morality and ethics

Do you base your behavior on morality, ethics, both, or neither?

Do you seek to 'justify' your sense of morality? If so, how do you do so?

How do you feel society should arrive at an ethical code and determine what is acceptable?

As is generally the case, I endeavor, as well as I am able, to behave in accordance with my morals, which are founded in my ethics.
I don't understand, particularly since you have distinguished morality and ethics, what you mean when you say "sense of morality". I spent many years developing my understanding of both, and believe, like every other idiot, that they are self justifying.
And an example would be helpful for me in understanding the third question, about society and it's "ethical codes".

My question here is why in the world is this posted here? Religion has nothing to do with morality or ethics, considering religious faith is based on neither.


Doesn't this belong in Health and Life style?

One's personal morality...

(emphasis added)



Simple: what ethical system do you support, or how do you feel a society should cvome to agree to one?

why is a morality and ethics thread posted in 'religion and ethics'?

are you serious?

aint that the truth

both

in both these cases religion is not only useless but even harmful
on the other hand, in both cases can be helpful some ethical theories, and especially such like utilitarianism, which is saying that: 'good is what is useful' so 'the ethical value of conduct is determined by the utility of its results' and usually useful is this what is rational

basing on such principles, I for example deem that abortion is wrong because I wouldn't want to be in place of killed child, gay marriages are wrong because evolution created normal sexuality and not abnormal, penalties for criminals should be high, because I would prefer to meet with the same criminal after fifty years than after one year, and so on

Yes

No

Very carefully

__________________
PLEASE READ!: The contents of the above post is the educated opinion of the author. At times, said opinion is so strong it gets stated as fact. This is simply how the author chooses to express his deeply held opinion and should not be misconstrued to suggest more. Or it's a joke. Deal.

I disagree. Homosexual behavior is seen in many species in nature, and is therefore natural. This renders your argument that ' evolution created normal sexuality and not abnormal' meaningless and fallacious. Nature renders that which is natural. That which is natural is normal. That includes homosexuality. Furthermore, homosexuality could be a side effect of sexually antagonistic evolution (thereby being a signal of 'positive' development of a population), and serve to feminize male brains so they adopt 'feminine' roles (such as protecting children while most males are away, while being larger and stronger than females on average) while simultaneously serving as a natural means of birth control

and what do you think about abortion ?

what do you think about high penalties for criminals ?

Homosexuality is abnormal from biological point of view, Evolution created sexuality as mechanism of reproduction, it isn't work in cases of dysfunctions and sicknesses (it wouldn't exist without reproduction, it arose ONLY FOR REPRODUCTION and nothing else, too strong feminization of male brains is contradictory with this fundamental principle). Your 'basing' on Science is in this case untrue and PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC.

your way of thinking in this case is too schematic, you should read my other thread:
'democrats' and 'republicans' in all areas ?

What difference does it make? It isn't going to change anything.

__________________
The road to truth is long and lined the entire way with annoying bastards

Opposed, save for medical necessity

define 'high penalties'


Incorrect. Normality is that which is 'normal' or common. This is the same argument I refuted above; you have merely replaces 'unnatural' with 'abnormal'. You must do more than play this silly game of semantics to rebut my refutation.

Evolution did not 'create' sexuality 'as' anything or for any purpose. That which made more copies of itself has a higher probability of prorogation, nothing more. Furthermore, you have yet top demonstrate that it is 'good' to be 'normal' or to reproduce.

It arose for no purpose. It arose because those creatures that engaged in it made more of themselves more efficiently than those that did not. There is no purpose or goal when it comes to evolution. To personify the process in such a manner as you have is fallacious.

Incorrect. Evolution effect populations, not individuals. If feminized males engage in behaviors that have the effect of being beneficial for the survival of the population,. one would expect them to remain around. Remember that one need not reproduce to 'succeed' in tthe 'game' of evolution; to have one's close relatives reproduce (passing along the same genomes/alleles) is also 'success' by the same standard.

Incorrect. My basis is valid, while yours relies on fallacious personification. I draw conclusions based on the evidence, while you seek out evidence to support your conclusion. Your entire approach is fallacious and unscientific in nature.

My thinking in this matter is based on rational thought, where yours is based on justification of your beliefs and personal opinions.

Why respond if you have no intention of answering or conmtributing to the discussion?

That was a contribution. How you or I feel about how society should approach an ethical code is irrelevant. And even if, by some chance we were to have some influence on the decision making, what is it that makes behavior acceptable? Isn't that what you want to know? Isn't it subjective, which is the problem in the first place?

__________________
The road to truth is long and lined the entire way with annoying bastards

and your sense of morality is based on ---------the constitution ? Dr. Phil ? mother nature ?

__________________
"Some men eventually stumble over the truth but they usually pick themselves up and walk on as if nothing ever happened."
-Winston Churchill

"In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue, but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing." -Mark Twain

"Morality" is so vague and subjective that it's way easier to define that which is immoral, insofar as peaceful non-aggressive individuals are concerned.

For starters:

Does it impose an obligation upon someone to perform without their expressed consent (merely existing doesn't count as "consent")?

Does it proactively attempt to "protect" someone from themself?

Does it aggressively take from the productive and/or many in order to feather the nests of the unproductive and/or few, respectively?

Is it aggressive under color of peace?...Is it compulsion under color of choice?

__________________

I don't think that they are self justifying, they are basing and they should basing on valuation and rational reflexion

your questions are interesting but I don't think that Morality is vague and subjective - it is in fact basing and it should basing on rational valuation, can be founded on such conceptions like utilitarianism, so it is concrete and objective (but it can be mistaken, and in this is contained subjectivity)

I agree, in this point you are not schematic
I did answer on your questions and what are your answers on your three questions ?

sicknesses are also seen in many species in nature, but they aren't normal (and even natural) because of this; homosexuality is sickness and is unnatural and abnormal

AIDS can also be a signal of 'positive' development of a population

'Evolution created sexuality as mechanism of reproduction' you should read as 'sexuality arose in the way of Evolution as mechanism of reproduction'

false, 'If feminized males engage in behaviors that have the effect of being beneficial for the survival of the population' but they don't, as same as ill with AIDS males don't

feminized males can cause significant or mass-development of homosexuality in society, and effect would be the same as significant or mass-development of AIDS - DEGENERATION, OR IN EXTREME CASE DEATH OF SPECIES

Your way of thinking in this matter is extremely irrational, subjective and illogical