• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why is morality a problem?

tayla

My dog's name is Tayla
In some South American countries violence against women is OK, especially if machismo is involved ..... that is horrifying to me and that fact that it is legal there does not make it any less horrifying to me.
Yes, I am horrified by certain laws, past and present, even in the USA.

In the USA until the 1850s it was legal for a husband to beat his wife.
 

Wu Wei

ursus senum severiorum and ex-Bisy Backson
So laws against violence and theft are similar to traffic laws; they concern public safety and well-being.

And I guess in a way this is my point. We can agree on issues of public safety and well-being. In reading about moral philosophy, this topic is usually considered part of moral philosophy.

You are confusing law with morality.

There are laws that are also moral and there are laws that have little to do with morality at all. However that does not make them arbitrary or any less important as far as the legal system is concerned. Now is it moral to think of the publics safety? And if so, to what extent is the law you come up with based in morality? Is it a question of morality to do 85mph in a 55mph zone? Does the officer enforcing that law need to be of moral character? Is the person breaking that law immoral? Is the law stating you can only drive 55mph in that area moral, immoral or arbitrary?
 
Last edited:

Wu Wei

ursus senum severiorum and ex-Bisy Backson
Are these moral, arbitrary, silly of strangely specific

Bear Laws
In Alabama, bear wrestling isn’t only a terrible idea, it’s also a felony.
In Alaska, it’s explicitly forbidden to wake a sleeping bear to take a photo with it.
In Missouri, it’s illegal to drive around with a loose bear in the car — but a caged bear is perfectly acceptable.

Food Laws
in Massachusetts aren’t allowed to eat more than three sandwiches at a wake.
it’s illegal to walk backwards while simultaneously eating a donut in Marion, Ohio.
Citizens of Carmel, New York can’t eat their ice cream while standing on the sidewalk.

Driving Laws
In Memphis, Tennessee, women aren’t technically allowed to drive unless a man walks ahead of them waving a red flag.
in Las Vegas, driving a car is still technically illegal because the noise they made would scare the horses.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
And depending on how we define murder, murder isn't murder at all anymore.
Exactly.
My own mother would have died before I was born if it weren't for surgical abortion. She and my dad both wanted a big brood of kids, but her second pregnancy was ectopic. Given the medical technology of the early 50s, the only thing that saved her life was removing her Fallopian tube and the child who had implanted there. Otherwise, she'd have died a long, painful, death the way women have been doing for most of human history.

On the other hand, USA law allows the execution of criminals. After they've been convicted and incarcerated and are no longer a threat to the public. Like abortion, I firmly oppose Capital Punishment.
Usually, but not always.

I'm a pretty hardcore prolifer. From selling dangerously shoddy products, to launching preemptive wars, to unsafe waste disposal, to pricing sick people out of the market for useful pharmaceuticals, the list of things I believe should be considered murder is pretty long.
But not everyone agrees with me.
Tom
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
I want to agree but have questions.

What is the source of these? What specifically are they? Can it be proven they are objectively universal?

As I understand it, morality is an emergent property that arises from the convergence of the ability to predict the consequences of one's actions and inactions with the ability to perceive and understand harm and benefit to oneself and other entities.

That makes for some fairly objective and universal directives, albeit of an abstract nature: maximize benefit, minimize harm, aim to balance costs when fulfilling those goals in more complex situations.

It is not so much that they can be proven as that it is how we define the concept.
 
Last edited:

leov

Well-Known Member
Interesting and useful list.

I can agree with most except those about Gods; can't steal from someone who doesn't exist. What is the source of this list?
42Principles of Maat - Osiris judgement, basically point to respecting other human beings, 10 Commandments based on those Principles, to teach respect of each other, value life.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
Please share your proof.
Assuming that we agree that morality is a thing and we agree that morality is about doing "the right thing", I think we can also agree that "the right thing" must be the same at different locations or different times as long as no defining characteristic of the situation changes.
In other words, hypocrisy is always immoral in every moral system, just by the definition of the word morality.
Given further that it has been scientifically shown that the defining characteristics of races are minimal compared to the common characteristics, it would be hypocritical to treat a person different based only on race.
Thus, racism is objectively immoral.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
What is the objective moral value regarding abortion...
Opinions on the question of whether abortion is moral or not are objective. One side on the issue is right and the other is wrong. The question isn't subjective like the opinions on art, music or beauty.

If there were, what device would I use to discover it? A telescope? A Geiger counter?
You'd use your conscience (moral intuition) to judge.

If you were given the facts in a case of cold-blooded murder, you would feel the wrongness immediately and then you would feel the urge to punish the wrongdoer. That's your conscience doing its job of moral guidance.

But you've noticed that people opposed to abortion will claim that abortion is murder but they don't usually have the urge to severely punish the woman who terminates her pregnancy. IMO, this omission is a clue that their reasoning mind has created a bias that operates against the guidance of conscience.
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
Talking about morals is different then talking about the application of law.

Morality is about what causes you offense and what violates you vs. what pleases you.

Application of law is all about ramifications and consequences.

If everybody was virtue ethical we wouldn't need laws. Guidelines would serve us.
 
Last edited:

shmogie

Well-Known Member
I say that there is no such thing as objective morality. We each choose our moral code, making every set of morals held by any moral agent subjective, even if we all happen to agree. The moral values do not have objective existence the way that the sun does. They're not out there in space to be observed or discovered. We must look within to decide what feels right and wrong to us.

What is the objective moral value regarding abortion, same-sex marriage, or assisted suicide? There is none. If there were, what device would I use to discover it? A telescope? A Geiger counter?
The law, and morality, are not the same. The law is a consensus agreement regarding a Constitutional extension of the rights of the citizenry.

Morality is what an individual believes is right, or wrong, or what they can get away with.

As to your examples, the case can be, and will be made that abortion at some point is murder, the planned killing of another person.

Assisted suicide, where one person is the active agent of, death, i.e. shoots the gun, sticks the needle in, pops the pills in the mouth etc., is murder. Jack Kivorkian assisted in many suicides. His agency was always found to be legal, because the suicide implemented his own death, by means prepared by Kivorkian. When he injected a suicide, he went to prison for murder.

Same sex marriage, who cares ?
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
Some seem to think there is no such thing as objective morality because no one can agree. Does this mean laws are immoral and that we should not have laws? (since they are arbitrary and promote the moral views of some but not others).

But can we agree on enough? Things such as: murder, stealing, rape, racism, phobias against various groups of people. Is there really any controversy about these?

There is no controversy. Laws aren't arbitrary because actions have real life consequences, so of course societies will come to a consensus on what is or isn't acceptable behavior. Societies wouldn't survive without some form of structure or order.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Example, the OT condones just about everything on that list you provided. Does that make them moral? Certainly there are people who consider the genocide, murder, rape, theft, slavery (including sex slavery) to be right because the bible says so.
Really? Post the verses.

I can show you where they’re condemned. Surely you’ve heard of the Ten Commandments, included in the much-larger Mosaic Law?

Or perhaps you can’t fathom why God would perform and allow some of those actions, but deny humans the ability to randomly do so?

Any ideas as to why?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Moz

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
A good point. But I wonder whether narcissists or psychopaths or sociopaths have this capacity to distinguish between right and wrong?
Very often, yes, they can, they do know, but their problems lie with other issues such a disconnect with empathy and hyper promotion of the self. When it comes to their victims and victim's families, they don't feel any remorse, regret, or guilt. And it's not unusual for them to realize there is something wrong with them because of that.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Really? Post the verses.

I can show you where they’re condemned. Surely you’ve heard of the Ten Commandments, included in the much-larger Mosaic Law?

Or perhaps you can’t fathom why God would perform and allow some of those actions, but deny humans the ability to randomly do so?

Any ideas?

Genesis 7:11-24
Deuteronomy 20:13-14
Exodus 21:20-21
To cite just a few.

Of course you can excuse them 'coz god done so it just gotta be good. Me, i have a different, more humane moral compass.


 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Genesis 7:11-24
Deuteronomy 20:13-14
Exodus 21:20-21
To cite just a few.

Of course you can excuse them 'coz god done so it just gotta be good. Me, i have a different, more humane moral compass.
I appreciate the Scriptures...

Regarding the Bible’s passages, I have two Questions:

1) Does the Bible say God can read hearts? (If so, His Judgement wouldn’t be flawed....unlike ours.)
Please read 1 Chronicles 28:9.

2) Does the Bible say that God will bring ‘the unrighteous’ back to life (resurrect them), or not?
Please read Acts of the Apostles 24:15
 
Top