Is the following reasonable? If so/not, why?
Source: Morality is inherent only among non-innocent creatures--that is those with full self-awareness.
Authority: If (since) a necessarily laissez-faire, or non-existent, God will not hand us a moral code on a platter in order to enable the exercise of our moral free will with complete autonomy, any moral code must be its own universal authority. From prehistory forward, moral authority has progressed from the family/clan, through religious taboo and finally to government law. We can use government corruption as an excuse to undermine that law and regress back to a more local chaotic anarchy where might makes right; or we can rationally determine a universal simple/limited moral code that governs human interactions alone.
Enforcement: From there, enforcement of such a limited code is much simpler than the irrational, chaotic, double standard, ever changing tentacles of the corrupt legal behemoths we have now. And enforcement must have justice as it's ultimate goal if that comes in conflict with protecting the sanctity of the law--which its self-serving practitioners tend to protect beyond reason.
Morality: Its source/authority/enforcement
Moderator: Moderators
-
ThePainefulTruth
- Sage
- Posts: 841
- Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 9:47 am
- Location: Arizona
Post #51
The argument about abortion and life beginning at conception doesnt work. If we follow that argument, then life begins at the sperm and egg. We can define life anywhere we like along that spectrum, and nowhere in the universe is it written.
"None, though the closer they are to full self-awareness, and allowing that it's hard for us to put a fine point on it given our limited ability to communicate with them, I believe some deserve legal protection of their life and liberty to the maximum extent possible--as a guiding principle to navigate this grey area. "
We have no justification to use our flavor of self awareness as the yardstick by which all the others are measured. Indeed, such self awareness has brought us great power, but power does not equal justification. There have been many peer reviewed animal studies about morality, reconciliation, fairness, reciprocity, and even Theory of Mind in many different species of a animals. In other words, we have no justification to be speciesist.
"None, though the closer they are to full self-awareness, and allowing that it's hard for us to put a fine point on it given our limited ability to communicate with them, I believe some deserve legal protection of their life and liberty to the maximum extent possible--as a guiding principle to navigate this grey area. "
We have no justification to use our flavor of self awareness as the yardstick by which all the others are measured. Indeed, such self awareness has brought us great power, but power does not equal justification. There have been many peer reviewed animal studies about morality, reconciliation, fairness, reciprocity, and even Theory of Mind in many different species of a animals. In other words, we have no justification to be speciesist.
"Behold! A Man!" ~ Diogenes, my Hero.
-
ThePainefulTruth
- Sage
- Posts: 841
- Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 9:47 am
- Location: Arizona
Post #52
I don't believe anything is "written" except natural law in the fabric of the universe--that's the only "Word of God", if God exists. But that sidesteps the issue anyway, which is when do we acquire the right to life? The claim that it starts at conception is bogus because it doesn't even have a foundation in the Bible. It's merely the declaration, once again, of those who claim to speak for God.sickles wrote: The argument about abortion and life beginning at conception doesnt work. If we follow that argument, then life begins at the sperm and egg. We can define life anywhere we like along that spectrum, and nowhere in the universe is it written.
The power of full self-awareness is not only the ability to override our instincts thorough will, it forms our inherent moral awareness by our being unable to avoid knowing how our actions affect others, because that awareness makes us aware that the pain and pleasure we cause in others is the same as ours. It is the sole foundation of our interactive morality."None, though the closer they are to full self-awareness, and allowing that it's hard for us to put a fine point on it given our limited ability to communicate with them, I believe some deserve legal protection of their life and liberty to the maximum extent possible--as a guiding principle to navigate this grey area. "
We have no justification to use our flavor of self awareness as the yardstick by which all the others are measured. Indeed, such self awareness has brought us great power, but power does not equal justification. There have been many peer reviewed animal studies about morality, reconciliation, fairness, reciprocity, and even Theory of Mind in many different species of a animals. In other words, we have no justification to be speciesist.
It isn't our particular "flavor" of self-awareness, ours is the only full self-awareness, at least so far.
BTW, animism is a flawed philosophy anyway. Yes, we can remove ourselves from the food chain (albeit with an unknown detriment to our health), but it still exists with all it's wide variety of predators. If they use the same "yardstick" as us, shouldn't those predators not be condemned for the immorality of their predation as well? If not, why not?
Post #53
[Replying to post 51 by ThePainefulTruth]
"except natural law in the fabric of the universe"
Do you mean the cosmological constants?
"which is when do we acquire the right to life"
When one is capable of living here, of course. Which, for most people, is at birth.
"The power of full self-awareness is not only the ability to override our instincts thorough will"
I would not say that "ability" to consider our instincts sometimes instead of being ruled by the all the time is due to "self awareness" , according to your definition. I am more familiar with the oxford dictionary definition of self awareness. The fact remains that , regardless of our claims at "self awareness, other socially complex animals such as ourselves are taking in new information from others. This forces us to only "consider" our instincts some of the time. Indeed, there are times when the human animal is completely rules by the passions "instinct". According to my argument on my other post, the act of exchanging information , even in a simple way as speaking is usually a desirable moral action for animals like us.
"it forms our inherent moral awareness by our being unable to avoid knowing how our actions affect others"
but exceptions abound with people ignoring the actions of others, and yet they shrug off claims of traditional immorality. There are also plenty of exceptions of peoples inherent moral awarenesses being mistaken and leading the owner to ultimately traditionally immoral behavior and outcomes.
" because that awareness makes us aware that the pain and pleasure we cause in others is the same as ours"
Are you aware of how common sociopaths are?
"It isn't our particular "flavor" of self-awareness, ours is the only full self-awareness, at least so far."
yes, this is your claim. But I have yet to see justification for labeling our awareness as "full"
"BTW, animism is a flawed philosophy anyway."
Well thanks for sharing. Monotheism is intellectually dishonest, and pantheism is intellectually lazy. Pick your poison.
"If they use the same "yardstick" as us, shouldn't those predators not be condemned for the immorality of their predation as well? If not, why not?"
They dont use the same yardstick. They are trying to enact the same desired result. Which is survivability in groups. The impulse is the same. And the impulse is enacted through the context of the situation. This context includes what species the group is. So what is moral for groups of lions is not necessarily moral for groups of men. SUch as killing your rivals cubs so you can screw his ex wife.
"except natural law in the fabric of the universe"
Do you mean the cosmological constants?
"which is when do we acquire the right to life"
When one is capable of living here, of course. Which, for most people, is at birth.
"The power of full self-awareness is not only the ability to override our instincts thorough will"
I would not say that "ability" to consider our instincts sometimes instead of being ruled by the all the time is due to "self awareness" , according to your definition. I am more familiar with the oxford dictionary definition of self awareness. The fact remains that , regardless of our claims at "self awareness, other socially complex animals such as ourselves are taking in new information from others. This forces us to only "consider" our instincts some of the time. Indeed, there are times when the human animal is completely rules by the passions "instinct". According to my argument on my other post, the act of exchanging information , even in a simple way as speaking is usually a desirable moral action for animals like us.
"it forms our inherent moral awareness by our being unable to avoid knowing how our actions affect others"
but exceptions abound with people ignoring the actions of others, and yet they shrug off claims of traditional immorality. There are also plenty of exceptions of peoples inherent moral awarenesses being mistaken and leading the owner to ultimately traditionally immoral behavior and outcomes.
" because that awareness makes us aware that the pain and pleasure we cause in others is the same as ours"
Are you aware of how common sociopaths are?
"It isn't our particular "flavor" of self-awareness, ours is the only full self-awareness, at least so far."
yes, this is your claim. But I have yet to see justification for labeling our awareness as "full"
"BTW, animism is a flawed philosophy anyway."
Well thanks for sharing. Monotheism is intellectually dishonest, and pantheism is intellectually lazy. Pick your poison.
"If they use the same "yardstick" as us, shouldn't those predators not be condemned for the immorality of their predation as well? If not, why not?"
They dont use the same yardstick. They are trying to enact the same desired result. Which is survivability in groups. The impulse is the same. And the impulse is enacted through the context of the situation. This context includes what species the group is. So what is moral for groups of lions is not necessarily moral for groups of men. SUch as killing your rivals cubs so you can screw his ex wife.
"Behold! A Man!" ~ Diogenes, my Hero.
-
ThePainefulTruth
- Sage
- Posts: 841
- Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 9:47 am
- Location: Arizona
Post #54
[Replying to post 52 by sickles]
It all boils down to "I want, therefore I will justify stifling the guilt I should feel for killing him", or whatever. They get much
better at it over time, to the point where they become sociopaths and don't feel anything at all. Yes some sociopaths become so due to the conditions they were raised under--but there are plenty who were raised under the same conditions and didn't go over to the dark side.
It all boils down to "I want, therefore I will justify stifling the guilt I should feel for killing him", or whatever. They get much
better at it over time, to the point where they become sociopaths and don't feel anything at all. Yes some sociopaths become so due to the conditions they were raised under--but there are plenty who were raised under the same conditions and didn't go over to the dark side.
