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)