What is Morality?

[Jamiet99uk]

So then, the question remains: what do you do when different societies have different views on what is best for their society, or when different societies believe that the eradication of another society is best for their own, but the other society believes the opposite? How about when individuals have different views on what would make society better?

If I believe murder is wrong, and advocate for outlawing it, but another person believes it is good, and should be allowed, what do we do? Should they be allowed to murder me in order to legalize murder? Society is built up of individuals, which you claim each has their own moral standard. Who determines the moral standard used by society? You cannot separate society from the individual.

Is your claim that might makes right? That whomever may force their morality on others is morally superior? That would justify slavery, war crimes, theft, murder, government officials assassinating others and taking bribes, etc.
All you have advocated for is what was tried after the French Revolution, which only lead to anarchy, death, and chaos. It was tried after the Russian Revolution, which only led to the USSR and one hundred million dead. Are these justified for creating their moral standards that they believed were best for society and then forcing those on others?

We can determine that murder is wrong because we don't want to be murdered ourselves. That does not require instructions from a magic man in the sky.

[CaptainFritz28]

They aren't fundamentally fighting over morality, are they?

They are fighting over land.

I think they believe that it is their moral obligation to take the land away from the heretics, both believing it to be the other.

I don't believe that is true.

The Palestinians want their homes back because the Israelis stole them by force.

They also want to kick all Jews out of what they believe to be Palestinian land, from the Jordan river to the Mediterranean Sea. That is what Hamas current charter states, and it is what a great majority of Palestinians agree with.

[CaptainFritz28]

So then, the question remains: what do you do when different societies have different views on what is best for their society, or when different societies believe that the eradication of another society is best for their own, but the other society believes the opposite? How about when individuals have different views on what would make society better?

If I believe murder is wrong, and advocate for outlawing it, but another person believes it is good, and should be allowed, what do we do? Should they be allowed to murder me in order to legalize murder? Society is built up of individuals, which you claim each has their own moral standard. Who determines the moral standard used by society? You cannot separate society from the individual.

Is your claim that might makes right? That whomever may force their morality on others is morally superior? That would justify slavery, war crimes, theft, murder, government officials assassinating others and taking bribes, etc.
All you have advocated for is what was tried after the French Revolution, which only lead to anarchy, death, and chaos. It was tried after the Russian Revolution, which only led to the USSR and one hundred million dead. Are these justified for creating their moral standards that they believed were best for society and then forcing those on others?

We can determine that murder is wrong because we don't want to be murdered ourselves. That does not require instructions from a magic man in the sky.

So, then, we don't want to be murdered therefore murder is wrong.
But what about the other way around? i.e. we want to murder therefore murder is right? Why is one better than the other?

[brian146]

probly because altruism, which is when something benefits the whole group, is very vibale in term of evlorshion ad thus made it a stronger impulse and loss aversion plays more of an impact then gaining espacly when soicaly. and when you put the two together then you see how empathy formed and why it plays a bigger role. how ever some time loss aversion can be bad but that was useful when stuff was more life or death.
https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/loss-aversion/

[Jamiet99uk]

So then, the question remains: what do you do when different societies have different views on what is best for their society, or when different societies believe that the eradication of another society is best for their own, but the other society believes the opposite? How about when individuals have different views on what would make society better?

If I believe murder is wrong, and advocate for outlawing it, but another person believes it is good, and should be allowed, what do we do? Should they be allowed to murder me in order to legalize murder? Society is built up of individuals, which you claim each has their own moral standard. Who determines the moral standard used by society? You cannot separate society from the individual.

Is your claim that might makes right? That whomever may force their morality on others is morally superior? That would justify slavery, war crimes, theft, murder, government officials assassinating others and taking bribes, etc.
All you have advocated for is what was tried after the French Revolution, which only lead to anarchy, death, and chaos. It was tried after the Russian Revolution, which only led to the USSR and one hundred million dead. Are these justified for creating their moral standards that they believed were best for society and then forcing those on others?

We can determine that murder is wrong because we don't want to be murdered ourselves. That does not require instructions from a magic man in the sky.

So, then, we don't want to be murdered therefore murder is wrong.
But what about the other way around? i.e. we want to murder therefore murder is right? Why is one better than the other?

I don't want to murder.

[CaptainFritz28]

We can determine that murder is wrong because we don't want to be murdered ourselves. That does not require instructions from a magic man in the sky.

So, then, we don't want to be murdered therefore murder is wrong.
But what about the other way around? i.e. we want to murder therefore murder is right? Why is one better than the other?

I don't want to murder.

Nor do I. But many do. What are we to do about that?

[Jamiet99uk]

So, then, we don't want to be murdered therefore murder is wrong.
But what about the other way around? i.e. we want to murder therefore murder is right? Why is one better than the other?

I don't want to murder.

Nor do I. But many do. What are we to do about that?

We put them in jail, if possible.

[Jamiet99uk]

In any case, I contest the use of the word "many". People intent on, or willing to carry out murder are a very small minority indeed in any society.

[Johnny Big Horse]

We can determine that murder is wrong because we don't want to be murdered ourselves. That does not require instructions from a magic man in the sky.

What about the vikings, the ancient Greeks who raided Troy, the Huns, the Mongols. To them killing the enemy was what made you a man. It made you mighty and virtuous. They didn't want to be killed though. I don't think they would agree with you.

I bet there are plenty of militants of various stripes around today, including in Palestine, who feel the same way. To kill the enemy is a great thing, a manly thing, a godly thing.

So, I disagree with you on this one.

[Johnny Big Horse]

Sorry, you already disagreed with yourself.

[Johnny Big Horse]

This is a really good discussion. I don't have an answer to this. You end up with two societies that want each other dead. I guess then they fight, kill and destroy each other, and then the fighting is over, and then we make art and play diplomacy again.

"For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven: time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted; time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance; time to throw away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing; time to seek, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to throw away; time to tear, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak; time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace" (Ecclesiastes 3:1-8).

There is some wisdom in those old books.

[Johnny Big Horse]

In any case, I contest the use of the word "many". People intent on, or willing to carry out murder are a very small minority indeed in any society.

Sometimes, though, it is an entire society, not a minority in a society. That is the problem.

[CaptainFritz28]

In any case, I contest the use of the word "many". People intent on, or willing to carry out murder are a very small minority indeed in any society.

More than ten thousand is many.

But that doesn't really matter. Why do we put them in jail? Haven't we violated their moral code by deciding that murder is wrong? Why is our moral code correct and not theirs?

[CaptainFritz28]

This is a really good discussion. I don't have an answer to this. You end up with two societies that want each other dead. I guess then they fight, kill and destroy each other, and then the fighting is over, and then we make art and play diplomacy again.

"For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven: time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted; time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance; time to throw away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing; time to seek, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to throw away; time to tear, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak; time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace" (Ecclesiastes 3:1-8).

There is some wisdom in those old books.

Interesting conclusion. I think I agree, but maybe you could rephrase or clarify it so I know exactly what I'm agreeing to? I am not precisely sure of your meaning.

[Jamiet99uk]

In any case, I contest the use of the word "many". People intent on, or willing to carry out murder are a very small minority indeed in any society.

More than ten thousand is many.

But that doesn't really matter. Why do we put them in jail? Haven't we violated their moral code by deciding that murder is wrong? Why is our moral code correct and not theirs?

You don't really understand the concept of society, do you?

We have established nation-states which have laws. The majority of people in pretty much every nation on Earth support laws making murder illegal, which is why those laws are in place. The "moral code" of a very small minority of people who have chosen to breach some of society's most basic conventions does not need to be respected. So we put them in jail.

[CaptainFritz28]

In any case, I contest the use of the word "many". People intent on, or willing to carry out murder are a very small minority indeed in any society.

More than ten thousand is many.

But that doesn't really matter. Why do we put them in jail? Haven't we violated their moral code by deciding that murder is wrong? Why is our moral code correct and not theirs?

You don't really understand the concept of society, do you?

We have established nation-states which have laws. The majority of people in pretty much every nation on Earth support laws making murder illegal, which is why those laws are in place. The "moral code" of a very small minority of people who have chosen to breach some of society's most basic conventions does not need to be respected. So we put them in jail.

So morality is just what the majority decides is right and wrong. Ultimately, that is your claim. If you have more on your side, or stronger people on your side, then you determine morals.

[CaptainFritz28]

The "moral code" of a very small minority of people who have chosen to breach some of society's most basic conventions does not need to be respected. So we put them in jail.

So when slavery abolitionists were a minority, was slavery moral?
Before support for the LGBTQ movement was a majority, the social shunning of them was moral?
Before women's rights advocates were a majority, women not having as many rights as men was moral?

[JECE]

More than ten thousand is many.

But that doesn't really matter. Why do we put them in jail? Haven't we violated their moral code by deciding that murder is wrong? Why is our moral code correct and not theirs?

You don't really understand the concept of society, do you?

We have established nation-states which have laws. The majority of people in pretty much every nation on Earth support laws making murder illegal, which is why those laws are in place. The "moral code" of a very small minority of people who have chosen to breach some of society's most basic conventions does not need to be respected. So we put them in jail.

So morality is just what the majority decides is right and wrong. Ultimately, that is your claim. If you have more on your side, or stronger people on your side, then you determine morals.

This is bullshit. The vast majority of people (especially if they are atheists and are therefore not blindsided by potentially false moral codes) can determine for themselves that annoying their neighbor isn't very nice. What the majority thinks is irrelevant to the fact that each individual can come to that conclusion independently. Most people would be mighty annoyed at getting murdered.

You seem to be confusing social Darwinism with atheism. Social Darwinism is a pseudoscience that White, Protestant Christians used to justify a perverse moral universe that ultimately led to the Holocaust. That dark worldview was not supported by Charles Darwin and cannot be supported by the scientific method.

Jamiet99uk's point about society is important. Humans are social creatures. We are mostly wired to value the common benefit (or commonwealth, or common good, or public benefit, etc.) since that helps build a better, nicer world for us all to live in. Who wants to live in a world where might makes right?

[CaptainFritz28]

You don't really understand the concept of society, do you?

We have established nation-states which have laws. The majority of people in pretty much every nation on Earth support laws making murder illegal, which is why those laws are in place. The "moral code" of a very small minority of people who have chosen to breach some of society's most basic conventions does not need to be respected. So we put them in jail.

So morality is just what the majority decides is right and wrong. Ultimately, that is your claim. If you have more on your side, or stronger people on your side, then you determine morals.

This is bullshit. The vast majority of people (especially if they are atheists and are therefore not blindsided by potentially false moral codes) can determine for themselves that annoying their neighbor isn't very nice. What the majority thinks is irrelevant to the fact that each individual can come to that conclusion independently. Most people would be mighty annoyed at getting murdered.

You seem to be confusing social Darwinism with atheism. Social Darwinism is a pseudoscience that White, Protestant Christians used to justify a perverse moral universe that ultimately led to the Holocaust. That dark worldview was not supported by Charles Darwin and cannot be supported by the scientific method.

Jamiet99uk's point about society is important. Humans are social creatures. We are mostly wired to value the common benefit (or commonwealth, or common good, or public benefit, etc.) since that helps build a better, nicer world for us all to live in. Who wants to live in a world where might makes right?

The powerful do. Those with might. You are taking your own morals and applying them to all - but what about people who disagree with you? Who is more right? Atheism does not provide an answer, because it does not provide an ultimate standard to measure your own against.

Many don't care about the common benefit. What are we to do about them?

If morality is determined by the individual, then no one can condemn a murderer because their individual moral code allows it.
If morality is determined by society, then how does society determine morality? Does it put it to a vote? In that case, morality is what the majority says it is, and may shift with the majority's opinion. Does it choose a leader who will determine it by force? In that case, morality is determined by might.

Atheism inherently does not have a single moral standard. Individuals may, but they are often in conflict. Societies may, but they are often in conflict.
You assume that everyone wants the common good, that no one wants might makes right, and that everyone will come to the same conclusions about morals. But that are simply not true. Just because you want it doesn't mean everyone else does. How do we know that you are any more right than anyone who disagrees with you?

[CaptainFritz28]

What Jamie said is that the moral code of a minority does not need to be respected, purely because they are a minority. "Society's most basic conventions" change with time, and are different across cultures, nations, and continents. They are what the majority determines.

Therefore, what Jamie is saying is that the minority's moral code does not need to be respected because the majority say so.
That is quite literally might makes right.