Posts: 67223
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: Morality versus afterlife
January 9, 2016 at 3:40 pm
Is that what he meant when he said "every man for himself" ? Hell, I thought we were discussing something vastly less ridiculous.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 3709
Threads: 18
Joined: September 29, 2015
Reputation:
10
RE: Morality versus afterlife
January 9, 2016 at 3:45 pm
(January 9, 2016 at 3:13 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Unlikely (or at least no more likely than my doing things which I consider to be immoral now..lol), but that's a softball question...since I already consider morality, ultimately, an every man for himself scenario. Why would I act differently than I already do if that just so happened to be objectively true somehow?
There are probably tougher questions to ask along that periphery.
Would you still consider the things immoral, which you do now, even if the culture accepted them? What do you think makes something moral or immoral?
Posts: 67223
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: Morality versus afterlife
January 9, 2016 at 3:47 pm
(This post was last modified: January 9, 2016 at 3:47 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
I -already- consider some things to be moral or immoral that my own society disagrees upon (as I'm sure you do too). You are completely failing to present a hypothetical to me. I'm a moral utilitarian.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Morality versus afterlife
January 9, 2016 at 3:49 pm
(This post was last modified: January 9, 2016 at 3:50 pm by robvalue.)
Me too. My morality only partly lines up with society. Mine, that is. It probably barely lines up at all with some others.
Posts: 3709
Threads: 18
Joined: September 29, 2015
Reputation:
10
RE: Morality versus afterlife
January 9, 2016 at 4:01 pm
(January 9, 2016 at 3:38 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: (January 9, 2016 at 2:57 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Ok... if cultural perceptions changed about morality, and it was every man for himself, do you think that your views about morality would change? Would you be doing things, that you now consider to be immoral?
Let me begin with my functional definition of morality. Which is behaviors that lead to the betterment of the well being of the most people possible, and the harm of the well being of the least number of people.
Societies that would have an "every man for himself" ethic, would just not last. They would fall apart, and those moral members of the society would start their own society with a better moral ethic, or find one that exists that they could join.
But more importantly, the vast majority of people are psychologically healthy, and have no compunction to behave immorally.
If society became "every man for himself" I would rape, murder, steal, as much as I want. And the amount I want to rape, murder and steal is exactly zero.
Under your definition, wouldn't the genocide of weaker members of society be acceptable, if it provided betterment to a greater number of people? If one deems it better for a greater number of people, then the harm a fewer number of people would be justified.
Posts: 67223
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: Morality versus afterlife
January 9, 2016 at 4:38 pm
(This post was last modified: January 9, 2016 at 4:40 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
Really throwing hardballs huh, lol? Do you expect any answer other than "No"? Exterminating people doesn't seem to be looking out for their interests. Your question was absurd at it's outset.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 6610
Threads: 73
Joined: May 31, 2014
Reputation:
56
RE: Morality versus afterlife
January 9, 2016 at 4:43 pm
(January 9, 2016 at 4:01 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: (January 9, 2016 at 3:38 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: Let me begin with my functional definition of morality. Which is behaviors that lead to the betterment of the well being of the most people possible, and the harm of the well being of the least number of people.
Societies that would have an "every man for himself" ethic, would just not last. They would fall apart, and those moral members of the society would start their own society with a better moral ethic, or find one that exists that they could join.
But more importantly, the vast majority of people are psychologically healthy, and have no compunction to behave immorally.
If society became "every man for himself" I would rape, murder, steal, as much as I want. And the amount I want to rape, murder and steal is exactly zero.
Under your definition, wouldn't the genocide of weaker members of society be acceptable, if it provided betterment to a greater number of people? If one deems it better for a greater number of people, then the harm a fewer number of people would be justified.
Notice the conjunction "and" in the definition.
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Morality versus afterlife
January 9, 2016 at 6:22 pm
(This post was last modified: January 9, 2016 at 6:24 pm by robvalue.)
What is "acceptable" is decided at an individual level, and by societal norms. These are both dynamic. There is no transcript. The idea that "morality" should be considered to be the same by everyone, and from everyone's point of view is absurd.
It doesn't really affect the question though. If someone believes morality is objective and they're getting it from God or the bible or whatever, then they can keep on following it the same way after finding out God doesn't exist, or they can stop and rethink. Those appear to be the only options.
If you would stop and rethink, then that says something about the authority being more important than the content.
Posts: 3709
Threads: 18
Joined: September 29, 2015
Reputation:
10
RE: Morality versus afterlife
January 9, 2016 at 7:05 pm
(January 9, 2016 at 4:38 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Really throwing hardballs huh, lol? Do you expect any answer other than "No"? Exterminating people doesn't seem to be looking out for their interests. Your question was absurd at it's outset.
Seems we need to modify the definition then.
Posts: 3709
Threads: 18
Joined: September 29, 2015
Reputation:
10
RE: Morality versus afterlife
January 9, 2016 at 7:09 pm
(January 9, 2016 at 6:22 pm)robvalue Wrote: What is "acceptable" is decided at an individual level, and by societal norms. These are both dynamic. There is no transcript. The idea that "morality" should be considered to be the same by everyone, and from everyone's point of view is absurd.
It doesn't really affect the question though. If someone believes morality is objective and they're getting it from God or the bible or whatever, then they can keep on following it the same way after finding out God doesn't exist, or they can stop and rethink. Those appear to be the only options.
If you would stop and rethink, then that says something about the authority being more important than the content.
It seems that your first question, is if we would be moral, if there is no consequence. Then your second question was expanded, to if we would be moral, without any real reason. If there isn't any objective morality, then it would seem that I can decide what is moral to my desires, and as long as society allows it, or I don't get caught.
|
