Why do we need morals?

[Cato]

I need a sense of morality to keep from exterminating those that deny the need for morality in society.

[littleendian]

I think those who purport moral subjectivism only do so based on their own latent sociopathy, but I personally don't endorse "morality" at all.

Why should a grown and rational person do so?

Morality for me is just a fancy word for "feels right". Now, what "feels right" I believe is determined by the society we were brought up in and is ultimately the product of a lot of superstitions and dogma, Christian or otherwise. Thinking and reason can and will lead to different morals than those we have today, albeit of course only over the course of generations. Then what "feels right" will be more in sync with what our reasoning tells us is logical. What is "right" basically boils down to treating others as we would like to be treated ourselves. This is a sound rational basis because it is impossible to prove that my own desires and wants have any objective, reasonable precedence over the desires and wants of any other being.

Of course only when we are not in distress we have the capacity for moral action. When we are in distress reason breaks down (because it hasn't evolved for this purpose) and we will be selfish and do whatever necessary to survive. I would not say the latter is in the realm of "moral versus immoral".

[Angrboda]

I think those who purport moral subjectivism only do so based on their own latent sociopathy, but I personally don't endorse "morality" at all.

Why should a grown and rational person do so?

Morality for me is just a fancy word for "feels right". Now, what "feels right" I believe is determined by the society we were brought up in and is ultimately the product of a lot of superstitions and dogma, Christian or otherwise. Thinking and reason can and will lead to different morals than those we have today, albeit of course only over the course of generations. Then what "feels right" will be more in sync with what our reasoning tells us is logical. What is "right" basically boils down to treating others as we would like to be treated ourselves. This is a sound rational basis because it is impossible to prove that my own desires and wants have any objective, reasonable precedence over the desires and wants of any other being.

[littleendian]

....

[dazzn]

I think those who purport moral subjectivism only do so based on their own latent sociopathy, but I personally don't endorse "morality" at all.

Why should a grown and rational person do so?

Morality for me is just a fancy word for "feels right". Now, what "feels right" I believe is determined by the society we were brought up in and is ultimately the product of a lot of superstitions and dogma, Christian or otherwise. Thinking and reason can and will lead to different morals than those we have today, albeit of course only over the course of generations. Then what "feels right" will be more in sync with what our reasoning tells us is logical. What is "right" basically boils down to treating others as we would like to be treated ourselves. This is a sound rational basis because it is impossible to prove that my own desires and wants have any objective, reasonable precedence over the desires and wants of any other being.

Of course only when we are not in distress we have the capacity for moral action. When we are in distress reason breaks down (because it hasn't evolved for this purpose) and we will be selfish and do whatever necessary to survive. I would not say the latter is in the realm of "moral versus immoral".

morals don't exist. why is that so hard to comprehend?

---

We need morals because there would be utter chaos without them.

and? is your view supreme in this case?

As to determining good morals, it isn't really a matter of feeling (although you could try to say that the suffering of being wronged is a feeling). Inevitably, there will be moral disagreement, and very few people are just going to let it slide and say all moral views are equal.

all moral views are equal.

The reason why the "logical" thing to do and the moral thing to do don't always match up is because logic and morality are different domains. Logic, in and of itself, cannot be used. In order for logic to be used, it must be applied to something. There is nothing inherently logical about doing anything unless doing that things aids some goal. What is logical about eating if you are trying to starve yourself? Likewise, what is logical about stealing if you are trying to be a good person and keep society in order? The golden rule and empathy seem to be some of the strongest motivators for morality (in the case of the golden rule, one would of course have to take into account the differences between you and the other, i.e. a masochist who wants to be hurt doesn't have to right to hurt others).

The golden rule is something said not meant.

Of course, some might still question whether the preservation of humanity and being kind to others has any real basis. Kant's categorical imperative states what we ought to do, as some sort of objective morality. However, it is difficult to demonstrate the validity of such a thing. You ought to follow the rules of logic, otherwise logic won't work and you will like in ignorance. But what if that is what you want? Well, then there is no way to convince you.

A better way to put this would be to use a hypothetical imperative summed up as the following:

If you value human life at all, then you should strive to be a good person.

If you do not place any value whatsoever in human life (and not because you are suicidal but because you have no conscience) then you should not value your own life either, and might as well:

---

rather than become a serial killer. (If you still value yourself because you are selfish, then you are setting an unfair double standard).
Many mass killers (e.g. school shootings) seem to kill themselves when the police arrive. If only they started with themselves...

---

Life is tough. who doesn't comprehend that?

---

Are you asking what value does morality have? If so then it depends on what you mean by value. Morality is itself the assignment of value, (moral value) to particular actions/intentions etc, so in some ways it's an odd question unless you define what you mean by value in this instance.

I simply think the world would be better if people did as they pleased.

The free man is the wise man, who ultimately is the winner in life.

[Cyberman]

I simply think the world would be better if people did as they pleased.

This is clearly not true as the scenario would rapidly descend into people doing as they please interfering with the ability of others to do as they please. Even our roads don't work like that. From the earliest days of motorised travel, drivers very quickly learned that, generally speaking, co-operation and consideration for other road users allows for everyone to get to their destinations with the minimum of inconvenience. Anyone want to tell the class what sort of scenario would inevitably ensue if everyone decided to abandon the rules of the road and decide just to 'do as they pleased'? I suspect the phrase "the world would be better" might not be included.

[dazzn]

I simply think the world would be better if people did as they pleased.

This is clearly not true as the scenario would rapidly descend into people doing as they please interfering with the ability of others to do as they please. Even our roads don't work like that. From the earliest days of motorised travel, drivers very quickly learned that, generally speaking, co-operation and consideration for other road users allows for everyone to get to their destinations with the minimum of inconvenience. Anyone want to tell the class what sort of scenario would inevitably ensue if everyone decided to abandon the rules of the road and decide just to 'do as they pleased'? I suspect the phrase "the world would be better" might not be included.

consideration is overrated. i doubt most hold it.

[KichigaiNeko]

I am thinking that people pretty much "do as they please" now and cherry pick some apeal to authority to do so.

[littleendian]

I simply think the world would be better if people did as they pleased.

You seem to use the term "conscience" for things I would've perhaps hastily put under the term "morals". If your claim that "morals" don't exist is just an appeal for less reliance on "moral authorities" (religios or otherwise) and more reliance on our own "inner compass" then I'm all for that.

[Cyberman]

consideration is overrated. i doubt most hold it.

And that's your entire response? Personal opinion?