First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Ethics
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 12/7/12
Is there any universal principle which makes what is good and moral good and moral, and what is evil evil? If so, what are these principles? If not, why aren't there?
32102 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 12/7/12 , edited 12/7/12

longfenglim wrote:

Is there any universal principle which makes what is good and moral good and moral, and what is evil evil? If so, what are these principles? If not, why aren't there?



The only factor that determines what is "morally right" is the current views of society as a whole. Less than 200 years ago it was perfectly ok to have slaves and oppress women.

Morality really doesn't have as much to do with religion as people often claim. I often see the argument that if you're an atheist where do you get morality? And then an attempt to inflict some belittlement on the non-believer is thrown out. However, everyone of us draw at least part of our morality from society due to fear of law and disapproval.

When I took psychology classes, something I found very interesting was Lawrence Kholberg's stages of moral development. The intriguing part is the fact that few people progress to the final stages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development
wyrvan 
30507 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
43 / M
Offline
Posted 12/7/12

ShaneK1990 wrote:


longfenglim wrote:

Is there any universal principle which makes what is good and moral good and moral, and what is evil evil? If so, what are these principles? If not, why aren't there?



The only factor that determines what is "morally right" is the current views of society as a whole. Less than 200 years ago it was perfectly ok to have slaves and oppress women.

Morality really doesn't have as much to do with religion as people often claim. I often see the argument that if you're an atheist where do you get morality? And then an attempt to inflict some belittlement on the non-believer is thrown out. However, everyone of us draw at least part of our morality from society due to fear of law and disapproval.

When I took psychology classes, something I found very interesting was Lawrence Kholberg's stages of moral development. The intriguing part is the fact that few people progress to the final stages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development


I can see what you mean. A society based on stage six could be extremely nasty (assumeing in doesn't just collapse into chaos).
32102 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 12/7/12

wyrvan wrote:


ShaneK1990 wrote:


longfenglim wrote:

Is there any universal principle which makes what is good and moral good and moral, and what is evil evil? If so, what are these principles? If not, why aren't there?



The only factor that determines what is "morally right" is the current views of society as a whole. Less than 200 years ago it was perfectly ok to have slaves and oppress women.

Morality really doesn't have as much to do with religion as people often claim. I often see the argument that if you're an atheist where do you get morality? And then an attempt to inflict some belittlement on the non-believer is thrown out. However, everyone of us draw at least part of our morality from society due to fear of law and disapproval.

When I took psychology classes, something I found very interesting was Lawrence Kholberg's stages of moral development. The intriguing part is the fact that few people progress to the final stages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development


I can see what you mean. A society based on stage six could be extremely nasty (assumeing in doesn't just collapse into chaos).


Stage six is what has allowed us to progress to where we are today. Rosa Parks for example...
wyrvan 
30507 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
43 / M
Offline
Posted 12/7/12

ShaneK1990 wrote:


wyrvan wrote:


ShaneK1990 wrote:


longfenglim wrote:

Is there any universal principle which makes what is good and moral good and moral, and what is evil evil? If so, what are these principles? If not, why aren't there?



The only factor that determines what is "morally right" is the current views of society as a whole. Less than 200 years ago it was perfectly ok to have slaves and oppress women.

Morality really doesn't have as much to do with religion as people often claim. I often see the argument that if you're an atheist where do you get morality? And then an attempt to inflict some belittlement on the non-believer is thrown out. However, everyone of us draw at least part of our morality from society due to fear of law and disapproval.

When I took psychology classes, something I found very interesting was Lawrence Kholberg's stages of moral development. The intriguing part is the fact that few people progress to the final stages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development


I can see what you mean. A society based on stage six could be extremely nasty (assumeing in doesn't just collapse into chaos).


Stage six is what has allowed us to progress to where we are today. Rosa Parks for example...


But only on an individulal level. The few who progress to that level are needed to overcome ingrained injustices in society and keeps things advanceing. But large groups would not be bound by the laws or socail mores or approval. It could to large scale conflict and the rise of dictators. For example terrorist groups could also fall into this catagory. Like a lot of things in life it is good level six is good in small doses but could be very dangerous in larger quanities.
Banned
31570 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M / The Universal Con...
Offline
Posted 12/7/12 , edited 12/7/12
There no such thing as good and evil. All of anyone's notions of what is evil and good is subjective and relative. Duality is an illusion.

Everything you perceive to be true is only true because you want it to be true.
Posted 12/7/12
I think principles rely on the perspectives of each person. If you feel it necessary to do one form of good versus another which you think is evil, so you will. No other will shall impede yours.
Banned
31570 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M / The Universal Con...
Offline
Posted 12/7/12 , edited 12/9/12
The illusion of duality/good vs evil/right vs wrong/Republican vs Democrat:

http://www.in5d.com/the-illusion-of-duality-and-time.html
32102 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 12/10/12 , edited 12/10/12

wyrvan wrote:


ShaneK1990 wrote:


wyrvan wrote:


ShaneK1990 wrote:


longfenglim wrote:

Is there any universal principle which makes what is good and moral good and moral, and what is evil evil? If so, what are these principles? If not, why aren't there?



The only factor that determines what is "morally right" is the current views of society as a whole. Less than 200 years ago it was perfectly ok to have slaves and oppress women.

Morality really doesn't have as much to do with religion as people often claim. I often see the argument that if you're an atheist where do you get morality? And then an attempt to inflict some belittlement on the non-believer is thrown out. However, everyone of us draw at least part of our morality from society due to fear of law and disapproval.

When I took psychology classes, something I found very interesting was Lawrence Kholberg's stages of moral development. The intriguing part is the fact that few people progress to the final stages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development


I can see what you mean. A society based on stage six could be extremely nasty (assumeing in doesn't just collapse into chaos).


Stage six is what has allowed us to progress to where we are today. Rosa Parks for example...


But only on an individulal level. The few who progress to that level are needed to overcome ingrained injustices in society and keeps things advanceing. But large groups would not be bound by the laws or socail mores or approval. It could to large scale conflict and the rise of dictators. For example terrorist groups could also fall into this catagory. Like a lot of things in life it is good level six is good in small doses but could be very dangerous in larger quanities.


Incorrect. This is a poor argument. The size of the group is not a factor. Furthermore, no one person caused any major change alone. Do you honestly believe one person's actions caused slavery to be abolished? or how about the women's rights movement? There was a large group of people willing to stand up for the cause.

It is important to remember that stage six is not characterized by a simple disregard for the law. The two scenarios you posed would NOT fall into this category. Post conventional thinking is characterized by a reasoning, in which the law is only valid if it is rooted in justice. It is putting ethics ABOVE the law, not senseless killing and desire for power rooted in greed. Therefore, I TOTALLY disagree with your analogy to terrorists and dictators it is simply not the same thing.

wyrvan 
30507 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
43 / M
Offline
Posted 12/10/12

ShaneK1990 wrote:


wyrvan wrote:


ShaneK1990 wrote:


wyrvan wrote:


ShaneK1990 wrote:


longfenglim wrote:

Is there any universal principle which makes what is good and moral good and moral, and what is evil evil? If so, what are these principles? If not, why aren't there?



The only factor that determines what is "morally right" is the current views of society as a whole. Less than 200 years ago it was perfectly ok to have slaves and oppress women.

Morality really doesn't have as much to do with religion as people often claim. I often see the argument that if you're an atheist where do you get morality? And then an attempt to inflict some belittlement on the non-believer is thrown out. However, everyone of us draw at least part of our morality from society due to fear of law and disapproval.

When I took psychology classes, something I found very interesting was Lawrence Kholberg's stages of moral development. The intriguing part is the fact that few people progress to the final stages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development


I can see what you mean. A society based on stage six could be extremely nasty (assumeing in doesn't just collapse into chaos).


Stage six is what has allowed us to progress to where we are today. Rosa Parks for example...


But only on an individulal level. The few who progress to that level are needed to overcome ingrained injustices in society and keeps things advanceing. But large groups would not be bound by the laws or socail mores or approval. It could to large scale conflict and the rise of dictators. For example terrorist groups could also fall into this catagory. Like a lot of things in life it is good level six is good in small doses but could be very dangerous in larger quanities.


Incorrect. This is a poor argument. The size of the group is not a factor. Furthermore, no one person caused any major change alone. Do you honestly believe one person's actions caused slavery to be abolished? or how about the women's rights movement? There was a large group of people willing to stand up for the cause.

It is important to remember that stage six is not characterized by a simple disregard for the law. The two scenarios you posed would NOT fall into this category. Post conventional thinking is characterized by a reasoning, in which the law is only valid if it is rooted in justice. It is putting ethics ABOVE the law, not senseless killing and desire for power rooted in greed. Therefore, I TOTALLY disagree with you're analogy to terrorists and dictators it is simply not the same thing.



1. The individual, in most cases, does not have the power to do sweeping changes by themsleves. HOWEVER the individuals power is to bring the injustice to the publics notice and inspire people to cause change. While all those movements eventually ended up with the backing of a large number of people, at some point someone had to stand up, despite the consequnces, to say that this is wrong.( The most dramatic recent example would be the Tunisian vegetable seller who set himself on fire in protest and unleashed decades of fustration and anger across the Middle East that would become the Arab Spring.)

2. The argument was poorly worded (note to self: Do not attempt when three-quarters asleep. )

3.Violent conflict to cause change is basically the evil twin of non-violent protest. It happens when enough people belive that the only way that they can enact change is by violence. A belief in justice over the law is just as importent to someone taking up arms against an injusctice as it the non-violent protester. This DOES NOT mean that they are morally equal. Stage six is the starting point, the decisions that the person makes decides where they fall on the moral scale. (Saints on one end and terrorists on the other.)

4. Moral codes are not universal. Where someone is perceived to fall on the moral scale (see above) depends on the beliefs of the individual deciding. Some people may put a terrorist above a non-violent protester (much to the dismay of others). Who is a terrorist is not universally agreed upon. On persons hero is can be anothers persons vile murderer (same for saints).

5. Terrorist groups can and do portray themsleves as fighting for justice against an unjust oppressor (whither they are or not is another matter entirely). People with stage six thinking is the terrortists dream recruit. They already belive in the cause and are ready to take action (possibly not knowing what they signed up for). Once properly indoctrinated (brainwashed) they can be then be used as disposable footsoldiers (or suicide bombers).

6.The only definition of justice that matters is in the mind of the person that is deciding to act.

7.The dictator was an extreme example. This would be an extremely rare dictator (but possible). Someone in power acting on thier sense of justice constantly with out restraint by the law and without accoutably to the people would, by definition, be a dictator.
32102 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 12/11/12 , edited 12/11/12

wyrvan wrote:


ShaneK1990 wrote:


wyrvan wrote:


ShaneK1990 wrote:


wyrvan wrote:


ShaneK1990 wrote:


longfenglim wrote:

Is there any universal principle which makes what is good and moral good and moral, and what is evil evil? If so, what are these principles? If not, why aren't there?



The only factor that determines what is "morally right" is the current views of society as a whole. Less than 200 years ago it was perfectly ok to have slaves and oppress women.

Morality really doesn't have as much to do with religion as people often claim. I often see the argument that if you're an atheist where do you get morality? And then an attempt to inflict some belittlement on the non-believer is thrown out. However, everyone of us draw at least part of our morality from society due to fear of law and disapproval.

When I took psychology classes, something I found very interesting was Lawrence Kholberg's stages of moral development. The intriguing part is the fact that few people progress to the final stages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development


I can see what you mean. A society based on stage six could be extremely nasty (assumeing in doesn't just collapse into chaos).


Stage six is what has allowed us to progress to where we are today. Rosa Parks for example...


But only on an individulal level. The few who progress to that level are needed to overcome ingrained injustices in society and keeps things advanceing. But large groups would not be bound by the laws or socail mores or approval. It could to large scale conflict and the rise of dictators. For example terrorist groups could also fall into this catagory. Like a lot of things in life it is good level six is good in small doses but could be very dangerous in larger quanities.


Incorrect. This is a poor argument. The size of the group is not a factor. Furthermore, no one person caused any major change alone. Do you honestly believe one person's actions caused slavery to be abolished? or how about the women's rights movement? There was a large group of people willing to stand up for the cause.

It is important to remember that stage six is not characterized by a simple disregard for the law. The two scenarios you posed would NOT fall into this category. Post conventional thinking is characterized by a reasoning, in which the law is only valid if it is rooted in justice. It is putting ethics ABOVE the law, not senseless killing and desire for power rooted in greed. Therefore, I TOTALLY disagree with you're analogy to terrorists and dictators it is simply not the same thing.



1. The individual, in most cases, does not have the power to do sweeping changes by themsleves. HOWEVER the individuals power is to bring the injustice to the publics notice and inspire people to cause change. While all those movements eventually ended up with the backing of a large number of people, at some point someone had to stand up, despite the consequnces, to say that this is wrong.( The most dramatic recent example would be the Tunisian vegetable seller who set himself on fire in protest and unleashed decades of fustration and anger across the Middle East that would become the Arab Spring.)

2. The argument was poorly worded (note to self: Do not attempt when three-quarters asleep. )

3.Violent conflict to cause change is basically the evil twin of non-violent protest. It happens when enough people belive that the only way that they can enact change is by violence. A belief in justice over the law is just as importent to someone taking up arms against an injusctice as it the non-violent protester. This DOES NOT mean that they are morally equal. Stage six is the starting point, the decisions that the person makes decides where they fall on the moral scale. (Saints on one end and terrorists on the other.)

4. Moral codes are not universal. Where someone is perceived to fall on the moral scale (see above) depends on the beliefs of the individual deciding. Some people may put a terrorist above a non-violent protester (much to the dismay of others). Who is a terrorist is not universally agreed upon. On persons hero is can be anothers persons vile murderer (same for saints).

5. Terrorist groups can and do portray themsleves as fighting for justice against an unjust oppressor (whither they are or not is another matter entirely). People with stage six thinking is the terrortists dream recruit. They already belive in the cause and are ready to take action (possibly not knowing what they signed up for). Once properly indoctrinated (brainwashed) they can be then be used as disposable footsoldiers (or suicide bombers).

6.The only definition of justice that matters is in the mind of the person that is deciding to act.

7.The dictator was an extreme example. This would be an extremely rare dictator (but possible). Someone in power acting on thier sense of justice constantly with out restraint by the law and without accoutably to the people would, by definition, be a dictator.


Ahh. I now see where you're coming from. Thanks for the clarification
wyrvan 
30507 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
43 / M
Offline
Posted 12/14/12

ShaneK1990 wrote:


wyrvan wrote:


ShaneK1990 wrote:


wyrvan wrote:


ShaneK1990 wrote:


wyrvan wrote:


ShaneK1990 wrote:


longfenglim wrote:

Is there any universal principle which makes what is good and moral good and moral, and what is evil evil? If so, what are these principles? If not, why aren't there?



The only factor that determines what is "morally right" is the current views of society as a whole. Less than 200 years ago it was perfectly ok to have slaves and oppress women.

Morality really doesn't have as much to do with religion as people often claim. I often see the argument that if you're an atheist where do you get morality? And then an attempt to inflict some belittlement on the non-believer is thrown out. However, everyone of us draw at least part of our morality from society due to fear of law and disapproval.

When I took psychology classes, something I found very interesting was Lawrence Kholberg's stages of moral development. The intriguing part is the fact that few people progress to the final stages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development


I can see what you mean. A society based on stage six could be extremely nasty (assumeing in doesn't just collapse into chaos).


Stage six is what has allowed us to progress to where we are today. Rosa Parks for example...


But only on an individulal level. The few who progress to that level are needed to overcome ingrained injustices in society and keeps things advanceing. But large groups would not be bound by the laws or socail mores or approval. It could to large scale conflict and the rise of dictators. For example terrorist groups could also fall into this catagory. Like a lot of things in life it is good level six is good in small doses but could be very dangerous in larger quanities.


Incorrect. This is a poor argument. The size of the group is not a factor. Furthermore, no one person caused any major change alone. Do you honestly believe one person's actions caused slavery to be abolished? or how about the women's rights movement? There was a large group of people willing to stand up for the cause.

It is important to remember that stage six is not characterized by a simple disregard for the law. The two scenarios you posed would NOT fall into this category. Post conventional thinking is characterized by a reasoning, in which the law is only valid if it is rooted in justice. It is putting ethics ABOVE the law, not senseless killing and desire for power rooted in greed. Therefore, I TOTALLY disagree with you're analogy to terrorists and dictators it is simply not the same thing.



1. The individual, in most cases, does not have the power to do sweeping changes by themsleves. HOWEVER the individuals power is to bring the injustice to the publics notice and inspire people to cause change. While all those movements eventually ended up with the backing of a large number of people, at some point someone had to stand up, despite the consequnces, to say that this is wrong.( The most dramatic recent example would be the Tunisian vegetable seller who set himself on fire in protest and unleashed decades of fustration and anger across the Middle East that would become the Arab Spring.)

2. The argument was poorly worded (note to self: Do not attempt when three-quarters asleep. )

3.Violent conflict to cause change is basically the evil twin of non-violent protest. It happens when enough people belive that the only way that they can enact change is by violence. A belief in justice over the law is just as importent to someone taking up arms against an injusctice as it the non-violent protester. This DOES NOT mean that they are morally equal. Stage six is the starting point, the decisions that the person makes decides where they fall on the moral scale. (Saints on one end and terrorists on the other.)

4. Moral codes are not universal. Where someone is perceived to fall on the moral scale (see above) depends on the beliefs of the individual deciding. Some people may put a terrorist above a non-violent protester (much to the dismay of others). Who is a terrorist is not universally agreed upon. On persons hero is can be anothers persons vile murderer (same for saints).

5. Terrorist groups can and do portray themsleves as fighting for justice against an unjust oppressor (whither they are or not is another matter entirely). People with stage six thinking is the terrortists dream recruit. They already belive in the cause and are ready to take action (possibly not knowing what they signed up for). Once properly indoctrinated (brainwashed) they can be then be used as disposable footsoldiers (or suicide bombers).

6.The only definition of justice that matters is in the mind of the person that is deciding to act.

7.The dictator was an extreme example. This would be an extremely rare dictator (but possible). Someone in power acting on thier sense of justice constantly with out restraint by the law and without accoutably to the people would, by definition, be a dictator.


Ahh. I now see where you're coming from. Thanks for the clarification


Glad I could clarify it. Sorry my original post was such a mess.
19028 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Mid-Atlantic
Offline
Posted 12/20/12

ShaneK1990 wrote:


longfenglim wrote:

Is there any universal principle which makes what is good and moral good and moral, and what is evil evil? If so, what are these principles? If not, why aren't there?



The only factor that determines what is "morally right" is the current views of society as a whole. Less than 200 years ago it was perfectly ok to have slaves and oppress women.

Morality really doesn't have as much to do with religion as people often claim. I often see the argument that if you're an atheist where do you get morality? And then an attempt to inflict some belittlement on the non-believer is thrown out. However, everyone of us draw at least part of our morality from society due to fear of law and disapproval.

When I took psychology classes, something I found very interesting was Lawrence Kholberg's stages of moral development. The intriguing part is the fact that few people progress to the final stages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development


My god someone has seen the light, THANK YOU! Had this exact debate with some acquaintances only weeks ago. Why can't the average supposedly educated human understand this concept. My strongest opponent was ivy league educated and stuck to morality being based on religious doctrine.
42 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M
Offline
Posted 12/29/12
What defines good means to help or benefit someone. As in fighting for someone who's being bullied,saving someone from a fire, or doing all the housework in the family.
What defines evil is to cause harm or pain. As in killing someone for their money, eating all the pasta in the kitchen, or annoying the shit out of me.
To the point to be good MEANS ONLY ''to help or benefit someone.'' and to be bad is to '' Cause Harm or Pain.''
These are the universal principles of what good and evil are.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 12/29/12

unknownkr wrote:

What defines good means to help or benefit someone. As in fighting for someone who's being bullied,saving someone from a fire, or doing all the housework in the family.
What defines evil is to cause harm or pain. As in killing someone for their money, eating all the pasta in the kitchen, or annoying the shit out of me.
To the point to be good MEANS ONLY ''to help or benefit someone.'' and to be bad is to '' Cause Harm or Pain.''
These are the universal principles of what good and evil are.


Utilitarian much, innit?
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.