So before this other post got locked some people were going on about how morals are "subjective" and evil and such. Idk why but I just have this incredible urge to take my stance on this.
When I say morals, Im not talking about someone's fucking religion or whatever. I'm talking more about the common sense shit we all need to have institutionalized in order to prevent mass chaos from ensuing everywhere.
Morals such as:
-Don't steal other people's shit
-Dont murder other people
-Don't step all over everyone else's rights

That kinda shit. I personally feel that yes those kind of morals are necessary to keep the general human population in line because if it weren't for morality based laws regarding the above list, humanity would collapse into utter chaos with no hope of recovery.
That's my stance on morals.
Just had to get it out there now.

I don't think those are morality-based laws.

A morality based law, in my opinion, is one which the only justification for its existence is that the action it criminalizes is immoral. Laws against stealing, murdering, and others of that nature have plenty of justifications outside of "it's wrong".

If someone were arguing that we should make thievery legal, would your main argument against that be "but thievery is wrong"?

I'd focus more on how legal thievery would have major problems for a functioning society. It would be near-impossible to run a business if anyone could steal from you at will, and it would discourage production of goods (which is something we should be encouraging). Likewise, it can harm people, if they need the things that are being stolen, and it fosters distrust among citizens.

I would consider a morality-based law to be something like... "you are not allowed to work on Sunday", or "cub pornography should be illegal".

Clawdragons said:
I don't think those are morality-based laws.

A morality based law, in my opinion, is one which the only justification for its existence is that the action it criminalizes is immoral. Laws against stealing, murdering, and others of that nature have plenty of justifications outside of "it's wrong".

If someone were arguing that we should make thievery legal, would your main argument against that be "but thievery is wrong"?

I'd focus more on how legal thievery would have major problems for a functioning society. It would be near-impossible to run a business if anyone could steal from you at will, and it would discourage production of goods (which is something we should be encouraging). Likewise, it can harm people, if they need the things that are being stolen, and it fosters distrust among citizens.

I would consider a morality-based law to be something like... "you are not allowed to work on Sunday", or "cub pornography should be illegal".

^^This

Morality-based laws are essentially legislation of "I'm offended by what you're doing." Laws in the Western World against adultery, blasphemy, and homoexuality were all based on this "ick factor" mentality. For instance, Adultery was originally a bad thing back 4,000 years ago when Moses carried two stone tablets down from Mt. Sinai, but that was because in his day, women were the private property of their husbands and another man having sex with her was him stealing from the woman's owner. It's like stealing a car is in this day and age. But nowadays, women are people instead of property and laws against adultery are completely moot, because women can legally decide who has sex with them and who doesn't. So we don't have laws against adultery for the most part, because women are no longer the private property of men and such laws simply don't make any practical sense.

Clawdragons said:
I'd focus more on how legal thievery would have major problems for a functioning society.

This makes no sense, though, unless you argue that it's ethically wrong to commit acts which are detrimental to society, but that goes against your premise.

Why do you assume I care if something's bad for society?

Clawdragons said:
and it would discourage production of goods (which is something we should be encouraging). Likewise, it can harm people, if they need the things that are being stolen, and it fosters distrust among citizens.

Saying it harms people is not any more substantiated than saying it's unethical. Prescription drugs harm people. Stairs harm people. Cars kill far more people than thievery does. Free speech fosters distrust among people, as does practicing various (harmless) cultural traditions and wearing certain clothes.

Saying we can't ban things based on moral guidelines is just pointless. There is no logical proof that demonstrates that killing your neighbor is wrong and there never will be.

To be entirely honest Morals, as well as the concept of good and evil are just subjective measures we use to categorize people we like and dislike.(The reason I think that way is because each individual human has a moral code that differs just ever so slightly from someone else.) Like the OP for instance. They consider theft, murder, and stepping on someones rights morally wrong. Which makes me like them because I have the same guidelines. however if they were to say that I should not have my right to a gun to help secure my right to protect myself, my family, or my property, then I would dislike them because they differ from my views.

That being said however, we as a society need these concept to help guide us through life. But at the base core everything the rules of no murder, no theft, and no violating the rights of others, are the fundamental basis of everything.

but in line with the topic as it was meant. My own personal morals are a bit too confusing to post in the thread.

I doubt this will be a satisfactory answer for anyone but this is my opinion.

Things like theft and murder fall under ethics, not morals. Ethics are more set in stone than Morals, which adhere more to feelings and beliefs, changing from person to person or even just from time to time.

Furrin_Gok said:
Things like theft and murder fall under ethics, not morals. Ethics are more set in stone than Morals, which adhere more to feelings and beliefs, changing from person to person or even just from time to time.

There we go I knew I was forgetting something in my post I just couldn't for the life of me figure it out.

Furrin_Gok said:
Things like theft and murder fall under ethics, not morals. Ethics are more set in stone than Morals, which adhere more to feelings and beliefs, changing from person to person or even just from time to time.

Our ethics didn't spring out of nowhere, though. Several millennia of philosophy brought them to us and they're still far from universal.

Fenrick said:
Our ethics didn't spring out of nowhere, though. Several millennia of philosophy brought them to us and they're still far from universal.

They are rather easy to logically justify, though.
Pain is bad, people try to avoid feeling pain. If PersonA dislikes feeling pain, chances are PersonB dislikes it as well. If a statistically significant portion of humans doesn't like being hurt it makes sense to introduce laws that ensure they don't get hurt by one another.
The same goes for thievery, most people dislike losing something, so you outlaw stealing things from one another.

NotMeNotYou said:
They are rather easy to logically justify, though.
Pain is bad, people try to avoid feeling pain. If PersonA dislikes feeling pain, chances are PersonB dislikes it as well. If a statistically significant portion of humans doesn't like being hurt it makes sense to introduce laws that ensure they don't get hurt by one another.
The same goes for thievery, most people dislike losing something, so you outlaw stealing things from one another.

They are easy to justify logically if you take pain and loss being bad as an inarguable fact.

Which, yes, most of us do. But things are not always that simple, which is where subjective moral beliefs justifiably come into the picture.

What happens if I cannot afford lifesaving medicine and there is absolutely no legal means I can take to obtain it (not asking for your opinion on the current status of American health care)? Would it be wrong to do what has to be done to protect my own life, to end my pain at the expense of someone else's loss? That's one situation in which Spock doesn't necessarily have the right answer.

aurel said:
oh you are :p The only right option in this is the 3rd one.

...because I knew you were waiting to derail the discussion. No offense.

Fenrick said:
...because I knew you were waiting to derail the discussion. No offense.

To be fair, that is the main reason behind insurances of all types; to avoid that someone can't afford help so everybody chimes in a little. And if someone does need help they can get it.

So in this case, there is a humane solution with a bit of planning ahead where everybody can benefit from.

Fenrick said:
This makes no sense, though, unless you argue that it's ethically wrong to commit acts which are detrimental to society, but that goes against your premise.

Why do you assume I care if something's bad for society?

I think you must have entirely misunderstood my point.

It doesn't matter in the slightest whether you care about whether or not something is good or bad for society. What you care about is entirely irrelevant here.

Societies work to maintain their own existence. Societies that don't do that cease to exist. Societies which do also cease to exist, but it takes much longer.

Sounds like you're saying that it's okay to enshrine [consequentialist morality with strong, relatively universal personal+social justification] in law. I agree.

Unfortunately, morality is all too often equated mainly or entirely with deontological morality (eg. religion.). As I believe that [deontological morality applied alone] is a significant problem, I can understand people who call morality evil. I think they are mistaking "armchair moralizing" [application of deontological moral reasoning without real checks against reality] with "morality generally" though. I'd suggest that if you don't have a morality, your life is shitty pretty much by definition.

I think 'morality is subjective' isn't quite right, but saying that 'morality isn't subjective' is definitely wrong. Morality is mostly *intersubjective* -- that is, it depends mostly on a -collective- subjective experience. For example, for most people, isolation, especially extended isolation, is bad for their mental health. That's a matter of individual mental architecture, so subjective, but our mental architecture as humans is largely very similar, so -intersubjective-.

(some people might say 'that's not very subjective'. But the point in using 'intersubjective' is to point out that our large parts of our morality is shared -across the species-, but not outside of it. Morality is a way of making your mental architecture work for you, and obviously we cannot simply assume that different mental architectures can be made to work through the exact same methods.)

As @Furrin Gok said, there is a difference between ethics and morals—ethics being, for instance, not stealing; morals being not having sex before marriage. Society largely agrees on ethics, but morals, of course, are variously debated, espoused, and scorned.

I believe that ethics and my morals are not subjective at all, but are intrinsically, universally linked to my well-being, and that of those around me. My religion has a rigid set of morals, and I believe these will all make me happiest in the long run, even if they aren't easy. These morals and laws were set down in the eternities. Evil is evil, and good is good, no matter what the politicians and philosophers of the world say.

Now, it's very important not to dismiss the morals of others. The differences in opinion and outlook enrich us and allow us to grow as a society. A person's morals are usually closely related to their background and understanding of the world, and understanding their morals helps one to understand the person. Naturally, I think my morals are best. Just putting that out there. :3

TruckNutz said:
I'm talking more about the common sense shit we all need to have institutionalized in order to prevent mass chaos from ensuing everywhere.

http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

@Aeruginis:
@Furrin_Gok:
{on: ethics vs. morals}

Question: Is it ethics or morals that ultimately says "Don't fuck your siblings"?

Also, either way, what is the reasoning behind that being a generally agreed upon "rule", so to speak? I mean, I know about the science and genetics of it and all, but how did almost everyone come to agree on that as a sort of "rule" of society, even before the science behind the concept itself was proven?

moral: a lesson, especially one concerning what is right or prudent, that can be derived from a story, a piece of information, or an experience.

morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

both are highly subjective terms based on even more subjective terms.

such subjectivity is quite irritating in any discussion. >.<

Kristal_Candeo said:
@Aeruginis:
@Furrin_Gok:
{on: ethics vs. morals}

Question: Is it ethics or morals that ultimately says "Don't fuck your siblings"?

Also, either way, what is the reasoning behind that being a generally agreed upon "rule", so to speak? I mean, I know about the science and genetics of it and all, but how did almost everyone come to agree on that as a sort of "rule" of society, even before the science behind the concept itself was proven?

Because the resulting offspring tended to either be dead on arrival, or would end up like that more often than for other people.

Kristal_Candeo said:
Question: Is it ethics or morals that ultimately says "Don't fuck your siblings"?

It's both, however with modern technology it could boil down to morals alone, since PGD testing and similar technologies can prevent almost all negative side effects in case offspring is really wanted. However, that said it's not as simple as inserting tab A into slot B.

Additionally you don't have to produce offspring to be considered incestous, or even be closely related (e.g. adoption), giving another point to morals.

What would you do for a Klondike bar?

Clawdragons said:
What you care about is entirely irrelevant here.

I'm sorry but that might be the absolute least persuasive statement I've ever heard.

Chessax said:

...you don't have to produce offspring to be considered incestous, or even be closely related (e.g. adoption), giving another point to morals.

Okay.

@Furrin_Gok:
@Aeruginis:

Given this, I now have a follow-up question:

Let's say that someone (hereafter referred to as [the subject]) was adopted at an early age and fell in love with a family member, such as a brother/sister later on. And let's say that upon [the subject] revealing these feelings to the family member, said family member reveals that he or she feels the same way, yet outright denies the option of pursuing an intimate relationship because they are "family".

In this situation, if [the subject] views their interest in his or her family member as "right" because "they are not actually related", and the family member in question views the interest as "wrong", because "they are family, just not by blood relation", whom (in the opinions of those here) is morally correct in their method of thinking?

That is, is a relationship still truly incest (by moral standards) if they are not genetically related at all, but instead only "related" by what one could consider to merely be 'dumb luck' during childhood?

Both are "Morally correct," because morals depend on the views of the person deciding. That's why deciding something by morals is an ineffective way of doing things, though I'd be lying if I said I didn't do so anyways.

morals...

depending on the situation you are in at any given moment in time, what activity is taking place, if drugs are involved, your emotional status at the time, your personal beliefs... take all of those and countless other variables and stack them against those of one of your fellow humans. if the results are at all different for them than they are for you in any way at all then congratulations. neither yours nor their concept of morality, ie what you consider to be moral or immoral, doesn't mean shit.

i mean, really, what can i say to this topic?

i suppose if it was the topic of "objective morality" then i could say more but THAT topic might piss off people if debated (assuming any of you guys are religious and believe that).

Furrin_Gok said:
Both are "Morally correct," because morals depend on the views of the person deciding. That's why deciding something by morals is an ineffective way of doing things, though I'd be lying if I said I didn't do so anyways.

Mmmm...

K.

NotMeNotYou said:
Because the resulting offspring tended to either be dead on arrival, or would end up like that more often than for other people.

Some would say that incest is wrong because that dynamic - even in cases of siblings - is going to carry some imbalance between the two (I want to say 'imbalance of power' but that doesn't sound right; I'm struggling to find the words right now), just from their lived experiences / minutiae of their joint upbringing. Ergo even if they couldn't have children for whatever reason there'd be some muddy moral ground. Essentially it implies that consent in those cases is, to some degree, coerced.

Not sure if I agree with that view myself, but it certainly makes this case more interesting:

Kristal_Candeo said:
Okay.

@Furrin_Gok:
@Aeruginis:

Given this, I now have a follow-up question:

Let's say that someone (hereafter referred to as [the subject]) was adopted at an early age and fell in love with a family member, such as a brother/sister later on. And let's say that upon [the subject] revealing these feelings to the family member, said family member reveals that he or she feels the same way, yet outright denies the option of pursuing an intimate relationship because they are "family".

In this situation, if [the subject] views their interest in his or her family member as "right" because "they are not actually related", and the family member in question views the interest as "wrong", because "they are family, just not by blood relation", whom (in the opinions of those here) is morally correct in their method of thinking?

That is, is a relationship still truly incest (by moral standards) if they are not genetically related at all, but instead only "related" by what one could consider to merely be 'dumb luck' during childhood?

That upbringing might still have engendered some relationship dynamics that would problematise them having sex. But that kind of begs the question if we should 'double-check' any sex, because surely many - perhaps most - relationships entail some level of power imbalance, no?

Kristal_Candeo said:
That is, is a relationship still truly incest (by moral standards) if they are not genetically related at all, but instead only "related" by what one could consider to merely be 'dumb luck' during childhood?

Who is in a sense of morality right? Again simple, both of them, for reasons previously described by others.

In general any familial relationship that goes beyond the "close friends" level is often considered incest. However different people have different views on this. My view pretty much starts at inbreeding, 'cause I find morals detrimental to society and only consider ethics, although I tend to talk about it in a more general sense.

ForbiddenFruit said:
Some would say that incest is wrong because that dynamic - even in cases of siblings - is going to carry some imbalance between the two (I want to say 'imbalance of power' but that doesn't sound right; I'm struggling to find the words right now), just from their lived experiences / minutiae of their joint upbringing. Ergo even if they couldn't have children for whatever reason there'd be some muddy moral ground. Essentially it implies that consent in those cases is, to some degree, coerced.

Not sure if I agree with that view myself, but it certainly makes this case more interesting:

[...]

That upbringing might still have engendered some relationship dynamics that would problematise them having sex. But that kind of begs the question if we should 'double-check' any sex, because surely many - perhaps most - relationships entail some level of power imbalance, no?

What would people then say about close friends growing up together and whom end up together then? Some people know their friends better than their siblings. Hence calling incest bad in general would be a bit hypocritical. Any rule based solely on morals are shitty rules in general due to their inherit subjectivity and unnecessary shaming that often accompanies them, yet the people involved may have done nothing wrong from an ethical viewpoint.

Also I don't see how any "imbalance of power" is a problem, or rather, it is a problem in any relationship of any kind, so that argument is pretty much null. The strong sometimes prey on the weak, it's nature.

And if someone is coerced into an incestous relationship, they're probably just as likely to be coerced into a relationship by someone else. This feels like an argument people would use to make sure their own morals are enforced onto others to make sure other people don't do things that make themselves feel uncomfortable. Besides this is nothing that is special to family members, it happens plenty between "stranger couples" as well.

Not poking at you, just your ideas, feel free to argue :)

I'm highly suspicious of the morals vs ethics distinction, particularly when it enables statements like 'the people involved may have done nothing wrong from an ethical viewpoint'.

It's hard to infer what the actual consequences of your actions on society will be. I wouldn't really be willing to say that something as apparently trivial as, say.. eating 3 slices of cake every Sunday.. has no ethical ramifications. It's just not within my human mental scope to actually -answer- that kind of question in a realistic timeframe; All I can do is look for -obvious- ethical/moral problems with a course of action, and merely hope that there aren't nonobvious ones.

(this doesn't mean that I think we should run around riddled with guilt worrying about possible consequences all the time. That's why I made the distinction 'moralizing' vs 'morals'. The former is about punishing others and yourself, the latter is simply a necessity that everyone engages with whether they want to or not.)

I believe in the basic extent of social and humanitarian ethics; you know, don't rape, kill, steal from people, be excellent to each other. Etc.

I'll be the first to admit I'm a really amoral person with some really bad tastes (I had gigglefits during the beach invasion scene of Saving Private Ryan, it was great.) It's why it's really disconcerting to see people who're shittier than I am on a daily basis.

Fenrick said:
I'm sorry but that might be the absolute least persuasive statement I've ever heard.

It's nor persaustive, but it's not wrong. Imagine someone had a completely hedonistic view of life, and did whatever they wanted. They wanted sex, tske it, they didn't like someone? Kill them. Most people would say their behavior is amoral, but that's their view of the world. A functional society couldn't allow someone to live this way and still be a part of society.

At the end of the day, society will move as a hive mind to rid itself of the "danger" weather you, personally care about society or not is irrelevant.that case,society is bigger than you, and the biggest side chooses the morals.

So yeah morals are all subjective and shit.

Cuddledump said:
It's nor persaustive, but it's not wrong. Imagine someone had a completely hedonistic view of life, and did whatever they wanted. They wanted sex, tske it, they didn't like someone? Kill them. Most people would say their behavior is amoral, but that's their view of the world. A functional society couldn't allow someone to live this way and still be a part of society.

At the end of the day, society will move as a hive mind to rid itself of the "danger" weather you, personally care about society or not is irrelevant.that case,society is bigger than you, and the biggest side chooses the morals.

So yeah morals are all subjective and shit.

Very, very few people think they are committed to the wrong path. The problem is that you can't use some algorithm or logic to judge these people and you can't sway them to your side by demonstrating a proof like you could with mathematics. That's why so many try to enforce their personal moral code onto others. It's perfectly sensible with all that in mind.

I don't know why people are acting like it's automatically a bad thing for people to promote their personal beliefs. That's... the whole purpose of voting.

Fenrick said:
I don't know why people are acting like it's automatically a bad thing for people to promote their personal beliefs. That's... the whole purpose of voting.

Because some people promote their beliefs in less than graceful manners. Suggesting that someone should take your side through argumentation is fine, going up in someone's face and yelling that they are stupid and should not think like that because it is "wrong", is not. It is a tactic that people who only rely on morals (or similar concepts), without anything to back it up with, tend to do when argued with or questioned. These people tend to be seen and heard a lot and hence get the most attention and therefore influence how people react when other people voice their beliefs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaMkvBr69z8

^^ I really think you're using 'morals' when 'dogma' would be a much more accurate word. There's more to morals than deontological reasoning.

What would people then say about close friends growing up together and whom end up together then? Some people know their friends better than their siblings. Hence calling incest bad in general would be a bit hypocritical. Any rule based solely on morals are shitty rules in general due to their inherit subjectivity and unnecessary shaming that often accompanies them, yet the people involved may have done nothing wrong from an ethical viewpoint.

Also I don't see how any "imbalance of power" is a problem, or rather, it is a problem in any relationship of any kind, so that argument is pretty much null. The strong sometimes prey on the weak, it's nature.

And if someone is coerced into an incestous relationship, they're probably just as likely to be coerced into a relationship by someone else. This feels like an argument people would use to make sure their own morals are enforced onto others to make sure other people don't do things that make themselves feel uncomfortable. Besides this is nothing that is special to family members, it happens plenty between "stranger couples" as well.

Not poking at you, just your ideas, feel free to argue :)

Oh, make no mistake, I can't wholeheartedly endorse that view. I think it's an interesting idea that falls apart if you try and extend its predicates outside of the situation. By my own admission, I said that if you were to apply the same criteria to any non-incestuous relationship, you start running into many problems, very quickly. I just like poking ideas I find interesting. I think there's something salient in there.

But because I can't really defend that idea, when I put it aside I don't...really...see anything 'wrong' with non-procreative, consenting incest. Don't get me wrong, that's very squicky to me. But that's the point - if it's entirely morality-based, and coming entirely from a Politics of Disgust no less, then I don't see any compelling reason to legislate against it.

@ForbiddenFruit:
@Chessax:

Well, I see what you guys have said, and though you seem to disagree about the whole "imbalance of power" thing, both of you make very good and viable points in you views of it.

As for me? Well, let's just say that the biggest issues I face in getting a intimate partner, both sexually and romantically, is the issues of trust, loyalty and acceptance.

And so if I had a sister (BTW, I'm an only child) who knew everything I had been through and stayed with me through it all, and accepted me for who I was, and was someone I had come to trust given our very long past together, I'd totally [consider] being intimate with her. Maybe not in a way that means I'd bear children with her given the terrible genetics of it all, but still.

In fact, just having someone (especially female) who entirely overcomes those obstacles for me would be a Godsend at this point, regardless of their relation to me.

But then again, maybe I'm just looking at this the wrong way given the question of morality.

Cactus said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaMkvBr69z8

Oh man. I'm sure that guy has a couple decent arguments or whatever, but he's such an insufferable asswipe I had to exit the second I realized who it was.

Fenrick said:
Oh man. I'm sure that guy has a couple decent arguments or whatever, but he's such an insufferable asswipe I had to exit the second I realized who it was.

I know this is off-topic, but though that guy may be kind of "insufferable" in his presentation of defending certain viewpoints, sometimes he does do a good job of cutting through social bullshit to make good, definitive points.

Of course, I only watched a couple of videos of his a long, long time ago, but still.

savageorange said:
I'm highly suspicious of the morals vs ethics distinction, particularly when it enables statements like 'the people involved may have done nothing wrong from an ethical viewpoint'.

It's hard to infer what the actual consequences of your actions on society will be. I wouldn't really be willing to say that something as apparently trivial as, say.. eating 3 slices of cake every Sunday.. has no ethical ramifications. It's just not within my human mental scope to actually -answer- that kind of question in a realistic timeframe; All I can do is look for -obvious- ethical/moral problems with a course of action, and merely hope that there aren't nonobvious ones.

(this doesn't mean that I think we should run around riddled with guilt worrying about possible consequences all the time. That's why I made the distinction 'moralizing' vs 'morals'. The former is about punishing others and yourself, the latter is simply a necessity that everyone engages with whether they want to or not.)

That trivial example is more of a health consequence as all that sugar could make you feel bad for the day.

As for "consequences of your actions on society" I would say it depends on how your actions effect others and on how big a scale. These protests that are occurring in the US are a example. To those heading the protest they feel their cause just and are handling it how they see fit. The problem is the effect it has on people.

There are good people with good intentions in Black Lives Matter, but among their ranks are people who aren't so good. People who take advantage of this to stir up trouble just for the fun of it, and that action has ramifications on the group itself. This leads to people viewing the organization as either a troublemakers group or a group with good intentions but going about things the wrong way.

(sorry if that isn't the best example, still a bit tired from oversleeping last night XD)