Morality: Where do you get yours?

[genkaus]

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.

I know so. The definition I gave is the definition of economic slavery. Poverty is not the same thing as slavery.

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.

Yes, yes, yes and yes, I can. Community makes survival much easier, but its absence doesn't make it impossible. You have it the other way around. It is the community that is useful to help the individual to grow and prosper. If it wasn't individuals wouldn't be a part of it and then no community would exist.

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

He doesn't.

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?

A rational person who sees this statement as an example of delusion of grandeur.

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.

They can't. The front of my door is my private property.

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.

Yes, advocates of freedom and liberty are often charged with being destructive. Good thing that I don't have to be important since there are so many of us now.

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.

Wrong. My limits are determined by my fierce individuality, the same thing that is the source of my pride and my honor. My ego is the source and the root of my morals.

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.

Dead? Yeah, right. Talk to China.

Besides, your initial point was that core values cannot be changed. Now you are just moving the goalposts.

Second, if "private property" is one of your core values, notice that most of the countries have something called "eminent domain" - which completely negates that concept.

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

See eminent domain theory. That'll show you how weak and easily disposable your core value of "private property" is.

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.

Fundamentalists all over the world disagree most vehemently. In fact, the very existence of countries where religious laws are applicable disagree.

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.

There are no public values. Public is just a collection of individuals. Thus there are only shared personal values and exclusive personal values.

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, actually, a lot of these values contradict each other and have not been considered values in the past. Pride, for example, is a sin. Loyalty to family over that to god or country is not advocated. Secularism is a new concept. And you cannot be a soldier and be merciful at the same time.

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.

Just because it was done that way does not mean that there was no other way. Are you simply going to ignore all peacefully executed revolutions and social changes?

[Mystic]

It seems your settling for a lower morality and saying that's all that is needed. But to some, they seek a higher honor and dignity, and the higher honor seems to be linked to a metaphysical being.

[genkaus]

It seems your settling for a lower morality and saying that's all that is needed. But to some, they seek a higher honor and dignity, and the higher honor seems to be linked to a metaphysical being.

I don't consider honor that is dependent or derives from someone else's opinion of me to be of any worth at all, even if that someone else is a supposed metaphysical being. That is like satisfying your hunger by feeding someone else.

[Neo-Scholastic]

My morals? Don't know what they are either...

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?

Violet is a moral agent because she has the rational capacity to reflect on moral issues and the freedom to act upon them. Even if she uses a subjective standard, i.e. being a kind and gentle person, she is moral to extent that 1) she adheres to her standard and 2) the standard, although subjective, can either be derived from or shown to be contingent upon a more universally valid objective standard.

[The Grand Nudger]

Surely you mean "widely accepted subjective -(with a ton of added provisions)" standard?

[LiberalHearted]

My Grandfather, Grandmother, and Mom. Then logic accompanying morality my Great Aunt Eva, Uncles and other Aunts included.

Is it morality, most likely. Grandpa never hurt a living thing, don't get kinder to others than that. Grandma gave me laughter, and something i never use anymore the words "don't talk about politics or religion". MOM a pain - "you're so smart there isn't anything I can't do" blah.

[Creed of Heresy]

It seems your settling for a lower morality and saying that's all that is needed. But to some, they seek a higher honor and dignity, and the higher honor seems to be linked to a metaphysical being.

Well see that too is just a subjective viewpoint on morality, attributing levels of "higher" and "lower" morality. What then defines each? Is it just "god is higher morality, you are lower morality," if even the most commonly reviled ideas are condoned by god [like slavery and murder]? See, the problem with "morality by god" is that morality is a standard that affects an individual's life. Either yours, or the person/people you are interacting with. They are a tangible identity, and you can see the effects wrought on them by your decisions. God is NOT a tangible identity, it is an idea, a suspicion, a faith, a belief. You are applying morality from the simple standard of "because I believe." Morality from the self, at least, can have a standard that is based on reality, on something that exists, or at least, existed. God to this day is not proven to exist. People just have "feelings" about god...and as is evidenced by most of the people on this site and pretty much all the world for that matter, this feeling is far from universal. If I take god's morality on what it is, it is not an objective viewpoint, because the idea of god itself is not objective; it is very much subjective, and therefore no "higher" nor "lower" than morality based on your own experiences, wouldn't you agree?

[Mystic]

It seems your settling for a lower morality and saying that's all that is needed. But to some, they seek a higher honor and dignity, and the higher honor seems to be linked to a metaphysical being.

Well see that too is just a subjective viewpoint on morality, attributing levels of "higher" and "lower" morality. What then defines each? Is it just "god is higher morality, you are lower morality," if even the most commonly reviled ideas are condoned by god [like slavery and murder]? See, the problem with "morality by god" is that morality is a standard that affects an individual's life. Either yours, or the person/people you are interacting with. They are a tangible identity, and you can see the effects wrought on them by your decisions. God is NOT a tangible identity, it is an idea, a suspicion, a faith, a belief. You are applying morality from the simple standard of "because I believe." Morality from the self, at least, can have a standard that is based on reality, on something that exists, or at least, existed. God to this day is not proven to exist. People just have "feelings" about god...and as is evidenced by most of the people on this site and pretty much all the world for that matter, this feeling is far from universal. If I take god's morality on what it is, it is not an objective viewpoint, because the idea of god itself is not objective; it is very much subjective, and therefore no "higher" nor "lower" than morality based on your own experiences, wouldn't you agree?

I disagree with that God is not proven to exist. But I think we all acknowledge higher morality then the base morality (don't steal, don't hurt others...) etc, and we do that when we see heroism in movies for example. The heroism in many movies is harder to imitate and follow, then the religious morality your talking about, but we still acknowledge the high honor and morality within that.

Ofcourse morality is linked to our experience, but I talked about it in another thread, that even when we are wrong about issues, it doesn't mean it's totally divorced from God's morality, but that there is more correct view we are not twisted from.

Also, just because something is not universal, doesn't mean there is no right or wrong answer. For example, killing apostates is advocated by both overwhelming majority of Islamic scholars. Yet we can say it is wrong in a definitive conclusive matter.

If we go by universal, some people don't acknowledge morality at all. Should you then do away with your morality just because some others don't?

At the end, to me, morality makes sense when there is an eternal basis to it and it's linked to that eternal basis, and that possible levels of morality, even ones beyond our capabilities, are encompassed by this eternal basis.

I can't go expecting people to all agree with me to have a view on moral issues or God. That's not a logical position to take.

I just have to be honest with myself and my reasoning. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong, but I'm not going to get anywhere by saying I only will believe in what everyone believes universally.

[Neo-Scholastic]

It would seem that any ethical system claiming to be objective must meet certain criteria. I have put forward a list of such criteria. Would anyone care to add to or qualify the following list?

Criteria for a Universal Moral Standard (UMS):

Identifies a universally accepted value.
Defines who qualifies as a moral agent.
Provides a means for moral agents to recognize moral choices and obligations.
Serves as an effective guide for directing the moral agent toward achieving the accepted valued.
Applies at all times and to all choices relevant to creating and preserving the accepted value.
Rejection of the universal moral standard invariably undermines the accepted value.

[Mystic]

It would seem that any ethical system claiming to be objective must meet certain criteria. I have put forward a list of such criteria. Would anyone care to add to or qualify the following list?

Criteria for a Universal Moral Standard (UMS):

Identifies a universally accepted value.
Defines who qualifies as a moral agent.
Provides a means for moral agents to recognize moral choices and obligations.
Serves as an effective guide for directing the moral agent toward achieving the accepted valued.
Applies at all times and to all choices relevant to creating and preserving the accepted value.
Rejection of the universal moral standard invariably undermines the accepted value.

I don't think something has to be universal to be objective.