Welcome to Gaia! ::

That "fact" is only a "fact" from one perspective.

Isn't your view, I.Am, a moral stance on morality that differs from peer's? eek

I think morality is individual, nothing is universally wrong. Some things are accepted by most as universally wrong, but then we get jeffery dhamer, Mr. hands (guy who died while having sex with a horse), people who are into incest, things like that. Nihilists and anarchists too, as you have mentioned, have different morals that the "universal" morals.

This does not make them right, as laws should not be made about morality, they should be made to protect people. They are there to counter dangerous morality, in my mind, to protect from the Dhamers and Mr. Hands.

Minus insulting catholics (As I am more or less catholic, based on some of the moral views), I think I may actually agree with Peer on this one.

Edit- to clarify my view, although most people take morality about murder for granted, some people don't care. Nihilists, for example, believe that nothing exists and that all views of morality and law are pointless. A person like this really doesn't give a ******** about murder. In their eyes, murder should be perfectly acceptable since absolutely nothing, not even life, matters to them.

This is not to condone or agree with murder, or accept that view. In fact, it is why we need laws, to protect the people who do care from the people who don't give a ********.

Morality must be either subjective, or determined by a higher power.

If there is no proof such a higher power exists, it must be subjective.

Some moral aspects may be nearly universal, but they are still subjective.

But it is your belief that there is no universal moral, not a fact. It is someone's belief that there IS a universal moral, not a fact. There is no. Way. To know. It can't be proven, it can't be disproven.

If there IS a universal moral, then yes, it can be universally applied because it's universal. It doesn't mean that a person is acting against his or her own morals, but against universal morals. If there are universal morals, then going against them is being immoral in that sense.

Why impose order at all? Why not impose a different order? Why is making rape illegal imposing order? Who says, "This person's bodily integrity should be protected?" Why should it? It's not immoral to violate it, so what's the bloody point? I'm not doing anything wrong if I hurt someone. If we're going to do something that controls people and sends them to jail if they don't listen, why not make a whole lot more illegal? There are actions that are legal that can still cause harm, and do. You're saying the purpose of law isn't to say, "This is right, this is wrong. You can do this, you can't do that. You must behave this way, and if you don't, you're doing something wrong and need to be punished." It's to say, "Well we don't really give a damn what you do since you're right, but even though you're right, go to jail."

As a side note, If you want me to believe the Vatican did things because they wanted to impose morality, you're going to have to try harder. They did it for power in many cases. The people may have believed they were doing it for the sake of God, but I can guarantee you the higher-ups were not always interested in doing God's work, they were interested in their own power.

I agree with you to a certain extent, but saying something is fact when in reality it's a belief always irks me.

I'm going to answer a few different part of your post. I don't want to seem like I'm tearing it to bits, I just feel that some of your ideas are better addressed separately rather than in one large block.


Because humans have some sort of innate need to live in an ordered society. At least, as far as I can tell we do. There must be some sort of instinct/mental drive that causes this phenomena.


Even if all actions are assumed to be amoral (that is, without any moral value assigned), that doesn't mean that certain actions can't be prohibited.

An action doesn't have to be "wrong" in order to be made illegal. It simply has to be shown to be in the best interest of the people who are being governed that a certain action not be done (be illegal).

There is a difference between ethics (a set of agreed upon rules that govern if something should be allowed or prohibited -- wow, it was hard to think up a definition that didn't involve the words "moral" or "ethical") and morals (personal beliefs, often religious, that influence one to choose if certain actions are good or bad), even though the two terms and ideas are very close and might seem the same to a layperson.


Other than abortion, can you name any that could be outlawed?

I mean, car accidents harm people, but you can't outlaw accidents. Inflation and poverty cause harm, but making them illegal would hinder rather than help the problem.

Personally, I believe that only actions that cause real or serious potential harm to people OTHER than the person doing them (with no previous action from the person(s) they do harm -- like self defense) need be illegal.


Agreed.

However, since there is no way of being sure if there are universal morals or not, it seems somewhat safer to assume that morals are relative. At least, in that one doesn't try to force certain moral beliefs (like that frogs are evil) on others and hinder them from doing things (like, say, having pet frogs -- people have those, right?). At least from the point of view of the average citizen (and speaking only of personal morals -- not the morals/ethics of a whole society or government).