MORALITY is difficult to define. Some people insist that the Bible be the sole definer of morality. Where does that leave everyone else who sees the Bible as just another book?
Morality is easy to define, and explain. Immoral people, however, will desperately try to get others to believe the opposite, to fog, to hide their crimes.
The tl;dr is: it's the NAP, the "Non Aggression Principle", ie. simply the *logical* prohibition against initiating physical force against innocent people. It's the same rules that we understood even as kindergarteners - don't hit, don't steal.
For airtight and comprehensive logical explanations of this:
- Universally Preferable Behavior (by Stephan Molyneux)
Good post. The spectrum of morality is subject to both intuition and external influences. Morality can be defined by one group and subsequently come into conflict with someone else's understanding. Is there a universal range of "acceptable" moral conduct? There certainly is until political et al forces start interceding and twisting right into wrong.
> Morality can be defined by one group and subsequently come into conflict with someone else's understanding
Nope, morality is by definition universal rules, good vs evil, proper justifications for retaliatory force. If there is a conflict it's because at least one party is mistaken. (I assume you're not using the new misuse of the term to refer to subjective personal aesthetic preferences.)
> political forces twisting right into wrong.
Of course they can't actually do that, it's a matter of logic. They can't make 2 + 2 = 5 :p. But they certainly do desperately try.
good day. I copied a piece and shared the link which attempts to explain cross cultural differences referred to in my previous post. Conclusion of the study. Cultures vary substantially in their promotion and transmission of a multitude of moral
judgments and behaviors. Cultural factors contributing to this variation include religion, social
ecology (weather, crop conditions, population density, pathogen prevalence, residential
mobility), and regulatory social institutions such as kinship structures and economic markets.
Notably, variability in moral thought and action can be just as substantial within societies as
across societies. Such variability brings up many difficult normative questions for any science of
morality, such as what criteria could allow anyone to claim a specific action or practice is
objectively moral or immoral [69]. But at the descriptive level, this variability offers untold
opportunities for future moral psychology as it continues to identify the antecedents, sources, and
Of course most (all?) cultures have gotten morality wrong, so what? That excerpt seems to imply that it (objective morality, objective universal laws) doesn't exist, it seems to implicitly subscribe to "moral relativism". If that's the case it's wrong, as the 3 sources I mentioned explain :).
> Such variability brings up many difficult normative questions for any science of morality
No it doesn't.
> such as what criteria could allow anyone to claim a specific action or practice is objectively moral or immoral
Very easy stuff, as those 3 sources independently argue. For example, one criterion is that it has to be logically coherent - I think this criterion alone invalidates most proposed moral laws.
This social pressure to make it seem like a difficult intractable problem is very interesting, and frightening. It's an example of "the emperor has no clothes" phenomenon, but far more serious, because the open secret is people's own complicity in evil. (At least in the tale of that emperor nobody was being harmed by their dishonesty.) For example, do you have any difficulty in explaining why murder is objectively evil? Is that really such a "difficult normative question" - for anyone? Really? :P
And, these so called "scientists of morality", these poor befuddled men, are they even aware of those 3 authors? ;) ;) Don't they know how to use google? (In fairness Molyneux is being actively censored by google, but still, they're all easy to find, I guess 2 clicks away instead of 1.)
A good discussion at this time of upheavals worldwide.
For me, “ treat others as you would be treated.”
Everyone has a moral compass that they can learn from. Constant turmoil in your life resulting from how you treat others is an indicator that change is required. Stop blaming others and take accountability for your thoughts and actions.
Important subject with blurred lines of understanding. Can 10 individuals arrive at a point of agreement when defining morality? While outward influences play a role I would posit that the majority can find within themselves similar words to describe characteristics of their feelings about what is moral.
Morality is easy to define, and explain. Immoral people, however, will desperately try to get others to believe the opposite, to fog, to hide their crimes.
The tl;dr is: it's the NAP, the "Non Aggression Principle", ie. simply the *logical* prohibition against initiating physical force against innocent people. It's the same rules that we understood even as kindergarteners - don't hit, don't steal.
For airtight and comprehensive logical explanations of this:
- Universally Preferable Behavior (by Stephan Molyneux)
- Argumentation Ethics (Hans-Hermann Hoppe)
- Estoppel Theory (Stephan Kinsella)
Good post. The spectrum of morality is subject to both intuition and external influences. Morality can be defined by one group and subsequently come into conflict with someone else's understanding. Is there a universal range of "acceptable" moral conduct? There certainly is until political et al forces start interceding and twisting right into wrong.
> Morality can be defined by one group and subsequently come into conflict with someone else's understanding
Nope, morality is by definition universal rules, good vs evil, proper justifications for retaliatory force. If there is a conflict it's because at least one party is mistaken. (I assume you're not using the new misuse of the term to refer to subjective personal aesthetic preferences.)
> political forces twisting right into wrong.
Of course they can't actually do that, it's a matter of logic. They can't make 2 + 2 = 5 :p. But they certainly do desperately try.
good day. I copied a piece and shared the link which attempts to explain cross cultural differences referred to in my previous post. Conclusion of the study. Cultures vary substantially in their promotion and transmission of a multitude of moral
judgments and behaviors. Cultural factors contributing to this variation include religion, social
ecology (weather, crop conditions, population density, pathogen prevalence, residential
mobility), and regulatory social institutions such as kinship structures and economic markets.
Notably, variability in moral thought and action can be just as substantial within societies as
across societies. Such variability brings up many difficult normative questions for any science of
morality, such as what criteria could allow anyone to claim a specific action or practice is
objectively moral or immoral [69]. But at the descriptive level, this variability offers untold
opportunities for future moral psychology as it continues to identify the antecedents, sources, and
structures of our moral lives. https://www.the-brights.net/morality/statement_3_studies/DOI/10.1016_j.copsyc.2015.09.007.pdf#:~:text=In%20both%20cases%2C%20we%20highlight%20examples%20of%20within-societal,of%20a%20multitude%20of%20moral%20judgments%20and%20behaviors.
Of course most (all?) cultures have gotten morality wrong, so what? That excerpt seems to imply that it (objective morality, objective universal laws) doesn't exist, it seems to implicitly subscribe to "moral relativism". If that's the case it's wrong, as the 3 sources I mentioned explain :).
> Such variability brings up many difficult normative questions for any science of morality
No it doesn't.
> such as what criteria could allow anyone to claim a specific action or practice is objectively moral or immoral
Very easy stuff, as those 3 sources independently argue. For example, one criterion is that it has to be logically coherent - I think this criterion alone invalidates most proposed moral laws.
This social pressure to make it seem like a difficult intractable problem is very interesting, and frightening. It's an example of "the emperor has no clothes" phenomenon, but far more serious, because the open secret is people's own complicity in evil. (At least in the tale of that emperor nobody was being harmed by their dishonesty.) For example, do you have any difficulty in explaining why murder is objectively evil? Is that really such a "difficult normative question" - for anyone? Really? :P
And, these so called "scientists of morality", these poor befuddled men, are they even aware of those 3 authors? ;) ;) Don't they know how to use google? (In fairness Molyneux is being actively censored by google, but still, they're all easy to find, I guess 2 clicks away instead of 1.)
A good discussion at this time of upheavals worldwide.
For me, “ treat others as you would be treated.”
Everyone has a moral compass that they can learn from. Constant turmoil in your life resulting from how you treat others is an indicator that change is required. Stop blaming others and take accountability for your thoughts and actions.
That is a life lesson for all to learn.
Important subject with blurred lines of understanding. Can 10 individuals arrive at a point of agreement when defining morality? While outward influences play a role I would posit that the majority can find within themselves similar words to describe characteristics of their feelings about what is moral.