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. — god must be atheist
Morality or amorality refers to individual conduct. If you lived in a society without laws or with bad laws, your behavior would still be moral or immoral. It would still be morally wrong to kill someone even if there were no law against it.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. — Athena
In my post that you quoted I offered a number of basis for morality, human suffering and based on doing onto others as you would have them do onto you. I offer another, based on what is good for society. Thats what you are going with, so my that point of mine stands. — DingoJones
In my post that you quoted I offered a number of basis for morality, human suffering and based on doing onto others as you would have them do onto you. I offer another, based on what is good for society. Thats what you are going with, so my that point of mine stands. — DingoJones
Is this the paragraph you demand I respond to? — god must be atheist
But no, I am not advocating ad hoc moral justification. — god must be atheist
In my opinion a behaviour is judged moral if it is acceptable to the society, and immoral, if it's not acceptable. Acceptability depends on practical usefulness. From acceptability and inacceptability grow out the principles, and the systems. — god must be atheist
Morality or amorality refers to individual conduct. — Congau
It would still be morally wrong to kill someone even if there were no law against it. — Congau
If there were a society of angels, no laws would be necessary since it would be perfectly moral anyway. — Congau
The laws are there to take care of those relatively few who wouldn’t. Social conventions would regulate much of our behavior in the absence of law, and the intuitive sense of morality that many people have, would stop them from being immoral. — Congau
I dont know what to tell you. — DingoJones
↪god must be atheist Beautiful! :grin: And given what you said, what do you think education should be doing? — Athena
Morality is a way.
Though it can be pointed to, the pointer would be more in one corner of a square or rectanglar path, metaphorically.
In effort to point out the way, I would need to square it; including each corner of the path. Thus, morality has four definitions.
Try defining morality with one point and there is a regress.
For example, morality is judgement orientated beneficent progress.
A. Excludes that which is good progression, without adult judgement. Can be contradicted.
B. Excludes that which is maleficent but good.
C. Excludes that morality isn't - in a sense - because thinking, morality is, is detramental.
(You may notice a pattern in logic here;
We talk about:
(A) in the sense of social group's defining what's good for their group.
(B) in the sense of what may benfit one does not for another.
(C) in the sense of no morality exists.)
Walking along this path, taking in all elements (the four corners we pointed), the definition for morality is:
Judgement(D), or judgement-less orientated beneficent progress(A), including sacrificial beneficence(B), and zero point alignment(C). — Qwex
Many quaternaries symbolize the world as four elements, or levels. They represent four levels or centers of gravity within us with which we identify and express ourselves in the world. The purification of each level represents four stages of transformation and transcendence taught in myth and religion. — Michael S. Schneider
Morality is a way.
Though it can be pointed to, the pointer would be more in one corner of a square or rectanglar path, metaphorically.
In effort to point out the way, I would need to square it; including each corner of the path. Thus, morality has four definitions.
Try defining morality with one point and there is a regress.
For example, morality is judgement orientated beneficent progress.
A. Excludes that which is good progression, without adult judgement. Can be contradicted.
B. Excludes that which is maleficent but good.
C. Excludes that morality isn't - in a sense - because thinking, morality is, is detramental.
(You may notice a pattern in logic here;
We talk about:
(A) in the sense of social group's defining what's good for their group.
(B) in the sense of what may benfit one does not for another.
(C) in the sense of no morality exists.)
Walking along this path, taking in all elements (the four corners we pointed), the definition for morality is:
Judgement(D), or judgement-less orientated beneficent progress(A), including sacrificial beneficence(B), and zero point alignment(C).
— Qwex
I am quite sure what you said is totally awesome, and I do not understand it. For me, it is like poetry created of words I know, but with a meaning, I can not grasp.
Many quaternaries symbolize the world as four elements, or levels. They represent four levels or centers of gravity within us with which we identify and express ourselves in the world. The purification of each level represents four stages of transformation and transcendence taught in myth and religion.
— Michael S. Schneider
There is a graph on this page listing this fourness at different periods in history and through different belief systems. The number 4 is associated with mother/substance. Everything coming from the same mother.
I am struggling to understand this talk of fourness. It appears to hold a superior truth to the either/ or thinking, good/ evil thinking. — Athena
When I brought it up you completely ignored it and acted as though I had an unreasonable expectation in asking you to follow the discussion. Now you want me to quote myself for you, but Im sorry to say that I have no reason to expect you will do any better if I put in that effort.
Hard pass. — DingoJones
How it applies to education? Formal or informal? That is, formal education in school, or in peer-induced or authority-induced informal education? — god must be atheist
Oh, dear Athena, just one more thing: and when I try to come up with something how my opinion relates to education, is that in relation to all subjects in school, or to specific subjects in school? — god must be atheist
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. — Athena
Unfortunately in trying to make my argument with you, I realize this is opening a huge can of worms! :grin: and I love it. — Athena
:up: And occasionally to confirm that I am not the only human to think what I think :smile:This is why we come here, isn't it? To think about what we think. — Athena
What we have forgotten today is the importance of submitting to power and how this goes with being responsible and self-government. — Athena
Do you understand family duty? Are you being a good child or a good man? — Athena
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. — Athena
My take is that moral attributions and conclusions are necessary for the development of more formalized systemic applications of morals (i.e. laws, codes of conduct, rule books...); thus one can logically infer that a notion of morals must precede and system of morals. — Mayor of Simpleton
Now it is indeed extremely likely (If not almost certain), that subsequent moral attributions and conclusions can (and do) evolve as a result of establised systems morals, but that does not negate the necessity of moral notions to exist prior the the development of a system of morals. — Mayor of Simpleton
I can understand the confusion in this as morals systems have existed for such a long time they are part of the given *** in our experience of reality. These systems appear as if they have never not been there and did not require any development (or place value upon looking critically into the development), but rather simply exist and continue to evolve. — Mayor of Simpleton
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.