I like to live by my own code, the problem is morality is instilled in us, but it is not formed by us it has been formed by others.
We've all been institutionalised, if someone goes against the institution then the masses see this as incorrect, and we ostracise them.

I like petite, big eyed, short hair or very long hair (black/brunette) with a sense of humour, a decent logical head on their shoulders. However this kind of person I will never attract because I am cynical and a bit of a cunt.

I'm not sure either of your questions are answered by either of my answers
( GrandmaOfShoes, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 14:38, archived)

Maybe not, but
logical head on their shoulders. However this kind of person I will never attract because I am cynical and a bit of a

Morality is a social institution, I'd suggest.
( Flapjack I spay a little mare for you, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 14:41, archived)

the issue is institutionalisation kind of destroys individualism, but creates order for progression to be made
Anarchism just causes destruction.
( GrandmaOfShoes, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 14:47, archived)

Morality is ethics applied on a personal level.
The social institution isn't morality per se, but most people defer their own ethical choices to it because they can't or prefer not to think for themselves.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 14:47, archived)

Thinking for yourself
is only the logical working-out and prioritising of certain moral axioms, and those axioms are generally dependent on the society you're raised in, with a few that seem to be built-in to most humans.
( Flapjack I spay a little mare for you, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 14:55, archived)

I don't think you work axioms out so much as you declare them,
and that the axioms define the thing you're talking about. The problem at large is that the term "morality" is not well-defined, if there is no absolute agreement on what constitutes its axioms. I think this is largely a result of a refusal to acknowledge that it ought to have axioms at all, such that most people have a pretty fuzzy concept of it as a whole, usually only relying on personal conscience and what would get them into trouble.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 15:00, archived)

Sorry, that's what I meant to say -
a working-out of the consequences.

Absolute agreement would require absolute moral facts, I think this is where it falls down.
( Flapjack I spay a little mare for you, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 15:04, archived)

Absolute agreement on every little detail probably will never come about,
but at the moment, there isn't even agreement on what morality fundamentally means. People refuse to define it. By what set of universal principles can an act be judged by?
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 15:08, archived)

I don't think it's necessarily a refusal
as an inability to derive a "should" from an "is". I personally think any universal morality will only come about due to the suppression of other moralities, not due to some inherent logical truth.
( Flapjack I spay a little mare for you, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 15:21, archived)

I think that's why I consider it a "refusal" as such,
because there's a fear that by defining morality in an unambiguous way would oppress some group of people or other, and be akin to tyranny.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 15:24, archived)

Ah, I see
I'm not afraid to state my beliefs and fight for them, even though I know that they have no universal grounding. Neither do any others which are being fought for, and if I didn't hold any "shoulds" without supreme objective guidance, I'd have no morality whatsoever.

I justify this pragmatically by saying that my "shoulds" try not to impose themselves beyond that of avoiding harm to others, and don't require belief in the Unknowable Infinite or deities. Although they do require assent to propositions that suffering and stress are less desirable than pleasure and flourishing, say.

What's the alternative?
( Flapjack I spay a little mare for you, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 15:33, archived)

"should" is only relative to goals.
If I want to achieve X, I "should" do Y.

But what "should" I want to achieve?

If there is a purpose to the Universe, it would provide the answer to that. I should want to achieve what the Universe is for. And what I think it is for is understanding, because that's exactly what it's been leading up to this last 13.8 billion years.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 15:39, archived)

But a) there's no evidence for the "if"
and b) there's no evidence for the last bit. Even if there's a purpose, we could be oblivious of or unreachable to any evidence. Plus there's the difficulty of defining what "understanding" is.

On balance, the hypothesis that teleology is an artifact of having brains that are fine-tuned for social interaction strikes me as the more likely, so far. But I remain open to other hypotheses, pending evidence.
( Flapjack I spay a little mare for you, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 15:57, archived)

Bare with me,
I'm on the forefront of my own understanding here.
a) any reasons for the "if" must transcend evidence as such,
b) if there is a purpose, something in the Universe has to come aware of it at some point, otherwise it would go permanently unfulfilled, which would be EPIC FAIL.

My reasoning for this is that understanding, or attempting to, seems to be the primary activity of the rational mind, whether the brain as a whole is tuned for social interaction or not. Indeed, the most logical people tend to be quite poor at the social side of things. Not that I don't think the social side is important. Of course, we're also fine-tuned to exist in the physical world as well.

I'm basically looking at what the Universe has done so far and assumed it's leading up to something. What it's produced so far, unless our entire planet is some kind of massive red herring, is surely indicative of what it was set up to do. "Form and function," as my school biology teacher used to say.

I can't conceive of any meaningful kind of morality without some purpose to the Universe, so it's certainly of practical value to me that there be one.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 16:07, archived)

Hmm
a) if there is a purpose, wouldn't it be advantageous (and really very little effort) for that purpose to be clearly indicated to rational minds?
b) Not necessarily, it could be for the purpose of some extra-universal being. A car engine has a purpose and no internal knowledge of its purpose.
c) That's an immense assumption, no?
d) You don't live to a morality now?
( Flapjack I spay a little mare for you, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 16:33, archived)

Well, the idea of a general agreement on morality is kind of the basis of law.
If we don't all (or most of us) agree that something is wrong, then as a society we shouldn't punish it. If everyone has different morals, then should the law be altered for different people?
And personally, I'd say morality is formed by us, and continues to be changed by all of us. It's not fixed.
( my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 14:51, archived)

the law is a moral agent in itself

( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 14:53, archived)

I read some Nietszche recently
he was saying something along the lines of 'pride will always overcome memory' basically suggesting that if we do something that people consider 'evil' whilst our memory initially remembers the events as they were, i.e. you performing the 'evil' event, but these memories will be overwritten with your own pride.
( GrandmaOfShoes, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 14:57, archived)

I don't know if that's philosophy or psychology.
Sounds more like psychology to me, though. People do get defensive, and confabulate.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 15:02, archived)

It was philosophy
it's been confirmed by psychology. I forget what it's called, I think it was a Kahneman and Tversky bias.
( Flapjack I spay a little mare for you, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 15:07, archived)

I'd see it as a structure consisting of what the majority think of as being immoral, roughly.
A common agreement on what is immoral and what punishment should result from it.
If the majority change their ideas of what is moral then the law will, or at least should, adapt to that.
( my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 15:00, archived)

ah ahh "should".
the law "should" do this or that because it is a moral agent. but I don't think it necessarily should be swayed by the will of the mob, fortunately it isn't otherwise homosexuality would still be illegal for instance...

The law, as a moral agent, has the moral duty to do what IS right, irrespective of what the people affected by it think is right, and even, confusingly, irrespective of what the moral agent itself thinks is right. This is why all moral agents have a primary duty to think about what they're doing and to formulate good reason for their moral beliefs before their moral duty to do what they think is right can become manifest. That is, in order to do right, one must try one's best to align what one thinks to what actually is.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 15:05, archived)

And how do you define what actually is right, rather than what the majority think is right?
I'm not necessarily disagreeing. I have heard of polls claiming that the majority of people want to reintroduce the death penalty.
( my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 15:08, archived)

well this is the problem outlined above,
nobody seems to have a definition of it. Everybody seems to have a vague woolly sense of what it is in everyday practice, but nobody, when asked, can actually say what it is.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 15:12, archived)

Well, down there I said 'will doing this harm anyone else?'
But I suppose that's no help when dealing with punishment. Personally I'd like to see punishment much more about rehabilitation than just revenge.
( my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 15:17, archived)

oh yes,
me too, I see no moral value in punishment at all unless it's intended to change someone for the better. Otherwise it's just self-satisfaction.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 15:30, archived)

It's how it started and how it's viewed
But in a multicultural society it's a political agreement, rather than a moral agreement: you find common ground to make life livable and efficient, because life would be less pleasant without them, and not because you share a belief in the underlying moral reasons.
( Flapjack I spay a little mare for you, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 15:02, archived)

Yeah, I have problems with seeing what's immoral with personal drug use, for example.
Apart from the obvious funding of organised crime, which is a result of the illegality rather than the drug itself.
( my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 15:05, archived)

have you read this week's Bad Science?
www.badscience.net/2009/06/this-is-my-column-this-is-my-column-on-drugs-any-questions/
( Flapjack I spay a little mare for you, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 15:09, archived)

my own understanding of morality centres around duties rather than rights as the fundamental objects.
I don't believe anybody has a right to self destruction, because such interferes with the duty to do good in the world. Rights are only an artifact of everyone performing their duties.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 15:10, archived)

Illegal drugs don't necessarily lead to self destruction,
any more than alcohol, tobacco, gambling etc do. Personally I see morality more in terms of 'will doing this harm anyone else?'
I suppose you could construct an argument about self-destruction harming those around you, but I think self-destruction is something it's impossible to legislate against.
( my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 15:14, archived)

that's a common view of morality especially amongst young people,
I suppose it's a step up from the old-style "thou shalt not" absolutism, but it can very easily get all tangled up, especially if negligence can be considered a moral wrong. It might be impossible, or at least meaningless, to legislate against self-destruction, but it can still be wrong without the law.

I think in general, anything that focuses one's attention inwardly on the sensations, on indulgence and physical pleasures, has a tendency to make a person a worse, and a less competent moral agent, because your duty is to others, not to yourself and your senses.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 15:22, archived)

Unless self-destruction is the optimum way to increase good in the world
suicide bombers, kamikaze pilots, etc.
( Flapjack I spay a little mare for you, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 15:19, archived)

oh yeah,
in some situations self-destruction might be a person's duty. But it's never a right. Rights are peculiar things, destructive in themselves to my mind, even as concepts. It encourages people to put themselves first, focus on the ego, "I have the right to this and that". Everybody having the right to everything, and nobody having the duty to provide it, will never get anywhere. It's ethical gridlock.

Whereas rights emerge naturally out of individuals' moral duties to each other. "I have a duty to feed the poor," and so, the poor effectively have the right to be fed.

Your duty is to make the world better, not simply avoid making it worse.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 15:29, archived)

I agree with this
rights are OK when used negatively to define a state's duties to its citizens, but not as a positive "thing" that people possess independently in and of themselves.
( Flapjack I spay a little mare for you, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 15:37, archived)