cosscos wrote:
Morality can never be irrational, because morality comes out of rationality. It is immorality that comes out of irrationality.

Morality is the ability for following morals in a community. These morals are very justified outcome for the sake of good or goodness.

Therefore, if morality is irrational, then morality cannot be justified and also can't be any more good or goodness.

mway wrote:
I was wondering if anyone on these forums had a logical, rational reason for the continuance of morality at all?

Could we all not just do what we want?

What difference would it make?

mway wrote:

I agree with HeWhoKnowsNothing, regarding morality to require an objective to be consistant. But to whom, and how is this objective chosen?

I totally agree with crackers that morality is relative. However, as with anything relative, it can be seen correct (or incorrect) from many angles and as such contradicts the very use of morality. How do you create/follow a moral code on the basis of relativity?

I would like to take it further and posit that morality is a proof for determinism (can be random), as a lack of free-will is the only logical conclusion for the invention of a moral code. This is true only for relative morality. If someone could show that morality is not relative, then I will concede my position.

mayor of simpleton wrote:

xzJoel:

"When you define your argument (refering to mway) in ways that no one can disagree with you, it is futile (and probably rhetorical) to ask for someone to prove you wrong".

(Was the point made of suggestion or for the sake of argument? The problem here is that we are dealing with the inherent nature of morals which is that they are relative. Is this an argument or a given? I would say the latter.)



"Whether or not morality is rational or objective or anything else has little to do with the world and everything to do with definitions".

(Again SIEG HAIL!!! This is the position of the politicians and the meglomaniacs. Too hell with being objective. Too hell with my actions being rational or irrations. One does not have to invade Poland in order to show the effects and affects of moral expansion. Tribalism is something not good and damned dangerous when confronting another tribe. Why wait until it's too late? After the fact "ethics" serves no purpose other than placing one's self up on a high pedistal, nor is building towered foresight when you have root rot.)


For a moment pretend like you believe whatever god says is good defines morality. Presuming that you know what god has said, in what way is your statement "x is moral" relative"?

(Simple, it is local. The moment that "x is moral" comes into contact with any other "x is moral" interpretation, even within it's own tribe, it will be a matter of perspective and personal interpretation. This perspective makes "x is moral" relative to the experiences of the individual who holds this moral position of "x is moral". It cannot be avoided. The nature of all morals is relative. No matter how you wish to put the example together, naked or sugar-coated, in the end of it all, morals will be relative.)


"I suppose it is relative to what god said, but can anyone hold a different opinion? Based on the definition "what is moral is what god says", it would seem that anyone who says that what is moral is something other than what god says is wrong.

"What is moral is what god says", fine, but what we have here is the actual thing itself. It is personal and linked to local interpretation. Local can mean a tribal group or just one individual. The local statement of "what is moral is what god says" is founded upon "what is moral, as perceived through my limited experience of reality and understanding of what I believe to be a concept of moral, is what god, as I interpret god to be as a god, says, as I beleive that I have heard what I believe to have heard and have applied to what I have in my limited experience of reality to what I have heard". Really damend complicated, but that's more or less it, in a shortened form I might add. No "believer" would put if this way, but that is what it is.)


There are lots of moral systems and reasons why one thing is moral or not, but ultimately there may be a "fact" of morality. What you have to do is figure out if there is some feature of existence that is capable of defining/dictating morality.

(The "fact" of morality is ultimately that it is always relative. What you may be looking for here is what I defined as "Ethics" earlier, but this is not morals. "Universal Morality"? NO! That is like saying there is an "All-Inclusive Exclusive" or an "Objective Subjective". It is a nonsense word "Universal Morality". This nonsense word causes wars and only wars.)


"If you believe in advance that there is no such thing as a moral fact and that you can believe whatever you want about morality, you will always come to the conclusion that morality is relative. If you grant the possibility that there is something that defines morality outside of yourself (or any other person), then you will likely be forced to conclude that morality is objective".

(At what point does one give up? Simply put, there are no moral facts. What is so endearing about morals that you cling to this so? It's like nailing you foot to the floor and running in circles. There has never been an example of moral fact other than morals are inherently relative. A dog in a suit is still a dog. Whether or not you decide upon your moral code or allow it to be dictated from another source is not the issue in concluding that morals are in anyway objective. Morals are in no way objective. Objective positions are void of value accessments. Morals are value accessments. NO. No. ...)

"Whether you can know what is moral is an entirely different issue".

(Of course you know what is moral, for you, unless you are in indecision about an issue. There is not big secret here.)

So decide for yourself, is there something capable of being the source of morality outside of your preference (or that of anyone else)?

(That's the point of realitivity we are making. The sources of morals have no central position. Preference does play a role, for yourself and not for others.)

I need an espresso badly!

Meow!

GREG