Don't say the "M" word!

[Frankie]

With experiences with society and people around me, I'm starting to think maybe people don't even care about morals anymore. This may seem a little vague, but let me put it this way: Most people would argue their morals against anothers, and it seems one of the people may just be trying to justify their wrong actions and eliminating their guilt by saying it's morally right. When in reality, morals are universal, and values is what this person may be refering too. This seemed to have caused a huge problem in society and law system, because a huge part of law system is based on morals...or at least should be. But it seems they or are moving towards justifying broken morals as freedoms, which in reality our just a certain people's values and not others. Eventually it seems the word "freedom" will replace the word "morals", but they are distinct different things.

This is personally what I see is going on, what does everyone else think?

[M.Dancer]

Can't have freedom without morality...and probably vice versa too

[guyser]

Can't have freedom without morality...and probably vice versa too

Why not ?

As for the OP, I will not argue morals with anyone, mine are distinct from yours and likely many others on this baord.

Laws should NOT be based on morals. Well , not if I have anything to do with it.

[marcinmoka]

I'll agree with the above.

Morality is subjective. It varies from individual to individual, region to region, sect to sect.

While some morals are next to universal (theft, murder, rape are all wrong), laws are complex in their very nature and delve into areas far, far more specific than any sense of universal morality hopes to offer.

Trying to impose a universal standard is futile.

I too believe laws should not be based on morals. While they very often overlap, "reflection of" and "foundation upon" are two very distinct beasts. Pride yourself on your own morality, just don't make everyone else subject to it.

Having said this, a total positivist approach is something to strive for, but morality will never, ever be struck from actual interpretation of the law, since hey, judges are humans too! We just have faith in them (as well as proof) that they are less prone then most of us.

[EchoesofMourning]

It's very easy to justify what you're doing by claiming that your morals insist that you do so, however as soon as you get into a position on power and start enforcing your morals above all others you start down a very slippery slope.

That does not mean that certain sets of morals should take precedence over others. If you have a particular set of morals that demands that you kill and drink the blood of virgins, I'm sorry but you'll have to change them to stay in my country.

All I'm saying is that morals are a good justification for some actions, and insufficient for others. One cannot make much of a general statement on this topic.

[guyser]

All I'm saying is that morals are a good justification for some actions, and insufficient for others. One cannot make much of a general statement on this topic.

Moral's are anything but good justification for some actions. The actions may fit "with your morals" as an after the fact analysis , but should not be the impetus to do those actions.

Actions should be made on the "right" way , not the moral way. For instance, Harper and the free vote for SSM. I am pretty sure his morals do not agree, but the action is correct. And so was the result.

[Frankie]

You see, this is exactly what I was talking about. Morality is "the right way". If you didn't follow it, doesn't mean you have different morals, you are just unmoral, or committed a unmoral action. If the virgin killer kills virgins, then even if he thinks it's morally right, doesn't mean it is. And he's is wrong. It's not just what he thinks, it is wrong. If he still thinks it's right, then he obviously values that unmoral action.

[leonardcohen]

Do not we base our laws on agreed upon morals.

Marilyn Vos Savant was once asked what was the difference

between illegal and immoral and she replied ,Illegal covers the

daylight hours and immoral covers the night,.

Does ILLEGAL= IMMORAL? ,IF so Morals are tied to laws,you can't have one without the other.

[Figleaf]

Do not we base our laws on agreed upon morals.

Sometimes but not always.

Marilyn Vos Savant was once asked what was the difference

between illegal and immoral and she replied ,Illegal covers the

daylight hours and immoral covers the night,.

Yeah, she's a big disappointment.

Does ILLEGAL= IMMORAL? ,IF so Morals are tied to laws,you can't have one without the other.

No, illegal does not equal immoral.

[Mad_Michael]

With experiences with society and people around me, I'm starting to think maybe people don't even care about morals anymore. This may seem a little vague, but let me put it this way: Most people would argue their morals against anothers, and it seems one of the people may just be trying to justify their wrong actions and eliminating their guilt by saying it's morally right. When in reality, morals are universal, and values is what this person may be refering too. This seemed to have caused a huge problem in society and law system, because a huge part of law system is based on morals...or at least should be. But it seems they or are moving towards justifying broken morals as freedoms, which in reality our just a certain people's values and not others. Eventually it seems the word "freedom" will replace the word "morals", but they are distinct different things.

This is personally what I see is going on, what does everyone else think?

A universal morality requires a universal God to originate such a moral system.

We don't have a universal God, ergo, we don't have universal morality.

[Frankie]

You may not believe in the Universal God, doesn't mean that disproves his existance. Nor can I prove to you right now he exist.

[Black Dog]

You may not believe in the Universal God, doesn't mean that disproves his existance. Nor can I prove to you right now he exist.

How do you know its a "he"? Is it because it seems so obsessed with matters relating to sex?

[EchoesofMourning]

guyser:

"Moral's are anything but good justification for some actions. The actions may fit "with your morals" as an after the fact analysis , but should not be the impetus to do those actions."

If you see a woman being raped on a streetcorner, what do you do?

You either stop it, or call the police. You do this because you believe that what is going on is wrong, regardless of the law. Your morals dictate that rape is wrong, and you act accordingly.

Frankie:

"You see, this is exactly what I was talking about. Morality is "the right way". If you didn't follow it, doesn't mean you have different morals..."

You are talking like there is some sort of universal morals that exist. The fact is that there is no such thing. You can judge another set of morals using your own, but that does not necesarily make yours 'right' and the others 'wrong'. Where is your justification for this statement?

[White Doors]

Can't have freedom without morality...and probably vice versa too

Why not ?

As for the OP, I will not argue morals with anyone, mine are distinct from yours and likely many others on this baord.

Laws should NOT be based on morals. Well , not if I have anything to do with it.

I believe that killing another person for no reason is wrong.

there is a law that supports my moral belief.

care to take that statement back?

[Frankie]

You may not believe in the Universal God, doesn't mean that disproves his existance. Nor can I prove to you right now he exist.

How do you know its a "he"? Is it because it seems so obsessed with matters relating to sex?

Hahaha, alright, take it easy blackdog. Call him...I mean, call God whatever you will, he probably doesn't have a gender. But you know, the origin behind refering God as "him" or "he" is partly because back when the Bible was writen, the man was often the head of the house hold, and the writers of the Bible like to view him as the head of his house hold, being his church, or family. And also in the Old Testament, God refers to Isreal as a woman, and God taken Isreal as his wife, for many symbolism. Also when Jesus came into the picture he often refered to God as his father, which was unusual, because you wouldn't refer to God Almighty as your personal Dad, kinda blasphamess, which is one reason why the Pharisees hated him so much. And after Jesus was crucified, it gave us the right to personally ask God to forgive us, instead of going through the rituals, and even allowed us to call him Father as well.

Frankie:

"You see, this is exactly what I was talking about. Morality is "the right way". If you didn't follow it, doesn't mean you have different morals..."

You are talking like there is some sort of universal morals that exist. The fact is that there is no such thing. You can judge another set of morals using your own, but that does not necesarily make yours 'right' and the others 'wrong'. Where is your justification for this statement?

I think you missed the entire point of my post. Or you just disagree with me. I do believe there are universal morals, I could try to list them, but there's a whole book writen on it. And it would be a lot easier to understand if it was actually read.

[guyser]

I believe that killing another person for no reason is wrong.

there is a law that supports my moral belief.

care to take that statement back?

No, not really.

You , I think, agree with me then. You found a law that supports your moral belief. Not that your moral belief means a law should be enacted.

Killing one is an infringement of their rights. Morals really have no say in the equation . Morally speaking , slavery was a moral right, but it most certainly was not "right" in any way shape or form, other than our ancestors had some wierd ideas.

Morally speaking, plenty of Canadians, Americans or whatever have a moral issue with gay rights. But the infringement trumped the moral on that one in Canada at least.

[geoffrey]

There is clearly a rational moral absolute. To claim that anyone of us know that answer is ridiculous. So we compromise and get a reasonable system that most are ok with.

At the end of the day though, someone is rationally right and someone is rationally wrong.

[Renegade]

There is clearly a rational moral absolute. To claim that anyone of us know that answer is ridiculous. So we compromise and get a reasonable system that most are ok with.

It is not clear at all. Much of our "morals" are learned. Morality is an individual and subjective assessment. What is "right" to one individual or culture may be immoral to another. Who defined ths "moral absolute"?

At the end of the day though, someone is rationally right and someone is rationally wrong.

And how do you know which is which? Is it by your own subjective standard of morality? Even the moral standards of the majority is not an absolute standard.

[EchoesofMourning]

I think you missed the entire point of my post. Or you just disagree with me. I do believe there are universal morals, I could try to list them, but there's a whole book writen on it. And it would be a lot easier to understand if it was actually read.

I think the problem is a fundamental difference of belief. I see the bible from a detached perspective, which allows for objective reasoning. The bible (if indeed that is what you are making reference to) is a bunch of stories collected under a purely political umbrella, directed by a man who didn't even believe in what he was doing.

The problem arises when one gets too involved in something, it is extremely difficult - even impossible - to utilize an objective perspective.

[Frankie]

Ok, I see what you mean. And somehow you figured out I was talking about the Bible, it's that obvious eh? Although I have to say, it's more like a encyclopedia, than a bunch of stories. Also, what did you mean by political umbrella and the man that directed it? Sorry, I know what you meant, but who's political umbrella and man are you refering too?

[EchoesofMourning]

Ok, I see what you mean. And somehow you figured out I was talking about the Bible, it's that obvious eh? Although I have to say, it's more like a encyclopedia, than a bunch of stories. Also, what did you mean by political umbrella and the man that directed it? Sorry, I know what you meant, but who's political umbrella and man are you refering too?

I am refering to Emperor Constantine, patron of the Christian church. Perhaps you have heard of him? It is widely thought that Constantine was some sort of saint - that his actions regarding the church were because of his devotion to the religion. The fact is that Constantine did not become a Christian until he was virtually on his deathbed. His sponsorship of the church was political.

Before Constantine, Christians who openly professed their beliefs faced grave consequences. Constantine noticed however, that the religion was quickly becoming the dominant one in the Roman Empire. That meant that he either changed policy or faced revolt - needless to say, he changed policy.

He sponsored churches, and other religious affairs, leading up to the Council of Nicea. He built churches to keep the Christians happy - a happy populace is a happy empire. At the council of Nicea he brought together a large number of church officials - bishops and whatnot. This council, presided over by Constantine, produced the first uniform Christian doctrine. This doctrine began the process of building a centralized religious 'state'.

The emperor was an intelligent man who saw a danger to his holdings, and he did what was necessary to keep his empire together.

[EchoesofMourning]

Well, the above is a fun little historical journey, but it doesn't really apply to what we're talking about here. I have to go do some research and brush up on my biblical bashing info.

[jbg]

With experiences with society and people around me, I'm starting to think maybe people don't even care about morals anymore. This may seem a little vague, but let me put it this way:

I see a mixed bag. There are some of my soccer father peers who I can have a serious discussion about morals. Others just snicker.