Morality

[WinterHold]

I don't know anything about philosophy; and I'll be a liar if I said that I'm interested in it. To me; life is pretty much obvious; the shortest simple path is always the correct one; so no need for mazes and complications of what is simple.

In ideal circumstances, philosophy distills and clarifies.  When it's being used to confuse and obfuscate..it would be more accurate to call it a misuse....though, granted, it does have the effect of disabusing one of the notion that anything about life is pretty much obvious.

But how do I know that it's a misuse? misuse according to whom?
Morality changes with the people; morality in Rome was so different that morality in modern day France. Morality in modern Egypt is so different than ancient Zulu tribal societies.

Consequentalist ethics.  Certainly an important component of any moral theory, but rarely the full picture.  The classic question being, do the ends justify the means? 

That's also a very subjective matter. Give me a society; make me live in it for a while; and I'll give you what they think "the justification of any given mean" is.
In Japan, it's okay to be pedophile. It's not pedophilia there. The minor's "age" is 12 or younger. So lots of intercourse would be considered "pedophilia" in the West.

But once you set foot in Japan; you're a foreigner outsider that should keep their moral code to themselves; since the people of the island already have a moral code which is pretty different than yours. Making it a fact that morals are a subjective matter.

You're smuggling procreation and infidelity into "contractless sex".  More likely to confuse and obfuscate than distill and clarify...is this pretty much obvious? 

Contracts keep the kids known by name; keep the father (who should spend) attached to the responsibility; and keep the women with an evidence against the husband if he ran away. All are problems the west is so drenched in; and I keep Eminem to rap some facts about how sick he is, and how sick is his "faggot father" is:

That's nice, but what about contractless sex?

I don't want to be "the faggot father"; I know I can't have kids when I'm broke; I know that I love bareback sex; And I know that I will resist doing it.
"Haram" for the sake of the unborn. I personally think that homosexuality might be lesser in sin than throwing a soul in the garbage.

I consider your care predictably manufactured and entirely off subject, a subject which -you- proposed....actually.

How? I don't have a proper example; so I presented myself as one.
You can consider what you consider; it's a subjective opinion after all !

Objective morality isn't based on a large weight of subjective opinion, nor does it need to be solely determined by a specific conclusion of any given act. Most objective moral systems allow for consequentalist and deontological ethics (and more as well). Both the consequences of our actions and any duties we may perceive as relevant. They can even, as Benny mentioned above, include subjective perceptions as modifying factors in consequence and duty.

Morals need people to adapt them. For a moral code to become religions or cultures we need more than two believers in the moral code. Each agreed to the moral code based on their subjective opinion.
When the subjective opinion of so many change; a revolution on that culture-religion comes; change. To cause a revolution over the moral code of a culture; you change the subjective opinions of the people.


That's why you get people like me; Muslims who defy the Sunni and Shiite ways for example.

---

Why, is there some unspoken requirement that you be an intelligently created thing in order to feel good or bad?  If you found out tomorrow that you were not an intelligently created thing..do you think that you'd suddenly stop feeling either emotion?

The "need" is the cause of that requirement. We as humans need food, drink, air and even social interactions, and from these needs a portion of humans tend to think that an intelligent designer must be there to ensure the delivery of the answers to these needs.

the "if" cannot be authentic without a designer. The constants and variables of the universe would differ drastically if things were random. We won't be according to most interpretations.

From another angle, if this ability is written in at birth, it certainly seems that the focus (and strength) of this ability is not. Is that indicative of poor or unintelligent design?

Maybe a designer who is pushing humanity inside a filter called life? a design with ups and downs to write upon the person their deeds; either good or bad. Satan already rebelled against the standards of the designer; so humans were given the right to either rebel or submit; too.

-and from the most relevant angle.....that was an awfully quick leap to "goddidit" from morality. From the standpoint of objective moral values god is an irrelevance. Supposing god did create us, he created us such that we were capable of recognizing and assessing moral facts of a matter...which we would be capable of doing if we were "built this way" regardless of who or what built us this way.

Capable; but always have a choice to either do or not do.
It's about choosing your moral code. Humans got split in choice; from the Adam-Eve sin and repent, to Judaism, Christianity,Islam, non belief...etc. The choices are so many; and the models are also so many.

We are created capable, so we can choose. Or in other words; so we will be filtered in this life; then go to either heaven or hell depending on our deeds.