[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by Umami

Do you guys believe morality is subjective/relative or universal?

I firmly sit on the side of relative.

Could be either, depends on the locus.

[IgnoranceInABag]

morality is purely subjective and every person on this planet has their own view of what is and isnt moral.

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by IgnoranceInABag

morality is purely subjective and every person on this planet has their own view of what is and isnt moral.

The only thing this statement suggests is that ignorance exists.

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

We know for a fact that peer influence is far more effective than law in affecting individual behavior. It should be a logical conclusion then that our society would take to this model.

1) Why must they be mutually exclusive? I see no reason why we couldn't use both peer pressure and law. Why does peer pressure being effective diminish the function of law?

2) I would think that shock collars would be a better way of promoting good behavior than peer pressure. Come to think of it, total slavery is clearly the best way of promoting behavior we like. If the determining factor is effectiveness, then the "logical conclusion" should be to model our societies after those, should it not?

[IgnoranceInABag]

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

The only thing this statement suggests is that ignorance exists.

i could say the same about this post....

do you believe that everyone shares the same moral compass?

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

1) Why must they be mutually exclusive? I see no reason why we couldn't use both peer pressure and law. Why does peer pressure being effective diminish the function of law?

2) I would think that shock collars would be a better way of promoting good behavior than peer pressure. Come to think of it, total slavery is clearly the best way of promoting behavior we like. If the determining factor is effectiveness, then the "logical conclusion" should be to model our societies after those, should it not?

because I believe people adhere to norms best when they do so out of agency, not compulsion. Even if that agency is illusory, you need healthy spirits for a healthy society.

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by IgnoranceInABag

i could say the same about this post....

do you believe that everyone shares the same moral compass?

Of course not. Your compass is based on what pole it is attuned to. This position does nothing to disprove an objective morality. Again, it would suggest that most, if not all of us lack requisite wisdom to ascertain an objective morality. I'd wager that focusing on the impersonal when deciding your morals is closer to being objective than focusing on what is personal

[IgnoranceInABag]

i fail to see how my first post was ignorant.

ones "moral compass" is tuned by many personal and environmental factors. while there may be some things that most, if not all people agree to be moral/immoral there will always be differences.

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by IgnoranceInABag

i fail to see how my first post was ignorant.

ones "moral compass" is tuned by many personal and environmental factors. while there may be some things that most, if not all people agree to be moral/immoral there will always be differences.

I didn't say your post was ignorant. Let me try putting it this way:

The fact that differing moral compasses exist suggests the presence of ignorance, not the absence of objective morality.

I think that looking for objectivity in popular consensus is ignorant though.

[IgnoranceInABag]

gotcha. that makes much more sense. i get called ignorant quite often so i read your post as a sarcastic attack.

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by IgnoranceInABag

gotcha. that makes much more sense. i get called ignorant quite often so i read your post as a sarcastic attack.

No worries bud.

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

because I believe people adhere to norms best when they do so out of agency, not compulsion. Even if that agency is illusory, you need healthy spirits for a healthy society.

So, to be clear, your argument is not that peer pressure is more effective than law, but that law is in itself ineffective? Also, how can you conclude that the "healthy spirits" of non-compulsive law always outweigh the improve spirits gained from a properly behaved society?

[Treghc]

Originally Posted by Umami

Do you guys believe morality is subjective/relative or universal?

I firmly sit on the side of relative.

How about a bit of everything?

There are absolute morals we know to be true. I commonly give out the story of a society that deems its citizens morally obligated to kill every new born child. Pretty soon, this society will cease to exist. It's quite evident that such an act is indeed morally wrong. This isn't subjective because the output is universal. It is not relative because the subject of this entire discussion is baseless if no people exist for morality to matter. It is, however, morally universal.

Now, we are a complex species with incredibly complex sociological workings and we have not been around nearly long enough to discover the answers to the more complex moral situations. We may never be able to. This is why I believe subjective, relative and universal morals all currently exist.

[kapp_badbloodz]

Originally Posted by IgnoranceInABag

morality is purely subjective and every person on this planet has their own view of what is and isnt moral.

truth

Laws, however, are not solely based on morality. They are based on subjectivity that, at the very least, the majority of people can agree that something is or is not acceptable within a city, state, or country (almost culturally).

This is why there are different laws in different states. EXAMPLE: certain states allow same sex marriages where others do not and it is against the law. EXAMPLE: certain countries do not allow and public display of affection to members of the opposite sex (kissing, hugging, holding hands) as it is offensive and reserved for couples in the bedroom. EXAMPLE: In California it is a misdemeanor to be in possession or use Marijuana without a medical license. In Texas, possession of a controlled substance (such as MJ) can lead to a felony conviction (for POSSESSION!!!)

So in a sense... laws are cultural. They are what, as a society in a specific area (local/state/federal), that provide a basic means of accountability for a person's actions.

There is nothing that says you CANNOT go streaking down the street but there is a local/state ordinance that outlines the repercussions for someone who does. When something is ILLEGAL it doesnt say you CANT do it... laws hold you accountable for WHEN you do it.

Like someone said... its a process that keeps civility and predictability to a populace. The Constitution and various other acts and bills prevent laws from obstructing your rights as human beings.

[kapp_badbloodz]

Originally Posted by Treghc

How about a bit of everything?

There are absolute morals we know to be true. I commonly give out the story of a society that deems its citizens morally obligated to kill every new born child. Pretty soon, this society will cease to exist. It's quite evident that such an act is indeed morally wrong. This isn't subjective because the output is universal. It is not relative because the subject of this entire discussion is baseless if no people exist for morality to matter. It is, however, morally universal.

Now, we are a complex species with incredibly complex sociological workings and we have not been around nearly long enough to discover the answers to the more complex moral situations. We may never be able to. This is why I believe subjective, relative and universal morals all currently exist.

Morals also change depending on situations, experience, and events. You may think to yourself "I am a vegan and I will never harm an animal or eat an animal product". But put yourself in a life/death situation where you need to hunt food you very will have to adjust your moral outlook and adopt eating meat purely for survival.

Also, now that survival was mentioned, I honestly believe that survival instinct will overcome any sense of morality. Its ancient and animalistic but purely for self preservation the human mind will convince you to do the unthinkable. Just look at the mountain climber who chopped off his own arm with a pocket knife! Bad example I know... but somewhat of an example nonetheless

EDIT: Back to the quoted statement. I do think this applies to how laws form over time. With time comes change. With change comes adaptation. Things change therefore laws need to change as well. A good example is that since technology is more superior now than before; speed limits can be increased because drivers are able to navigate safer and faster due to technology.

[ElJefe13]

Laws aren't based on morality. They're based on power, money, and survival of the government.
Let's look at laws against murder. If murder was okay, the tax base would decrease. Same with stuff like the seatbelt law, helmet law, speed limits, sanitation, etc. But the government also places checks on itself for its own protection. How long does a totalitarian government exist nowadays? Not very long, because sooner or later the people will rise up, a coup, or another nation will invade. That's why democracy developed. It's more to protect the government from the people by making the people not threatened by the government, so it can stay in power and make money.
Morality is for church and philosophy. Money and power are what influence politics.

[benji25]

Originally Posted by ElJefe13

Laws aren't based on morality. They're based on power, money, and survival of the government.
Let's look at laws against murder. If murder was okay, the tax base would decrease. Same with stuff like the seatbelt law, helmet law, speed limits, sanitation, etc. But the government also places checks on itself for its own protection. How long does a totalitarian government exist nowadays? Not very long, because sooner or later the people will rise up, a coup, or another nation will invade. That's why democracy developed. It's more to protect the government from the people by making the people not threatened by the government, so it can stay in power and make money.
Morality is for church and philosophy. Money and power are what influence politics.

Are you serious about the motive behind the outlaw of murder being that the government want's that persons tax money?

[Bloodeagle]

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

Not taking the hunter's class would not harm anyone. By these terms, it would be a neutral behavior. Remember, we defined negative behavior as that which harms others in the OP. Taking a hunter's class is positive, responsible behavior. Not taking it is simply neutral. Should law be used to promote this?

I think you are drawing a distinction between responsible behavior and negative behavior specifically to make a point.

I am assuming in your hypothetical that the person involved lacks knowledge and training in hunting safety. Am I correct in that assumption?

If so, taking the safety course is still a neutral behavior under your standard. Implementing the lessons learned is positive behavior. I liken it to drunk driving. Driving drunk is, itself, neutral by your strict standard because not all drunk driving inevitably leads to MVA's that injure others. The negative behavior is drunk driving that causes an MVA that would otherwise not have occurred. In our current system, we punish drunk driving not because it always causes accidents but because it increases the chances of it causing an accident that could have been avoided. This is similar to taking the hunting safety course; without that knowledge and training, there is an increased likelihood of an accident while hunting.

My question of how you think the law would promote positive behavior (other than by punishing the opposite) is still pending.

[Bloodeagle]

Originally Posted by Treghc

There are absolute morals we know to be true. I commonly give out the story of a society that deems its citizens morally obligated to kill every new born child. Pretty soon, this society will cease to exist. It's quite evident that such an act is indeed morally wrong. This isn't subjective because the output is universal. It is not relative because the subject of this entire discussion is baseless if no people exist for morality to matter. It is, however, morally universal.

Your argument is for societal survival, not morality. You are saying that a practice that predictably results in destruction of the society is per se immoral because it destroys the society. Also, your argument leads to something of a circle. If your hypothetical society infanticides itself out of existence, then there are no longer any people and the moral charge to the people becomes neutral because there are no longer any people in existence.

[Umami]

Originally Posted by Treghc

There are absolute morals we know to be true. I commonly give out the story of a society that deems its citizens morally obligated to kill every new born child. Pretty soon, this society will cease to exist.

True, but

Originally Posted by Treghc

It's quite evident that such an act is indeed morally wrong. This isn't subjective because the output is universal.

While the output is universal, that the extinction of said society is morally wrong is a normative statement. It arises because you value the continued existence of society. But there are people who believe society, indeed humanity, should cease to exist. In their eyes, it would not be wrong.

So how is it Universal?

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

The fact that differing moral compasses exist suggests the presence of ignorance, not the absence of objective morality.

I think that looking for objectivity in popular consensus is ignorant though.

Morality cannot exist without the context of humanity, which is inherently ignorant.

[Iamamartianchurch]

Is there objective value in transient things?

Probably not.