Social rules and morality

This is the place for secular issues.Discuss society and Politics, social action, the Christian identity and chruch's place in the world. We can also discuss science.

Moderator: Metacrock

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 10046
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Social rules and morality

Post by Metacrock » Tue May 15, 2012 9:18 am

Morality is like an intense emotional version of ethics. I see ethics as the intellectual consideration of ideas involving morality, and morality as the folk application or the social use of ethical theory.

In those terms I see issues like gay marriage as social issues not moral issues. The reason: in the social realm we have to go by the rules that society as a whole endorses. We can make pious statements about god and country, most of those come from the assumption that America has a conversant with God. I don't see that in the NT.

The analogy would be America and Rome. Rome did not have a convenient relationship with God. America = Rome.

We don't have the right to use legal actions against things we find to be personal sins. The only issue for legal sanction should be is it socially harmful. Otherwise you might as well make laws that say things like "belief in God is mandatory."

I believe this postilion can be born out by Locke.

As to the moral status of gayness, that's a harder question. one I am loath to answer.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

User avatar
mdsimpson92
Posts: 2187
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 6:05 pm
Location: Tianjin, China

Re: Social rules and morality

Post by mdsimpson92 » Tue May 15, 2012 9:41 am

Metacrock wrote:We don't have the right to use legal actions against things we find to be personal sins. The only issue for legal sanction should be is it socially harmful. Otherwise you might as well make laws that say things like "belief in God is mandatory."
Careful, your begining to sound like John Stuart Mill and his harm-principle.
Julia: It's all... a dream...
Spike Spiegel: Yeah... just a dream...

User avatar
mdsimpson92
Posts: 2187
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 6:05 pm
Location: Tianjin, China

Re: Social rules and morality

Post by mdsimpson92 » Tue May 15, 2012 9:41 am

Metacrock wrote:We don't have the right to use legal actions against things we find to be personal sins. The only issue for legal sanction should be is it socially harmful. Otherwise you might as well make laws that say things like "belief in God is mandatory."
Careful, your begining to sound like John Stuart Mill and his harm-principle. :mrgreen:
Julia: It's all... a dream...
Spike Spiegel: Yeah... just a dream...

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 10046
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: Social rules and morality

Post by Metacrock » Tue May 29, 2012 6:16 am

mdsimpson92 wrote:
Metacrock wrote:We don't have the right to use legal actions against things we find to be personal sins. The only issue for legal sanction should be is it socially harmful. Otherwise you might as well make laws that say things like "belief in God is mandatory."
Careful, your begining to sound like John Stuart Mill and his harm-principle. :mrgreen:

you said that. I disagree. I think I take that more from a Quacker stand point than util.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

User avatar
mdsimpson92
Posts: 2187
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 6:05 pm
Location: Tianjin, China

Re: Social rules and morality

Post by mdsimpson92 » Tue May 29, 2012 11:02 am

Metacrock wrote:you said that. I disagree. I think I take that more from a Quacker stand point than util.
Probably, especially considering both of us reject util. Hell, under the right situations you can ignore said harm principle if justified by utility.
Julia: It's all... a dream...
Spike Spiegel: Yeah... just a dream...

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 10046
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: Social rules and morality

Post by Metacrock » Thu May 31, 2012 10:14 am

mdsimpson92 wrote:
Metacrock wrote:you said that. I disagree. I think I take that more from a Quacker stand point than util.
Probably, especially considering both of us reject util. Hell, under the right situations you can ignore said harm principle if justified by utility.

sure, and util could be used to justify anything form the contra war to the holocaust.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

User avatar
mdsimpson92
Posts: 2187
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 6:05 pm
Location: Tianjin, China

Re: Social rules and morality

Post by mdsimpson92 » Thu May 31, 2012 12:44 pm

Metacrock wrote:In those terms I see issues like gay marriage as social issues not moral issues. The reason: in the social realm we have to go by the rules that society as a whole endorses. We can make pious statements about god and country, most of those come from the assumption that America has a conversant with God. I don't see that in the NT.
I actually think that this goes very well with the Michael Sandel link that I posted. However, he thinks that the secularism from the left has allowed to right to take the "high ground" when often it is a narrow interpretation of scripture or not even in the Bible.

By the way, how do we deal with an issue of lets say, abortion. While gay marriage can be considered simply a social issue, hell my conservative father has outright stated that he doesn't really care if there is gay marriage. But abortion, that is something that does have a moral dimension, as well as a social dimension.


(on util) That being said, I have actually heard that some rule utilitarians consider murder unacceptable in all instances. Want to talk about rule util? We always seem to brush util off a bit when the people that actually believe in it would probably try very hard to calculate such issues.
Julia: It's all... a dream...
Spike Spiegel: Yeah... just a dream...

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 10046
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: Social rules and morality

Post by Metacrock » Fri Jun 01, 2012 5:02 am

mdsimpson92 wrote:
Metacrock wrote:In those terms I see issues like gay marriage as social issues not moral issues. The reason: in the social realm we have to go by the rules that society as a whole endorses. We can make pious statements about god and country, most of those come from the assumption that America has a conversant with God. I don't see that in the NT.
I actually think that this goes very well with the Michael Sandel link that I posted. However, he thinks that the secularism from the left has allowed to right to take the "high ground" when often it is a narrow interpretation of scripture or not even in the Bible.
Yes but the "left' is an amorphous terms now days. I'm not sure what is left of the left. I don't count Postmdoern as left. Many do so if they count as such then the "morality of the left" is shallow to non existent.
By the way, how do we deal with an issue of lets say, abortion. While gay marriage can be considered simply a social issue, hell my conservative father has outright stated that he doesn't really care if there is gay marriage. But abortion, that is something that does have a moral dimension, as well as a social dimension.
that has always been an issue in which there's a lot ore heat than light.It's such a convenient right-wing organizing tool that it has taken on such an ugly life of its own. The problem is it began with the Catholics who included leftist Catholics and they were sincere about saving life. Then taken over by protestant right whose true motive was political organizing but which saw the issue in terms of punishing women for having sex and punishing poor women who conservatives always imagine live immorally. That just takes all the reason out of it.

I guess I'm saying that issue is a lost cause. It will always be a powder keg. The whole thing should be answered with RU486 but they are too stupid to learn about conception so they can't undersatnd why it's not talking life. It's called "abortion pill" so it must be an abortion, duh!

(on util) That being said, I have actually heard that some rule utilitarians consider murder unacceptable in all instances. Want to talk about rule util? We always seem to brush util off a bit when the people that actually believe in it would probably try very hard to calculate such issues.
I never can keep straight which kind of Util is considered the loony version. I think it's rule util that has the crazies. It may be act. I'm not sure. one of them seems to draw the extremists.

I'm up for it feel free. I think most left wing thinknig is naturally util and so is most atheist morality.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

User avatar
mdsimpson92
Posts: 2187
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 6:05 pm
Location: Tianjin, China

Re: Social rules and morality

Post by mdsimpson92 » Sat Jun 02, 2012 10:57 am

Metacrock wrote:I guess I'm saying that issue is a lost cause. It will always be a powder keg. The whole thing should be answered with RU486 but they are too stupid to learn about conception so they can't undersatnd why it's not talking life. It's called "abortion pill" so it must be an abortion, duh!


I can see that. Though really the issue does come down to the question of at what point in development do we consider development of the fetus to be worthy of human dignity. That and women's choice. But you are right it is much more of a powder keg than gay marriage.
Metacrock wrote:Yes but the "left' is an amorphous terms now days. I'm not sure what is left of the left. I don't count Postmdoern as left. Many do so if they count as such then the "morality of the left" is shallow to non existent.
Agreed, I personally prefer the nolan chart as a way to show where people stand.
Julia: It's all... a dream...
Spike Spiegel: Yeah... just a dream...

User avatar
mdsimpson92
Posts: 2187
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 6:05 pm
Location: Tianjin, China

Re: Social rules and morality

Post by mdsimpson92 » Sat Jun 02, 2012 11:00 am

Rule utilitarianism is the less radical one. Classical utilitarianism or act utilitarianism is the one that has the more radical implications.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/conse ... lism-rule/
Julia: It's all... a dream...
Spike Spiegel: Yeah... just a dream...

Post Reply