Universal Ideas for Morality

[INRM]

I was thinking of ideas for a morality system that should work.

The first things are a sort of commandment type thing... but they're not ordered by god, they're ordered by a human being simply for the reason that it benefits other human beings.

1.) Do not deceive - I've changed this from 'don't lie' or 'don't bare false witness' because those two still leave room for deception. For example, I can choose to not give information to somebody, which is not technically a lie, but it is omitting something, and that is deceptive.

2.) Do not kill - A society is supposed to be a group of people or in a larger scale, any sentient race who have decided to work together. The key is "together". A race killing off members of it's own race does not qualify as working together or cooperating. The other problem with killing is that it ends one person's life and hurts dozens of other people (their families) for the rest of their lifetimes. The only times that killing is acceptable is

a.) It is necessary to obtain food, and the plant-life in the area isn't cutting it.

b.) to defend yourself from death.

The latter is the one that should be elaborated the most upon. If your life is in immediate danger of death, it should be acceptable to use lethal force to protect yourself. Using lethal force should not be used, however, to protect yourself from getting caught stealing-- that is not a life-or-death danger, or killing someone from catching you committing a crime.

3.) Do not steal: It's more than just taking something. While one object such as a coin may be insignificant in value to one person, it could be a lot to another. I may consider a coin to be useless, but you may consider it to be an object of great sentimental value to you. Your grandfather may have given it to you, and let's say he's dead now, and that's the only way you can remember him.

Stealing tends to also inspire revenge. And it doesn't always include taking it back. Sometimes people over-do it and use brutality, or even death to get something back.

I have more, but it is very lengthly, so I want to post it later

-INRM

 

[rustypouch]

Why not just sum it up like Bill and Ted:

Be excellent to one another; and

Party on, Dudes!

 

[scribble]

1.) Do not deceive - I've changed this from 'don't lie' or 'don't bare false witness' because those two still leave room for deception. For example, I can choose to not give information to somebody, which is not technically a lie, but it is omitting something, and that is deceptive.

What if there are circumstances in which I'd rather not know the truth?

2.) Do not kill - A society is supposed to be a group of people or in a larger scale, any sentient race who have decided to work together. The key is "together". A race killing off members of it's own race does not qualify as working together or cooperating. The other problem with killing is that it ends one person's life and hurts dozens of other people (their families) for the rest of their lifetimes. The only times that killing is acceptable is

a.) It is necessary to obtain food, and the plant-life in the area isn't cutting it.

Define 'cutting it.' I like to eat animals. Plant life will *never* cut it.

b.) to defend yourself from death.

So is killing someone who has murdered a hundred people qualify as defending yourself? How about someone who's only murdered one person? How about someone who you think may be a threat to you someday down the line?

Is everyone allowed to kill to defend themselves from death? If a police officer is attempting to kill me because I have just shot three people, do I now have the *right* to shoot him as well?

Stealing tends to also inspire revenge. And it doesn't always include taking it back. Sometimes people over-do it and use brutality, or even death to get something back.

Which part of your philosophy is this? Revenge and brutality? Ack!

I have more, but it is very lengthly, so I want to post it later

Interesting, but if you're going to try to create a truly universal morality -- well, good f-ing luck to you!

-Chris

 

[Tony]

I agree with 2 and 3, but my right to decieve is a cherished right. How else would I play practical jokes on my friends?

 

[Ladewig]

The only times that killing is acceptable is

a.) It is necessary to obtain food, and the plant-life in the area isn't cutting it.

b.) to defend yourself from death.

I think a bit more defining will have to go into these.


a). I am very hungry because there is not enough plant life here in the city. Stealing food is wrong. I will kill that baker and obtain food from his store. (or worse) I will kill the baker and eat his flesh.

b). There aren't enough life jackets for everyone on this sinking ship. I will surely die if I don't get one. I will kill that person and take her life jacket.


The big question I have for you is not about the rest of your system but rather how you will respond to someone who says, "you are correct in developing a system of morality that is not God-based, but your specific rules aren't as good as the system of rules that I developed, so let's abandon your rules and use mine"?

 

[justsaygnosis]

The international bill of rights isn't too shabby.

http://www.vnhrnet.org/english/eintbill/ebill_declaration.htm

 

[Yahzi]

The Golden Rule is all you need.

Everything else follows.

 

[Fade]

The Golden Rule is all you need.

Everything else follows.

Here I was prepared to show you how you are so completely wrong about your morality

The Golden Rule does fairly well, but it's not enough, nor does it cover the freaks of the world would want to be hogtied and raped.

 

[INRM]

Re: Re: Universal Ideas for Morality

What if there are circumstances in which I'd rather not know the truth?

It is better to live a harsh reality than a pleasant lie. Avoiding the truth doesn't help. Embrace reality.

Define 'cutting it.' I like to eat animals. Plant life will *never* cut it.

Don't kill for sport. If you need food, kill an animal. Don't however kill unnecessarily.

So is killing someone who has murdered a hundred people qualify as defending yourself? How about someone who's only murdered one person? How about someone who you think may be a threat to you someday down the line?

Depends on the circumstance, if he is probably going to kill you, I can understand how you would kill him.

Is everyone allowed to kill to defend themselves from death? If a police officer is attempting to kill me because I have just shot three people, do I now have the *right* to shoot him as well?

Not if they are acting unjustly... if you are committing a crime, you should not be justified in defending yourself. You are supposed to be subject to justice.

Which part of your philosophy is this? Revenge and brutality? Ack!

Interesting, but if you're going to try to create a truly universal morality -- well, good f-ing luck to you!

-Chris

I think I'm doing okay so far.

And for Yahzi, I think the Golden-rule applies as well. It should be adhered to as well. Treat others as you would wish to be treated. The only exception is if you are a masochist.

-INRM

 

[scribble]

Re: Re: Re: Universal Ideas for Morality

It is better to live a harsh reality than a pleasant lie. Avoiding the truth doesn't help. Embrace reality.

Not everyone agrees.

Don't kill for sport. If you need food, kill an animal. Don't however kill unnecessarily.

I like hunting. If I don't need food, but I do eat what I kill, is that good or bad? How do I determine specifics like that for myself? Or will I have to come to you for every moral decision I wish to make?

Depends on the circumstance, if he is probably going to kill you, I can understand how you would kill him.

Wow, that's awful shaky ground for morality. Care to define that any better? Can you *understand* it, or is it *Right*? Remember, you're deifning morality here, you're to tell me what's Right and Wrong, not what you "understand".

Not if they are acting unjustly... if you are committing a crime, you should not be justified in defending yourself. You are supposed to be subject to justice.
[/QOUTE]

So what do I do about corrupt law enforcement policies and judicial process? I don't suppose your philosophy will ever make those go away -- how should I deal with them? And on what basis can I judge when someone is acting with good cause or without good cause?

I think I'm doing okay so far.

Disagree -- and it's nothing personal. I respect the effort.

And for Yahzi, I think the Golden-rule applies as well. It should be adhered to as well. Treat others as you would wish to be treated. The only exception is if you are a masochist.

I'm not a masochist. I absolutely love it when strangers talk to me on the train or the bus -- does this mean I should go out of my way to start conversations and talk at everyone I see?

Personally, I make excellent money at my job, and I refuse all tips on the basis that what I am doing I'm already being paid for. Should I refuse to tip out to others as well?

There are not merely many such examples -- there are literally infinitely many. Consider these two examples and the fact that these don't even take into account cultural differences.

-Chris

 

[Yahzi]

Here I was prepared to show you how you are so completely wrong about your morality

The Golden Rule does fairly well, but it's not enough, nor does it cover the freaks of the world would want to be hogtied and raped.

Yes it does. The masochist is not a refutation of the Golden Rule.

If you abuse the masochist, you are treating him as he wants to be treated: you are respecting his desires. Therefore, by the GR, shouldn't he respect your desires and treat you as you want to be treated?

The GR is not some simple-minded "treat everybody the same" rule. It says to treat people as you would want to be treated: if you were a masochist, then you would want people to abuse you, but so what? If you weren't a masochist, you wouldn't want people to abuse you, so the GR does allow any excuse for a masochist to mistreat other people.

Obviously you would want to be treated differently if you were blind. Does the GR demand that we pretend blind people can see, and force them to drive cars, because we want to drive cars? No, of course not.

The meaning of the GR is that you treat other people the way you would want to be treated if you were that other person. This goes without saying, because it is obvious that you should not treat other people exactly as you want to be treated: to act towards another person as if they were yourself is just insane. It should be obvious to anyone that other people aren't you. When you are hungry it does not mean other people are hungry right now. People are supposed to figure this out sometime before kindergarten.

These little maxims (like "know yourself") require a certain amount of thought before they can be properly appreciated. Just interpreting the GR as a simplistic "act robotically the same in all situations" is absurd, for the reasons outlined above. It is taken for granted that you should not literally treat other people as you treat yourself (when you cut your hand, you don't offer them a bandage). The essence of morality is theory of mind + social existance, and theory of mind is the ability to imagine being another person, to see things from their perspective. All the GR does is tell you to use this ability, if you want to continue your social existance.

Edit: I see Fade is not the only one to embrace this simple-minded version of the Golden Rule. Frankly, I'm surprised no one argued against GR by using my cutting example - if I cut my hand, does the GR tell me to offer bandages to every person I meet? Hopefully this example makes the strawman too obvious.