No such thing as moral or immoral behavior. Only civilized and uncivilized behavior

[ronburgundy]

An objective person is a person with sufficient objectivity to understand that the universe does not revolve around their ego.
A civilized society is a society whose laws do not revolve around any one person or any one group of people.
The more a society treats everyone as equals the more civilized it is.

But treating everyone as equals is not the same thing as treating everyone exactly the same.
If we treated everyone the way that extroverts want to be treated then people who are introverted would suffer.
Treating everyone as if they were exactly the same is pseudo-civilization.

Civilization is an emergent property. It has emerged from the law of the jungle. It is not part of the law of the jungle. It is separate from the law of the jungle. It is beyond the law of the jungle. It is above the law of the jungle. It is something entirely new. Civilization is what separates man from the animals. Humans are (in varying degrees) civilized. Animals are not.


There are 3 common positions:
1) The Theist position: There exists a magical and totally selfless being called 'god' that is the source of all morality (godliness) and civilized behavior should be derived from this morality.
2) The Hyper-empirical position: There is no 'god' therefore there is no morality (godliness) and therefore there is no such thing as civilized behavior (only mob rule) and everyone is free to do whatever they can get away with.
3) The Rationalist position: Civilization and civilized behavior are emergent properties that arises whenever you have a large number of objective human beings interacting with one another. A civilized society is a society governed by proper laws. Proper laws do not give any one person or any one group of people any special rights. All people have equal rights in a civilized society. Civilized behavior is behavior that respects proper laws, rules, and expectations.


In the hyper-empirical (autistic) world view, a person is seen as just a "collection of atoms" and since it is not improper to use, abuse, or manipulate atoms to one's own ends it is, therefore, not thought improper to use, abuse, or manipulate people to one's own ends.

On the face of it, this almost seems reasonable. After all, we are indeed made entirely of atoms (or some other units that can be modeled mathematically). It fails, however, to take into account the emergent phenomena that make a human being so much more than "just atoms". Atoms don't have thoughts, feelings, hopes, dreams, or aspirations but people do. Clearly, being "made of" something (for example atoms) is not the same thing as "being" something.

Sometimes hyper-empirical people will avoid the phrase "humans are just atoms" and will opt instead for "humans are just animals". Both phrases express the same underlying idea

The entire concept of what it is to be civilized and what is "proper" (and therefore your entire argument) rest upon subjective moral positions. If morality did not exist, then civilization would not exist. "Objective morality" (a nonsensical concept) does not exist, because morality refers to what some minds subjectively prefer. However, those subjective states of preference do objectively exist. A civilization is what emerges when people agree to abide by a set of rules based in some set of shared or agreed upon preferences for how things should be.

 

[no-one-particular]

The entire concept of what it is to be civilized and what is "proper" (and therefore your entire argument) rest upon subjective moral positions. If morality did not exist, then civilization would not exist. "Objective morality" (a nonsensical concept) does not exist, because morality refers to what some minds subjectively prefer. However, those subjective states of preference do objectively exist. A civilization is what emerges when people agree to abide by a set of rules based in some set of shared or agreed upon preferences for how things should be.

A civilized society is a society whose laws do not revolve around any one person or any one group of people.
The more a society treats everyone as equals the more civilized it is.
(Equal rights. Equal protection. Equal pay for equal work. Equal punishment for equal crimes.)

But treating everyone as equals is not the same thing as treating everyone exactly the same.
If we treated everyone the way that extroverts want to be treated then people who are introverted would suffer.
Treating everyone as if they were exactly the same is pseudo-civilization

 

[ronburgundy]

The entire concept of what it is to be civilized and what is "proper" (and therefore your entire argument) rest upon subjective moral positions. If morality did not exist, then civilization would not exist. "Objective morality" (a nonsensical concept) does not exist, because morality refers to what some minds subjectively prefer. However, those subjective states of preference do objectively exist. A civilization is what emerges when people agree to abide by a set of rules based in some set of shared or agreed upon preferences for how things should be.

A civilized society is a society whose laws do not revolve around any one person or any one group of people.
The more a society treats everyone as equals the more civilized it is.
(Equal rights. Equal protection. Equal pay for equal work. Equal punishment for equal crimes.)

But treating everyone as equals is not the same thing as treating everyone exactly the same.
If we treated everyone the way that extroverts want to be treated then people who are introverted would suffer.
Treating everyone as if they were exactly the same is pseudo-civilization

Yeah, I read that when you wrote it the first time, and it rests entirely upon your subjective moral preferences that you are using to decide what it means to be "civilized" and that being civilized is "proper".

 

[Bronzeage]

The fundamental flaw in almost all discussions of morality is basing arguments on the idea that morality exists to benefit the individual.

Morality and moral codes exist to protect the group. The means the wants and needs of any individual are subservient to that of the group. Moral judgment is group judgment, and as such, whatever religious or secular power that exists will be seen as the enforcer of the moral code.

None of this has anything to do with being nice to one another.

 

[no-one-particular]

Morality and moral codes exist to protect the group.

Civilization and civilized laws exist to protect the group (and the individuals within the group). There is no such thing as 'moral'.

- - - Updated - - -

The entire concept of what it is to be civilized and what is "proper" (and therefore your entire argument) rest upon subjective moral positions. If morality did not exist, then civilization would not exist. "Objective morality" (a nonsensical concept) does not exist, because morality refers to what some minds subjectively prefer. However, those subjective states of preference do objectively exist. A civilization is what emerges when people agree to abide by a set of rules based in some set of shared or agreed upon preferences for how things should be.

A civilized society is a society whose laws do not revolve around any one person or any one group of people.
The more a society treats everyone as equals the more civilized it is.
(Equal rights. Equal protection. Equal pay for equal work. Equal punishment for equal crimes.)

But treating everyone as equals is not the same thing as treating everyone exactly the same.
If we treated everyone the way that extroverts want to be treated then people who are introverted would suffer.
Treating everyone as if they were exactly the same is pseudo-civilization

Yeah, I read that when you wrote it the first time, and it rests entirely upon your subjective moral preferences that you are using to decide what it means to be "civilized" and that being civilized is "proper".

My moral preferences? I just said that there is no such thing as 'moral' or 'immoral' behavior.

 

[ronburgundy]

Civilization and civilized laws exist to protect the group (and the individuals within the group). There is no such thing as 'moral'.

- - - Updated - - -

The entire concept of what it is to be civilized and what is "proper" (and therefore your entire argument) rest upon subjective moral positions. If morality did not exist, then civilization would not exist. "Objective morality" (a nonsensical concept) does not exist, because morality refers to what some minds subjectively prefer. However, those subjective states of preference do objectively exist. A civilization is what emerges when people agree to abide by a set of rules based in some set of shared or agreed upon preferences for how things should be.

A civilized society is a society whose laws do not revolve around any one person or any one group of people.
The more a society treats everyone as equals the more civilized it is.
(Equal rights. Equal protection. Equal pay for equal work. Equal punishment for equal crimes.)

But treating everyone as equals is not the same thing as treating everyone exactly the same.
If we treated everyone the way that extroverts want to be treated then people who are introverted would suffer.
Treating everyone as if they were exactly the same is pseudo-civilization

Yeah, I read that when you wrote it the first time, and it rests entirely upon your subjective moral preferences that you are using to decide what it means to be "civilized" and that being civilized is "proper".

My moral preferences? I just said that there is no such thing as 'moral' or 'immoral' behavior.

Yes, and then you stated your personal moral preferences, which exposes the logical inconsistency in your argument. The very concept of what is "proper" is a moral stance. The very concepts of "proper" and "civilized" are moral judgments. There is no objective basis for either. Both refer to how you think people should act to achieve some goal that you prefer. That is morality.

 

[no-one-particular]

Yes, and then you stated your personal moral preferences, which exposes the logical inconsistency in your argument. The very concept of what is "proper" is a moral stance. The very concepts of "proper" and "civilized" are moral judgments. There is no objective basis for either. Both refer to how you think people should act to achieve some goal that you prefer. That is morality.

Proper might not be the right word. Maybe 'legitimate' would have been better.
'Civilized' is not a moral judgement. I gave the exact definition above. There is nothing subjective about the definition I gave.

 

[no-one-particular]

The Rationalist position: Civilization and civilized behavior are emergent properties that arises whenever you have a large number of objective human beings interacting with one another. A civilized society is a society governed by civilized laws. Civilized laws do not give any one person or any one group of people any special rights. All people have equal rights in a civilized society. Civilized behavior is behavior that respects civilized laws, rules, and expectations.

(Equal rights. Equal protection. Equal pay for equal work. Equal punishment for equal crimes.)

 

[ronburgundy]

Yes, and then you stated your personal moral preferences, which exposes the logical inconsistency in your argument. The very concept of what is "proper" is a moral stance. The very concepts of "proper" and "civilized" are moral judgments. There is no objective basis for either. Both refer to how you think people should act to achieve some goal that you prefer. That is morality.

Proper might not be the right word. Maybe 'legitimate' would have been better.
'Civilized' is not a moral judgement. I gave the exact definition above. There is nothing subjective about the definition I gave.

Legitimate is still a moral judgment. The only objective judgments are those involving what does or does not exist. Any positive or negative evaluation of things that exists or assertions that some ideal state is what ought to exist is a moral judgment.
The definition you gave refers to only one type of society, and possibly only to a hypothetical idealized one. Are you claiming this is the only type of society? If not, then you must be claiming either that this is the preferred type of society or the only one worthy of being called "civilized", both of which are subjective moral judgments. The simple notion that civilization is a good thing is a moral judgment and there inherent moral judgments in the standard definitions of the word civilized:
OED: polite, courteous, well mannered, good mannered, civil, decorous, gentlemanly, ladylike, gracious

 

[no-one-particular]

Yes, and then you stated your personal moral preferences, which exposes the logical inconsistency in your argument. The very concept of what is "proper" is a moral stance. The very concepts of "proper" and "civilized" are moral judgments. There is no objective basis for either. Both refer to how you think people should act to achieve some goal that you prefer. That is morality.

Proper might not be the right word. Maybe 'legitimate' would have been better.
'Civilized' is not a moral judgement. I gave the exact definition above. There is nothing subjective about the definition I gave.

Legitimate is still a moral judgment. The only objective judgments are those involving what does or does not exist. Any positive or negative evaluation of things that exists or assertions that some ideal state is what ought to exist is a moral judgment.
The definition you gave refers to only one type of society, and possibly only to a hypothetical idealized one. Are you claiming this is the only type of society? If not, then you must be claiming either that this is the preferred type of society or the only one worthy of being called "civilized", both of which are subjective moral judgments. The simple notion that civilization is a good thing is a moral judgment and there inherent moral judgments in the standard definitions of the word civilized:
OED: polite, courteous, well mannered, good mannered, civil, decorous, gentlemanly, ladylike, gracious

As I said:

The Rationalist position: Civilization and civilized behavior are emergent properties that arises whenever you have a large number of objective human beings interacting with one another. A civilized society is a society governed by civilized laws. Civilized laws do not give any one person or any one group of people any special rights. All people have equal rights in a civilized society. Civilized behavior is behavior that respects civilized laws, rules, and expectations.

(Equal rights. Equal protection. Equal pay for equal work. Equal punishment for equal crimes.)

 

[ronburgundy]

Legitimate is still a moral judgment. The only objective judgments are those involving what does or does not exist. Any positive or negative evaluation of things that exists or assertions that some ideal state is what ought to exist is a moral judgment.
The definition you gave refers to only one type of society, and possibly only to a hypothetical idealized one. Are you claiming this is the only type of society? If not, then you must be claiming either that this is the preferred type of society or the only one worthy of being called "civilized", both of which are subjective moral judgments. The simple notion that civilization is a good thing is a moral judgment and there inherent moral judgments in the standard definitions of the word civilized:
OED: polite, courteous, well mannered, good mannered, civil, decorous, gentlemanly, ladylike, gracious

As I said:

The Rationalist position: Civilization and civilized behavior are emergent properties that arises whenever you have a large number of objective human beings interacting with one another. A civilized society is a society governed by civilized laws. Civilized laws do not give any one person or any one group of people any special rights. All people have equal rights in a civilized society. Civilized behavior is behavior that respects civilized laws, rules, and expectations.

(Equal rights. Equal protection. Equal pay for equal work. Equal punishment for equal crimes.)

It is still subjective, if you are assuming that there is anything at all good, positive, or desirable about a "civilized" society, or "rights", or "respecting laws". And if you not assuming that there is anything positive or desirable about these things, then that would be in contradiction to how these terms are typically used.

 

[untermensche]

An objective person is a person with sufficient objectivity to understand that the universe does not revolve around their ego...

Actually it does.

My mind, for me, is the center of all things.

Morality flows from compassion, from empathy, from "positive" emotions.

I am kind to the stranger because it is positive for me to be so. I gain by being that way. I am less hollow and alone.

Following arbitrary laws, like drug war laws, is based on fear and cowering to authority.

It is something that makes one more hollow.

 

[no-one-particular]

There is no such thing as moral or immoral behavior. There is only civilized and uncivilized behavior.

A civilized society is a society whose laws do not favor any one person or any one group of people. The more a society treats everyone as equals the more civilized it is.

Equal rights. Equal protection. Equal pay for equal work. Equal punishment for equal crimes.

Civilization is an emergent property the monetary system which is a an emergent property of psychology which is an emergent property of biology which is an emergent property of chemistry which is an emergency property of particle physics.

Some people seem to think that because every person and every society has different values and goals then it is impossible for there to be any universal laws of civilized society. That is simply not true.

Think of the process of achieving ones goal as driving to a distant point. Everyone has a different starting point and a different end point. But regardless of where people are going, they all need traffic lights and traffic laws or else no one will ever get anywhere.

The following are generally recognized as necessary for civilized society to function:

1. Written laws
2. Constitution
3. Laws apply to everyone including goverment officials
4. One vote per citizen (of sufficient age and maturity)
5. Every vote counts
6. No unnecessary detainment or detention (Habeas corpus)
7. No Indefinite imprisonment
8. Speedy trial
9. Presumption of innocence
10. Cant be tried twice
11. Name, rank, and serial number only
12. No breaking of contracts
13. No damaging, destroying, or stealing others property
14. No inflicting bodily harm on others
15. No inflicting psychological harm on others (No torture)
16. No invading the privacy of others
17. No raping
18. Equal pay for equal work
19. Equal punishment for equal crimes
20. Free Marketplace of ideas

All the rules above follow from the principle that all people are equal in the eyes of the law. But treating everyone as equals is not the same thing as treating everyone exactly the same. If we treated everyone the way that extroverts want to be treated then people who are introverted would suffer. Treating everyone as if they were exactly the same is pseudo-civilization.

 

[4321lynx]

n-o-p said:-

A civilized society is a society whose laws do not favor any one person or any one group of people. The more a society treats everyone as equals the more civilized it is.

How big is your "society"? Family? Tribe? Nation? Masonic Lodge? "Race"? Global "family"?

Gods and Morality are both human inventions. Useful in holding/forcing togetherness on others, and justifying the "inferiority " of those who refuse to join in your togetherness, an inferiority that can, and has, frequently resulted in slavery and annihilation of other "societies" of varying sizes.

 

[no-one-particular]

n-o-p said:-

A civilized society is a society whose laws do not favor any one person or any one group of people. The more a society treats everyone as equals the more civilized it is.

How big is your "society"? Family? Tribe? Nation? Masonic Lodge? "Race"? Global "family"?

Gods and Morality are both human inventions. Useful in holding/forcing togetherness on others, and justifying the "inferiority " of those who refuse to join in your togetherness, an inferiority that can, and has, frequently resulted in slavery and annihilation of other "societies" of varying sizes.

What part of "everyone" did you not understand?

It includes everyone who is subject to that societies laws.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

An objective person is a person with sufficient objectivity to understand that the universe does not revolve around their ego...

Actually it does.

My mind, for me, is the center of all things.

Morality flows from compassion, from empathy, from "positive" emotions.

I am kind to the stranger because it is positive for me to be so. I gain by being that way. I am less hollow and alone.

Following arbitrary laws, like drug war laws, is based on fear and cowering to authority.

It is something that makes one more hollow.

And sometimes, laws are created for good intentions based on bad ideas. A civilized civilization will realize when these ideas and laws are counter-productive, and have unwanted side effects or unforeseen consequences. The problem is when bad ideas become deeply embedded parts of a culture, buttressed by bad ideas about say, race, ideology or religion. Or bad political fads on the day. When competence, logic and reason are abandoned, a civilization becomes a bad one.

 

[no-one-particular]

An objective person is a person with sufficient objectivity to understand that the universe does not revolve around their ego...

Actually it does.

My mind, for me, is the center of all things.

Morality flows from compassion, from empathy, from "positive" emotions.

I am kind to the stranger because it is positive for me to be so. I gain by being that way. I am less hollow and alone.

Following arbitrary laws, like drug war laws, is based on fear and cowering to authority.

It is something that makes one more hollow.

civilization is not about empathy. Its about reason and logic. it's about realizing that if you want people to respect your rights then you must respect their rights too

 

[fromderinside]

You're both right/wrong.

Social conditions drive evolution of empathy and sharing. They are the same thing actually. Empathy arises from feeling what one senses in the behavior of others around one as being similar to how one feels about what is around one. Civilization arises from these feelings which is to say one uses what one senses to make rules for social behavior in groups.