im in a topic creating mood, all things regarding morality and ethics to be here :3

this includes source, types of, what it relies on, and etc.

just to screw with your minds on the grounds of philosophy...

The source of morality is usually the ethnic and socially accepted behaviour that one has been brought up with. A man brought up with the notion that killing is good sincerely believes that killing is good. to take a moral high ground is to deem one set of morals higher then another and therefore is the ultimate form of discrimination, discrimination against ones upbringing. moral of the story here... (COUGHPUNCOUGH) kill and eat humans, when arrested, claim discrimination on your cultural rights

refute that. gogogogo winner gets a pony from bill gates in 6-8 working days*

*pony prize not guaranteed

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

no takers?

-Discordian saying.

this place is weak. there are many ways to prod such logic of morality in the face

correct answer is that the society governing law governs law. unless their individual cultural rights are protected or valued more then the law, then such actions like killing and eating another human would not be accepted wholeheartedly.

ill make another one. this one is easier then shooting a barrel in a fish. yes, the fish is immobile and dead.
morality is sourced from our emotions and memories. actions that make one feel good after (giving change to a hobo) would be considered as morally good. actions that make one feel bad after (lying and knowing it was an evil lie) would be considered morally wrong. if a child was bought up disadvantaged and learned that stealing is a way of survival from his father and only remembers stealing his entire life. he doesnt consider it wrong but rather, ensuring the rich arent too rich. he considers himself a robin hood and views himself in a just light.

morality comes from god, god is all good, all knowing and all powerful so he cant be wrong. god comes to someone in a dream and tells them to kill and eat humans.

refute?

You make some of the most thought-provoking topics, ducky

For me, 'morality' constitutes 'sociological law'...

It is not dependant on the size of the society, it can even apply (and often does) to a society of one.

It can be defined as 'what I believe', which makes it oh so powerful...

It is instilled into us in the first instance by our childhood upbringing, but is constantly updated, altered and refreshed by our daily experience.

For example, on today's ABC website, a survey found that 40% of Australians believe that a degree of torture is OK when used on enemy combatants to obtain intel. The same group, I have no doubt, would be aghast should those techniques be used on our troops captured by the enemy.

Does that make it right? No. Not to me, anyway.

Ethics is an extension of morality, and as such is also subjective.
We have reached a point in our sociological interaction whereby we have (most of us, at any rate) agreed on certain 'basic and undeniable' 'rights' that as humans, we are able to expect that we will receive from other humans. These are ideas only, intangible and amorphous. A 'right' only exists because a) it has been agreed upon by one or more people, and b) said people are able in some form to enforce (aka persuade) others to go along with it.
Justice does not exist, neither does truth, or mercy, nor fairness. Show me a molecule of justice... (hypothetically composed of atoms of truth, mercy and fairness)
They only 'exist' because enough people agree that they do.

By thought provoking, I meant 'makes me think', not worried about the rest of the mob

I don't believe there is such a thing as non-subjective morality, so yeah, my opinion is simply my own morality.

I find amorality fascinating... no concept of 'right' or 'wrong', there is only existance, and things that are done. It is not even the ultimate extension of pragmatism (being practicality to the point of ruthlessness), for pragmatism implies both the knowledge of (and subsequent disregard of) 'what is right'.
Amorality can be demonstrated by a fantasy series I know and love: Raymond E Feist, the riftwar saga.
The Valheru, who were formed from the same stuff as the gods, from a time before the world was as it is today.
They worshipped the personifications of Order and Chaos. They had no knowledge of good and evil, only power. One of them said "We are. We do. What more is there?"

i miss philosophy, a bunch of people sitting around with the teacher prompting and everyone else trying to say either
a.) something thought provoking
b.) something witty
c.) something immature that results in laughter

good times... good times...

anyways


can you dispute these cases? do they follow rationally?

They (the theists - believers in some form of deity) would argue that those voices / impulses would come from the devil, or other forms of evil.

Which brings up another interesting point:
If someone is brought up knowing that God wants them to kill and eat his fellow man, that would be morally 'right' for him. On the flipside, would a Satanist who does exactly the same thing believe the same thing, or would the fact that they have chosen to worship evil reduce it to a deliberate choice to do that which is morally 'wrong'?

ah, the wonders of the human psyche. it can feel good about doing bad things, or bad about doing good things as well as the usual tricks!
all i'm saying is that 'makes you feel good' is a misleading judge of what constitutes morality.


to the deluded, the messages are as real as the rest of the world... they believed totally that what they were hearing was true, and since morality is subjective, does it make it any less true for them...?


i thought so... it opens up a whole new can of worms.

no, one's feelings are a measure of one's empathy, which is separate from morality...


moral high ground, as with the rest of the morals, is subjective. we only consider it 'bad' because sufficient numbers of us all agree that it is 'bad'. if enough of us agreed that it was 'cheese' instead, would it be Swiss, or maybe Cheddar...?