Morality: Where do you get yours?

[The Grand Nudger]

Actually the support structure for those things does invoke and leverage the very same behaviors used to perpetuate religion and religious thinking, and that sort of thinking has a long history of persecuting like minded individuals who differ on only a few "minor details"..... To elaborate, individuals sent to gulags were not persecuted because they believed, but for what they believed. Despotic authority, it seems, can tolerate no interceders, intermediaries, or overseers. In this way any despot you're likely to reference is precisely identical to your concept of a god. They took their cues from the best, you see?

Try again.

[kılıç_mehmet]

So, they've no obligation to work, they get a salary for the work and they are not treated as property. Doesn't sound like slavery to me.

Correct, but the slave of a master also received enough nutrition, shelter and even perhaps a wife and children.
Treated as property? I wish they were, as people actually protect their property from harm. Those people are not protected from harm.

No, as indicated, values can be forced onto others, which would lead to its survival.

Well, it is not me, as a single person, who is forcing a value on anyone.
Besides, these values are necessary for our national survival.
So it would be only logical if we protect them.

So, to eliminate any threat to your society's identity, you force your values on anyone who wouldn't willingly accept them?

Anyone who isn't willing in accepting those is free to do so.
But such people have to be in touch with people who do accept, and live out these values, yes? They have to respect the way that the majority handles things, and may not voice out or carry out actions that could go against the values of the public.
However, they have the right to live in harmony with the values of the people, by obeying the same rules that everyone does.
Suggesting otherwise would be to suggest anarchy and terrorism.

[genkaus]

Correct, but the slave of a master also received enough nutrition, shelter and even perhaps a wife and children.
Treated as property? I wish they were, as people actually protect their property from harm. Those people are not protected from harm.

So we agree. That is not an example of slavery. Any others?

Well, it is not me, as a single person, who is forcing a value on anyone.

No, simply as a part of community that does.

Besides, these values are necessary for our national survival.
So it would be only logical if we protect them.

Not if you trample on someone else's values to do so.

Anyone who isn't willing in accepting those is free to do so.

As you indicate below, no, they are not.

But such people have to be in touch with people who do accept, and live out these values, yes? They have to respect the way that the majority handles things, and may not voice out or carry out actions that could go against the values of the public.

If they do that, if they shut up and put up, they are accepting those values. If they were really free to reject them, then they'd also be free to criticize and act against those "common" values.

However, they have the right to live in harmony with the values of the people, by obeying the same rules that everyone does.

As they have the right to refuse to do so.

Suggesting otherwise would be to suggest anarchy and terrorism.

"Anarchy and terrorism"? Yes, that is the name given to social and cultural change by conservatives with tightly corseted minds.

[kılıç_mehmet]

So we agree. That is not an example of slavery. Any others?

No, we don't. It is just slavery that isn't named slavery.
If the tabgach were my slaves, I'd treat them much better than their masters treat them. They would not have to worry about whether they will get through the month, with whatever they earn, and look after their family.

No, simply as a part of community that does.

Well, the community is above any individual.

Not if you trample on someone else's values to do so.

If those values wish to trample mine, I do not only trample his values, I trample him under my heels.
For he means to trample me underfood if he wants to trample our values.
For our values define us. Without them, who would we be? Just a piece of flesh, that eats, drinks, and entertains itself.

As you indicate below, no, they are not.

We'll see.

If they do that, if they shut up and put up, they are accepting those values. If they were really free to reject them, then they'd also be free to criticize and act against those "common" values.

As I said, if they act against these values, they act against the public itself.
Such an act can never be tolerated. They are, however, free to hold the views that these values are wrong. If they are unhappy with the ways that fly around here, they are free to go!

As they have the right to refuse to do so.

You can refuse, yet you cannot take this to the degree of disrespect.
Such is the law of the world.

"Anarchy and terrorism"? Yes, that is the name given to social and cultural change by conservatives with tightly corseted minds.

Only society changes it's culture and customs according to circumstances.
Core values stay the same.
Those who wish to destroy core values generally use means of violence and anarchy. Such people are to be dealt with the harshest of measures.

[Creed of Heresy]

For our values define us. Without them, who would we be? Just a piece of flesh, that eats, drinks, and entertains itself.

No, with or without values, we still are only just that.

[genkaus]

No, we don't. It is just slavery that isn't named slavery.
If the tabgach were my slaves, I'd treat them much better than their masters treat them. They would not have to worry about whether they will get through the month, with whatever they earn, and look after their family.

So, the tabgach (whatever the hell that is) are not your slaves. You are not making any argument for it being slavery.

Well, the community is above any individual.

No, it isn't. Without each and every individual, there wouldn't be a community. That automatically gives precedence to the individual.

If those values wish to trample mine, I do not only trample his values, I trample him under my heels.
For he means to trample me underfood if he wants to trample our values.
For our values define us. Without them, who would we be? Just a piece of flesh, that eats, drinks, and entertains itself.

No, not sharing or accepting your values does not mean that he intends to trample either them or you. But clearly, you have assumed that position. And by the way, you are just a piece of flesh that eats, drinks and entertains itself with delusions of having objective values.

As I said, if they act against these values, they act against the public itself.
Such an act can never be tolerated. They are, however, free to hold the views that these values are wrong. If they are unhappy with the ways that fly around here, they are free to go!

And that is how you judge if the right of freedom is really being applied. If a person is free to stay and act according to his values, even if they go against the common public values, then he has the right to freedom. Otherwise, he is simply being coerced into accepting values that are not his own. Such a society, which apparently yours is, is immoral and corrupt.

You can refuse, yet you cannot take this to the degree of disrespect.
Such is the law of the world.

Yes, you can. Such is the decree of the right to individual liberty.

Only society changes it's culture and customs according to circumstances.
Core values stay the same.
Those who wish to destroy core values generally use means of violence and anarchy. Such people are to be dealt with the harshest of measures.

Except, history is littered with examples of constantly changing core values. And the current social change movements indicate that it is those who want to keep the same core values are the ones using violence and anarchy, while those who do use peaceful methods like reason and debate. That is understandable. The so called modern (secular) values are based on rationality, while your outdated and defunct "core" values are not. So anyone still clinging to them has no option but to take a recourse to violence.

[kılıç_mehmet]

So, the tabgach (whatever the hell that is) are not your slaves. You are not making any argument for it being slavery.

Tabgach is the word I use for the chinese. Well, they aren't, obviously, but if they were, they would be better off than what they endure over there.
Economic slavery. It requires you to work hard, and feed yourself to a bare minimum. It does not allow you to pursue any particular goals in life other than to get through the day, it kills any incentive to archive any personal or collective goals.

No, it isn't. Without each and every individual, there wouldn't be a community. That automatically gives precedence to the individual.

And without the community, the individual cannot survive. This is why the community is above everyone.

No, not sharing or accepting your values does not mean that he intends to trample either them or you. But clearly, you have assumed that position.

Well, this is what I said. But if he acts against them, either by publicly flaunting them, or verbally abusing them in public, he certainly shows no respect to any of us.

And by the way, you are just a piece of flesh that eats, drinks and entertains itself with delusions of having objective values.

Who said that they are objective?
Besides, I am not just a piece of flesh that eats, drinks and entertains myself. For I have values, goals and ideals that are above these. You call them "delusions", without even knowing what they are. If I'm delusional, you are judgemental.

And that is how you judge if the right of freedom is really being applied. If a person is free to stay and act according to his values, even if they go against the common public values, then he has the right to freedom. Otherwise, he is simply being coerced into accepting values that are not his own. Such a society, which apparently yours is, is immoral and corrupt.

And how is it that we do not allow people to take a dump out on the street?
A very, very common value in all societies, public decency. If I deny a person to take a dump in front of everyone, am I obstructing his freedom?
I am however, coercing him to stop taking a dump in public. I am forcing him to accept public decency. Am I immortal, or corrupt?
By your words, I am.

Yes, you can. Such is the decree of the right to individual liberty.

Meaning, you lack any kind of limits to anything, yes?
We limit the liberty of an individual collectively, as a society.
Societies cannot exist without limits.

Except, history is littered with examples of constantly changing core values

Like?
For example, the right to property? Yes, the bolsheviks did that, and they did so by means of violence and force.
Or, is rape not a violation of another core value of our society? But people generally go against it by using violence.
These are core values that are accepted around the globe.
Those who go against them do so by the use of force and violence.

And the current social change movements indicate that it is those who want to keep the same core values are the ones using violence and anarchy, while those who do use peaceful methods like reason and debate.

As I have given examples, please do give me similar examples.
You cannot change core values by debate. It's impossible.
It generally takes a revolution or two to snuff out a core value, and core values generally bind other values to themselves.
Did we, use violence to protect the core value of property, and the core value of individual honour and sexuality?
How could someone, who protects core values, use means of unjustified violence and anarchy, which also defy core values, to protect them?
But using adequate force, and law protects these values. Of course, you're obviously not a fan of law nor order.

The so called modern (secular) values are based on rationality, while your outdated and defunct "core" values are not.

You're sadly ignorant about my values, obviously. I am a very secular person, actually, and see secularism as another core value of our society, one that protects other core values.
For me, secularism and nationalism, both core, and important values, are inseperable from eachother.
You do not even know what secularism is.

So anyone still clinging to them has no option but to take a recourse to violence.

Well, why? We have our laws, we have society.
Anyone who would like to destroy our core values has to do it by force. So we have to reply in self-defense.

[genkaus]

Tabgach is the word I use for the chinese. Well, they aren't, obviously, but if they were, they would be better off than what they endure over there.
Economic slavery. It requires you to work hard, and feed yourself to a bare minimum. It does not allow you to pursue any particular goals in life other than to get through the day, it kills any incentive to archive any personal or collective goals.

Wrong. Economic slavery is a condition that a person finds themselves in when the totality of their wages only allows them to pay the interest payments on their accumulated debt. Try again.

And without the community, the individual cannot survive. This is why the community is above everyone.

On the contrary, an individual can survive without the community, but not vice-versa. Thus, the individual is at the top.

Well, this is what I said. But if he acts against them, either by publicly flaunting them, or verbally abusing them in public, he certainly shows no respect to any of us.

And in a free-country, he'd be free to disrespect them. He does not owe any of you any respect.

Who said that they are objective?
Besides, I am not just a piece of flesh that eats, drinks and entertains myself. For I have values, goals and ideals that are above these. You call them "delusions", without even knowing what they are. If I'm delusional, you are judgemental.

Having values does not change the nature of your existence. And yes, I am judgmental and I hereby judge you to be delusional.

And how is it that we do not allow people to take a dump out on the street?
A very, very common value in all societies, public decency. If I deny a person to take a dump in front of everyone, am I obstructing his freedom?
I am however, coercing him to stop taking a dump in public. I am forcing him to accept public decency. Am I immortal, or corrupt?
By your words, I am.

Very true. If "public decency" is the reason you are denying someone the right to take a dump on the street, then you are obstructing his freedom, you are coercing him, you are immoral and you are corrupt. On the other hand, if the law of your country protects public property from damage and defacing, then that person cannot legally damage what he does not own without trampling on other people's rights. The difference in the two scenarios is that in my scenario I can build an outhouse of glass in full view of all passers by and take a dump in it and your "public decency" would have no say in it.

Meaning, you lack any kind of limits to anything, yes?

No, meaning that your limits are defined by the liberty that you have, not by the society that imposes it.

Like?
For example, the right to property? Yes, the bolsheviks did that, and they did so by means of violence and force.
Or, is rape not a violation of another core value of our society? But people generally go against it by using violence.
These are core values that are accepted around the globe.
Those who go against them do so by the use of force and violence.

And then the "right to property" was no longer a core value. Thereby proving that core values can change. At other places, like India, that "core-value" was changed constitutionally and without using force. Thank you for proving my point.

As I have given examples, please do give me similar examples.
You cannot change core values by debate. It's impossible.
It generally takes a revolution or two to snuff out a core value, and core values generally bind other values to themselves.
Did we, use violence to protect the core value of property, and the core value of individual honour and sexuality?
How could someone, who protects core values, use means of unjustified violence and anarchy, which also defy core values, to protect them?
But using adequate force, and law protects these values. Of course, you're obviously not a fan of law nor order.

Look around you. All of your religious core values - those that commanded loyalty or death, those that punished dissenters for dissenting, those that inexorably bound religion to state - all of them are changing. They are changing by violence, they are changing by rational debate and they are changing by law. Fundamentalists and conservatives are fighting tooth and nail (and often with teeth and nails) to keep them from changing, but they are changing nevertheless.

You're sadly ignorant about my values, obviously. I am a very secular person, actually, and see secularism as another core value of our society, one that protects other core values.
For me, secularism and nationalism, both core, and important values, are inseperable from eachother.
You do not even know what secularism is.

I'm sorry, I took you seriously when you said that your "core" values had been in your society from the beginning and had been unchanging.

Well, why? We have our laws, we have society.
Anyone who would like to destroy our core values has to do it by force. So we have to reply in self-defense.

No, going opposite to the laws does not necessarily mean using force or hurting others. Otherwise, the concept of victimless crimes would not exist. Values with no rational basis can simply be destroyed by example.

[kılıç_mehmet]

Wrong. Economic slavery is a condition that a person finds themselves in when the totality of their wages only allows them to pay the interest payments on their accumulated debt. Try again.

You think so? Even without debt, you still have to buy your bare minimal living conditions, yes?
And if you are not given a fair wage by your employer(that only allows for you to pay the bare minimum), or if you cannot switch to another if you do not want to work for one, you are in the same position.

On the contrary, an individual can survive without the community, but not vice-versa. Thus, the individual is at the top.

An individual can survive without the community?
Can you survive without going to your local grocery?
Can you survive without the water that is pumped in your house by your waterworks?
You cannot survive without the community.
The individual is there to help the community grow and prosper. If the community grows, the individual grows. Not the other way.

And in a free-country, he'd be free to disrespect them. He does not owe any of you any respect.

Then he should not expect me to show him the same respect.

Having values does not change the nature of your existence. And yes, I am judgmental and I hereby judge you to be delusional.

My existence has a greater value than yours, however. I am here as a member of the great Turkish race, and serve it accordingly. Who are you, friend to make judgements about me?

Very true. If "public decency" is the reason you are denying someone the right to take a dump on the street, then you are obstructing his freedom, you are coercing him, you are immoral and you are corrupt.

Wow, I hope someone takes a dump in front of your door some day.
I'll see how you will react. I bet you will call the police.

On the other hand, if the law of your country protects public property from damage and defacing, then that person cannot legally damage what he does not own without trampling on other people's rights. The difference in the two scenarios is that in my scenario I can build an outhouse of glass in full view of all passers by and take a dump in it and your "public decency" would have no say in it.

Assume that he takes this dump on a piece of paper.
He does not deface any public property by doing this.
I guess you're still okay with it.
People like you are really destructive. Good that you never make it to places of high importance.

No, meaning that your limits are defined by the liberty that you have, not by the society that imposes it.

Yes, you have no limits.
You have no morals, no sense of honour, nor a sense of pride. You are not even there. You take up space, true, but that's just what you do.

And then the "right to property" was no longer a core value. Thereby proving that core values can change.

But they do not. As you see, communism is now dead, and people have once against reinstated the core value of right to property.
Besides, my point was that core values can only be challenged by force and violence.

At other places, like India, that "core-value" was changed constitutionally and without using force. Thank you for proving my point.

India was never ruled by communism though. People can still own things.

Look around you. All of your religious core values - all of them are changing. They are changing by violence, they are changing by rational debate and they are changing by law. Fundamentalists and conservatives are fighting tooth and nail (and often with teeth and nails) to keep them from changing, but they are changing nevertheless.

Religion is not a core value. If it was, we would not be muslims, nor would you be christians.
Religion is a value, true, but not really a core value.

those that commanded loyalty or death, those that punished dissenters for dissenting, those that inexorably bound religion to state

Those can be commanded without religion. Religion is not really relevant to them.
As I said, religion is at best, a very personalized value.
I'm talking of public values.

I'm sorry, I took you seriously when you said that your "core" values had been in your society from the beginning and had been unchanging.

No, they are, though. These core values, such as loyalty to blood, country and soldiery, secularism, honour, pride, mercy, sharing and family have always been core values of our society.
The context under how these were applied changed, but the ideal behind it remained the same.

No, going opposite to the laws does not necessarily mean using force or hurting others. Otherwise, the concept of victimless crimes would not exist. Values with no rational basis can simply be destroyed by example.

Not necessarily, surely, but if you look at the past, it requires you to do so.
For example, the french revolution. I'm sure that you could force the monarchy to step down with just signing petitions, yes?
Or the russian revolution. They could have let poor Anastasia live. They riddled her body with bullets instead.
For there were still people loyal to them.

[Whateverist]

Well, there you go Chad, two atheists, two opinions. Seems that this issue might be it's own bag and not somehow necessarily tied to a lack of belief in god.

Good point. Religion may well be the reason many people think morals are an objective matter, but it isn't the only reason to think so. I would be very interested to hear in what sense Genkaus thinks morals are objective. If it is simply in the manner they are experienced, I agree. They aren't as arbitrary as your favorite number, readily revisable .. well, at least not for most of us. Phenomenologically, they already have some de facto reality when we first become capable of understanding what is meant by "morals", but that makes them no less subjective.

It has whatever meaning any given culture has applied to it, ergo subjectivity. With regards to claims of objective morality I would indeed by a moral nihilist. Nevertheless, I don't see how this has any effect on the usefulness of "morality" or whether or not I can source my particular brand of it from wherever.

It surely does seem that morals are instilled, deliberately or not, by way of cultural norms as they manifest in ones parents. They are instilled before we become capable of reason. In my own upbringing, they were connected to feeling. Failing to take into account the harm done to others was something to feel bad about. The justification given was golden rule. Somehow this process links the evaluative function of feeling to this principle even before we are fully capable of reasoning our way through single digit addition. I hardly think it is the intellectual persuasiveness of the golden rule which does the persuading.

All young mammals go through extended childhoods so that they can learn how to cope in the world. They are especially plastic and ripe for learning while young. We are mammals. We learn morals, which ever morals are on tap where we are born.

It seems we need not even be consciously aware of the morals we have received for them to function in our lives:

My morals? Don't know what they are either... I just roll with things, and I'm a generally nice and gentle person so that usually works for me.

Kant wouldn't want to acknowledge Violet as a moral being. Can you be moral if you are not aware of any moral deliberation and do not really care if what you do is morally acceptable? I'd say yes, definitely. Chad, is Violet a moral person?