+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 6 of 6

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    374

    Is there a Rational Ground for Morality?

    Is there a Rational Ground for Morality?

    There can be no morality without law but there can be law without morality.

    Law can create particular obligations but law cannot create a law that dictates an obligation to obey law. Law can punish but cannot create the general obligation to obey law. Such an obligation comes via moral character. “Morality must be distinguished from self-interest, although the two can often coincide…What is the rational ground for morality and its obligation?”

    The rational ground for morality rests upon the need for mutual cooperation within a community. With mutual cooperation comes mutual dependence. Mutual cooperation demands trust, which relies upon honesty. Honesty implies obligation. Violence destroys cooperation.

    Cooperation is essential for social life; only if we wish to withdraw into isolation can we afford to ignore cooperation. Empirically we can find cooperation within every community. Morality is about human relationships thus empirically we can find both the need and presence of morality in all communities.

    Morality exists in all communities but it has many variables and much diversity. Three factors are important here: differences in religion, differences in politics, and differences in production and economic relations.

    “Certain moral commitments with their attendant obligation are necessary for any kind of human co-operation whatever. These must first be acknowledged before there can be other values which vary. This is an a priori not an empirical thesis.” By definition, a group of individuals without human co-operation is no community at all.

    A diversity of moral codes within a community can be accepted but primary loyalty to all within the community must be to the community and not to particular groups or classes within the community. Those values that unite must be more important than those that divide.

    A community is a group committed to the rule of law, which entails three specific principles of law: the law is supreme with equality and freedom under the law. Legal rules are supreme and all members are subjected to and protected by those rules.

    Public interest, when properly understood, forms the “rational basis of both government and politics”.


    Quotes from The Morality of Politics edited by Bhikhu Parekh & R. N. Berki

  2. #2
    LogicallyYours's Avatar
    LogicallyYours is offline Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings. User Rank
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,352

    Re: Is there a Rational Ground for Morality?

    How is this science?...how are any of your cut and paste posts science?

    Stop spamming the science board with this crap.
    "Religion is a heavy suitcase: all you have to do is put it down."
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    "I have read the bible...more than once. I was not impressed nor was I so moved to give up my ability to think for myself and surrender my knowledge of facts for the unfounded belief in a mythical sky-fairy." - Me.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    838

    Re: Is there a Rational Ground for Morality?

    Quote Originally Posted by LogicallyYours View Post
    How is this science?...how are any of your cut and paste posts science?

    Stop spamming the science board with this crap.
    I agree. This guy is as bad as a viagra commercial. Nobody here wants this foolishness.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    26,342

    Re: Is there a Rational Ground for Morality?

    Quote Originally Posted by coberst View Post
    Is there a Rational Ground for Morality?

    There can be no morality without law but there can be law without morality.

    Law can create particular obligations but law cannot create a law that dictates an obligation to obey law. Law can punish but cannot create the general obligation to obey law. Such an obligation comes via moral character. “Morality must be distinguished from self-interest, although the two can often coincide…What is the rational ground for morality and its obligation?”

    The rational ground for morality rests upon the need for mutual cooperation within a community. With mutual cooperation comes mutual dependence. Mutual cooperation demands trust, which relies upon honesty. Honesty implies obligation. Violence destroys cooperation.

    Cooperation is essential for social life; only if we wish to withdraw into isolation can we afford to ignore cooperation. Empirically we can find cooperation within every community. Morality is about human relationships thus empirically we can find both the need and presence of morality in all communities.

    Morality exists in all communities but it has many variables and much diversity. Three factors are important here: differences in religion, differences in politics, and differences in production and economic relations.

    “Certain moral commitments with their attendant obligation are necessary for any kind of human co-operation whatever. These must first be acknowledged before there can be other values which vary. This is an a priori not an empirical thesis.” By definition, a group of individuals without human co-operation is no community at all.

    A diversity of moral codes within a community can be accepted but primary loyalty to all within the community must be to the community and not to particular groups or classes within the community. Those values that unite must be more important than those that divide.

    A community is a group committed to the rule of law, which entails three specific principles of law: the law is supreme with equality and freedom under the law. Legal rules are supreme and all members are subjected to and protected by those rules.

    Public interest, when properly understood, forms the “rational basis of both government and politics”.


    Quotes from The Morality of Politics edited by Bhikhu Parekh & R. N. Berki
    the good,the bad,the ugly? is that about it? can the bad agree to be good? only if trust is present? otherwise there is no peace of mind? no peace of mind is bad in the first place? so how can the bad trust at all? seems like an unresolvable predicament? how can any decisions about good/bad be realistically enforced on the whole? it would have to be full of compromises which when too LIBERAL for the mindsets involved end in the destruction of trust and peace of mind which allows the bad to flourish to the point of self/other destruction?
    bad and good must be absolutes of mind otherwise there is no chance of peace of mind? no peace of mind no happiness/no good/no reason to live? except to destroy! if the law exists then bad is ruling the mindsets? because if good rules the mindsets there would be no need for laws? also good must exist because the laws would never hold unless enacted and maintained by the good! the law for the bad is the hidden promise that good exists! how the law is administered/the level of morality experienced by the whole, is the proof of the strength of the good!
    good and bad are learned. easier to learn good the first time but not impossible to relearn with the properly applied/sustained guidance and correction?
    i propose therefore that absolute good exists and is the sole reason/cause of/for morality! another way to think of it is if absolute good does not exist then there's no point to morality in the first place as there cannot ever be peace of mind!
    although ironically if the bad were to eliminate/subjugate all others then that complete freedom of existence somehow promises the same certainty/peace in theory? but of course any suspicion that there are unwilling subjects spoils the peace? even the suspicion of the possibility of a suspicion has the same effect? if ya know what i mean? this further affirms the absolute distinction between good and bad. with absolute good,suspicion/distrust cannot exist.
    what is ordinary good and bad anyway other than the feeling 1 gets when doing anything? and the feeling others get from 1 doing anything? but what comes first? the feeling or the doing? do you feel good or bad or dont know? is dont know a neutral cancellation of equal good and bad? easily swayed either way by the actions of others? how can 1 make choices when no choices are visible to mind? how can 1 make good choices when bad choices are having/reaffirming effects? i am bad? i am good? i dont know!
    if you want to know whether you are feeling good or bad,just compare yourself to the law? which is why most people feel bad and their only recourse for happiness is to be bad and like it! trust me,it actually works! to no good end we can assume? but during the ride it makes 1 happy as far as happiness can be realized that way?
    in the opposite vein to follow/conform to the law when 1 feels bad is to die on the inside? to seem lifeless and weak? which is what you find in most church pews that seems so hypocritical and repulsive given the well known promises of religion? which brings me to this question, is religion the science of the mind? if such a thing (study) can be called science? would be questionable i guess since it is only provable to the individual and not the masses? the only proof to the masses would be the existence and agreements of common morality? again,even that if thought about is an individual conclusion? which ironically has the universal effect of a certain state of practiced morality?
    so we are left with 1 question? what about the ugly? there are the good that know they're good,the bad that know they're bad, and ironically both are certain and confident?and then,the rest,who must be seen by both as ugly?how do you see yourself? good/bad/ugly? dont want to know think about it? good for you?:angel::badass2::freak3:
    Last edited by lexx; 04-10-2009 at 05:07 PM.
    i do not endorse/recommend any advertising on scam.com associated with my name /posts or otherwise. thank you

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    838

    Re: Is there a Rational Ground for Morality?

    Quote Originally Posted by lexx View Post
    the good,the bad,the ugly? is that about it? can the bad agree to be good? only if trust is present? otherwise there is no peace of mind? no peace of mind is bad in the first place? so how can the bad trust at all? seems like an unresolvable predicament? how can any decisions about good/bad be realistically enforced on the whole? it would have to be full of compromises which when too LIBERAL for the mindsets involved end in the destruction of trust and peace of mind which allows the bad to flourish to the point of self/other destruction?
    bad and good must be absolutes of mind otherwise there is no chance of peace of mind? no peace of mind no happiness/no good/no reason to live? except to destroy! if the law exists then bad is ruling the mindsets? because if good rules the mindsets there would be no need for laws? also good must exist because the laws would never hold unless enacted and maintained by the good! the law for the bad is the hidden promise that good exists! how the law is administered/the level of morality experienced by the whole, is the proof of the strength of the good!
    good and bad are learned. easier to learn good the first time but not impossible to relearn with the properly applied/sustained guidance and correction?
    i propose therefore that absolute good exists and is the sole reason/cause of/for morality! another way to think of it is if absolute good does not exist then there's no point to morality in the first place as there cannot ever be peace of mind!
    although ironically if the bad were to eliminate/subjugate all others then that complete freedom of existence somehow promises the same certainty/peace in theory? but of course any suspicion that there are unwilling subjects spoils the peace? even the suspicion of the possibility of a suspicion has the same effect? if ya know what i mean? this further affirms the absolute distinction between good and bad. with absolute good,suspicion/distrust cannot exist.
    what is ordinary good and bad anyway other than the feeling 1 gets when doing anything? and the feeling others get from 1 doing anything? but what comes first? the feeling or the doing? do you feel good or bad or dont know? is dont know a neutral cancellation of equal good and bad? easily swayed either way by the actions of others? how can 1 make choices when no choices are visible to mind? how can 1 make good choices when bad choices are having/reaffirming effects? i am bad? i am good? i dont know!
    if you want to know whether you are feeling good or bad,just compare yourself to the law? which is why most people feel bad and their only recourse for happiness is to be bad and like it! trust me,it actually works! to no good end we can assume? but during the ride it makes 1 happy as far as happiness can be realized that way?
    in the opposite vein to follow/conform to the law when 1 feels bad is to die on the inside? to seem lifeless and weak? which is what you find in most church pews that seems so hypocritical and repulsive given the well known promises of religion? which brings me to this question, is religion the science of the mind? if such a thing (study) can be called science? would be questionable i guess since it is only provable to the individual and not the masses? the only proof to the masses would be the existence and agreements of common morality? again,even that if thought about is an individual conclusion? which ironically has the universal effect of a certain state of practiced morality?
    so we are left with 1 question? what about the ugly? there are the good that know they're good,the bad that know they're bad, and ironically both are certain and confident?and then,the rest,who must be seen by both as ugly?how do you see yourself? good/bad/ugly? dont want to know think about it? good for you?:angel::badass2::freak3:
    Thanks, lexx. Now yours is a truely thought provoking post that not only hits all the bases but is a virtual HOME RUN, in my estimation. What more could anyone add to that?


  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    26,342

    Re: Is there a Rational Ground for Morality?

    ok!! all flatulence aside,i could not have done it without coberst!! sounds sick but true!! i was born an intellectual!! you see how we all have a stimulating interactive effect on each other or not? even if that stimulation is negative in nature,it is still stimulation? so it is up to us how we are able to convert it to something constructive or not? that is what is called doing the miracle/impossible? i have to tell you that some days i dont even want to get out of bed,and i curse myself for being such a smuck! but although the babe hit a lot of home runs, how was his regular performance? what's more important? hitting home runs or just steady regular self reliability that brings to the individual a feeling of happiness!? independent of the demands of a driven for performance public drama!? does that get any respect and support!? ask carl sagan!? he's somewhere on a planet in the far galaxy by now!? god bless em!! :liefde:
    i do not endorse/recommend any advertising on scam.com associated with my name /posts or otherwise. thank you

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-04-2016, 11:29 AM
  2. Why Rational People Question The Holocaust
    By dchristie in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 125
    Last Post: 04-17-2008, 02:46 AM
  3. Why Don't Rational People Question The Exodus?
    By KishmeernTuches in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-01-2008, 11:40 PM
  4. animal morality
    By coosjoaquin in forum Religious Scams
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-27-2007, 12:18 PM
  5. Department Of Morality
    By AIR in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-30-2007, 03:12 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •