Theli

A pretty simple question actually...
What is the priority for a common moral code - a perfect functioning society, or the wellfare of every person living in it.

First off, to bounce off some questions and remarks that might be brought up:
1. Both goals are virtually impossible to fully reach, but the closer we get the better.
2. Alot of choices gain both goals, but some requires us to choose between them.
3. The moral code (in this example) is independent of personal reference, if you steal money for your own sake that is considered wrong regardless of your excuses.

Or does a common moral code have a totally different goal? Fire away!

[ December 22, 2002: Message edited by: Theli ]</p>

bd-from-kg

[Deleted double post]

[ December 22, 2002: Message edited by: bd-from-kg ]</p>

bd-from-kg

Theli:
This is hardly a "simple" question. In fact, it's a very confused question.

First off, by asking the question you're presuming that there is an answer - i.e., an "objectively correct" answer. Otherwise the appropriate question to ask is "What do you give a higher priority to?", not "What is the priority...?"

It also involves a subtle self-contradiction. By referring to "a" moral code rather than "the true" moral code, it assumes moral relativism. But the only reasonable way to construe the question is "What ought to be the priority...", which again is only meaningful if there is an objectively correct answer. But there can only be an objectively correct answer if there is an objective morality.

Make up your mind. If you're a moral relativist, ask "What would you prefer to be the main priority in setting up (or evaluating) a "moral code" for a society? If you're an objectivist, ask "Which is objectively more important: a well-functioning society, or the welfare of the people living in it (or something else)?"

Wiploc

We can see what the goal *ought* to be by setting aside the bit about moral codes and just asking which is better, an orderly society of unhappy people, or a disorderly society full of happy people. We ought to prefer the happy people. In fact, that is why we want order, in order to get the happyness.

As to what the actual goal of a moral system is, I guess that depends on who makes the system. If it's made by the inventor of hellfire, then obviously its purpose is something other than happyness.
crc

Theli

bd-from-kg...
Well, yes and no. It's kind of like the question "What is time?". A very precise and simple question, but almost impossible to answer. Actually, I think you approached the question right, I wasn't looking for (neither did I wan't) a direct choice A or B answer, but rather a reflection on the dilemma. Moving on...

I don't know if "correct" can be applied when it comes to a moral goal, it can only be applied to actions leading to that goal. What I was looking for was in fact opinions, what should we as a society prioritize? There has been alot of topics on this forum that touched this question. I admit that the question was poorly stated, it was late at night and I was running a fever when I wrote it.

You might not have noticed that I used the word "common", as in common for all. Weither this choice is presented to us through laws, human rights or 10 commandments is irrelavent.

No need to get mad, I have corrected the question and I hope you'll answer again.

wiploc...
I don't understand what you mean here...
Are you saying that a common moral code must be static and unchangable, and that we should abandon it for a while if it doesn't correlate to our sense of right? I would think that we ought to change it if it doesn't mirror our "right". And ofcourse we should keep both goals, the question was about priority.

I tend to agree with this, yet alot of people on this board have brought up opinions that would suggest the other answer.

I would think that [b]we]/b] make the system, so we should decide on it's priority.

Jamie_L

Seems to me like a perfectly functioning society is one which provides for the welfare of every person living in it (where welfare includes the emotional state of all involved, i.e. everyone is happy). I would even say that is the definition of a perfectly funtioning society.

So, I would say the answer to your question is "both". Anything that seems to make you choose is actually a reflection of how far we are from either objective.

Jamie

Infinity Lover

I think no one is worth more or less than anyone else.

Off course one could say the 'bad apples of the bunch' are of lesser value, but ultimately the bad in society is also of value as a lesson to learn from.

Perhaps not thinking in terms of priority, but starting out with the notion that nobody is more entitled to their place in this world than anybody else, is as good a place as any to start looking at how to exersize one's right to exist.

idiom

The best society is the one in which I am totally happy.
So what happens if I enjoy everybody else being miserable or dead?

Infinity Lover

I guess that's where my previous post comes in.
You're not more entitled to being happy than others. So in this case your sociopath attitude would be ample reason to seek professional help...

...or at least bullshit yourself into believing everybody hates being happy.

idiom

Why not? I might be "fitter" than you no? Therefore my survival/happiness is possibly more important than yours.

Also if nobody is entitled to be happier than others then what do you do when the conditions for two people being happy are mutually exclusive? If, for example, my happiness required your deadness but your happiness required your vitality then when cant both be happy at the same time. So which one of us gets to be happy if we are both equal?