As weird as this may sound, I am happy to give up some autonomy if it means increasing my liberty. That may sound like a contradiction, but it works. If I live under a dictator, but doing so gives me access to a free education, then I have given up some autonomy in exchange for some liberty. The problem with dictators is that some are awful tyrants. History does not show that dictators are inherently bad. It just shows that one bad dictator can undo the progress of multiple generations. I am not worried about living in a "free society" (yes, yes, only the privileged mind of someone living in a free society could say such a thing :roll:), I am worried about the things I am free to do. — ZhouBoTong

It sounds terrible! Would you live with your parents to avoid the responsibilities of being an adult?

I think I made a comment relevant to your question on a different thread. What is the essence of religion? Is it cosmology? No, we have a secular fully developed cosmology - no religion required. Is it god? No, we have Buddhism which remains silent on the matter. We may continue this line of questioning until we arrive at the essence, the thing religion wouldn't be a religion without and that, in my opinion, is morality. Morality is the cornerstone of religion and religion would cease to be religion sans morality. — TheMadFool

Buddhism and Hinduism and Taoism are not religions equal to the God of Abraham religions, Judaism, Islam, Christianity. The god of Abraham religions are organizationally different from the others and this is very important, because it is that organization that results in the power to force the will of the religious organization on others. The god of Abraham religions and war go hand and hand, with war being good for the religions and the religions being excellent for war.

Morals that are understood as a matter of cause and effect do not require religion. The reason for staying virgin until marriage is it takes two parents to raise children. Institutions are not good substitutes for parents.

A strong democracy demands strong families, and strong families are not dependent on the government, and not being dependent on the government or any other institutions means having liberty. Liberty is not equal to freedom but means being responsible for the consequences of of one's words and actions. We are no longer educating for this, because of the change in our bureaucratic order that crushes individual liberty and power and stands as authority over the people. Celebrating Presidents Day is hypocritical because those men were independent leaders without being tyrants. Trump is independent but also a tyrant who is undermining our democracy.

The laws have very little to do with actual morality. They are there to make society function as smoothly as possible. Sure, often law and morality coincide since it’s easier to accept a law that is in harmony with existing social customs, but there are also many instances where there is no correlation.

Many laws, traffic regulations for example, have no moral value at all. Driving on the right is not ethically superior to driving on the left and even evil people would choose to travel on the conventional side for their own convenience, even if there were no law.

Further, most moral issues that we generally obedient citizens encounter, are not dealt with by the law at all. We all do things against others that we later regret and find bad, and it certainly merits an “I’m sorry” even if we know that no law has been broken.
In fact, it’s perfectly possible (and maybe not so uncommon) to be a very bad human being without ever breaking a law.

We generally respect other people and are more or less polite even though there is no law telling us to do so. For most of us, the law is not the reason why we behave decently.

It sounds terrible! Would you live with your parents to avoid the responsibilities of being an adult? — Athena

No, but I might live with my parents if it gave me more freedom to live the way that I wanted.

Won't get into this one, but as far as the law goes, responsibilities outside of what are required by law (e.x. respect for people rights, such as not stealing, murdering, etc) are in the domain of private contracts or relationships.

Some people, for various reasons, practical or otherwise might negotiate a living arrangement, such as sharing or inheriting familial property, all of which is totally legal and ultimately at the domain and discretion of the people entering the private contracts or agreements.

(Despite popular and mass media misninformation designed to 'sell' things to people, this is where most of the "big money" or the "super rich" make their money from, whether one is talking Wall Street Executives, Professional atheletes or CEOs - through negotiating deals or private contracts, rather than exchanging time or labor for "fixed" wages).

Even if "credentialing" plays a role in establishing it, ultimately it's at the discretion of the individuals engaging in the private contracts (e.x. the law cannot "force" a company to hire someone even if they have the most exemplar resume in the world; the company could still choose to hire someone with "fewer credentials" on the basis of other desired factors, whether something such as rapport of familiarity (e.x. the company's owner is friends with the person's family, etc).

For that matter, even in the contexts of credential systems (e.x. a specific trade or college program), bar perhaps 'professional' trades in which law plays a direct role in credentialing requirements (e.x. law school, medical school, government jobs such as military or law enforcement), the credentialing is still a tool or means of negotiating or establishing a "trust" with someone else, legally it's ultimately at the discretion of the employer, much as how a private company can choose not to take someone's money or do business with them (bar scenarios in which legal or civil action might become involved, such as racial or religious discrimination).

Morality is based on reason, or on faith. I can not think of another foundation for morality. — Athena

Social customs. Societal needs.

History does not show that dictators are inherently bad. It just shows that one bad dictator can undo the progress of multiple generations. — ZhouBoTong

However, some dictator's awful wrongdoings free up society after the dictators' downfall, to the extent that incredible growth and prosperity follows.

Hitler's awful rule was followed by the bourgeoning of the consumer society, with more wealth to nations than ever before had been thought possible. Germany went completely democratic, Jews were more tolerated after wwII than before, social benefits to the poor, downtrodden, sick and misalinged were pumped up, taxes took on an equalizing role. Technology doubled every three years, medical science performed near-miracle-strength healing via aggressive advancements.

All because of one fucking bad dick tater.

Social customs. Societal needs — god must be atheist

Slavery is moral then? It fits both those categories.

No, but I might live with my parents if it gave me more freedom to live the way that I wanted. — ZhouBoTong

That is sweet but perhaps a little immature. The past standard for an adult was a person who welcomed responsibility. That had something to do with our understanding of the difference between being a child or an adult.

The US Declaration of Independence could also be called a Declaration of Responsibility. The American Revolution was about throwing off the control of kings, who saw their subjects as children, and taking responsibility for self-government.

Social customs. Societal needs. — god must be atheist

Is that an explanation of reason or something different from reason?

Slavery is moral then? It fits both those categories. — DingoJones

That depends on your society. It is not possible in a society based on democratic principles. Slavery in the US was based on the Bible, not democratic principles. Textbooks were printed in the North and there was hope of preventing a Civil War through education. However, the South became aware of the textbooks printed in the North undermining slavery so the South began printing its own textbooks supporting slavery. The North won the war and that brought an end to slavery.

Unfortunately, the US modeled its industry after England's autocratic model and autocracy is the enemy of democracy. Because of this, the US is not fully living with democratic morality. I really want to stress this point, because we stopped educating for democracy in 1958, and only when democracy is defended in the classroom is it defended. Autocracy is much stronger in the US with nothing to stop it from fully replacing democracy.

I am sure many people would agree with ZhouBoTong answer to my question "Would you live with your parents to avoid the responsibilities of being an adult?"

No, but I might live with my parents if it gave me more freedom to live the way that I wanted. — ZhouBoTong

Every child would want that and I think it is what people who vote for Trump want. They want a "Lion King" like the one in the Disney movie and the Bible. A king who makes life good for them, instead of accepting the responsibility of making life good. The problem is children are not moral. They are obedient like dogs but they are not capable of having good moral judgment. Unfortunately, that is now the problem with education. It prepares the young to be obedient but not to have good moral judgment. and this creates a culture that wants Trump to fix everything for them. So they can have want they want without the responsibility that interferes with their freedom. It is also what leads to a thread like this one with zero understanding of liberty and what morals have to do with democracy.

However, some dictator's awful wrongdoings free up society after the dictators' downfall, to the extent that incredible growth and prosperity follows.

Hitler's awful rule was followed by the bourgeoning of the consumer society, with more wealth to nations than ever before had been thought possible. Germany went completely democratic, Jews were more tolerated after wwII than before, social benefits to the poor, downtrodden, sick and misalinged were pumped up, taxes took on an equalizing role. Technology doubled every three years, medical science performed near-miracle-strength healing via aggressive advancements.

All because of one fucking bad dick tater. — god must be atheist

So there is hope after Trump or is he just the set up for worse dictators to come?

:lol: That comment got a really bad grammarly tone detector judgment. I would like to know how that judgment is made.

Driving on the right is not ethically superior to driving on the left and even evil people would choose to travel on the conventional side for their own convenience, even if there were no law. — Congau

Ah, I think there is a moral reason for having and following the traffic law. Not having driving agreements, or violating the traffic agreements, can have very bad consequences. If the law says to drive on the left or the right does not matter. What matters is having a system of agreements and going along with it, That is being moral. Amorality is a failure to have laws.

How many would act morally if the law did not exist?

Moral people are so regardless of what the law says.

All moral people. <-----that's the answer to your question in the OP.

Slavery is moral then? It fits both those categories. — DingoJones

Depending on the moral system. I.e. in islam, yes slavery is completely moral.
All you do is underlining that it is society-dependent.

Slavery is moral then? It fits both those categories. — DingoJones

I did not say all social customs are moral. I meant (but did not say) that some morals come from social customs.

Ok, gotchya.

I also concur with @Nooberforlife. The basic problem with morality is its complete transformability of what is moral and what is not. I would abhor a system of slavery, per se, but to southern cotton farmers in the USA this posed no moral or ethical dilemmas whatsoever.

Now, consider this: Am I so different from Southern cotton farmers? I am white, privileged, like to fuck women, like wealth and pomp and adoration, social acceptance, winning at Poker, getting drunk, living it up.

So what is it that makes my blood boil with disgust and anger when I think of slavery, and what is it that makes the Southern Man cool and not think about it twice?

I would abhor a system of slavery, per se, but to southern cotton farmers in the USA this posed no moral or ethical dilemmas whatsoever. — god must be atheist

I am always scratching my head about this American obsession with their slavery history. They did not invent slavery, their history is relatively short, and they ended it themselves. Why not address slavery where it exists in real life today, like in the slave markets in Libya, created by Hillary Clintons ill-advised destruction of the Gaddafi regime?

Morality doesnt have to be a arbitrary, transforming quagmire. It depends on what its based upon, what axioms you are operating from.
If morality is about human suffering, then slavery is clearly not moral. If morality is about doing unto others as you would have them do to you, then slavery again is wrong. It depends on what morality is based on, then you can operate from that to determine whats moral in a non-arbitrary, transforming way.
So now youre going to shift the burden of “transformability” of morality to those axioms, fair enough. But I dont think those are arbitrary (correct me on using that term if thats not what you meant by “complete transformability”) either, I think we determine the basis for morality the same way we do for everything else. What makes sense as a basis? What is effective as a basis? Those questions have answers that are not arbitrary, at least not in any sense that science or other things we don’t think of as arbitrary wouldnt also be.
So maybe a person doesnt have any basis or axioms for their morality, but I dont think its accurate to call that an arbitrary or completely transformable morality. I would describe that as not having morality, as what is moral/immoral has no meaning anymore. It would just be whatever the person feels like doing whether it makes sense or not. As soon as a person wants to make sense, they have rules to follow, a non-arbitrary basis.

That is sweet but perhaps a little immature. — Athena

That's me :blush:

The past standard for an adult was a person who welcomed responsibility. — Athena

Ugh, yes it was, although they had (and continue to have) a very narrow definition of "responsibility". They also believe that the more hours I work the better person I must be :roll:

Responsibility means taking care of myself without causing undue burden on my fellow man. Multiple generations used to live under one roof. Why is it now irresponsible to live that way? I don't like the idea of living with my parents, but it is a happiness and lifestyle choice, not a responsibility issue. If we care about the environment, it is actually MORE responsible for multiple generations to live together.

I recall reading about the Stanford Prison Experiment by Phillip Zimbardo, in which if ordinary people, who are not necessarily "evil" or "sociopathic" were in certain situations, they might do evil things, such as torture inmates if instructed to do so by a perceived "authority" figure.

Supposedly there were exceptions, such as people motivated by a higher moral philosophy or purpose.

Generally, I'm against the notion of "anarchy", and I think there is enough evidence and legal and moral philosophy indicating that, at least some, would potentially act immoraliy in an anarchist scenario in which there was no centralized legal system

Most "anarchist" ideals are utopian, and would only "work" in small, voluntary groups of people with some measure of morality and respect for one another, but the overly "rosy" view of human nature which some anarchists and libertarians hold seems to be false (I do find the other misanthropic extreme, such as the Hobbsian view to be somewhat faulty as well; given that even before modern cultures and civilizations, there were men and women who helped to build civilization, law, and order to begin with, rather than act akin to "animals"; obviously Hobbes himself did not believe HE was low enough to act this way, he merely believed it about others he considered to be morally and intellectually inferior). — IvoryBlackBishop

I would imagine, even in a anarchist government, a subset of the population would rise up and become vigilantes and for lack of a better phrase "lynch mob justice". No offense intended, it just so happens to be an extremely common historical concept all through out history. Don't assume you know my ethnicity.

Ugh, yes it was, although they had (and continue to have) a very narrow definition of "responsibility". They also believe that the more hours I work the better person I must be :roll:

Responsibility means taking care of myself without causing undue burden on my fellow man. Multiple generations used to live under one roof. Why is it now irresponsible to live that way? I don't like the idea of living with my parents, but it is a happiness and lifestyle choice, not a responsibility issue. If we care about the environment, it is actually MORE responsible for multiple generations to live together. — ZhouBoTong

You make me think it is a fool's game to compare that past with the present, but awareness of people being very concerned about morality is highly important to me. Unfortunately in trying to make my argument with you, I realize this is opening a huge can of worms! :grin: and I love it. This is why we come here, isn't it? To think about what we think.

For very, very sure, most people did not live in multiple generation homes but were more apt to be driven away by age 14 because there just wasn't enough food for a lot of people, and Social Security is about the needs of people too old and crippled to work, with no one to care for them. Especially girls were unwanted, so by age 14 they were married off to older men who wanted someone to wash their clothes and cook for them. By age fourteen some young men were pony express riders.

The men women married could, of course, get what they wanted from their young wives by hitting them. I read a book written by a journalist who interviewed pioneer people and I was surprised to read of the resentment of a war being fought to end slavery while the reality of these married women was ignored. I have also known some of them. They died many years ago. so there is no chance of knowing them today, but would you believe me when I say they were tormented women who were very glad when their husbands died and they finally had their freedom. Neither a son nor daughter would want to stay in such a home. Except, the oldest son who would inherit the land, had reason to stay. You can bet, the father made a different investment in this son, then other children, because that son was an extension of his mortality, and fathers, the head of the household, held all the power. What we have forgotten today is the importance of submitting to power and how this goes with being responsible and self-government.

In our abundance, we have very different lives and history books do not convey the consciousness of the past. Marriage was about survival, being an adult, family duty, not love, and sure as hell, not about happiness! Do you understand family duty? Are you being a good child or a good man? I am saying our consciousness is very different today, I am not judging you in a changed reality. We used to think age 30 was still youth. :roll: The guardians of truth are confusion and paradox. It is paradoxical that a 14-year-old boy could work as a man and still be considered a youth, right? A human life was cheap and poverty was great. There is no way a discussion about government assistance would have come up because the consciousness just wasn't right for that.

I say too much but quickly I want to say, outside of the can of worms, we need to know of the Age of Reason to understand what morality has to do with our liberty and democracy. I really hope we can discuss this more.

I would imagine, even in a anarchist government, a subset of the population would rise up and become vigilantes and for lack of a better phrase "lynch mob justice". No offense intended, it just so happens to be an extremely common historical concept all through out history. — christian2017

How full is your belly and how safe do you feel? We are nice to each other when our bellies are full and we feel safe. Hunger and insecurity lead to a very different consciousness and therefore different behaviors. When we are hungry enough, parents begin leaving their children in the forest to fend for themselves. We are wrong to take our civility for granted. But this is different from the point of the prison experiment.

The behavior of the prisoners and the behavior of the guards was the result of how each reacted to the other. As Trump seems to become increasingly an egomaniac to some, we might want to be aware of what happens when a person has more and more power. Any of us would loose a sense of boundaries if we began to think nothing stood in our way of getting want we want. We should be careful about electing rich people who understand power, but not boundaries, for they become tyrants and threaten democracy and sometimes the world.

On the other hand, the prisoner's experience is one of powerlessness. If I can't even use the toilet without your permission, pleasing you will become very important to me, and if you do not have very strong moral standards and boundaries, you will react to the signals of my powerlessness as your power, just like Trump. It is an interaction between the powerful and powerless that drives each into more extreme behaviors.

Good gravy, :yikes: I am now thinking the democrat and republican parties look like the prison experiment.

"How many would act morally if the law did not exist?"

Perhaps this has been hashed out prior to my posting, but I'm simply going to field a thought, as requested by the OP.

By "the law" we're speaking of some sort of state law, religious law, established social law... I'm not quite sure exactly... but nonetheless, law is typically conceived as the whole of legal moral norms/values in society (a system of law) as well as the practices and institutions that are associated with those moral norms/values.

Maybe I'm off the mark, but for a system of law to be established one needs to have an understanding of morality. Otherwise, one would have no variables of morals upon which a system can be constructed.

I'd suggest that a notion of morality would exist prior to law being established. If "the law" was not established the notion of morality would still exist, just it would not be set in to an established standard of "the law", but rather individual standards or standards of small affinity groupings.

Long story short...

Morals predicate the establishment of morals systems... including systems know as "the law".

If "the law" did not exist, moral notions and values would still exist, but not not according the standards as set in "the law".

As to how many would act morally...

I'd say everyone would act morally according to their own standards or standards of their small affinity groupings, but would not/could not act morally according to an established "the law", as there is no "the law" set as a standard of measure.

It's just a thought... that's all.

Meow!

GREG

Morality doesnt have to be a arbitrary, transforming quagmire. It depends on what its based upon, what axioms you are operating from.
If morality is about human suffering, then slavery is clearly not moral. If morality is about doing unto others as you would have them do to you, then slavery again is wrong. It depends on what morality is based on, then you can operate from that to determine whats moral in a non-arbitrary, transforming way. — DingoJones

No, I don't agree that morality starts with axioms and definitions and categorical truths. Instead, I am convinced that the categorical truths follow the accepted moral behaviour, and that is based strictly on what is positive for society, or else for positive for segments of society.

Did cannibals start out by dreaming up the Categorical Imperative that eating the brain of your enemy will make his spirit the slave of your spirit, or you gain his courage, and accumulate the courage the more brains you eat? therefore eating humans and their brains by humans is moral? NO, it did not start that way. First they ate humans, they tasted good, so they were FORCED to create an ideology around it. Their morals are practice-based, and so are Western, Christian morals, make no mistake.

Is theft a sin? A morally deplorable thing? Yes. Who made that moral established? The wealthy, who had something to lose by theft. For the poor, theft is a godsend. But no, they won't steal, because the church and schools and society makes them not steal, it's against morals.

Is polygamy a sin? An immoral act? Why should it be? It is only immoral because one of the Ten Commandments commands it.

Christians always accuse the atheistic society of no morals, that there would be moral mayhem if it were not for Christianity.

Atheists reply with saying that morals are inherent in every human, and they act accordingly, without god.

I think they are both lying. I can show the lies, and uncover them. I have a good answer that explains this apparent conondrum, but I can't write it here. It is publication-worthy, I think, and yet I can't publish it, because I am not an academic philosopher, and therefore publishers poop on me.

They also believe that the more hours I work the better person I must be — ZhouBoTong

Right on. (The sarcasm.) Case in point: "Arbacht macht frei." ("Work liberates", in German. The slogan on the entrance gate to Auschwitz.)

How full is your belly and how safe do you feel? We are nice to each other when our bellies are full and we feel safe. Hunger and insecurity lead to a very different consciousness and therefore different behaviors. When we are hungry enough, parents begin leaving their children in the forest to fend for themselves. We are wrong to take our civility for granted. But this is different from the point of the prison experiment.

The behavior of the prisoners and the behavior of the guards was the result of how each reacted to the other. As Trump seems to become increasingly an egomaniac to some, we might want to be aware of what happens when a person has more and more power. Any of us would loose a sense of boundaries if we began to think nothing stood in our way of getting want we want. We should be careful about electing rich people who understand power, but not boundaries, for they become tyrants and threaten democracy and sometimes the world.

On the other hand, the prisoner's experience is one of powerlessness. If I can't even use the toilet without your permission, pleasing you will become very important to me, and if you do not have very strong moral standards and boundaries, you will react to the signals of my powerlessness as your power, just like Trump. It is an interaction between the powerful and powerless that drives each into more extreme behaviors.

Good gravy, :yikes: I am now thinking the democrat and republican parties look like the prison experiment. — Athena

oh ok.

I think you are conflating law and morality and culture together. Anyway, not much point in continuing if you cannot talk about these explanations you have, we will keep hitting a wall.

I think you are conflating law and morality and culture together. Anyway, not much point in continuing if you cannot talk about these explanations you have, we will keep hitting a wall. — DingoJones

You're right on hitting a wall. But I still have to give you a point, for thinking I am conflating law with culture with morality. Because I am not, but it's a point of contention I hadn't thought existed, so I must clarify why I think I am hitting on morality, consistently, while you claim I mix the three up.

Theft is both a morally despicable act, and against the law. The theft hurts only the rich. The rich are the people who impose morality and law at the same time. They are the ruling party. So they impose the moral "thou shalt not steal" and they impose the law, "if you steal and get caught, you land in jail."

The two are not equivalent, only form a parallel. The law only applies if the courts find you guilty of it, and that necessitates a catching or proving a crime on you. The morals, however, are an imposed self-governing value system for one's own behaviour. You can steal if your morals allow you, and if you don't get caught, you can practice theft indefinitely. If your morals forbid theft, then you never steal, even if your hunger is more painful than the hunger of the guy who steals not due to fear of criminal charges and of what they might lead to.

My argument applies to both processes. But because I brought up this argument, it does not mean that I can't separate the moral from the legal. It's just that there was no need to, seeing the effect of either.