Moral standards

[GodsRevolt]

It's not circular, it's just that one is contingent upon the other to have any possibility of expression, and therefore must inherently value that which allows it to be expressed. It's also not what I'm saying, in totality. I was speaking within the context of the question you asked, which was about morality itself. From the standpoint of the continuation of morality, moral actors are a must. But that's not the only reason morality values life, it's just a function of the fact that morality is constructed by thinking agents.

To expound, morality values life because it is a construct of life; living things are moral actors, and the purpose of morality as an evolved principle (which it is) is the growth and maintenance of social groups. To see why this is so, simply imagine a universe devoid of life from the outset. Does "immoral" mean anything in a world where immoral acts could never possibly be performed, nor even considered?

In a way, "morality values life because living things construct morals" is roughly as circular as "humans value air because air allows humans to be alive." Of course you value that which you depend upon.

Thank you for the explanation and I see more clearly what you are saying. Correct me if I'm wrong: Humans evolved socially and that evolution leaned upon the development of morals in order to further facilitate the success of the evolutionary process.

This is close?

And I know that you are not equating air with morals, but this is an important point because humans do not require morals to lives they do air. This would make the occasional adherence to morals acceptable, as you say below, the "minimum of trust" and would excuse ignoring any given moral at any given time granted it did not obstruct the survival of the species. Doesn't this negate the idea of a standard? For example, rape is to be considered ok as long as it is your sex slave and not your wife. Or maybe only with the natives but not the proper ethnic majority.

Except that you're excluding some very obvious points, mostly that the gene propagation that evolution depends on requires a stable population to begin with. Humans evolved as social animals, and a large part of what allows us to form a cohesive society is a level of minimum trust, which sexual assault is a detriment to. More harm is done, less trust is formed, group cooperation breaks down in a human species that evolves to promote sexual assault. I hope I don't have to explain why that is.

I'm with you. But basing your morals strictly on evolutionary results means that your system of morals is solely based on species survival. This would mean that if indeed the Nazis had one and maintaing the aryan race was the social norm, it would be considered moral to kill the Jews as long as they were not needed for propagation of the species in any way.

On your latter point, I suppose you're right, but what I was getting at is that what one species would find torture might be beneficial to another, and hence the metric for that specific act of torture is different for that other species.

A gentleman's concession

As to your former point, the best you could say is that, had beings existed at one point and then ceased being, that to those beings treating life with dignity was a moral good. It's kind of a weird hypothetical because at the point at which there are no beings around, who is having this discussion on morality? Morals require moral actors in the same way that chess requires a board.

I disagree. New circumstances, the technology boom being the best and most recent example, present themselves all the time and while I would agree with you (on what I am assuming you might say, that humans seem to have to bat these new ideas around before they come to a consensus on how to best proceed, I would say that the answer is already existent and the "batting around" is really just a combination of dealing with those things we have not come to fully understand and struggling with a flawed nature we have not come to fully accept.

It's a general rule, designed for general purposes. It'd be foolish to never reconsider your position based on context because then you'd have effectively sealed yourself off and decided that the only scenarios you'll consider are the ones you already have considered. You don't know everything, and thus you can't make all encompassing blanket pronouncements on an issue.

More importantly, exceptions aren't a weakness, they're an acknowledgement that the world we live in is complicated.

I do not consider exceptions a weakness. What is a weakness is an unjustified exception that does not uphold the inherent value of the standard it seems to deviate from.

For instance, with lies. Lies, as a general rule are considered to be immoral. But the inherent value in this rule is that people have a right to the truth, but not everyone has the same rights to the same truths. A homicidal maniac has no right to know that I am hiding the children in the crawlspace, and so I lie to him and tell him that I live here alone. Though it seems to deviate, the lie upholds the inherent value of the standard.

Situational morality is different from moral relativity, in that the former actually contains some general principles that persist, plus the possibility that some moral claims can in fact be wrong. Moral relativity doesn't do either of that; this isn't a claim that whatever I think becomes moral merely because I think it.

You keep assuming that I have a problem with exceptions and situations. I don't. What I am calling for is a system that can account for these exceptions without compromising its basic standards.

You put the first parameter of your system as being the preservation of life, and then made an exception for this base value on the grounds that it can be painful and hard to deal with sickness. This exception does not uphold your base value in that someone with a terminal illness is still able to consider morals (which you have defined as the expression of value within life).

The system you present would disregard its base value on the grounds that living with pain is not pleasing. Instead of upholding, this exception opens the door to a slew of circumstances that compromise the base value (homework is not pleasing, having to eat my vegetables and workout is not pleasing, consistent headaches or injuries that did not heal properly are not pleasing) But these, I believe we can both agree, are not reasons to end life.

No, people pull the hypocrite card on christians because they set themselves up with rigid, unthinking dogmas that don't take into account a rapidly evolving world and yet are somehow divinely inspired, and then break them whenever it's convenient.

I am not sure why atheists believe that Christians do not think. Dogmas are absolute, but that does not make their application simple. As for the rapidly evolving world, I believe I addressed that.

But I love how proud you are of never being able to change your mind or accept new information with regards to your moral system. That really does shine the perfect light on just how asinine your initial question was.

Whoa! Where are the bitter sarcasm and insults coming from? I thought we were having a good conversation?

And in regards to my initial "asinine" question, it has gone unanswered. You have claimed a moral system based on evolution and survival of a social creature, but you are unable to present standards that would hold consistent in the midst of fundamental disagreements over the value of any given life.

---

This is inaccurate.

'This is a Catholic country': Woman dies of septicaemia after being refused an abortion in Irish hospital

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...15609.html

This is from the Catechism of the Catholic Church in regards to the fifth commandment:

2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.
Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual....
It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence."

Me again: So, what it is saying is that you are not allowed to have an abortion for the sake of having an abortion. If there is a situation where the mother requires medical care, every caution must be made to protect both the life of the mother and the baby. Anyone acting on a Catholic standard of morality would not merely let the mother die because it might harm the child.

It is important to separate the standard and the people that claim to follow the standard.