Ethics versus Morality

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 1040
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Ethics versus Morality

Post by Age » Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:30 am

seeds wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 6:30 pm
A_Seagull wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 3:12 am
Fair point... but ... does the labelling of such acts as immoral actually benefit anyone?
seeds wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 4:04 am
I think that it would, but only if the labeling is accompanied with a direct and forceful intervention to try and put a halt to it.

And when I say forceful intervention, I mean that the perpetrators of this barbarous practice should be subjected to the same scale of punishment as that of anyone who tortures and purposely (and permanently) mutilates another human being, especially a child.

Do you not agree?
_______
A_Seagull wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:10 am
Certainly I agree. And in the country that I live the perpetrators of such acts would (if identified) be subject to such punishment.

But I am not sure if this is what you were referring to?
What I was initially responding to is how wrong the author of the article is in suggesting that it should be “up to the individual” to assess the worth of certain moral theories when it is obvious that societal brainwashing can severely affect (and damage) an individual’s sense of right and wrong.
A great example of this very thing is here; Just look at what has happened to this person, and what they are advocating for.
seeds wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 6:30 pm
In which case, I was simply using the problem of FGM as one example of why “individuals” cannot be trusted to do the right thing.
Another example of why "individuals" can not be trusted to do the right thing is directly shown by this "individual" in this thread.
seeds wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 6:30 pm
I guess the question then becomes – how do the more enlightened humans of the world convince others that their actions are immoral without coming off as trying to impose their own personal morals on the other?
Just answer this question, then you will have THEE answer.

How does one "convince" you that your actions are immoral without coming off as trying to impose their own personal morals on the other [you]?

If you provide a sufficient answer to that question, then you might have solved a world wide problem.

By the way thee answer to that, so called, "problem" is really rather very simple and easy.
seeds wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 6:30 pm
Got any suggestions?
_______
Yes, LOOK at your own self, and those immoral thoughts and immoral behaviors that you do, HONESTLY.

Age
Posts: 1040
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Ethics versus Morality

Post by Age » Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:38 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 9:50 am

To establish a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics and to ensure its operation is efficient we need to impute absolute moral laws as its ideal objectives and guides.
And what do you propose happens to those who do not follow the absolute moral laws, which were obviously just made up by some human beings?

User avatar
A_Seagull
Posts: 728
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:09 pm

Re: Ethics versus Morality

Post by A_Seagull » Sat Jan 12, 2019 4:50 pm

seeds wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 6:30 pm

I guess the question then becomes – how do the more enlightened humans of the world convince others that their actions are immoral without coming off as trying to impose their own personal morals on the other?


_______
People only do what they want to do. So if you want to convince others of anything (Including morality) then you have to persuade them that it is in their best interests to do what you are suggesting.

seeds
Posts: 693
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Ethics versus Morality

Post by seeds » Sat Jan 12, 2019 11:17 pm

seeds wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 6:30 pm
I guess the question then becomes – how do the more enlightened humans of the world convince others that their actions are immoral without coming off as trying to impose their own personal morals on the other?
Age wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:30 am
Just answer this question, then you will have THEE answer.

How does one "convince" you that your actions are immoral without coming off as trying to impose their own personal morals on the other [you]?

If you provide a sufficient answer to that question, then you might have solved a world wide problem.

By the way thee answer to that, so called, "problem" is really rather very simple and easy.
Thank you, Reverend Vagueness, for that penetrating lesson on how to be ambiguous.

Do you actually think that I did not consider the inherent problem within my proposition? – a problem that roughly mirrors the “mote and beam” issue in the Bible:
Matthew 7:3-5 (KJV) wrote: And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
_______

Age
Posts: 1040
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Ethics versus Morality

Post by Age » Sun Jan 13, 2019 2:01 am

seeds wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 11:17 pm
seeds wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 6:30 pm
I guess the question then becomes – how do the more enlightened humans of the world convince others that their actions are immoral without coming off as trying to impose their own personal morals on the other?
Age wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:30 am
Just answer this question, then you will have THEE answer.

How does one "convince" you that your actions are immoral without coming off as trying to impose their own personal morals on the other [you]?

If you provide a sufficient answer to that question, then you might have solved a world wide problem.

By the way thee answer to that, so called, "problem" is really rather very simple and easy.
Thank you, Reverend Vagueness, for that penetrating lesson on how to be ambiguous.
If you see any ambiguity in my writings here, then could you point it out for me please?
seeds wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 11:17 pm
Do you actually think that I did not consider the inherent problem within my proposition? – a problem that roughly mirrors the “mote and beam” issue in the Bible:
Matthew 7:3-5 (KJV) wrote: And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
_______
No I did NOT think that you did not consider that at all.

In fact my whole point will show the exact opposite of this, non consideration point.

The vagueness continues, for some. But, for others, they will recognize and SEE what IS happening here, that is; the SHOWING of others that their actions are immoral without coming off as trying to impose one's own personal morals on the other.

Also I NEVER work on "convincing" any one any thing. I just SHOW. If that what is shown is agreed upon and accepted or not, then that is another matter.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 1793
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Ethics versus Morality

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sun Jan 13, 2019 6:30 am

Age wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:38 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 9:50 am

To establish a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics and to ensure its operation is efficient we need to impute absolute moral laws as its ideal objectives and guides.
And what do you propose happens to those who do not follow the absolute moral laws, which were obviously just made up by some human beings?
Note we are not expecting the above to happen in the present.

The objective towards the future is every individual will strive to establish their own absolute moral laws which happen DNA wise and naturally will be the same as everyone else.
These absolute moral laws are not enforceable as I had stated, they are merely guides.
At that point in the future, their average moral quotient [MQ] will have to be 1000% or more than the present average MQ.

If there is a gap [Moral Gap] between the individual or group actual ethical performance and the absolute moral laws [standards] then each will have to strive to close the Moral-Ethics Gap.
So nothing will happen to those who do not meet the standards of the absolute moral laws at any time. What will be cultivated will be a spontaneous continuous improvement program within their brain to keep improving one's moral quotient from one's existing state at one's comfortable pace. [HOW? is to be discussed]

If the current generation is still short of the ideal, then preparations [??] should be made for the next generation to improve further and so on till the average actual ethical performance is as close as possible to the impossible ideals.

The critical factor is, there must be actual corresponding changes and improvements to the existing inherent moral faculty within the brains of the individual.

The question to the above is HOW and WHEN we expect reasonable results?

Note I have already stated the above model is not impossible because it is already happening with specific aspects of morality which are empirically evident. Note the case of the progress and abolishment of chattel [nb] slavery since >500 years ago to its present status.

Unfortunately for you, improvements in moral quotient will not happen to you because you do not have beliefs, i.e. beliefs the above model is possible in the future for yourself and future generations. You will be the exception to my model.

Age
Posts: 1040
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Ethics versus Morality

Post by Age » Sun Jan 13, 2019 9:02 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 6:30 am
Age wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:38 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 9:50 am

To establish a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics and to ensure its operation is efficient we need to impute absolute moral laws as its ideal objectives and guides.
And what do you propose happens to those who do not follow the absolute moral laws, which were obviously just made up by some human beings?
Note we are not expecting the above to happen in the present.
Note we are not expecting the above to happen ever.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 6:30 am
The objective towards the future is every individual will strive to establish their own absolute moral laws which happen DNA wise and naturally will be the same as everyone else.
ALL objectives are towards the future.
What happens to an individual if they will NOT strive to ...?
How do you propose an individual 'strives' to establish their OWN absolute moral law?
The words 'strive', 'their own', and, 'which happens dna wise' could be seen to very contradictory in nature. And then to say, 'and naturally will be the same as everyone else' is even beyond comprehension.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 6:30 am
These absolute moral laws are not enforceable as I had stated, they are merely guides.
Where did you state that these absolute moral laws are not enforceable?

So, you are going to make up some moral laws, which you will allocate the 'absolute' word to, yet you BELIEVE that there is NO absolute, but anyway what is the purpose of making laws and then NOT enforcing them?

It appears very contradictory to make up some random set of laws, and then supposedly NOT enforce those laws.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 6:30 am
At that point in the future, their average moral quotient [MQ] will have to be 1000% or more than the present average MQ.
You say the laws are NOT enforceable but then you state an individuals average moral quotient 'will HAVE TO be' 100% or more than the present average. What will happen to an individual if their average moral quotient is NOT what you say it 'WILL HAVE TO BE AT?

By the way if you really BELIEVE that what you are saying here is in any way reachable, under these terms and conditions, then you have another thing coming.

Who judges an individual's so called "average moral quotient"?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 6:30 am
If there is a gap [Moral Gap] between the individual or group actual ethical performance and the absolute moral laws [standards] then each will have to strive to close the Moral-Ethics Gap.
Again, what happens to an individual or group that does NOT 'strive' to so call "close the Moral-Ethics Gap"?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 6:30 am
So nothing will happen to those who do not meet the standards of the absolute moral laws at any time. What will be cultivated will be a spontaneous continuous improvement program within their brain to keep improving one's moral quotient from one's existing state at one's comfortable pace.
Lol you really do make me laugh out loud some times veritas.

What WILL BE 'cultivated' will be a 'spontaneous continuous improvement program within their brain'.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 6:30 am
[HOW? is to be discussed]
Okay let us now discuss. HOW do you propose such a thing is even possible, let alone HOW it could or would even happen?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 6:30 am
If the current generation is still short of the ideal, then preparations [??] should be made for the next generation to improve further and so on till the average actual ethical performance is as close as possible to the impossible ideals.
Not sure if you have noticed but some might argue that each generation is going BACKWARDS. NOT forwards. Morally and ethically.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 6:30 am
The critical factor is, there must be actual corresponding changes and improvements to the existing inherent moral faculty within the brains of the individual.
And again, what do you propose will happen to those who do NOT follow this, at the pace you propose, or in fact go in an opposite direction of what you propose?

This all sounds very dictatorship like; If you continue to follow a certain religion and do NOT actually make corresponding changes and improvements to the existing inherent moral faculty within your brain states, then I, THE LEADER WHO MUST BE FOLLOWED, will have to take necessary action upon you.

By the way are people allowed to choose and follow ISLAM and continue to be MUSLIMS, for example, under YOUR proposal here?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 6:30 am
The question to the above is HOW and WHEN we expect reasonable results?
As I suggested above, this could NEVER happen.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 6:30 am
Note I have already stated the above model is not impossible because it is already happening with specific aspects of morality which are empirically evident. Note the case of the progress and abolishment of chattel [nb] slavery since >500 years ago to its present status.
And after 500 years of human being slavery and it still existing in the year called 2019, you feel highlighting this fact is success or failure on the human being part?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 6:30 am
Unfortunately for you, improvements in moral quotient will not happen to you because you do not have beliefs, i.e. beliefs the above model is possible in the future for yourself and future generations. You will be the exception to my model.
If 'I' am the exception, then that is just fine with Me.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 1793
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Ethics versus Morality

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sun Jan 13, 2019 10:13 am

Age wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 9:02 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 6:30 am
Age wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:38 am


And what do you propose happens to those who do not follow the absolute moral laws, which were obviously just made up by some human beings?
Note we are not expecting the above to happen in the present.
Note we are not expecting the above to happen ever.
Ever? Are you a God to know the future and eternity?

At least I have stated a fact of the present.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 6:30 am
The objective towards the future is every individual will strive to establish their own absolute moral laws which happen DNA wise and naturally will be the same as everyone else.
ALL objectives are towards the future.
What happens to an individual if they will NOT strive to ...?
How do you propose an individual 'strives' to establish their OWN absolute moral law?
The words 'strive', 'their own', and, 'which happens dna wise' could be seen to very contradictory in nature. And then to say, 'and naturally will be the same as everyone else' is even beyond comprehension.
The above are merely postulations based on present facts.
I am optimistic they are possibilities in the near future given certain precedents.

Your counters as usual is based on ignorance, fright, and flight from exploring possibilities based on current facts and that is because you DO NOT have have any belief, hope and aspiration.
Note I have presented the link [Babies and Moral] re the inherent moral faculty in humans.
It is not difficult to think of absolute moral laws and adopt them as guides.
Naturally, there are exceptions like you, but on average the majority humans strive to progress instinctively.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 6:30 am
These absolute moral laws are not enforceable as I had stated, they are merely guides.
Where did you state that these absolute moral laws are not enforceable?
I have stated it elsewhere many times in our previous discussion.
In any case I stated in the above, the absolute moral laws are ideals, thus ideals are impossible to attain thus cannot be enforceable.
So, you are going to make up some moral laws, which you will allocate the 'absolute' word to, yet you BELIEVE that there is NO absolute, but anyway what is the purpose of making laws and then NOT enforcing them?
How can you be so backward?
I stated there are no absolute in reality but one can still think [have thoughts] of them.
I have stated many times, one can raise absolutes as standards to guide one's action for continuous improvements.

Note if I know if it is impossible to score 100% in a subjective paper from a certain professor, I will still target to achieve 100% or even 150% [impossible] and thus my highest effort will enable me to score the highest possible from that professor.
But if I do not bother because the professor is a tough nut, and perform without target but merely doing my best then I may score possibly 70% instead of a possible 95%.
It appears very contradictory to make up some random set of laws, and then supposedly NOT enforce those laws.
Nope!
The point with morality is one must start with absolute moral laws that are not enforceable because morality is not about enforcement.
Enforcement is the task of the law-makers, police & enforcers and judiciary who set laws relevant to the circumstances and enforce them.
If enforceable laws are below the moral absolute standards then the public and law makers must be mindful of the gap and strive in the future to close the gap as much as possible.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 6:30 am
At that point in the future, their average moral quotient [MQ] will have to be 1000% or more than the present average MQ.
You say the laws are NOT enforceable but then you state an individuals average moral quotient 'will HAVE TO be' 100% or more than the present average. What will happen to an individual if their average moral quotient is NOT what you say it 'WILL HAVE TO BE AT?

By the way if you really BELIEVE that what you are saying here is in any way reachable, under these terms and conditions, then you have another thing coming.

Who judges an individual's so called "average moral quotient"?
I stated the average not ALL individuals.
Obviously there will be individuals like yourself at the extreme of the Bell Curve who are indifferent to morality. Since these are the hardcore minority we will leave them as they are and strive to ensure the next generation will comprise lesser of such people.

Note there are loads of methods to compute the average moral quotient and objective moral measurements.
Note axiology for example.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 6:30 am
If there is a gap [Moral Gap] between the individual or group actual ethical performance and the absolute moral laws [standards] then each will have to strive to close the Moral-Ethics Gap.
Again, what happens to an individual or group that does NOT 'strive' to so call "close the Moral-Ethics Gap"?
For those who are hardcore [like you], just F them to the rubbish bin.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 6:30 am
So nothing will happen to those who do not meet the standards of the absolute moral laws at any time. What will be cultivated will be a spontaneous continuous improvement program within their brain to keep improving one's moral quotient from one's existing state at one's comfortable pace.
Lol you really do make me laugh out loud some times veritas.

What WILL BE 'cultivated' will be a 'spontaneous continuous improvement program within their brain'.
Again you are very ignorant.
Note there are tons of self-development techniques out there and in the near future humanity will be able to make exponential progress.
Research on the above!
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 6:30 am
[HOW? is to be discussed]
Okay let us now discuss. HOW do you propose such a thing is even possible, let alone HOW it could or would even happen?
I know the potential but I will not waste time discussing with you on this.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 6:30 am
If the current generation is still short of the ideal, then preparations [??] should be made for the next generation to improve further and so on till the average actual ethical performance is as close as possible to the impossible ideals.
Not sure if you have noticed but some might argue that each generation is going BACKWARDS. NOT forwards. Morally and ethically.
Seemingly there are signs of backwardness but I believe the trend is forwardness.
One example is, in 500 or 1800 CE how many official nations has laws that abolish Chattel Slavery. note specifically 'chattel' slavery.
Note the sudden exponential progress from the mid 1900s to the 100% of all recognized nations establishing laws on abolishment of chattel slavery. Isn't this a step forward.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 6:30 am
The critical factor is, there must be actual corresponding changes and improvements to the existing inherent moral faculty within the brains of the individual.
And again, what do you propose will happen to those who do NOT follow this, at the pace you propose, or in fact go in an opposite direction of what you propose?

This all sounds very dictatorship like; If you continue to follow a certain religion and do NOT actually make corresponding changes and improvements to the existing inherent moral faculty within your brain states, then I, THE LEADER WHO MUST BE FOLLOWED, will have to take necessary action upon you.
I have stated many times whatever is to be done will be voluntary and fool proof.
The "what-is-it-in-for-me" will be made very obvious to be net-positive for the individual.
By the way are people allowed to choose and follow ISLAM and continue to be MUSLIMS, for example, under YOUR proposal here?
Under my proposals, people will voluntarily wean themselves off Islam naturally to opt for more net-positive methods to deal with their inherent unavoidable existential crisis.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 6:30 am
The question to the above is HOW and WHEN we expect reasonable results?
As I suggested above, this could NEVER happen.
Playing God again? I believe the majority of humans will just leave you to yourself and hope the next generation of people will comprised of lesser people like you.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 6:30 am
Note I have already stated the above model is not impossible because it is already happening with specific aspects of morality which are empirically evident. Note the case of the progress and abolishment of chattel [nb] slavery since >500 years ago to its present status.
And after 500 years of human being slavery and it still existing in the year called 2019, you feel highlighting this fact is success or failure on the human being part?
As usual, you missed my point.
I stated the fact that all nations has now implemented Laws on the abolishment of chattel slavery. note 'chattel' not any general form of slavery.
Being humans, obviously there will be non-compliances by some hardcore people but the existence of those laws will provide at least a goal post to enable the individual government and human rights group to demand and pressure those nations with low performance to comply and improve.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 6:30 am
Unfortunately for you, improvements in moral quotient will not happen to you because you do not have beliefs, i.e. beliefs the above model is possible in the future for yourself and future generations. You will be the exception to my model.
If 'I' am the exception, then that is just fine with Me.
At your discretion.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest