Morality test.

[dh_epic]

I said it was my duty to defend my country at all costs. Not to commit crimes in its name.

How is killing, say, 6000 innocent bystanders to protect 3000 of yours not a crime against humanity?

These laws only apply within our society; one cannot accept moral laws without accepting them first!

I guess I fundamentally disagree. I believe there are laws higher than those of a nation. And I believe that nations can have bad laws, making disobedience to your government a moral duty. Of course, defend your country. But when you have to make a choice between your country and the highest morality, you ought to choose the latter.

But the selfish argument makes sense. If you don't think there's a higher duty, or that it's not important... then you might defend your country out of purely selfish interest. That is, you believe that killing those 6000 innocents will protect 3000 people who make your country better.

But I think that in these global times, even my neighbors' lives are important. So the expression goes, "when Britain sneezes, Argentina catches a cold". To a great degree we need to think about prosperity beyond our own nations.

 

[nc-1701]

How is killing, say, 6000 innocent bystanders to protect 3000 of yours not a crime against humanity?

Self defense.

 

[Brighteye]

I guess I fundamentally disagree. I believe there are laws higher than those of a nation. And I believe that nations can have bad laws, making disobedience to your government a moral duty. Of course, defend your country. But when you have to make a choice between your country and the highest morality, you ought to choose the latter.
...
But I think that in these global times, even my neighbors' lives are important. So the expression goes, "when Britain sneezes, Argentina catches a cold". To a great degree we need to think about prosperity beyond our own nations.

Yours is a perfectly respectable opinion, in that it is the most widely-held one, but I'll ask an open question again:
Where do these higher laws come from? What is their justification? Why should I accept them?
My morality is a logically justifiable one from a state of lack of morality. How do you justify there being morality intrinsic to the universe? Where is the evidence?

Disobedience to your society can only ever be justified if that society is acting to harm you (physically/materially). For if this occurs, the basis of your membership of society (for mutual gain) is not being fulfilled: you are being harmed by being a member.

Disobedience to your nation's laws cannot be justified simply on the basis of your belief; by being a member of society you are accepting those laws. If belief is good enough excuse to disregard laws, I might as well say that I like blowing up infidels and believe it to be right, and therefore the law should allow me to.

Of course you're right in the last paragraph: in these global times our societies are bound by similar agreements to respect each other, for mutual benefit.

 

[dh_epic]

Self defense.

That's not self defence. You're killing many innocents to defend few innocents, even if you're nailing many guilty parties in the process.

Yours is a perfectly respectable opinion, in that it is the most widely-held one, but I'll ask an open question again:
Where do these higher laws come from? What is their justification? Why should I accept them?
My morality is a logically justifiable one from a state of lack of morality. How do justify there being morality intrinsic to the universe? Where is the evidence?

Disobedience to your society can only ever be justified if that society is acting to harm you (physically/materially). For if this occurs, the basis of your membership of society (for mutual gain) is not being fulfilled: you are being harmed by being a member.

Disobedience to your nation's laws cannot be justified simply on the basis of your belief; by being a member of society you are accepting those laws. If belief is good enough excuse to disregard laws, I might as well say that I like blowing up infidels and believe it to be right, and therefore the law should allow me to.

Of course you're right in the last paragraph: in these global times our societies are bound by similar agreements to respect each other, for mutual benefit.

There's many justifications.

I tend to think of society as evolving towards larger networks of cooperation. Atoms co-operating to become molecules, with the most successful molecules reproducing and the least successful molecules being marginalized. Molecules cooperating to form life. Animals cooperating to form a tribe. Tribes cooperating to form states.

Even beyond this, nearly every religion teaches that killing is sinful. While you can definitely argue that God wouldn't want you to die rather than defend yourself, at a certain point you have to accept that bombing an entire city to get one terrorist would be a crime against humanity.

Hence why there are the geneva conventions, the notion of international human rights, and so on. I can't understand someone who would abide by unjust laws. But there ARE laws regulating that kind of use of force. At a certain point you can't justify punishing the many for the actions of a few. At a certain point, you can't murder more than you'd protect.

 

[JoeM]

I never said that you weren't guilty of any crime. That's why we have crimes such as incitement to murder. You are, however, free of all responsibility for the death.

My measure of right or wrong is not whether there is a crime, or what crime it might be.


<edit> Read your later posts; it seems you are a moral relativist, which IMO is the only opinion the faithless can have, but is wrong, morally. Your ability to manipulate what is right and wrong will allow you to commit heinous acts and believe you are doing the right thing - it's quite scary, but I suppose you will level the same accusation at those who believe they are doing God's will; the difference being that your mechanism explicitly allows these acts, where as in mine only contradicting God's will can you do these horrific things. Perhaps a minor point to you, but an important one to me. </edit>

 

[Brighteye]

Oh yes, most definitely a moral relativist.
How can you justify morals on the basis of belief? If I believed that attempting to kill as many prostitutes as possible was right and proper, what makes your belief superior to mine? Both are belief. I simply acknowledge that God's will can be anything for different people.

That's what scares me about people whose morals are based on belief. If you're willing to make an exception for your belief, why aren't others allowed to make exceptions for their beliefs? If everyone is entitled to act on their beliefs then we're back to the state of nature and anarchy, where no-one accepts any rules but their own. Society must collapse if it allows people's beliefs to take precedence.

The answer is that you'll still think that they're wrong, but in their minds they're right. And suddenly you're slipping into moral relativism. Morality is not a great blanket that extends from your mind to cover the rest of the world. It's a little system of rules that governs each mind separately, and must be acknowledged by each mind as the rules it accepts before we can assume that morality governs that person's actions.

I don't manipulate what is right and wrong. I merely accept the self-evident fact that right and wrong are not intrinsic to the universe; we create them for ourselves.

 

[JoeM]

Oh yes, most definitely a moral relativist...That's what scares me about people whose morals are based on belief.

I pre-empted you on this.

the difference being that your mechanism explicitly allows these acts, where as in mine only contradicting God's will can you do these horrific things. Perhaps a minor point to you, but an important one to me.

If you're willing to make an exception for your belief, why aren't others allowed to make exceptions for their beliefs?

You are mistakenly saying that morality is based on belief; it's not it's based on God.

Morality is not a great blanket that extends from your mind to cover the rest of the world. It's a little system of rules that governs each mind separately, and must be acknowledged by each mind as the rules it accepts before we can assume that morality governs that person's actions.

No, it extends to and from God, not me. Individiual judgements are based on that, and made through free will. I can still choose to do the wrong thing, but my basis is flawless.

I don't manipulate what is right and wrong. I merely accept the self-evident fact that right and wrong are not intrinsic to the universe; we create them for ourselves.

You already have. As a moral relativist there is no absolute right and wrong, you've already adjusted right and wrong to fit your current circumstance. There is nothing in your morality mechanism that allows for anything else.


And so the Great Moral Absolutist vs. Moral Relativist Debate continues...

 

[Ayatollah So]

Moral discussion isn't intra-national anymore. It's global. If there's a "social contract," it's global too. Morality flows from the need of social beings to cooperate. These days that cooperation is global. There is no need to restrict our reasoning together about what to do, to the group living within national boundaries.

 

[Brighteye]

I pre-empted you on this.

No, I was replying to your post using your wording.

You are mistakenly saying that morality is based on belief; it's not it's based on God.

And where does God come from? He is a belief. Unless you can prove his existence that is...
What if I have a belief that God exists, morality comes from him, and it involves (to re-use my earlier example) killing women?

No, it extends to and from God, not me. Individiual judgements are based on that, and made through free will. I can still choose to do the wrong thing, but my basis is flawless.

So killing women extends from God. You can still choose to do the wrong thing, but my basis is flawless.

You already have. As a moral relativist there is no absolute right and wrong, you've already adjusted right and wrong to fit your current circumstance. There is nothing in your morality mechanism that allows for anything else.

I have not adjusted right and wrong!
There is no right and wrong to adjust in this sense.

And so the Great Moral Absolutist vs. Moral Relativist Debate continues...

 

[dh_epic]

Even the most relativistic person cannot get away with double standards and hypocrisy. If it's wrong to kill an innocent person, it's wrong to kill an innocent person anywhere. If you said "there's nothing wrong with killing innocent people", you'd be consistent, if nothing else.

 

[Brighteye]

Nice try, but no.
The moral rule is that it's wrong to murder (innocent) members of my society.
That's because the rules of the social contract are an agreement about how we'll behave to each other, not to people outside of it.

 

[dh_epic]

I wasn't trying to put that on you, btw. I know your position is "it's okay in my society because that's the agreement".

But there IS an international agreement, you know.

The national community is artificial, too. The community of "all human beings", while abstract, is pretty rooted in some basic biology.

 

[nc-1701]

That's not self defence. You're killing many innocents to defend few innocents, even if you're nailing many guilty parties in the process.

Yes it is if inaction would lead to death or injury either you or those who have entrusted you with their protection. Then it most definetly is self defense.

 

[JoeM]

And where does God come from? He is a belief. Unless you can prove his existence that is...

God does not come from anywhere, the question is meaningless as he exists within and without time and space.

God is not a belief. God alone is.

If you want proof, look for it and you will find it.

What if I have a belief that God exists, morality comes from him, and it involves (to re-use my earlier example) killing women?

Then you have a belief in a false God, hence you have false morality.

There is no right and wrong to adjust in this sense.

I agree that in your stance there is no right and wrong.

 

[JoeM]

Even the most relativistic person cannot get away with double standards and hypocrisy. If it's wrong to kill an innocent person, it's wrong to kill an innocent person anywhere. If you said "there's nothing wrong with killing innocent people", you'd be consistent, if nothing else.

To the moral relativist words like innocence are irrelevant; it a cold mechanical way of viewing the world and arbitrating a hollow justice. All that matters are the rules of the contract. Those rules may or may not equate to the laymans sense of morality depending on whether it suits the social group in question at the time.

 

[Sidhe]

To the moral relativist words like innocence are irrelevant; it a cold mechanical way of viewing the world and arbitrating a hollow justice. All that matters are the rules of the contract. Those rules may or may not equate to the laymans sense of morality depending on whether it suits the social group in question at the time.

Hollow? I'd like you to say that to Sartres face, he saw it as an enlightened way of looking at the world and distinctly non judgemental. In a we're all Gods children Jesus type way.

Laymen or expert moral relativism is not exclusive, it just depends on your value system, most people place about 100 to 1 of their own value system on life but that's because most people are stupid. Today 4 million people of foreign descent were killed, no one from the UK was injured, now on to more pressing matters

Mind you I wouldn't argue with Sartre, I'd ask him for his autograph and then go sell it on E-bay obviously.

 

[JoeM]

Maybe I'll get a chance if we get to Heaven

 

[dh_epic]

I just realized I don't really respect any nation's laws. For the most part, I abide by laws because I think they're the right thing to do. But there's at least a few petty laws that I break because I don't care, and many more laws that I would never abide by if they were put in place.

I guess I'll always find it odd when people say "the social contract is more important than any other belief". After all, if you say this, then you're basically saying that you're a citizen in a perfect nation that should not change.

 

[Brighteye]

I wasn't trying to put that on you, btw. I know your position is "it's okay in my society because that's the agreement".

But there IS an international agreement, you know.

The national community is artificial, too. The community of "all human beings", while abstract, is pretty rooted in some basic biology.

ok. I do acknowledge that now our societies have formed a social contract between each other, making an international community, but I would never accpet that there is a natural community of all humans.

I just realized I don't really respect any nation's laws. For the most part, I abide by laws because I think they're the right thing to do. But there's at least a few petty laws that I break because I don't care, and many more laws that I would never abide by if they were put in place.

I guess I'll always find it odd when people say "the social contract is more important than any other belief". After all, if you say this, then you're basically saying that you're a citizen in a perfect nation that should not change.

You're not saying that your nation is perfect. You can still attempt to have the laws changed. It's just that to be a citizen of a state you must obey its laws, annoying or not. I find being a citizen worth the small price of those frustrating rules.
Although, of course, our societies are not actually using the social contract; one might argue that it is implicit, but that's debatable. So, at the moment, I could say that there is no compulsion to obey the law except the economic incentives of the criminal justice system (i.e no moral compulsion at all). From this view, current society is simply a rule of the gullible by the manipulative, with no morality at all.