Morality

[Skepdick]

If someone were to have a personality disorder that leaves them completely without any moral sense, I think we can eliminate them from this discussion. If we were discussing the nature of legs, we wouldn't dwell too much on those who don't have any, would we?

I think we are moving further away from the point.

This is how I understand your argument.

Innate moral potential + formative environment => actualised morality
Innate potential + (No formative environment ) => wasted moral potential

Who actualised the formative environment?
Does actualising the formative environment for morality require potential or actual morality?

[Harbal]

A person who believes that morality comes from God, and a person who doesn't believe in God, cannot have a sensible discussion about morality.

That would be a surprising conclusion, if the existence of God is irrelevant to the whole discussion. Why wouldn't they be able to discuss it, whether or not God exists changes nothing?

How can God be irrelevant to the discussion when the point of view of one of the parties is based on, and entirely dependent on his presence?

[Harbal]

If someone were to have a personality disorder that leaves them completely without any moral sense, I think we can eliminate them from this discussion. If we were discussing the nature of legs, we wouldn't dwell too much on those who don't have any, would we?

I think we are moving further away from the point.

This is how I understand your argument.

Moral potential + formative environment => actualised moral potential
Moral potential + (No formative environment ) => wasted moral potential

Who actualised the formative environment?
Does actualising the formative environment for morality require potential or actual morality?

I'm not playing this game, Skepdick. I am not the most eloquent person in the World, but I think I set my view out quite clearly, and I'm sure you understand what I mean. If you disagree with what I have said, please just say what you disagree with and why.

[surreptitious57]

Morality exists on a spectrum with absolute immorality at one end and absolute morality at the other end
Most human beings most of the time will occupy the space in between these two extremes with regard to any moral / immoral acts
This only includes those that are compos mentis and are capable of making moral choices and accepting full responsibility for them
Not those who have a psychiatric disorder that severely affects their ability to make a distinction between moral and immoral acts

[Skepdick]

I'm not playing this game, Skepdick. I am not the most eloquent person in the World, but I think I set my view out quite clearly, and I'm sure you understand what I mean. If you disagree with what I have said, please just say what you disagree with and why.

I perfectly understand what you mean, but I don't believe that you believe that morality is only a potential, even though you words say so.

If we were born with only potential, but not with the formative environment necessary for actualising our potential, then where did the formative environment come from?

We, humans built it! So that we can actualise our own moral potential.

[Harbal]

If we were born with only potential, but not with the formative environment necessary for actualising our potential, then where did the formative environment come from?

We, humans built it! So that we can actualise our own moral potential.

Yes, I believe so.

[Harbal]

Morality exists on a spectrum with absolute immorality at one end and absolute morality at the other end
Most human beings most of the time will occupy the space in between these two extremes with regard to any moral / immoral acts
This only includes those that are compos mentis and are capable of making moral choices and accepting full responsibility for them
Not those who have a psychiatric disorder that severely affects their ability to make a distinction between moral and immoral acts

Yes, but the terms, moral and immoral, would be entirely relative to whatever rulebook happened to be prevalent.

[Skepdick]

Yes, I believe so.

Then we practically agree.

All that's left is nit-pick of "what came first?": the formative environment or the humans?

If the formative environment came before us, then we have no reason not to actualise our potential.
If the formative environment was made by us, then our morality was never potential, it's actual.

Either way it's a distinction without a difference.

[Dontaskme]

A person who believes that morality comes from God, and a person who doesn't believe in God, cannot have a sensible discussion about morality.

Morality comes from the concept known, which has no known source except here now Nowhere.

Words are nothing but noises ..they are sound heard as words, and sound comes from silence here now Nowhere.

Same goes for the God concept...it’s all nothing being something...fill in the nothing with whatever word you like..it’s all the same nothing being something...

That’s the real magic...making something out of nothing...it’s magic...who does this ?

Some call this God...some call this Me

.

[Harbal]

Yes, I believe so.

Then we practically agree.

All that's left is nit-pick of "what came first?": the formative environment or the humans?

If the formative environment came before us, then we have no reason not to actualise our potential.
If the formative environment was made by us, then our morality was never potential, it's actual.

Either way it's a distinction without a difference.

By formative environment, I mean the society we grow up in. I probably should have just said that. Obviously, when any individual comes into the World, the society (environment) and it's moral attitudes are already there in place to be passed on to him. As I said, he comes into the World with the innate capacity to absorb those attitudes.

[surreptitious57]

Yes but the terms moral and immoral would be entirely relative

The spectrum of morality has to include all possible moral / immoral acts so that is not relative but objective
What would be relative would be deciding which acts were definitely moral and which were definitely immoral
Even without belief systems or moral philosophies there would still be no universal consensus because of free will

[Harbal]

Morality comes from the concept known, which has no known source except here now Nowhere.

I'm not in the mood for any of your nonsense, Dontask. You may well be in possession of the ultimate truth, but we are all human beings, and can only usefully look at the World in that context. So speak like a human being, please.

[Harbal]

What would be relative would be deciding which acts were definitely moral and which were definitely immoral

Yes, it is a decision, basically.

[surreptitious57]

If the formative environment came before us then we have no reason not to actualise our potential
If the formative environment was made by us then our morality was never potential its actual

Either way its a distinction without a difference

The formative environment is the foundation upon which potential is formed
Because all potential pertains to the future then it is flexible not set in stone

Even for those who believe that morality is objective its application is not predetermined because of free will

[Skepdick]

By formative environment, I mean the society we grow up in. I probably should have just said that. Obviously, when any individual comes into the World, the society (environment) and it's moral attitudes are already there in place to be passed on to him. As I said, he comes into the World with the innate capacity to absorb those attitudes.

We are on the same page, I am just rewinding history by a few thousand years to pre-societal times; or to times before society existed as we know it today.

Some individual; or groups of individuals were responsible for structuring societies which cultivate those attitudes.

Either was pre-societal humans who invented moral societies, or moral societies always existed.