By what standard do you measure right and wrong...or do you?

[tcay584]

Just curious,
Ok, Ok, Ok, I'm an avowed christian. I am genuinely curious as to how those of another thought pattern develop their sense of right and wrong. What standard do you hold yourselves to, and why?

[mrmufin]

With everyone using their own internal moral-o-meter, blind obedience could be eliminated. Things like the Holocaust could have been prevented.

You are assuming the moral-o-meter is the same for every person.

Not necessarily. At least that isn't the impression that I got from that statement...

This moral-o-meter could be very easily tweaked by outside forces. Then once your moral-o-meter is off how do we tell what real morals are?

I kindly suggest that you just mind your own moral-O-meter.

Most criminals do not see anything wrong with their actions. Should we consider this right because their moral-o-meter is off?

If most criminals don't see anything wrong with their actions, than why do most criminals try to hide their criminal activity? To further avoid the dilemma you describe, we could establish a system of law and justice which respect human liberty and dignity. How's that for a start? As to whose version of liberty and dignity the system is based upon... well, I think that government works best when it operates with the consent of the governed. But I am sorta shootin' from the hip on this one. Any better ideas out there?

Whose moral-o-meter is right mine or theirs?

Both! Neither! Some! Twelve! Marvin! Plaid! When in doubt, mind your own moral-o-meter.

This whole moral-o-meter thing just sounds like another way of saying moral relativism.

Yes! Isn't that terrific?

Regards,
mrmufin

[TQWcS]

Both! Neither! Some! Twelve! Marvin! Plaid! When in doubt, mind your own moral-o-meter.

If no one and everyone is right does that mean that no one and everyone is wrong?

If most criminals don't see anything wrong with their actions, than why do most criminals try to hide their criminal activity?

Same reason they run when the cops that are chasing them. So they don't get caught. This has nothing to do with them seeing the act as morally wrong. It just means that they see this action has unwanted consequences.[/quote]

[mrmufin]

If no one and everyone is right does that mean that no one and everyone is wrong?

Possibly; but not necessarily. I guess that would depend on whose moral-o-meter was being read. When in doubt, mind your own moral-o-meter.

If most criminals don't see anything wrong with their actions, than why do most criminals try to hide their criminal activity?

Same reason they run when the cops that are chasing them. So they don't get caught. This has nothing to do with them seeing the act as morally wrong. It just means that they see this action has unwanted consequences.

Whether or not to heed the laws established by government, is sort a values call in and of itself, isn't it? But criminal --at least in this context-- gets its drama as a legal term, rather than a moral stance. Unless, of course, you make no distinction between criminal activity and immoral behavior. If that's the case, feel free to describe all the moral splendor of the millions of lines of US Tax Code.

Regards,
mrmufin

[TQWcS]

Whether or not to heed the laws established by government, is sort a values call in and of itself, isn't it? But criminal --at least in this context-- gets its drama as a legal term, rather than a moral stance. Unless, of course, you make no distinction between criminal activity and immoral behavior. If that's the case, feel free to describe all the moral splendor of the millions of lines of US Tax Code.

By no means are all laws based on morals. I was not trying to argue that morals and laws are one and the same.

Possibly; but not necessarily. I guess that would depend on whose moral-o-meter was being read. When in doubt, mind your own moral-o-meter.

Why should I mind my own moral-o-meter? Don't tell me there wasn't a time when you moral-o-meter broke down... When you couldn't see the numbers on it and you had to guess. Wouldn't it be nice to have a nice objective handbook for everyone to have? Just in case that moral-o-meter broke down, you were installed with a flawed one, your settings get changed?

By the way I think we are wearing this moral-o-meter thing out!

[BeHereNow]

Wouldn't it be nice to have a nice objective handbook for everyone to have?

I know such claims are made for the Qu’ran, Book of Mormon, and other religious documents, but I find the claims dubious at best.
Is there perhaps a particular document you could defend as being objective?

[tcay584]

With everyone using their own internal moral-o-meter, blind obedience could be eliminated. Things like the Holocaust could have been prevented.

[

If you believe that, then how do you explain the Milliken experiments (I think that's the right name)? And how do you get everyone to actually use that moral conscience without enacting laws that say they must? If you pass that law, you're telling people that they must examine their conscience. Are you not asking them to blindly obey you and use their conscience?

To further avoid the dilemma you describe, we could establish a system of law and justice which respect human liberty and dignity. How's that for a start? As to whose version of liberty and dignity the system is based upon... well, I think that government works best when it operates with the consent of the governed.

But you will always have some element within the governed who believe that they are being unfairly forced to adhere to the values/morals/standards of others. Why must I respect your liberty and dignity if I don't wish to (or worse, if I don't see anything there worthy of respect)? This is why human based system of right and wrong gets us into trouble...it's too subjective.

[Vianne]

Well, I think it's fairly simple.

Strive to do no harm. That won't always be possible, but it will always guide you in the right direction.

Killing someone ends a life and creates tidal waves of grief in that person's loved ones. It will also cause you to become more calloused, and possibly wind you up in prison, ruining your career opportunities for life. Additionally, your family members and friends will have to live with your reputation and the fact that they're connected to you, which will cause them pain. Killing harms. It's wrong.

Having a stern discussion with a friend who is developing a drinking problem may upset that friend at the time, but he or she will at least have a seed planted to remind them, you know what, someone thinks I have a problem. That discussion helps. It's right.

Are we so morally bankrupt that we really need some book to lay out for us what's right and what isn't? Personally ... I don't.

Vianne

[mrmufin]

To further avoid the dilemma you describe, we could establish a system of law and justice which respect human liberty and dignity. How's that for a start? As to whose version of liberty and dignity the system is based upon... well, I think that government works best when it operates with the consent of the governed.

But you will always have some element within the governed who believe that they are being unfairly forced to adhere to the values/morals/standards of others.

If we'll always have some element within the governed who think that they're being treated unfairly, how can any system escape that problem?

Why must I respect your liberty and dignity if I don't wish to (or worse, if I don't see anything there worthy of respect)?

Maybe because you would like your liberty and dignity respected by others and doing so is a fair quid pro quo?

This is why human based system of right and wrong gets us into trouble...it's too subjective.

What non-human system do you propose which avoids that problem?

Regards,
mrmufin

[Vianne]

These people are assuming that morals are 100% inborn which I believe is absurd.

What does it take to see that causing pain is bad? Does that require anything complicated?

Vianne

[Jose]

These people are assuming that morals are 100% inborn which I believe is absurd.

Which people do you mean? I've presented evidence for a genetic and evolutionary origin for moral behavior, perhaps more loudly than anyone else, but I never implied that morals are 100% inborn for us, and wholly immutable. They may be for animals that cannot reason the way we do, but certainly we are able to learn and change our views of what constitutes "morality."

Your sentiment has come up before (perhaps in another thread). I think there's a general misconception that if something is genetically-coded, we have no choice but to do what our genes tell us. That may be true for something like eye color, but it certainly isn't true for behavior. Think of the genetic basis--the inborn part of morality--as a predisposition. Religious teachings help to reinforce this predisposition, and may help to guide those whose inborn morality is at the low end of the scale (since anything genetic must be variable, given the nature of mutation).

For others, religious teachings aren't necessary. We may have developed our sense of morality in the total absence of religion, and without any particular concentrated effort from our schools or even our parents.

Why must I respect your liberty and dignity if I don't wish to (or worse, if I don't see anything there worthy of respect)?

This is pretty much what our constitution is supposed to prevent. There's this notion that "all men are created equal" and should, therefore, deserve equal rights (and equal respect). Those who intentionally break laws require some kind of restraint, but for those who follow the norms of behavior, we should offer respect. To choose not to becomes somewhat tricky, since you have to decide what your criteria will be. Historically, those criteria have too often been different religion, different ethnic group, different skin color, different gender, etc.--none of which, in my opinion, are valid reasons. Yet, these kinds of criteria can become enforced as part of a religious code that its followers adhere to blindly. Define "the others" as bad guys, who do not deserve our respect, who do not deserve liberty or dignity, and we get....well, a lot of human history.