Silent Acorns

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. As far as I'm concerned, morals and ethics are attempts to determine whether or not any given choice/decision is good or bad. We are responsible for our actions to the extent that we can choose to do them and forsee the concequences.

If I understand you correctly, then I would say "yes", it's all about choices. What else is there?

dk

Actually I did.

Q1. What is needed to form a moral code?
A1. People need a moral form to lead a meaningful life. Morality governs human conduct so people can understand themselves and others, and direct their efforts accordingly. Morality is derived from the concept of Nature Law that resonates from an innate aesthetic understanding of what should be, or suitable for a good life. So what's needed to form a moral code? A nuclear family, which by the way must be the basic unit of civilization.

That being the case Empathy is meaningful but as an element of, not a basis for Moral Law. For example a mass murderer might irrationally kill his victims because of a false notion of empathy. In fact that's exactly what the most prolific mass murders over the last 30 years in the US and Britian have claimed. They were doctors and nurses that claimed to be putting sick people out of their misery, out of what can only be construed as a false sense of empathy.

callmejay

I don't have some high-falutin' moral code, I just try to do what I think is right in any given situation. (Except when I feel like being immoral.) Codes are for societies, not people. (Unless you're anal and really want one. Which is fine.)

Rusting Car Bumper

I didn't ask that question.

What is "moral form"? In any case this doesn't answer either qusetion.


You said "morality" not "moral code."

DC

stilus

To DK: I am amazed at the amount of certainty you seem to have about difficult things like morality, like it is some kind of absolute. As far as I know, even the universe is not Permanent and Absolute, ever changing like all in it, but somehow this “Morality” escapes the very nature of our universe...?. I can't help think about something I read when I read this: "If you must label the absolute, use it’s proper name: Temporary” (Frank Herbert)

I must also admit to a combination of sadness and amusement, when I see people rethinking morality, moving away from a definition based upon Godly Law, and stepping right in to one of the many traps that mostly Christian thinkers have had time to create, test, adjust and refine for the last 20 centuries.

Who said that moral (= good) behaviour, should be about altruism? DK seems to agree with popular thought, when he says
.

good=altruistic? Is it?

And if you say this DK, could it be that empathy, despite what you say elsewhere, IS the basis of your definition of good/moral behaviour, because the word implies that “People can understand(/feel) themselves and one another”?

To Meritocrat: I do not know what is needed to from a moral code, much less one based on empathy. Speaking for myself: I do not trust my empathy enough to base more than the casual niceties on it.

My own moral laws, which I use to try to govern myself, are based on the facts that:
A) I am human, and as such prone to violence;
B) I am sensitive to the pressures of the herd and my own ‘pack of wolves’;
C) I am thinking first about the survival, pleasure and collecting of things for myself and those around me and maybe somewhere on a gut-level about the survival of the species.

Knowing this, I try to control my violence, I try to feel the undercurrents of the herd and the pack and get very much self-esteem and pleasure from doing things for others, partly even because it makes me feel superior to those who don’t. This is all very much a rational thing, and as such indeed governed by choice and volition.

Selfishness is so strong (as you yourself seem to know if I understand your “dishonesty” to mean: “I do things the way I like them, I say things as I see them or as benefits me, even if others disagree or it does not agree with the facts”.), so why not establish your moral code based on that?

PS: lying to yourself or others about the facts as they are is in my opinion not so much a “immoral” thing to do, as well as simply not good for your own (mental) health.

dk

Some people say Governments govern people's conduct with laws derived from experience (culture, opinion makers, social science...). Here’s the argument…

1. Quebee. How can anyone plausibly know what should be in a Future where, short of being omnipotent, nobody knows the Future?
2. Soubee: Over time Man has evolved the knowledge to determine what should be?
3. Quebee: So knowledge has become omnipotent?
4. Soubee: No, No, knowledge isn’t omnipotent, Governments use knowledge to govern people.
5. Quebee: Then government has become omnipotent?
6. Soubee, No, No, governments are composed of 3 branches, each branch composed of law makers, executives and judges that do the “will of people?
7. Quebee, I don’t understand. First it was man, then knowledge, then governments, then branches and now it’s the “will of the people”. So the “will of the people” is omnipotent?
8. Soubee, No, No the Will of the people isn’t omnipotent, the government sends people to schools where they acquire knowledge.
9. Quebee: So it’s the schools that are omnipotent?
10. Soulbee, No, No, schools aren’t omnipotent, they are merely conduits that relay the science of knowledge to students.
11. Quebee, Ohhh, so science is omnipotent?
12. Soulbee, Yes, that’s right, well not exactly omnipotent, you see science explains what’s real from what only appears to be real, so people can understand they should be.
13. Quebee: So what’s real is omnipotent?
14. Soubee: No, No what’s real depends upon what a person’s perspective.
15. Quebee: So perspective is omnipotent?
16. Soubee: No, No everyone’s perspective differs according to their will, and what’s real for one person can be transparent to another?
17. Quebee: So what’s moral for one person should be immoral for someone else, and visa versa, because what should be must be real, and what’s real is determined by science. Right?
18. Soubee: Sorry Quebee, I’m out of time, to know what’s real you need to go to school for many, many years, and then you will become an expert, and experts know what’s real, but only in their small area of expertise.
19. Quebee: So experts are omnipotent?
20. Soubee: Well not omnipotent, experts appeal to the government for money, and the government grants their request if the "people will it", they the scientist tries to find what’s real.
21. Quebee: Ok, let me see if I have this straight. Schools tell people what they should be, science tells schools what they should be, then people tell government what they should be, and government tells science what they should be, is that right. Isn’t that a circle with everybody telling everybody else what they should be?
22. Soubee: That’s a good point, but then the news people watch what everybody whose anybody does and says. Then they report to everybody what people did wrong, so that people know what to tell other people they should be. So you see that’s how morality works. bye, bye, its all relative… you should go now.

Donnmathan

Stilus, I think that your letter C is the most often overlooked, yet single most important basis for morality. Most people base their concepts of right and wrong around a religion, or culture, or family teaching; this results in there being almost as many different moral codes as there are people. The effort to reconcile these is the cause of the bulk of violent human interaction (IMHO). To actually accomplish this, I think we need to scrap everything and start over with one concept that is common to all: survival instinct.

Those at the lowest rung of the moral ladder recognize that and only that; they place no value at all on anyone else as a being, and therefore feel free to do pretty much whatever it takes to satisfy their own needs. Every step above that involves the acceptance of a larger group as being part of, or essential to, the individual, and therefore covered by that individual's survival and self-preservation instincts. Most seem to top out at a large group (religious body, boy scouts, US Navy, etc.) or nation, while some manage to go further and some never even get that far. The point is, when you see that group as a part of yourself, then it's health/well-being/happiness/survival are important to you.

Of course, that analogy is drasticly over-simplified, as some people add to their concept of morality in fits and starts, or based on individuals rather than groups, but it is a start....

dk

stilus: To DK: I am amazed at the amount of certainty you seem to have about difficult things like morality, like it is some kind of absolute. As far as I know, even the universe is not Permanent and Absolute, ever changing like all in it, but somehow this “Morality” escapes the very nature of our universe...?. I can't help think about something I read when I read this: "If you must label the absolute, use it’s proper name: Temporary” (Frank Herbert)
dk: Christianity (the NT) teaches God wrote (I paraphrase) the law on the hearts of all men, and that men who know not the law but abide in the law become a law unto themselves.
The problem isn’t Absolutes but explaining how one thing becomes another. I agree the Universe isn’t an absolute, because only a First Cause can possibly be absolute, and upon which everything else dependent.
Frank Herbert (Dunne Trilogy) was a monist that believed despite appearances everything in the universe was only one thing, that one thing being everything. In a monistic reality change can’t really exist, because essentially everything is one thing that only appears to be many things. Christianity teaches a plural reality, where the universe is finite and contingent upon God, first cause and unmoved mover. Its altogether Christian to say nothing in the Universe is absolute because everything is finite. The Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit have one nature, one being with three persons. You might want to read some of Aquinas’ Summa Theologica. I would also recommend Norman L. Geisler’s Thomas Aquinas An Evangelical Approach and G. K. Chesterton’s book Saint Thomas Aquinas/the Dumb Ox.

stilus: I must also admit to a combination of sadness and amusement, when I see people rethinking morality, moving away from a definition based upon Godly Law, and stepping right in to one of the many traps that mostly Christian thinkers have had time to create, test, adjust and refine for the last 20 centuries.
dk: To my knowledge there’s nothing contrary to Christianity in my compiler analogy, I simply provided an analogy based on computer language. Computers are simple machines people talk to with programming languages. People to People communication while more, much more complex requires all kinds of rules that express the fullness of human nature. In theological terms there’s Eternal Law, Divine Law, and Natural Law. Moral Law is derived from the Natural Law to suit human nature. People find salvation by grace in the Divine Law (grace), not by being moral law. Moral law is not eternal or divine, and neither are people. Only God is an eternal being.

stilus: Who said that moral (= good) behaviour, should be about altruism? DK seems to agree with popular thought, when he says
dk: I don’t know what you mean, who said human nature = altruism. Not I. People can be altruistic one moment, then the next moment commit a heinous hateful or act. We are flawed beings by nature, so that should be no surprise.

stilus: Absent morality (or immorality) people can’t understand themselves or one another, so even when a person’s intentions are good (altruistic), they are often misunderstood or misdirected i.e. meaningless.
good=altruistic? Is it?
dk: That’s right. For example I might see a kid get hit by a car laying in the middle of a busy street unconscious. In panic I might carry him to a grassy knoll by the curb. . In the process I might do permanently damage to the spin crippling the kid for life. I intended to do an altruistic deed, but instead crippled a kid for life. Altruisms can become meaningless absent morality. In an immoral society no good deed goes unpunished. What does that mean? Probably I’ll get my pants sued off me for trying to help.

stilus: And if you say this DK, could it be that empathy, despite what you say elsewhere, IS the basis of your definition of good/moral behaviour, because the word implies that “People can understand(/feel) themselves and one another”?
dk: I said altruism was an element not the basis of morality, and I meant it.

Jack Kamm

Personally, I don't like moral codes. Moral codes try to tell people what is good behavior (or what they should do) and what is bad behavior (or what they should not do). To me, this is nonsense. There are things which are good for me, good for you, good for person x, etc., but to label something as simply "good" behavior seems meaningless. Why should we do what is "good"? To whom is it good? What makes it good in the first place? Certainly doing something may be in my best interest or your best interest, but why should I be obligated to do anything?

But since ethics boils down to actions, I'll try to explain my actions, especially towards other people, and what motivates them. My actions are based on my own pleasure and pain. I desire pleasure (which I define as an enjoyable feeling) and I do not want pain (which I define as a feeling that I dislike). Therefore, I work to achieve pleasure and to minimize pain.

Reciprocal actions (I scratch your back, you scratch mine) and benevolent feelings (e.g. sympathy, generosity) encourage me to be a nice guy; I gain pleasure, both directly and indirectly, from helping others. I also have malevolent feelings, but I think that acting on benevolent feelings tend to bring more comfort and happiness, besides often being more practical (for the reason of reciprocal actions).

While my feelings, such as sympathy and empathy, might cause me to be disgusted by certain types of behavior, such as murder, I cannot condemn them as wrong simply on the basis of those feelings. It is a matter of taste; the murderer might not have the same feelings I have. I would still try to stop the murderer from killing, to deter such actions against myself and to satisfy my benevolent feelings. But I couldn't reasonable appraise or condemn anyone else's actions because of their rightness or wrongness.

stilus

As to the origional question: I think Jack Kamm gives a fine example of how empathy can come into a moral code while selfish desires are also allowed. Maybe what is needed in a moral code is not or altruism and empathy or selfishness; maybe a good moral code for meritocrat would give room to both? Then you could choose between both (and more) options for behaviour without one or the other being blocked by the "Sin" label.



Excuse me for saying this, but what am I to do now? Do I really have to go into the depths of Aquinas' thoughts before I can claim you talk like you think morality is (A) an absolute that (B) you understand? Somehow I smell a smokescreen.

On my using that quote by Frank Herbert: I use quotes because they convey an idea, most of the time in a very direct way. Herbert's (monistic) ideas do not, as far as I can see, come into the picture.

Now, what really got my attention was this:

English is not my native language, nor is the New Testament wellknown to me, so could you please explain? Right now I think it means that God, allthough I do not know His law, wrote it on my heart so I would feel it instictively and could act on it? If I understand it correctly, I find it a fascinating way the Christians found of taking from us what humans have developed over Eons, and turning it into a gift from God. But maybe I misinterpret. Could you go into this (in simple words, please), because I want to understand.

---

p.s: I did not claim the universe was either absolute or finite. I said that "as far as I know" the universe is not absolute. Let me rephrase: Even stars get born, age and die, but somehow the aesthetic nature of morality does not change?