Where do moral laws come from?

[there4eyeM]

Everything humans can know must be subject to human perception. Abstract, absolute 'laws' have no meaning. Meaning is always in context with humans and falls immediately into human relativistic domains.

 

[Iceweasel]

Where do moral laws come from?

A Right-winger's ass.

So lefties have no morals? Thanks!

 

[rightwinger]

Moral laws do not come from god

They were devised by man in the name of god

They do if they are absolute and not relative.

Man uses an alleged threat of punishment or reward from God to justify his moral code

It does not mean that code comes from God

 

[edthecynic]

Do you believe that men laying with men or killing our most innocent members of society are the highest possible standards? I don't.

Yes you do!
Is 13: 15 Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword.
16 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.

 

[edthecynic]

I'm not arguing moral relativism, I am arguing morality is subjective and changes with culture and time.

Which is exactly moral relativism.
Moral Relativism - By Branch / Doctrine - The Basics of Philosophy
Moral Relativism (or Ethical Relativism) is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances.

 

[rightwinger]

Do you believe that men laying with men or killing our most innocent members of society are the highest possible standards? I don't.

Yes you do!
Is 13: 15 Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword.
16 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.

Remember that time God got pissed off and killed millions of innocent children, puppies and kittens in a flood?
How about that time he killed the first born children of Egypt?

 

[Boss]

I don't believe so. As a rule, most girls of 13 to 14 are not emotionally mature enough to make such commitments. Men who take advantage of them are doing so for their own selfish reasons. I don't consider this to be the highest possible standard of conduct.

Again, I told you that you would come back at me with this very argument! You are making a subjective moral decision based on your perception. It's not some universal truth the whole of mankind accepts. You may WISH it were, but it's simply NOT. That's the crux of the debate here.

You say it yourself... "[YOU] don't consider it to be the highest possible standard of conduct!" That's YOUR opinion based on YOUR perspective and perceptions... not a universal TRUTH. You are simply attempting to "ordain" your moralistic beliefs as some kind of universal truth as if something endowed you with this ability. I assure you, it did not. You speak for YOURSELF... as do I, as does every individual.

The universal standard is not taking advantage of others for personal gain.

Again, you are spouting a subjective! That allegation can be made for A LOT of things! I can say that it's immoral to clip coupons from the Sunday paper and use them! Claiming the mortgage interest deduction on your tax returns! Haggling over the price of a new car! Many things might be construed as taking advantage of others for personal gain, it is a matter of individual perspective. There is no universal standard.

 

[Boss]

If you are arguing that morality is subjective then by definition you are arguing for moral relativity. I can easily prove absolute morality by asking you a very simple question. Do you - not society, past, or future, believe it is wrong for humans to own other humans beings?

I am not asking you what society says about this. I am asking what you believe about this. Do you believe this would ever be moral?

Well I disagree that I believe in "moral relativism" as an absolute. I do not. I do believe there are certain things (though very few) that the overwhelming majority of humans agree upon morally regardless of culture or time. Often times, what this breaks down around is definitions.

You ask if I believe it is moral to own another human being. I do not. I wouldn't have believed that in 1861 and I don't believe most people would have. The difference is in definition of what a "human being" was... a slave was a piece of property, not a human being. Society justified the morality of owning slaves by distinguishing them as property and not human beings. The same thing happens today with regard to unborn fetuses.

We can look at the radical Islamic teachings... these people justify what they do as "moral" because they think it's justified to rid the planet of infidels and Jews. I hope you don't agree with them, I certainly don't agree with them, but they religiously believe they are being moral. They want to impose brutal Sharia Law on society, they think and religiously believe that is moral. We don't agree with them but that's the morality they've justified. Why hasn't your ethereal and universally eternal morality permeated their thoughts? Why don't they realize naturally that what they are doing is immoral?

Then you have just proven my point. You have discovered the moral law for this specific subject. That it is wrong to treat human beings as property to be disposed of at the will of its owner. It was always wrong to treat human beings as property to be disposed of at the will of its owner. And that it will always be wrong to treat human beings as property to be disposed of at the will of its owner. There is nothing relative about your belief.

So just because society's beliefs were relative on this subject, that did not negate the moral law on this subject. And since this was not always accepted as the moral law on this subject, it was eventually discovered to be the moral law on this subject, thus proving that the moral law is discovered... eventually.

Yes, I agree with you that we as a society have relegated the unborn to property to be disposed of at the will of its owner. I believe this is against the moral law of nature.

Well I don't see where I proved anything other than your OP premise as being incorrect and invalid. While OUR society recognizes slavery is immoral and wrong, it STILL exists in other societies. So there isn't a universal understanding even on something as apparent as this. Justifications are still made for immoral behavior and they always will be... that's the inclination of man.

Again, let's take homosexuality as an example. In ancient Greece, homosexuality prevailed as a moral right of passage. It was considered part of the culture and absolutely moral. Flash-forward to Puritanical western society where homosexuality was viewed as morally reprehensible and shunned for years. Only recently have we relaxed our laws and made homosexuality legal and now, in fact, a recognized protected class. What IS the TRUE "natural morality" on that?

Same with 14-year-old girls getting married... How do we KNOW we're at the "naturally moral" position? If there is supposed to be some natural moral truth to this, we should be aware of it, right? Now you can say... Well "Age 16" is the natural moral right and any time prior to that is morally wrong... that's a subjective opinion based on nothing other than your abstract moral values. It's not rooted in nature because nature shows NO indication of bestowing ability of consent on any given day and time. This ability depends largely on the maturity of the individual.

What you are attempting to do here is establish some universal morality that is true and which you want everyone to accept. But you don't get to decide that for everyone. We may differ greatly on what we consider "moral" or "immoral" depending on our perspective. I don't consider it "moral" to lock people up and steal their property because they planted a weed in their backyard. Others disagree with me and think it's upholding a moral standard to do so. There is no "natural moral truth" there, it's subjective and depends on individual perspective.

It doesn't matter if slavery exists in other cultures. That is like saying we shouldn't have laws against murder because murders still exist. The standard is not negated just because people don't adhere to the standard. The standard exists independently of our actions.

No, it's not like saying we shouldn't have laws against murder because murders still exist. I'm not making any argument for or against anything here. You are trying to claim some universal moral standard when there isn't one. You're clearly basing it on your OPINION of what the universal standard ought to be and attempting to "ordain" that viewpoint as some kind of "universal" that everyone agrees with. It's NOT!

 

[Boss]

I'm not arguing moral relativism, I am arguing morality is subjective and changes with culture and time.

Which is exactly moral relativism.
Moral Relativism - By Branch / Doctrine - The Basics of Philosophy
Moral Relativism (or Ethical Relativism) is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances.

I disagree. My viewpoint is close to moral relativism. The distinction being, I don't think it's absolutely relative. I believe, as spiritually-connected beings, we inherently have a sense of ethically right or wrong. I just don't believe there is a universal morality of the highest standard waiting for us to discover it.

If we woke up in a world tomorrow where murder was rendered legal and acceptable, there would be many people who wouldn't believe it's moral to murder others... there would be some who'd say, "Where's my hit list... let's get busy!" Maybe such a morality should be universal but it's not. What we view as moral is largely influenced by society and culture, along with the times in which we live.

 

[rightwinger]

Did God make man.....or did Man make God?

That is the gist of our moral relativism

In the absence of a God, is man capable of establishing his own moral code?
Of course he is

 

[dblack]

No.

What is the moral code of an individual by himself other than survival?

I dunno. What are you implying? You asked "Isn't that what morality is?" in response to my statement that the acts in question were illegal because they violated rights, not because they were immoral. To which I answer no, morality is different than rights. You threw in "Your interaction with others" for some reason, but that's not morality either.

I'm not following you

What is an example of morality that does not involve your interaction with others?

I don't know. It doesn't matter. The "interaction with others" thing was your creation. My claim is that government should be restricted to protecting our rights, and not empowered to enforce morality.

Murder, rape, assault, stealing are all morality

It's true that, for most of us, in most situations, murder, rape, etc are considered immoral. But that's not why they're illegal. They're illegal because the violate the rights of others. We have moral convictions that have nothing to do with the rights of others, and shouldn't be enforced by law.

Are you of the opinion that government should be enforcing morality via laws?

 

[dblack]

Murder, rape, assault, stealing are all morality

So is speeding or parking in a fire lane. EVERY law is rooted in a principle of morality at some level. It's virtually impossible to give me an example of a law that isn't.

I really think this is a mistake. And we should resist the equivalence.

Most of us would agree that lying is immoral. But it shouldn't be illegal unless if violates someone else's rights.

 

[dblack]

You can not legislate morality!

Of course you can

Murder is not moral. We have laws against it
Stealing the property of others is not moral......We have laws against it
Assault and rape is not moral...We have laws against it

But that's not why they are illegal. These acts are illegal because they violate the rights of others.

Sure, but not all laws are just laws. Take China's forced abortion laws for instance or our past laws on slavery.

Exactly. Morality and legality are different concerns. Often there is overlap. But often there isn't.

 

[rightwinger]

What is the moral code of an individual by himself other than survival?

I dunno. What are you implying? You asked "Isn't that what morality is?" in response to my statement that the acts in question were illegal because they violated rights, not because they were immoral. To which I answer no, morality is different than rights. You threw in "Your interaction with others" for some reason, but that's not morality either.

I'm not following you

What is an example of morality that does not involve your interaction with others?

I don't know. It doesn't matter. The "interaction with others" thing was your creation. My claim is that government should be restricted to protecting our rights, and not empowered to enforce morality.

Murder, rape, assault, stealing are all morality

It's true that, for most of us, in most situations, murder, rape, etc are considered immoral. But that's not why they're illegal. They're illegal because the violate the rights of others. We have moral convictions that have nothing to do with the rights of others, and shouldn't be enforced by law.

Are you of the opinion that government should be enforcing morality via laws?

I'm not following you

Can you name a moral conviction that is enforced by government that does not involve your interaction with others?

 

[dblack]

I dunno. What are you implying? You asked "Isn't that what morality is?" in response to my statement that the acts in question were illegal because they violated rights, not because they were immoral. To which I answer no, morality is different than rights. You threw in "Your interaction with others" for some reason, but that's not morality either.

I'm not following you

What is an example of morality that does not involve your interaction with others?

I don't know. It doesn't matter. The "interaction with others" thing was your creation. My claim is that government should be restricted to protecting our rights, and not empowered to enforce morality.

Murder, rape, assault, stealing are all morality

It's true that, for most of us, in most situations, murder, rape, etc are considered immoral. But that's not why they're illegal. They're illegal because the violate the rights of others. We have moral convictions that have nothing to do with the rights of others, and shouldn't be enforced by law.

Are you of the opinion that government should be enforcing morality via laws?

I'm not following you

Can you name a moral conviction that is enforced by government that does not involve your interaction with others?

Are you really of the opinion that government should be enforcing morality via laws?

 

[rightwinger]

I'm not following you

What is an example of morality that does not involve your interaction with others?

I don't know. It doesn't matter. The "interaction with others" thing was your creation. My claim is that government should be restricted to protecting our rights, and not empowered to enforce morality.

Murder, rape, assault, stealing are all morality

It's true that, for most of us, in most situations, murder, rape, etc are considered immoral. But that's not why they're illegal. They're illegal because the violate the rights of others. We have moral convictions that have nothing to do with the rights of others, and shouldn't be enforced by law.

Are you of the opinion that government should be enforcing morality via laws?

I'm not following you

Can you name a moral conviction that is enforced by government that does not involve your interaction with others?

Are you really of the opinion that government should be enforcing morality via laws?

Can you name one such law?

 

[dblack]

I don't know. It doesn't matter. The "interaction with others" thing was your creation. My claim is that government should be restricted to protecting our rights, and not empowered to enforce morality.

Murder, rape, assault, stealing are all morality

It's true that, for most of us, in most situations, murder, rape, etc are considered immoral. But that's not why they're illegal. They're illegal because the violate the rights of others. We have moral convictions that have nothing to do with the rights of others, and shouldn't be enforced by law.

Are you of the opinion that government should be enforcing morality via laws?

I'm not following you

Can you name a moral conviction that is enforced by government that does not involve your interaction with others?

Are you really of the opinion that government should be enforcing morality via laws?

Can you name one such law?

I'm growing weary of your silly diversions. My claim is that government should be constrained to enforcing laws that protect our rights, and not be allowed to enforce morality outside of protecting freedom. You seem to be arguing against me - but it's hard to tell because you're so preoccupied with equivocation and evasion. Say it straight, rw - you can do it!

 

[rightwinger]

Murder, rape, assault, stealing are all morality

It's true that, for most of us, in most situations, murder, rape, etc are considered immoral. But that's not why they're illegal. They're illegal because the violate the rights of others. We have moral convictions that have nothing to do with the rights of others, and shouldn't be enforced by law.

Are you of the opinion that government should be enforcing morality via laws?

I'm not following you

Can you name a moral conviction that is enforced by government that does not involve your interaction with others?

Are you really of the opinion that government should be enforcing morality via laws?

Can you name one such law?

I'm growing weary of your silly diversions. My claim is that government should be constrained to enforcing laws that protect our rights, and not be allowed to enforce morality outside of protecting freedom. You seem to be arguing against me - but it's hard to tell because you're so preoccupied with equivocation and evasion. Say it straight, rw - you can do it!

I asked a simple question....

Can you provide an example of such a law? If not, what are you arguing against?

 

[Boss]

Murder, rape, assault, stealing are all morality

So is speeding or parking in a fire lane. EVERY law is rooted in a principle of morality at some level. It's virtually impossible to give me an example of a law that isn't.

I really think this is a mistake. And we should resist the equivalence.

Most of us would agree that lying is immoral. But it shouldn't be illegal unless if violates someone else's rights.

Again... EVERY law is rooted at some level in someone's idea of morality. The argument that we should NEVER pass a law based on morality is simply idiotic. We would literally have NO laws. That's really all laws are.

There are also many laws which aren't related to harming someone else. Maybe it's because there is a potential for harm to someone else... or it's a collective choice made by the state or community? As a libertarian, I am not crazy about these kinds of laws and I think we often overdo it. That said, I also respect the fact we live in a democratic society where everyone gets to have a voice and those who want to establish morally-based laws have every right to lobby for them.

 

[dblack]

Murder, rape, assault, stealing are all morality

So is speeding or parking in a fire lane. EVERY law is rooted in a principle of morality at some level. It's virtually impossible to give me an example of a law that isn't.

I really think this is a mistake. And we should resist the equivalence.

Most of us would agree that lying is immoral. But it shouldn't be illegal unless if violates someone else's rights.

Again... EVERY law is rooted at some level in someone's idea of morality. The argument that we should NEVER pass a law based on morality is simply idiotic. We would literally have NO laws. That's really all laws are.

That doesn't hold. If we held the protection of rights as the basis for law, rather than enforcing morality, we'd still have most of the laws we have now.

The fact is there are plenty of actions that people consider immoral that don't violate other people's rights (and shouldn't be illegal) eg - cheating on your girlfriend. And there are plenty of things one might do that would violate the rights of others, but might not be considered immoral (but should still be against the law) - tax evasion.