Discussion about ethics and morality, split from "Should miners collude to steal funds from wallet confiscated by US government?"

[Loozik]

What is morally right or wrong can differ from person to person, while what's legal cannot so much.

Morality is objective (like math, physics, etc.). Term morality have unfortunately been acquired by weirdos, preachers and idiots.

It cannot differ from one person to person (killing, stealing raping were morally wrong for your and my grandparents 1000 years ago and are morally wrong now for you and me). Ethics (from which the statist and religious laws and regulations are derived) changes over time (raping was ethical and legal a few thousand years ago).

e.g. two people in the same state can have different opinions on if gay marriage is morally wrong, but they cannot on if it's legal (or they are just wrong xD).

We are probably having disagreements over definitions. Can you define ''morally'' and ''legal''?

I certainly could call it (owning gold) morally wrong.

Can you prove owning gold (chemical element) is morally wrong? What harm do you do to others by owning it? This sounds like an arbitrary opinion to me.

If you say "xy isn't morally right" it's expressing your opinion, not stating a fact.

No, I am stating a fact (objective, provable rationally and / or empirically).

[Birdy]

Okey, answer this question and show me how you conclude it rationally and/or empirically.

Is it morally wrong to kill one (innocent) person to rescue 100 others?

[deeplink]

Okey, answer this question and show me how you conclude it rationally and/or empirically.

Is it morally wrong to kill one (innocent) person to rescue 100 others?

That depends on you philosophy. In my opinion it is morally wrong to kill an innocent person, unless the person agrees to it voluntarily, because you do not own that person or person's life. It is not yours to take. A communist however might say it is okay to do so 'for the common good'.

However if someone advocates this, I would like to suggest something in return. Did you know that you can save approx. 7 lives with your organs? Please get a valid donor card, drive to the hospital and slit your troth.

[DannyHamilton]

- snip -
A communist however might say it is okay to do so 'for the common good'.

However if someone advocates this, I would like to suggest something in return. Did you know that you can save approx. 7 lives with your organs? Please get a valid donor card, drive to the hospital and slit your troth.

Ah, but wait.

First you have to determine if any of those 7 lives might have been saved by some other organ donor if the 1 person didn't follow your instructions.
Then you have to determine if the remaining lives saved will contribute as more to the common good throughout their entire remaining lives as the 1 person would have contributed.

If not, then they should be allowed to die, so that the 1 person can provide for the common good.

 

[Rassah]

What is morally right or wrong can differ from person to person, while what's legal cannot so much.

Morality is objective (like math, physics, etc.). Term morality have unfortunately been acquired by weirdos, preachers and idiots.

It cannot differ from one person to person (killing, stealing raping were morally wrong for your and my grandparents 1000 years ago and are morally wrong now for you and me). Ethics (from which the statist and religious laws and regulations are derived) changes over time (raping was ethical and legal a few thousand years ago).

I think you may have these backwards, as I have often heard others on here refer to "morality" as something defined by governments and religious types (Moral majority, godly morals, etc), and "ethics" be something that is more objective and logical, without caring what someone's opinion of it is at the time.

[deeplink]

- snip -
A communist however might say it is okay to do so 'for the common good'.

However if someone advocates this, I would like to suggest something in return. Did you know that you can save approx. 7 lives with your organs? Please get a valid donor card, drive to the hospital and slit your troth.

Ah, but wait.

First you have to determine if any of those 7 lives might have been saved by some other organ donor if the 1 person didn't follow your instructions.
Then you have to determine if the remaining lives saved will contribute as more to the common good throughout their entire remaining lives as the 1 person would have contributed.

If not, then they should be allowed to die, so that the 1 person can provide for the common good.

 

Ah yes of course, but we can always elect someone to determine that for us  

[Birdy]

Okey, answer this question and show me how you conclude it rationally and/or empirically.

Is it morally wrong to kill one (innocent) person to rescue 100 others?

That depends on you philosophy. In my opinion it is morally wrong to kill an innocent person, unless the person agrees to it voluntarily, because you do not own that person or person's life. It is not yours to take. A communist however might say it is okay to do so 'for the common good'.

Exactly my point, it differs from person to person.

However if someone advocates this, I would like to suggest something in return. Did you know that you can save approx. 7 lives with your organs? Please get a valid donor card, drive to the hospital and slit your troth.

That's a fair point, obviously our own survival instinct is too strong for anyone to agree to this (or 99.999% of all people).
Does that make everyone a hypocrite who would claim that sacrificing one (someone who cannot be the one claiming it) to rescue, let's go bigger 1 million?
Would it change anything if the person to be sacrified is guilty of something?
I don't know.  
Saying you may not harm anyone seems like the easy way out, but there are quite some situations that will prove this too be far more complicated.
Luckily most of us won't have to make such difficult decisions though.

Ah, but wait.

First you have to determine if any of those 7 lives might have been saved by some other organ donor if the 1 person didn't follow your instructions.
Then you have to determine if the remaining lives saved will contribute as more to the common good throughout their entire remaining lives as the 1 person would have contributed.

If not, then they should be allowed to die, so that the 1 person can provide for the common good.

Also you could still rescue more people while being alive and then be an organ donor after that to rescue even more.
But we are also limiting "common good" to "keep more people alive", which isn't necessarily good. (e.g. overpopulation).
^^

[Loozik]

I think you may have these backwards, as I have often heard others on here refer to "morality" as something defined by governments and religious types (Moral majority, godly morals, etc), and "ethics" be something that is more objective and logical, without caring what someone's opinion of it is at the time.

It is the other way round.

Ethics is what is perceived good and noble by people living in a certain geographical area in a given specific time.

Morality is universal (independent of time and space), just like universal is law of gravity or Archimedes law. Morality is provable rationally (using logic) and empirically (using observations and experiments).

Yeah, I know it is a bit confusing; analogy:
- communists and other freaks acquired term ''anarchy''; during tens of years media convinced people that anarchy is (violent) chaos.
- politicians acquired scientific term ''law'' (laws exactly describe the world around us; laws are rationally and empirically provable) and convinced us that their coercive regulations are laws too, just by labeling their regulations as laws!
- religious freaks acquired term ''morality'' (we all heard BS phrases like ''religious morality'', etc in our lives) and deformed its universal meaning.

[Loozik]

Okey, answer this question and show me how you conclude it rationally and/or empirically.

Is it morally wrong to kill one (innocent) person to rescue 100 others?

It is morally wrong to initiate violence against humans or threaten them to use violence. Initiating violence or threatening to use one contradicts the property law (you own yourself). Noone should initiate violence against you. Neither should you do it against others.

It is also morally wrong to steal properties from other humans.

---------------------

Coming back to your fantastically misleading question:  have you ever been in a situation requiring such a decision from you? No, you were not! And you will never be. It is always morally wrong to kill innocent person. How would you feel if someone killed you (just because you happened to be innocent)?

[Loozik]

Morality is objective (like math, physics, etc.). Term morality have unfortunately been acquired by weirdos, preachers and idiots.

You are stupid

Would you care to explain?

[Loozik]

But rationality is based on one's own morals.

Rationality is based on one's morals? Where did you get it from?

[Birdy]

Morality is universal (independent of time and space), just like universal is law of gravity or Archimedes law. Morality is provable rationally (using logic) and empirically (using observations and experiments).

The law of gravity doesn't say "you shouldn't do x", it just is.
If you want to go against it...well you can't.
And while you can give a false prophecy by doing math wrong, you cannot go against it. If you put 1+1 balls in a box, you will have 2 balls in that box. You cannot end up with 3 or 1.
  
I don't see anything similar with morality, you can do stuff that is considered "immoral".

It is morally wrong to initiate violence against humans or threaten them to use violence. Initiating violence or threatening to use one contradicts the property law (you own yourself). Noone should initiate violence against you. Neither should you do it against others.

It is also morally wrong to steal properties from other humans.

You are already mixing in your own opinion and bias.
Why do you assume there is such thing as property for humans?
We could have a society in which nobody owned stuff, it is possible. (I'm not trying to argue if that's a good idea or not)

Why do you only include humans? What about animals? What about plants?
What about the violence we have to do in order to eat and survive?

[Qu1ck$1Lv3r]

I think you may have these backwards, as I have often heard others on here refer to "morality" as something defined by governments and religious types (Moral majority, godly morals, etc), and "ethics" be something that is more objective and logical, without caring what someone's opinion of it is at the time.

It is the other way round.

Ethics is what is perceived good and noble by people living in a certain geographical area in a given specific time.

Morality is universal (independent of time and space), just like universal is law of gravity or Archimedes law. Morality is provable rationally (using logic) and empirically (using observations and experiments).

Yeah, I know it is a bit confusing; analogy:
- communists and other freaks acquired term ''anarchy''; during tens of years media convinced people that anarchy is (violent) chaos.
- politicians acquired scientific term ''law'' (laws exactly describe the world around us; laws are rationally and empirically provable) and convinced us that their coercive regulations are laws too, just by labeling their regulations as laws!
- religious freaks acquired term ''morality'' (we all heard BS phrases like ''religious morality'', etc in our lives) and deformed its universal meaning.

You are incorrect in your definitions of  the terms "morality" and "ethics".  Ethics is the larger subject within which morality is contained. Ethics is one of the four (or five, depending upon who you ask) main questions or structures of Philosophy.

Metaphysics = What is Real?
Epistemology = What is Truth?
Ethics = What is Good?
Aesthetics = What is Beauty?

The terms "morality" and "ethics" are often used interchangeably. While there are situations where the terms are close in meaning, in the truest and widest sense of the terms Ethics is the knife that divides "good" from "bad" whereas Morality is the interpretation of the results.

[Loozik]

The law of gravity doesn't say "you shouldn't do x", it just is.
If you want to go against it...well you can't.
And while you can give a false prophecy by doing math wrong, you cannot go against it. If you put 1+1 balls in a box, you will have 2 balls in that box. You cannot end up with 3 or 1.
  
I don't see anything similar with morality, you can do stuff that is considered "immoral".

This is what I mean by universal:

Math is universal (independent of time and space and independent of person using this particular concept). Examples:
If someone says ''2+2=-5'' is wrong, then this statement is true:
- independent of time; this statement was true 1000 years ago, is true now and will be true in a million years from now
- independent of space; this statement is true in North America, in Portugal and even on Mars
- independent of person; this statement is true when you say it, when I say it and even when the pope says it

Imagine someone claiming ''2+2=-5 is false unless it serves a public good; then 2+2=-5 is true''. Idiocy, right? Or something like this ''Upward buoyant force that is exerted on a body immersed in a fluid, whether fully or partially submerged, is equal to the weight of the fluid that the body displaces, except for Chuck Norris who cannot be immersed, because he has lawful authority to walk on the water''.


Morality is also universal (independent of time and space and independent of person using this particular concept). Examples:
If someone says ''it is wrong to initiate violence, e.g. to rape), then this statement is true:
- independent of time; this statement was true 1000 years ago, is true now and will be true in a million years from now
- independent of space; this statement is true in North America, in Portugal and even on Mars
- independent of person; this statement is true when you say it, when I say it and even when the pope says it

Now imagine someone claiming ''gang-raping Birdy's child is wrong, but if it serves a public good then it's okay'' - would you agree to such an exception from the rule?


Ethics (and abstractions like state laws and regulations and religious laws and regulations derived from ethics) are not universal (they are always creating exceptions from the rule). Examples:
- stealing is wrong unless ... (exception follows: majority agrees to it, etc.) - real life example: ''A person commits theft, if without lawful authority, such person knowingly: 1 controls property of another with intent to deprive him of such property ...'' Arizona Revised Statuses, § 13-1802
- raping is wrong unless (exception follows: a person wearing FBI jacket is permitted to do so) - real life example: ''A person commits molestation of a child, if without lawful authority, by intentionally or knowingly engaging in or causing a person to engage in sexual contact with a child under fifteen years of age'' Arizona Revised Statuses, § 13-1410

This is your ethics at work! I do not want such a world for myself and for my children.

[murraypaul]

Morality is also universal (independent of time and space and independent of person using this particular concept).

This simply isn't true, which should be obvious after any consideration.
There are many things which are considered immoral now, which were not previously, and vice versa, or which are considered immoral here, but not there, or vice versa.
12 years old getting married and having children is considered immoral now, but was perfectly normal at some points in history.

What you are saying is that your own personal set of moral rules are the only ones that are right, have been and always will be right, everywhere in the world, and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong.
That is a very common viewpoint, usually promulgated by religions.

In fact, morality is, and can only be, personal. Each of us has an inherent sense of right and wrong, that is our set of morals.
It is obviously shaped by the society around us, and our upbringing and experience, but it is still ultimately personal.

[Loozik]

What you are saying is that your own personal set of moral rules are the only ones that are right, have been and always will be right, everywhere in the world, and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong.

There is not such a valid concept as a personal (arbitrary) set of rules with regard to morality. Just like there is no such a valid concept as a set of personal (arbitrary) rules with regard to math or to logic.

That is a very common viewpoint, usually promulgated by religions.

Me and religion is like water and fire. No religious influence here.

In fact, morality is, and can only be, personal. Each of us has an inherent sense of right and wrong, that is our set of morals.

Come on. You just made it up or read it in wikipedia. If it is - by your very own words - a fact, then you can surely prove it. If so, then prove it.

[Loozik]

Ethics is the larger subject within which morality is contained.

I disagree. Ethics and morality are two separate abstractions. They neither have intersections nor one is contained in another. Just like alchemy is not contained in chemistry or just like pseudoscience is not a part of science.

[Birdy]

Morality is also universal (independent of time and space and independent of person using this particular concept). Examples:
If someone says ''it is wrong to initiate violence, e.g. to rape), then this statement is true:
- independent of time; this statement was true 1000 years ago, is true now and will be true in a million years from now
- independent of space; this statement is true in North America, in Portugal and even on Mars
- independent of person; this statement is true when you say it, when I say it and even when the pope says it

Now imagine someone claiming ''gang-raping Birdy's child is wrong, but if it serves a public good then it's okay'' - would you agree to such an exception from the rule?

Just because you pick something that I wouldn't like seeing (and a really disgusting one at that), doesn't make the statement true.
Actually as sick as it is, raping the enemy's womens was considered morally right in a lot of historic armys (because it would weaken the enemy).
(and don't be fooled about my calm about that, if I had a child and you would do that there is a good chance my morality wouldn't fit your standards anymore ;P)

By the way, you still need to answer these:

It is morally wrong to initiate violence against humans or threaten them to use violence. Initiating violence or threatening to use one contradicts the property law (you own yourself). Noone should initiate violence against you. Neither should you do it against others.

It is also morally wrong to steal properties from other humans.

You are already mixing in your own opinion and bias.
Why do you assume there is such thing as property for humans?
We could have a society in which nobody owned stuff, it is possible. (I'm not trying to argue if that's a good idea or not)

Why do you only include humans? What about animals? What about plants?
What about the violence we have to do in order to eat and survive?

Ethics (and abstractions like state laws and regulations and religious laws and regulations derived from ethics) are not universal (they are always creating exceptions from the rule). Examples:
- stealing is wrong unless ... (exception follows: majority agrees to it, etc.) - real life example: ''A person commits theft, if without lawful authority, such person knowingly: 1 controls property of another with intent to deprive him of such property ...'' Arizona Revised Statuses, § 13-1802
- raping is wrong unless (exception follows: a person wearing FBI jacket is permitted to do so) - real life example: ''A person commits molestation of a child, if without lawful authority, by intentionally or knowingly engaging in or causing a person to engage in sexual contact with a child under fifteen years of age'' Arizona Revised Statuses, § 13-1410

This is your ethics at work! I do not want such a world for myself and for my children.

your? Who? I didn't make those.
Btw: It's a fallacy to say that there shouldn't be any exceptions, because those exceptions listed in the example are bad.

[grue]

Morality is also universal (independent of time and space and independent of person using this particular concept). Examples:
If someone says ''it is wrong to initiate violence, e.g. to rape), then this statement is true:
- independent of time; this statement was true 1000 years ago, is true now and will be true in a million years from now
- independent of space; this statement is true in North America, in Portugal and even on Mars
- independent of person; this statement is true when you say it, when I say it and even when the pope says it

Actually it was pretty common for women to be raped when any settlement was raided. Even in WW2 Japanese soldiers did that. Therefore your claim of "independent of time" is false. Your claim of "independent of space" is laughable unless you apply it to a modern human teleported to those location. As for "independent of person", I would argue that the only reason the statement is true is because everyone is raised in a environment that heavily believe in the said moral values. Therefore that statement is pointless.

[foggyb]

Grue, a person can choose to ignore moral guidelines, just like one can choose to ignore mathematical truths. The end result in both cases is regrettable yet avoidable, but doesn't nullify mathematics or universal morality.

Whether a person believes in specific moralities or not is irrelevant, since God does exist & from whom all morality is derived. Morality is proof of God's existence. We didn't invent moral laws, as even a very young child understands that it has been wronged if another child takes its toy. Its also not something nature designed/evolved/selected, as nature has no way to join the biological with the metaphysical. Only God could pull that off.