If so then society would be scattered all over to accommodate what each persons moral code would state. It exists on laws which may in some cases match up to individual moral standards.It exists on both.
It says that abortion is legal and I don't see people laying down and accepting this either. It does not mean we can't disagree with the law. It says that no matter what we believe the law of the land is the rule. Rules can change. So this being said if laws were morals and they can change so to cam morals and it proves my point that morals are only thoughts and personal ideals and subject to change. For me gay rights is not a moral issue at all it is an issue of equality. Abortion is more a moral issue than gay rights. Gay rights is based on equal under the law Abortion is based on a moral belief that the fetus needs to be protected. But in the abortion issue the woman's right to control her body is shoved aside in the thinking of many. But to answer your question gay rights are a disagreement with fair and equal under the law and not a moral issue at all.And the law is the law in a great many places that says gays cannot marry but I don't see you just accepting that, so your position is that gay rights that you were so defending yesterday are not a moral issue.
This leads to the question once again which god? Which religion takes precedence? Who's god rules? These are all questions when god comes up come into play.In my view morality is the laws of God and they are absolute.
If so then society would be scattered all over to accommodate what each persons moral code would state. It exists on laws which may in some cases match up to individual moral standards.
Honor killings are not punishment. Killing a rape victim is an example of an honor killing. If a woman has been soiled, she must be killed for the honor of the family.Morality stems from harm. It's wrong to harm someone. As human society has evolved, this principle has been applied to society as a whole. It's wrong to do something that harms society, and the individual who did so must be punished. And from this you derive all the morality of the world.
Someone mentioned honour killings, and they're a perfect example of this. Someone has shamed family/society/whatever, so they must be punished.
It's only the punishment for harming individuals or society that distinguishes one morality from another.
I feel pain from hunger so I steal your food.I went with law of nature. I think it is our biology that gives us a meaning for right and wrong. We don't like pain, fear, or loneliness, so right are things that reduce those feelings and wrong are things that increase them. Cooperation is right because it helps us be happy, healthy, and safe. Morality is very much based on physical, corporeal sensations.
This leads to the question once again which god? Which religion takes precedence? Who's god rules? These are all questions when god comes up come into play.
What if a couple has a terrible marriage and they're both very unhappy, but they stay together purely because they both believe divorce is immoral? In that case, the law doesn't win. There are infinite other examples.I believe morals are based on individual thought and learning. Since we are calling these morals we find them different per individual. Morals lead us as the person but do not guide the nation or society. The nation and society overrides personal moral by creation of law. What I am discussing is not selfish at all. What I believe is moral or not does not matter with regard to the nation or society. I as you yield our personal moral code up to live in this nation or society and live by it's laws and legal system. Some religions say divorce is wrong and immoral. The law of the land says divorce is legal and so the law of the land wins. Yes the people in the marriage may find this goes against their faith but none the less the law overrides the moral belief orf both or one party and the divorce happens. This just shows that morals as personal belief do not matter in the larger spectrum of the society.
Society and how we're raised are both outside forces.Morality is a personal and subjective thing. It's shaped by a number of things, including how we were raised, and the society we live in, but ultimately it's personal. There is no outside force that determines it.
Yes they are like individuals and their moralities are all different. This would be to say morality is in flux or not a specific standard for all.How many different countries are on this world? Like I said earlier, societies are much like individuals.
I believe morals are based on individual thought and learning.
Since we are calling these morals we find them different per individual. Morals lead us as the person but do not guide the nation or society. The nation and society overrides personal moral by creation of law. What I am discussing is not selfish at all.
This is true and even this basis for morality is inconsistent from one book to another. It makes it difficult to see if there ever has been a built in moral compass or one which had evolved. One the natural was perverted by teaching we lost any sense of the natural. It will never be sorted out until we all stop trying to lay our ideals on others as the only answer or way out.The problem with morality in monotheistic societies is that any kind of imagined "natural" morality long ago became extinct and was replaced by a religious morality taken verbatim from an old book. If and how any society/culture can dig itself out of the abyss that is monotheistic religious based morality remains to be seen......................
Your premiss for morals would require everyone to be live as you do.
Yes a different law wins and that is the law of a faith which would force them to live in misery rather than be free to love again and maybe find joy. They have chosen a different law. The basis you go on is that both are guided by this faith. The only losers in your scenario are the man and woman who would rather live a life tied to someone they do not love rather than break so arbitrary religious rule.What if a couple has a terrible marriage and they're both very unhappy, but they stay together purely because they both believe divorce is immoral? In that case, the law doesn't win. There are infinite other examples.
This is true and even this basis for morality is inconsistent from one book to another. It makes it difficult to see if there ever has been a built in moral compass or one which had evolved. One the natural was perverted by teaching we lost any sense of the natural. It will never be sorted out until we all stop trying to lay our ideals on others as the only answer or way out.
All I said was that some morality was embodied in law and others aren't. That was a response to the OP. However, I should note that most laws are not immoral but there are exceptions.Some morality may match with law. This is true but morality does not make the laws. The reason is moral is changeable and subject to a persons own learned belief system.
All I said was that some morality was embodied in law and others aren't. That was a response to the OP.
I've now read through this thread - to this point, at least - and I've always agreed that morality is determined by society and that individuals have their own morals on top of that, some of which conflict with societal mores. For example, stealing is generally immoral to society (and almost always illegal) but many people don't see a poor, starving person stealing food or a homeless person squatting in an empty building to get out of the cold as immoral.
Who said anything about religious rules? They could both be atheists. The law loses.Yes a different law wins and that is the law of a faith which would force them to live in misery rather than be free to love again and maybe find joy. They have chosen a different law. The basis you go on is that both are guided by this faith. The only losers in your scenario are the man and woman who would rather live a life tied to someone they do not love rather than break so arbitrary religious rule.
I agree that morality goes out the window for the overall population but morality certainly is pertinent to your individual social group(s). Break the morals of the group and you may get shunned.Morality is individual and nothing more. They are beliefs any person may have or not have depending on what they have learned or experienced. They in essence do not exist beyond an individuals thoughts. Laws are the governing factor in a society. These laws make individual morals obsolete. If society were based on morals it would be in chaos as we all believe differently. Even based on religion everyone does not follow every rule in their bible. Foe every religion there is a different god or goddess. We can't even say their is one. So the legal system steps in and determines what will function as law and this is the guide for the nation. Everyone must conform to this legal standard and not what they personally believe. There fore morality goes out the window and law takes its place.
This is true and even this basis for morality is inconsistent from one book to another. It makes it difficult to see if there ever has been a built in moral compass or one which had evolved. One the natural was perverted by teaching we lost any sense of the natural. It will never be sorted out until we all stop trying to lay our ideals on others as the only answer or way out.
Yes they are like individuals and their moralities are all different. This would be to say morality is in flux or not a specific standard for all.
I'm not confusing anything. A lot of people believe breaking the law to "not die" is not immoral.They don't? Why?
You appear to be doing exactly what I described above. You're confusing need with morality.
The poor man is not excluded by morality simply because he is poor and in need. The moral thing to do is help the poor man, but in turn the moral thing for the poor man to do is not to steal from everyone else to get the help he needs. Why would someone think that something is different for him?
I'm not confusing anything. A lot of people believe breaking the law to "not die" is not immoral.
Ideally, of course..........But none of us have ever lived in a vaccuum and the fact remains that our predecessors, whether yesterday or 2,000 years ago, opted for a manner of behaviour that made a lifestyle out of "laying their ideals on others as the ultimate answer". I guess my point is: People didn't "evolve" into moral beings-----They degenerated into a raving mob of demented sidedrooling control freaks............I'm not sure I "believe" that type of affliction can be cured, not to appear overly pessimistic...................
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?