Is there a Rational Ground for Morality?

[coberst]

Is there a Rational Ground for Morality?

There can be no morality without law but there can be law without morality.

Law can create particular obligations but law cannot create a law that dictates an obligation to obey law. Law can punish but cannot create the general obligation to obey law. Such an obligation comes via moral character. “Morality must be distinguished from self-interest, although the two can often coincide…What is the rational ground for morality and its obligation?”

The rational ground for morality rests upon the need for mutual cooperation within a community. With mutual cooperation comes mutual dependence. Mutual cooperation demands trust, which relies upon honesty. Honesty implies obligation. Violence destroys cooperation.

Cooperation is essential for social life; only if we wish to withdraw into isolation can we afford to ignore cooperation. Empirically we can find cooperation within every community. Morality is about human relationships thus empirically we can find both the need and presence of morality in all communities.

Morality exists in all communities but it has many variables and much diversity. Three factors are important here: differences in religion, differences in politics, and differences in production and economic relations.

“Certain moral commitments with their attendant obligation are necessary for any kind of human co-operation whatever. These must first be acknowledged before there can be other values which vary. This is an a priori not an empirical thesis.” By definition, a group of individuals without human co-operation is no community at all.

A diversity of moral codes within a community can be accepted but primary loyalty to all within the community must be to the community and not to particular groups or classes within the community. Those values that unite must be more important than those that divide.

A community is a group committed to the rule of law, which entails three specific principles of law: the law is supreme with equality and freedom under the law. Legal rules are supreme and all members are subjected to and protected by those rules.

Public interest, when properly understood, forms the “rational basis of both government and politics”.

Quotes from The Morality of Politics edited by Bhikhu Parekh & R. N. Berki

[Virtual Particle]

As far as no law for morality perceived threats act as a motivator. Whether in history one looks at rituals meant to ensure the Sun rise or the Inquisitions it is what we fear that overcomes the desire to sit down for a Thanksgiving dinner. Here is a question when is it ok to be irrational? When is it ok to be immoral? One answer is of course never.

Is it ok to react irrationally to torture or abuse? Of course it is but it then begs the question of why they are being tortured or abused.?

An authentic Chinese dinner could only be experienced in China. A very wealthy young man decides to impress his new girlfriend, he rents a jet and they fly off to Beijing to what is the most expensive restaurant in the city. They are seated in the standard way and begin to look at there menus. His Chinese is not great but he requests an English menu orders two fish dinners, believing what could go wrong. Sitting next to him is a prominent banker of Chinese decent, unfortunately for the young man they will meet in the future (for a very important business deal) and what happens next will be etched in his mind. What the young man does not understand is that in his effort to secure an authentic Chinese meal he has ordered a whole fish which is half cooked the tail end and it is fried. The rest of the fish is actually still alive (actually tiring to catch a breath) when it is served on the table. Having never seen this before our intrepid traveler’s reaction is to stand up and repeatedly stab the fish in a violent way with a table knife, while his girlfriend started screaming hysterically the moment the meal arrived.

If your tendency is to over generalize the value of individuals in any particular society? The possibility that you will end up over generalizing so many individuals, that you will insure the wrath of the masses increasing in probability. Being Roman citizen in the days of Jesus, or that poor girl who had no idea folks served food like that does not change the point. Believing that a threat is real causes humans to react to others and there environment with suspicion. There tendency is to respond to a stimuli with past experience and place little weight upon what is observable from an alternative point of view (outside there past experiences).

One could suggest that everything has its place....

Any thoughts?

Edited April 11, 2009 by Triad

[coberst]

I have a constantly changing attitude toward morality. My views are changing because I am constantly studying subject matter that is related to the problem of morality. In fact as I study these matters I find that the most important concerns of sapiens is morality based.

I have a cartoon figure that my son has crated for me that speaks to my general attitude toward morality. The figure has an Arnold-like upper torso set on two spindle weak veracious veined legs. The upper torso is our ‘man of science’ and the lower body represents our ‘science of man’, i.e. morality. We are rapidly running out the clock on human survival unless we quickly develop a moral code that will allow us to live together.

I suspect that almost all of us would behave uniformly when encountering face-to-face with another person’s misfortune—we would all feel instant sympathy. We are born with ‘sympathetic vibrations’--we often automatically tear-up in all the same situations. However there seems to be two moral concepts that determine many social-political situations.

“The two main concepts of ethics are those of the right and the good; the concept of a morally worthy person is, I believe, derived from them.” This quote and any others are from “A Theory of Justice” by John Rawls.

It appears that both philosophy and common sense distinguish between the concepts ‘right’ and ‘good’. The interrelationship of these two concepts in many minds will determine what is considered to be ethical/moral behavior. Most citizens in a just society consider that rights “are taken for granted and the rights secured by justice are not subject to political bargaining or to the calculus of social interests.” The Constitution of the United States defines the rights of all citizens, which are considered to be sacrosanct (sacred or holy).

Many consider that the “most rational conception of justice is utilitarian…a society is properly arranged when its institutions maximize the net balance of satisfaction…It is natural to think that rationality is maximizing something and that in morals it must be maximizing the good.”

Some advocates of utilitarianism believe that rights have a secondary validity from the fact that “under the conditions of civilized society there is a great social utility in following them [rights] for the most part and in permitting violations only under exceptional circumstances.” The good, for society, is the satisfaction of rational desire. The right is that which maximizes the good; some advocates of utilitarianism account for rights as being a socially useful consideration.

Captain Dave will under no circumstance torture a prisoner. Captain Jim will torture a prisoner when he considers such action will save the lives of his platoon.

Some utilitarians consider the rights enunciated in the constitution are a useful means to fortify the good. Captain Jim, while recognizing the rights in the Constitution, considers these rights are valid and useful but only because they promote the good. The rights defined in the Constitution can be violated but only in the name of the common good.

Captain Dave may very well be an advocate of utilitarianism but he considers that right is different in kind from good and right cannot be forfeit to good under any condition.

Liberals take the stance that to agree on the fact means to agree on the morality of the situation. Any deviation is indefensible and reflects only selfish rationalization. Liberals find it almost impossible to respect the moral position of conservatives and conservatives find it impossible to judge that liberals are the intellectual equals of conservatives.

The apparent reason for this disjunction is the fact that liberals and conservatives seem to have “their own kind of morality” according to the analysis in ”The Morality of Politics” by W. H. Walsh.

“What we need to observe is that conservatives and liberals are working within different traditions of morality. The morality of the conservative is closed morality; it is the morality of a particular community. The morality of the liberal is an open morality; it is a morality which has nothing to do with any particular human groups, but applies to all men whatever their local affiliations.”

I was raised as a Catholic; I was taught by the nuns the Catholic doctrine regarding sin, punishment, and consciousness. Venial sins were like misdemeanors and mortal sins were like felonies. However, this is not a completely accurate analogy because if a person dies with venial sin on the soul s/he would be punished by having to spend time in purgatory before going to heaven but if a person died with mortal sin on the soul s/he went directly to hell for eternity.

Confession was the standard means for ‘erasing sin from the soul’. A confession was considered to be a ‘good confession’ only if the sinner confessed the sins to a priest and was truly sorry for having committed sin. A very important element of a good confession was an examination of consciousness, which meant the person must become fully conscious of having committed the sin.

Ignorance of the sin was no excuse just as ignorance of the law is no excuse. Herein lays the rub. Knowledge and consciousness of sin were necessary conditions for the erasure of sin from the soul in confession.

[=Jak=]

Morals choosed by people not the ruler. Region to region varries. They need something different... which previous group ignored... so they separated and choosed to follow new moral. Then what is basic moral... which has to be follow by all??

[Nik Xues]

Morals and ethics do not exist.

What does exist is the wisdom garnered by making mistakes. For example if your a little man and you go up to a big scary macho man and slap his ***... well you get the picture.

To summerize society misconduct is met in two ways negative reinforcement[a good whuppin] or removal of the hinderance[exile or worse]. But ultimately it is the strong who controls the pack.

If i am the strongest i may do as i please as no one can challenge me. Ironically it is this truth which causes war As people will always try to be on top even if there is no need.

[Virtual Particle]

Morals choosed by people not the ruler. Region to region varries. They need something different... which previous group ignored... so they separated and choosed to follow new moral. Then what is basic moral... which has to be follow by all??

One idea is to review all belief systems and find the things that are in common (While it is true there are differences, in relation to what is in common it is really incredible).

If i am the strongest i may do as i please as no one can challenge me. Ironically it is this truth which causes war As people will always try to be on top even if there is no need.

Could you be more specific as to what kind of things you do because you feel no one can challenge you? I mean are we talking breaking and entering or who in the household controls the remote?

In fact as I study these matters I find that the most important concerns of sapiens is morality based.

There is an inherent reality to mankind, they express themselves emotionally from the context of dualities (this relationship is as fundamental as to be part of reproduction). There is an inherent aspect to reality; it is also expresses in relationship to dualities (negative and positive, north and south). Recently it was presented in this forum that beyond certain point gravity does not apply as the individual’s particles of matter are too small to generate a gravitational field. These levels of orientation are where matter ceases to function individually and in relation to same a very important issue can be clarified. Limits are always significant as in the case of black holes there are limits to how much mass and energy a black hole can take in at any particular time (relative to its size). When this limit is reached the black hole begins ejecting material from its poles. This is a very familiar image and many of us are accustomed to seeing it. but if not even light can escape a black hole how is it getting away? One issue that is very important to understand is that whatever is being ejected from a black hole must be moving at a speed faster that that of light. There is are some reasons to believe that the contents of this eject is just not light but also matter (they do not just come in one color). There has also been suggested that what we are seeing (when a black hole begins ejecting material) is the formation of a wormhole in nature. There is a lot of controversy over that at present however our observation of these phenomenon’s present substantive distances between the black hole and where the material is finally released.

Coberst over a decade ago we split the quark from it presented very tiny objects (tiny compared to the quark) at the time they were called spray. This being because the reaction resembled what happens when one releases spray from an aerosol can.

Imagine a facility the size of the continental United States and just as thick from the crust to the mantel. This man made object (made God willing sometime in the future) is a farm. It sits in orbit above Earth and it uses elevators to move food to the surface (this things has a whole lotta elevators). Every conceivable food item can be produced there and every last bit of it is taken through various inspections before delivery.

Our technology can save us but we have to overcome the fact that it does not makes a difference when we abuse or harm each other…

In ancient days a Universe without Earth would be impossible. Now, perhaps if we get to the level of sophistication where we have populated our Galaxy and then start a war? At least and perhaps someone will be looking in our direction in some other galaxy and say," Wow, those people were really p***ed!!" That is the truth as far as I know. Existing is fraught with threats in the extremely long run. What would it take to avoid what could actually cause stars to fall from the sky? One book suggests we have a problem then?

Any thoughts?

Edited April 12, 2009 by Triad

[Virtual Particle]

Because if an object cannot generate a gravitational felid what else could be massing (I mean missing ofcourse).

Any thoughts?

[coberst]

Morals and ethics do not exist.

What does exist is the wisdom garnered by making mistakes. For example if your a little man and you go up to a big scary macho man and slap his ***... well you get the picture.

To summerize society misconduct is met in two ways negative reinforcement[a good whuppin] or removal of the hinderance[exile or worse]. But ultimately it is the strong who controls the pack.

If i am the strongest i may do as i please as no one can challenge me. Ironically it is this truth which causes war As people will always try to be on top even if there is no need.

Morality is an abstract idea like God, nation, communisim, capitalism, etc We live, die, and kill for abstract ideas. We are meaning creating creatures. Meaning is an abstract idea. Learning about abstract ideas is important.

[=Jak=]

One idea is to review all belief systems and find the things that are in common (While it is true there are differences, in relation to what is in common it is really incredible).

Any thoughts?

Okay I far from belief system... okay base is love.. people started to grow with this love.. now in love there two type.. so how you moral it... love or lust.. that should be comman problem in moral.. basic thing to deal with belief or moral.. how one's feeling judged... how it is viewed.. animals have no rule in this.. so man planed moral for better life style... did that really helped us????

[Virtual Particle]

Okay I far from belief system... okay base is love.. people started to grow with this love.. now in love there two type.. so how you moral it... love or lust.. that should be comman problem in moral.. basic thing to deal with belief or moral.. how one's feeling judged... how it is viewed.. animals have no rule in this.. so man planed moral for better life style... did that really helped us????

A man meets a woman and for a week everything is perfect, but something happens and now the man feels different. Its not that he was just interested in having her but he cannot reconcile his feelings and continue the relationship. If there are mutual friends involved (and often even if there are not) there very well could be a serious problem with the lady in the relationship. Like in the scenario described above (The authentic Chinese dinner) one is faced with a problem whose potential solutions could imply all kinds of behaviors. In the case of the authentic Chinese restaurant one could imagine perhaps standing up, excusing one self due to an "emergency," and aye the bill on your way out is what would be best. Still though even if the only emergency is that one feels nauseous, the proper thing to do is to generalize the cause of the emergency to those around you.

Any thoughts?

PS: Aye-aye to Captain Richard Phillips

[=Jak=]

Ok generalized... one feel the urge.. but feared to approach women... trying other option which is unbelivable.. but he not able to control his nauseous at the same time.. then how soceity has to look this man or the emergency..

[Virtual Particle]

Ok generalized... one feel the urge.. but feared to approach women... trying other option which is unbelivable.. but he not able to control his nauseous at the same time.. then how soceity has to look this man or the emergency..

When an animal cares for its young it restrains its instinct to hunt (in many cases with respect to some animals for long periods of time). The behavior involving hunting (especially in carnivores) can involve all kinds of extremely violent behaviors. A psychotic animal (at any degree of development) is one that reproduces specifically for the purpose of eating its young. Moral behavior is about survival but clearly so is being able to hunt.

Any thoughts?

[=Jak=]

Okay... then Nothing to say.. if hunt is the answer... then one in need will hunt... and the one who lost young will hunt.. never end process of hunt.. then where moral stands... if this continue.. why we need it... even if it is not there... we hunt... the one who lost will hunt... just like animal.. I don't feel we need a book for it..

[Virtual Particle]

Okay... then Nothing to say.. if hunt is the answer... then one in need will hunt... and the one who lost young will hunt.. never end process of hunt.. then where moral stands... if this continue.. why we need it... even if it is not there... we hunt... the one who lost will hunt... just like animal.. I don't feel we need a book for it..

When it is time for a mother Tiger to leave her kittens and look for food they stay in there home,

When the mother smells another predator nearby and decides they leave there home the cubs follow.

The way she communicates this is what makes survival possible.

This is her technology...

Consequences are a part of life, the steak and chicken used to be alive (as well as were the potatoes and so on). One could actually care for such things that are also food (in the case of a plant aesthetically). It takes a moment to consider the difference.

Any thoughts?

[Virtual Particle]

A point in our technology is that if matter is divisible in a black hole beyond that of light, then it could be mass less and able to escape. If that is not possible then perhaps some type of shape makes it possible (or other condition). An important point is that light cannot escape a black hole so what is leaving a black hole when it is saturated cannot be light.

Any thoughts?

This would ofcourse sugest that mater forms are divisible beyond that of light and not just inside a black hole when you look in the mirror your looking at another way to store it.

Edited April 13, 2009 by Triad

[Virtual Particle]

A very interesting point is that the phenomenon of a black hole saturated with matter and light is visible. Meaning, that a cause for it being visible could be impacts, resulting in the release of photons. Those photons make there way back to the black hole but there existence records that something which emits photons is being processed there.

Any thoughts?