What are the laws of morality and who should define them?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bin Qasim
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Laws
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around the definition and necessity of morality and moral laws in society. Morality is defined as a system of ideas concerning conduct. Moral laws are deemed necessary for guiding behavior and enabling competition among societies, with the suggestion that these laws could be derived from scientific observations of nature. There is a debate about who should define these moral laws, with implications that they could be influenced by higher moral codes or nature itself. Some participants argue that moral and ethical laws are relative and question the reliance on science as a basis for morality, noting that scientific understanding evolves, which could lead to changing moral laws. The conversation reflects a tension between the need for moral structure and the fluidity of moral definitions based on scientific progress.
Bin Qasim
Hello everyone!

I have few questions.
1. What is exactly the definition of morality?
2. Why do we need some moral laws for the society?
3. If we do need laws of morality, then who should define such laws? A gov.??

I hope to get some answers about this issue.

peace out :smile:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What moral codes should say moral codes should say

Bin Qasim said:
1. What is exactly the definition of morality?
"A doctrine or system of ideas concerned with conduct." --M-W Unabridged 3.0, sense 3 a.



2. Why do we need some moral laws for the society?
So we know how to conduct ourselves. Raymond Cattell http://www.efn.org/~callen/ToC.htm, "So we know how to conduct ourselves in order to compete well against other societies and ultimately to pass nature's tests."



3. If we do need laws of morality, then who should define such laws?
That depends upon what ever higher moral codes say. Cattell implied that it is derivable from the scientific observation that has been done so far that ultimately nature should decide what moral codes say.
 
the post above gave a good definition of morals.

for question 2, my answer is that moral and ethical laws shouldn't exist: they are completely relative. But we, humans, are too stupid to live without laws (in strong-extremist-anarchism), for the moment...
 
Reply

I do agree with ur answers to no1 and 2. But I want to know what u meant when u said, "nature's law." Nature?? wat's that??

That depends upon what ever higher moral codes say. Cattell implied that it is derivable from the scientific observation that has been done so far that ultimately nature should decide what moral codes say.
Do u mean to say Science should be God, in religious terms? :smile: Should we only based on scientific observations? experimentation? not sure what u meant. :smile:

btw I forgot to tell you one thing. If u depend on scientific observations for laws of morality, u may have to keep changing the laws as Science is 'evolving.'
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just ONCE, I wanted to see a post titled Status Update that was not a blatant, annoying spam post by a new member. So here it is. Today was a good day here in Northern Wisconsin. Fall colors are here, no mosquitos, no deer flies, and mild temperature, so my morning run was unusually nice. Only two meetings today, and both went well. The deer that was road killed just down the road two weeks ago is now fully decomposed, so no more smell. Somebody has a spike buck skull for their...
Back
Top