In _Beyond Good and Evil_ Nietzsche said, "There are no moral phenomena at
all, but only a moral interpretation of phenomena."   Would you agree or
disagree with that?  If you agree, why do you think man has developed
'morality'?  Would you say that morality is necessary to order?  I'd like
to discuss any and all thoughts on this subject.

18 responses total.

morals are an immoral concept.  The world is amoral.  Morals are an excuse to
impose a narrow set of rules on other people while feeling superior.  People
without morals have to make ethical decisions.  Only people with strong morals
can act in an "immoral" way, and only people who have had such morals imposed
on them are likely to try to be immoral.
set flame=off

Um, could you elaberate on that first sentence?
I'm not sure I follow.

I think what she means by morals are strict codes of conduct set up by
society or religions.

My take on this is that these codes developed as survival mechanisms.
Killing other people depleted the number in a tribe available to
do the work of a tribe.  If enough people were killed, the tribe would
cease to exist.

It's also important to remember that whenhe used the word 'phenomena' he was
probally still talking in Kantian terms...

I think I'd be better off ignoring this.

re#1-  There is nothing wrong with having strong morals.  A strong set of
morals gives ya something to fall back on when all else is going to hell.
It lets you justify what you know is right, not by what others tell you, 
but by what you think.  You are very right that some people (e.g. Hitler)
uses the pretense of morals to justify wrong acts.  This makes me wonder
if people like this truly believe they are doing the right thing, or if
it is only an excuse to themselves?

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP!

(I'm lost as to why having morals implies that those morals must be forced
upon other people. Maybe I'm not forcing enough people...)

Yeah.  I think we all have morals, i.e. a strong opinion of what is right
and what is wrong.  Forcing your morals on someone else is usually wrong,
except where it is necessary for the benefit of society.  This statement
is bound to be full of loopholes and will probably be shot down fairly 
quickly, but I can't phrase the thought behind it any better at the moment.

i agree with the thought, if not the statement.  (yes, i often know what greg
is thinking.  this is not telepathy, but understanding)

(I think the theory is that of the benevolent dictator, who knows what is
best for his/her subjects, and will do right by them despite what they 
want. While it's not something I heartily agree with, it does make 
sense.)

er, something like that, I think.  

Re: #9  where is it necessayr to force your morals on someone?  
I am assuming murder...but anything else?

(murder isn't even a "necessary" forcing of morals.)

I could be way off base here, but I believe more than anything else, 
<oops> -ch are actual concepts of mrality a s opposed to an unspoken
action taken out of a sense of what one "wanted" to do are derived
merely from a sense of the individul not to take responsibility for 
those actions which he desired to do; whether he did them or not.
I.e., regardless of whether or not you have courage to act on 
your desires, having aa set of morals proovides a convenian, if not somewhat
paradoxical solution, for actually doing so.  Either a pat on the 
back for doing the right thing, or a pat on the back for doing the
right thing even though we didn't rally want to but were afraid not to.
and I think we all want a pat on the back.

Several years later-

I think that ethics and morals are indeed manmade, which is as it should be.
What I also think is that 9/10ths of most moral and ethical codes are probably
quite arbitary in their development.  I think that the only honest code of
ethics that can be is a code of ethics based upon reason and necessity.  The
prime necessity is probably survival of man, and therefore any moral code
should be based on this.  The good is that which allows man to survive and
the bad is that which destroys man.

In a truly naturalistic world, wouldn't the focus be not only the
survival of man, but also the genetic advancement of mankind?  If a
superior man evolved, would it be moral or immoral to resist the process
of natural selection (as proposed by Darwin) by which mankind as we know
it would be weeded out?  Would it be moral or immoral to not allow
certain members of the human race to breed since they are not the
"fittest?"  Would it be moral or immoral to perform experiments on these
people so that man as a whole will be advanced?  Would it be moral or
immoral to attempt to genetically engineer a "superior" man? Why
wouldn't abortion be morally wrong, since we might be killing man's next
evolutionary step?  

If I can kill you and steal from you and get away with it, is it morally
wrong?  It seems I would have proven my superior strength and intellect
(after all, I was smart enough to avoid getting caught) and, therefore,
my right to procreate.  At the same time, I've shown the weaknesses in
your own genetic material, so the human race is better off with you
gone.  If indeed the survival of the fittest is the name of the game,
why should we protect the weak?  Wouldn't doing so interrupt the process
of natural selection which will allow us to evolve into something
greater than what we are?

What is our perception of a "superior" man?  It seems to me that a man
that is characterized by love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness,
goodness and meekness would fit the bill, but that's just my own moral
judgement; one that I have been unable to explain in strictly
naturalistic or materialistic terms.

Wow, you sure made your point with a bang. What I am going to say will 
probablely catch you all by surprise. Whatever may be the case, the 
facts has to be faced. So here goes.
Charles Darwin observed different life forms in nature and said that 
they followed the theory of 'the survival of the fittest'. We all 
agreed to it because it seemed right and also because we personally 
liked the idea! 
But is it neccesary that nature should follow the same law forever. No. 
What I suggest is that the reason nature gave intelligence to man was 
to find a better law of life. And man seems to have found it. I called 
it 'the suvival of all' when a friend of mine gave me a better name, 
'all for one, one for all'! Yes I think that this is the new law of 
life. There are no more superior or inferior human beings, all are 
equal and equally valuble for the mankind. So a mentally retarded child 
will be looked after all its life. But a murderer has to prisoned by 
the government because he might kill many lifes. So we can live happily 
and harmoniously together and for that we need laws to see to the well 
being of the society which is determined by the government and moral 
for the well being of the individual which is determined by himself. So 
that is it. 

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss