteran
- Sep 23, 2004
- 3,556
- 174
- Faith
- Christian Seeker
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
What makes right and wrong?
Well, if a person doesn't believe God exists, then they can decide that their moral code is going to be defined as survival through struggle. Meaning that they have experienced so much adversity in life, that they are going to aquire the means to house, feed, and live the highest standard of life that they can, through inflicting the amount of adversity on whoever gets in their way and can be used to help them achieve it.
Moral wrong then would be anyone who would take action to stop this person from achieving their standard of living.
Well, if a person doesn't believe God exists, then they can decide that their moral code is going to be defined as survival through struggle. Meaning that they have experienced so much adversity in life, that they are going to aquire the means to house, feed, and live the highest standard of life that they can, through inflicting the amount of adversity on whoever gets in their way and can be used to help them achieve it.
Moral wrong then would be anyone who would take action to stop this person from achieving their standard of living.
Upvote
0
why might not believing in God inspire that particular morality? Couldn't a monotheistic nonatheist also just as easily believe that way, unless he/she believed God (as defined by some form of communication about God) is a moral authority, and has effectively communicated what morality is or isn't?
.
Does believing a particular conception of God is the ultimate moral authority, and therefore automatically accepting anything that God says is wrong as wrong or is right as right, risk warping a person's sense of morals? Example: the Inquisitions, the World Trade Incident, the schizophrenic who goes on a killing spree because God communicates it's ok.
.
I suppose God would provide proof God is the ultimate moral authority, for those reasonable enuf to live a moral life. And this proof would include proof communications from God are from the real God.
.
Does believing a particular conception of God is the ultimate moral authority, and therefore automatically accepting anything that God says is wrong as wrong or is right as right, risk warping a person's sense of morals? Example: the Inquisitions, the World Trade Incident, the schizophrenic who goes on a killing spree because God communicates it's ok.
.
I suppose God would provide proof God is the ultimate moral authority, for those reasonable enuf to live a moral life. And this proof would include proof communications from God are from the real God.
Upvote
0
Eudaimonist
I believe in life before death!
- Jan 1, 2003
- 27,482
- 2,738
- 58
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Upvote
0
Eudaimonist
I believe in life before death!
- Jan 1, 2003
- 27,482
- 2,738
- 58
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
And if a person believes that a god exists, they can define their moral code in the exact same way. There's nothing to prevent people defining moral codes however they want.
However, both theists and atheists are able to have reasons for rejecting the "survival through struggle" moral code. While people can define their moral codes however they want, honest people are capable of asking if their moral codes are justified by their knowledge of reality.
eudaimonia,
Mark
Upvote
0
How is anything gained by a funeral protest, under any circumstances?
Wel, wat if you'r a powerful political figure who's using your power to assassinate people left and right, and your son gets caught in the crossfire. A group of protesters gather at the funeral to educate the public, they bring documented evidence to feed the media proving you'r a corrupt murdering politician AND your son got caught in the crossfire, and the fact that the protest is happening at a funeral attracts so much attention somebody steps in and helps.
Now, all that's not very likely.... but anything can happened and what will be can't always be guessed.
Next, the "Absolute Truth" argument. For God to present Absolute Truth, God has to somehow prove the Truth to be Absolute - That means God has to find a way to communicate something much of modern thinking considers absolutely impossible.
Say God presents a perfect moral code. Fine, but in order to be justified in listening to this perfect moral code, wouldn't God have to prove the moral code is perfect? Or otherwise prove God not only exists but is also perfect?
In order for God to communicate such a thing, God might inject the Perfect Truth into the believer's head --- in which case the Believer might temporarily or permanently gain insight into every angle, cover every single reason why the perfect moral code is flawless. God wouldn't necessarily have to violate free will to do this. Simply exercise your free will, and ask for that Perfect Truth.
That's what I did. As a very young child, I said, "God, give me the truth, whatever it costs me." The closest I got to the truth was the conclusion that, You process logic as objectively as you can and weigh the evidence, and act based on what that evidence tells you is the way to act. You can't absolutely prove anything for many reasons, one being it's always possible a fallible human missed something, but you can lean on the evidence, and change how you lean as new evidence is introduced.
As to the question about why it is helpful to support Greatest Overall Freedom, the answer for me is that providing freedom prevents pain and promotes enjoyment of life, and enjoyment of life is what makes life taste worth living. Taking away freedom is a symbolic surrender of the same measure of your own freedom, unless you can somehow demonstrate (to yourself, if nobody else) that by doing so you'r actually preventing the loss of more freedom than you'r creating.
If you take a certain measure of freedom, your environment gains the right to defend itself and you lose the right to the measure of freedom you'v taken. If you present a situation that risks taking more freedom that what you actually intend, your environment gains the right (due to the evidence it is forced to consider) to defend itself by taking that amount of freedom or less... For instance, if you hold a gun to somebody's head and say, "I'm going to shoot you in ten seconds. 1, 2, 3..." Somebody has the right to kill you even if you'r just joking, because you'r risking somebody else's life.
On the other hand, if there's an equal-risk plan that requires less interference, for instance if there is a way to remove the gun from your hand without risking it going off, then that method of defense is superior, because more freedom (and happiness) is supported.
Wel, wat if you'r a powerful political figure who's using your power to assassinate people left and right, and your son gets caught in the crossfire. A group of protesters gather at the funeral to educate the public, they bring documented evidence to feed the media proving you'r a corrupt murdering politician AND your son got caught in the crossfire, and the fact that the protest is happening at a funeral attracts so much attention somebody steps in and helps.
Now, all that's not very likely.... but anything can happened and what will be can't always be guessed.
Next, the "Absolute Truth" argument. For God to present Absolute Truth, God has to somehow prove the Truth to be Absolute - That means God has to find a way to communicate something much of modern thinking considers absolutely impossible.
Say God presents a perfect moral code. Fine, but in order to be justified in listening to this perfect moral code, wouldn't God have to prove the moral code is perfect? Or otherwise prove God not only exists but is also perfect?
In order for God to communicate such a thing, God might inject the Perfect Truth into the believer's head --- in which case the Believer might temporarily or permanently gain insight into every angle, cover every single reason why the perfect moral code is flawless. God wouldn't necessarily have to violate free will to do this. Simply exercise your free will, and ask for that Perfect Truth.
That's what I did. As a very young child, I said, "God, give me the truth, whatever it costs me." The closest I got to the truth was the conclusion that, You process logic as objectively as you can and weigh the evidence, and act based on what that evidence tells you is the way to act. You can't absolutely prove anything for many reasons, one being it's always possible a fallible human missed something, but you can lean on the evidence, and change how you lean as new evidence is introduced.
As to the question about why it is helpful to support Greatest Overall Freedom, the answer for me is that providing freedom prevents pain and promotes enjoyment of life, and enjoyment of life is what makes life taste worth living. Taking away freedom is a symbolic surrender of the same measure of your own freedom, unless you can somehow demonstrate (to yourself, if nobody else) that by doing so you'r actually preventing the loss of more freedom than you'r creating.
If you take a certain measure of freedom, your environment gains the right to defend itself and you lose the right to the measure of freedom you'v taken. If you present a situation that risks taking more freedom that what you actually intend, your environment gains the right (due to the evidence it is forced to consider) to defend itself by taking that amount of freedom or less... For instance, if you hold a gun to somebody's head and say, "I'm going to shoot you in ten seconds. 1, 2, 3..." Somebody has the right to kill you even if you'r just joking, because you'r risking somebody else's life.
On the other hand, if there's an equal-risk plan that requires less interference, for instance if there is a way to remove the gun from your hand without risking it going off, then that method of defense is superior, because more freedom (and happiness) is supported.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
