h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Allright everybody, lets try and get a little bit of direction here. Within about a week we have picked up about 20 new people in this conversation and we need something to talk about that is not 42 and has not been discussed since post 1.

Here is a good question for you guys,

--What are morals?--

hope this gets some of you older posters back, fnord, az, I miss you guys.

Morals are a set of personal rules.

They are normally Empirically learned.

They vary according to race, percieved gender. economic rating, ethnic backgroundand and educational status.

As such, it is a very open subject.

Was that the point?

Morals aren't always empirically learnt, and they're not always personal. Whole groups of people hold the same beliefs in morals. There's certain different ways of deciding moral situations: Deontological, which holds that an action is either good or bad by itself; Teleological, which judges an action by its consequences; Egoistic morals means that whatever you think is right is right; normative ethics means the study of ethical statements; meta-ethics asks why we think this; etc etc. The list goes on. The question is an already dead one, I'm afraid.

hi N1NJ4,



It's nice to be missed, thanks. I've been mostly lurking here these days. Don't feel like I have much to add.

az

I was only replying to an attempt to start a conversation.

I am open to any subject.

You have made an interesting point, learnedly so.

As a mere Nurse, much of Technical Philosophy is beyond me.

What of the Epicureans?

Nothing is beyond you just because of your calling in life!
What of the Epicureans? They are as interesting a moral and physical philosophy I've come across, is all.

Are morals always learnt or is there some set of right or wrong?
Is everything we believe in based on what we have been told? And if it is, havn't we only been told that??

*rubs eyes and sais whaaa? while checking screen again*

Is that really you fnord? I wondered how you sounded like you had been here so long when you appeared to be a noob.

Shh... keep it hushed up.... I'm trying to turn over a new leaf, sorta thing...

"Are morals always learnt or is there some set of right or wrong?"
Do you mean is there some accepted set of independent, objective rule for right and wrong? According to my philosophical stance, I'm tempted to tell you that there's no objective morals, since they're all learnt from nurture-complexes, and vary from culture to culture; however, since the Earth is just one big culture, some things seem universally un/acceptable to all cultures. However, I'd rather you found out yourself.

I don't believe morals can be objective as they are created by humans within a specific society.

It would be hard to know whether humans before they created societies had any morals as this would not have been documented. But it was probably something that slowly grew out of how people wanted to be treated themselves.

maybe.

az

Doubtless Atilla the Hun wanted foreigners to rape and pillage and sweep through his tribesmen as if they were grass...
They all had morals, because humans in their present form are a communal creature. Whether the community is the tribe, the nation, or simply the family, there are accepted rules which call for respect of those in the community but not necessarily outside it. Humans aren't well designed to survive individually, and if they break the accepted boundaries they'd be forced.

Still, I think I have my own personal set of morals that have partly to do with the society I live in and also partly to do with my own personal beliefs. And also to do with who I am.

I don't ever accept a blanket morality concept.

az

Who you are and your personal beliefs rely on and come from your culture and family.

Ah, the ever argumentable topic of morallity! I was just dangerously sticking my neck out in the religious argument, so why not! You're all right, people's current morals are inherited from there social surroundings, their parents mainly, and no, a blanket morality does not exist, this conversation needs controversy. I propose that a blanket morallity is not only possible, but ABSOLUTELY MANDATORY for the evolution ot the human race. I also propose that the criteria be, the (sometimes simple, sometimes not) comparison of whether a thing is beneficial or deterimental to the evolution of the human race. I think there is much work to be done in this area.

SS,

You cannot create controversy by simply stating a few things that you know most people won't agree with.

While I might take the time to debate with someone who truly believed that a blanket morality was mandatory, I cannot pretend to argue with someone who is only pretending to take this stance for the benefit of argument.

Argument for arguments sake is not interesting. At least, not to me.

az

Although there is no such thing as a blanket morality the same themes in moral rules occur across all cultures, suggesting that they have some basis in human nature. Despite this a universal morality is unlikely because all rules are open ended, and if acheived would lead to moral stagnation in the face of new moral issues.

Morality can be neither Absolute, nor Arbitrary.

Noggin

Took the words right out of my mouth!

Morals are, basically, evolved rules of common sense. It is immoral to steal things. We say this now, but in the days of the proverbial caveman, stealing was not such a good idea, because if you got caught, you might get your head bashed in. Stealig when you were certain you wouldn't get caught was a biggie in those days, I imagine, as it is these days.
We have morals because we want to be safe. We have a civlisation because we have morals. We can count on not being mugged at every corner. We have policeforces to enforce this. We have courts and prisons to use when muggings happen and the culprits have been caught.
All nice and good, but basically it is a rule we have just because it is a good idea to ban stealing.

About the evolution thing: Civilisations tend to halt evolution, not encourage it. If we wanted to go faster in the days when we had to run, muscles and tendons and length of legs would get bigger. If we want to go faster these days, we buy a faster car.
As a result we get fatter, so perhaps evolution will kick in and adjust our digestive system to break down hamburgers without getting fatter and fatter...