Morality in Death Note? Do the ends justify the means?

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

That doesn't really answer my question very well.

I was just pointing out that a third position doesn't have to be one that between that of the main viewpoints.

In your hypothesis, the premise that morality is based on Christianity is incorrect. Also, basing your argument on prevailing moral standards is really just another form of appealing to popularity. The fact remains that those prevailing standards can still be completely wrong.

Originally Posted by UchihaByakuya

This is what im getting at. The morally correct action depends on the person observing it, I used extreme examples of hitler and stalin to show to illustarte this point.

Your point doesn't make sense. After all, we can simply say that they are wrong.

Originally Posted by UchihaByakuya

The decision of what is correct of this person will be based on his experiences and teachings. This stems from parents and his or her surrounding. So basically Whats moral to you is not moral to someone else.

People have different feelings on morality, but they're not all equally correct, and some of them can be outright wrong.

Originally Posted by UchihaByakuya

light's citizens will probably believe his is moral while they think your imoral. My examples and stuff were meant to reinforce the point that the winner is right ( sorry for forgetting to state this and causing massive confusion). So if light wins What he does would be right because by him winning he is in compelte control and can make society potray him as morally correct. Morals exist in our minds and is not absolute (look @ Ascaloth reasoning ). SO if only the view that light is right exist only then that would be morally correct.

You're still beating the dead horse of associating popularity with morality. It makes no more sense here than it did before.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

What I'm thinking is, is that what we have here is not an absolute, or a relative, moral standard......what we have here is an evolving moral standard.

...moral standards have evolved; it's not an absolute moral code, but one that has evolved over time. Slave labour is no longer condoned where once it was the norm; women are equals where once they were inferior, and all human life is now held equally sacred where once this was only the case for the whites.

Okay, I've said my piece. And if I'm not making any sense here.....blame it on the cognac I've had tonight.

It's Chinese New Year! And tomorrow (19 Feb) I'm flying off to Japan, muahahaha.

Ok, gloating aside, I'm glad I helped to clarify things. You make a very good point of evolving standards. I won't challenge it, because I think it's valid. But I do have one interesting question for you -- why do you think moral standards evolve over time?

(If we aren't aware of an alternative to what we currently have, why bother changing the way we do things today? )

Originally Posted by Moon Eclipse

I think the problem with all the arguing is that through all this we have yet to define the criteria's by which you would try and judge something as moral or immoral.

The arguments I've put forth is that there is no universal criteria to make this judgment.

Counters that I've read simply assume that there is yet I have yet to read anyone's outline of these assumed universal rules that govern the morality of an action.

Please outline what you believe to be the moral guidelines or these judgments.

I have outlined it a few times already. Perhaps you've missed it?

Universal standards of morality (categorical imperatives) that apply equally to all rational beings -- regardless of race, language, religion, culture or history -- conform to a simple maxim:

Do unto others as you would wish others to do unto you.

With the added proviso that you perform actions out of goodwill. Helping people out of self-interest (or the selfish expectation that they return the favour) is not "good" action.

Given any action you can think of, if it passes the above test, it stands a very high chance of being an action that is universally good for all people.

Originally Posted by Moon Eclipse

If that action achieves a predetermined or predefined "greater good" I would deem that action as moral regardless of how vile that action may be viewed in and of itself.

The outcome of the action should not be the concern at all, because as we've argued several times already, "two wrongs do not make a right". It is also highly possible that a "good act" can lead to terrible outcomes, but that does not make the "good act" bad, not if it was done out of goodwill in the first place.

In other words, judge the act first, and not the outcome.

Of course, we all aspire to an ideal world where good acts lead to good outcomes, but we all agree that we live in an imperfect world, don't we?

In any case, even if you were to follow your own rule -- "the end justifies the means", you are still stuck with the problem of judging whether your "predetermined or predefined greater good" is actually "good" in the first place. How to judge? Again, consider do unto others as you would wish others to do unto you. Is the "end" an ideal outcome that can be equally applied to all other people? That is what you still need to ask yourself.

[Ascaloth]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

I was just pointing out that a third position doesn't have to be one that between that of the main viewpoints.

In your hypothesis, the premise that morality is based on Christianity is incorrect. Also, basing your argument on prevailing moral standards is really just another form of appealing to popularity. The fact remains that those prevailing standards can still be completely wrong.

The premise that the morality we go by today is based on early Christian moral codes is wrong, how? Where else did it come from? I'll like to see proof, not baseless statements originating from strawmen assumptions. And, not once did I mention anything about appealing to popularity; please don't put words in my mouth. Also, prevailing standards can still be completely wrong......from what viewpoint? If some other moral standard is the prevailing standard today and can still be considered wrong......can it not be said the same of the moral standard that is the prevailing one today, from some other viewpoint?

Don't tell me to read the thread again to find them proof, because I simply do not have the stamina to trawl pages and pages of fragmented, Omnislash-ed points. As far as I can see, your arguments have basically consisted of you attempting to impose your own moral standard on the rest of us. Again I reiterate, I'll like to see some proof, for a change.

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

Ok, gloating aside, I'm glad I helped to clarify things. You make a very good point of evolving standards. I won't challenge it, because I think it's valid. But I do have one interesting question for you -- why do you think moral standards evolve over time?

(If we aren't aware of an alternative to what we currently have, why bother changing the way we do things today? )

Because of two factors; the increasing enlightenment of general society, and the increasing affluence that affords humanity the luxury to be human. Especially the latter; if we're still living in savage tribes like our ancestors back then used to, there would not have been such a thing as the moral standard we're accustomed to, today.

I'm pretty sure there's a proven psychological basis to that, as well, or at the very least, a theory.......

[cindialai]

I think criminals shouldn't be allowed to live (ones that did something extremely severe... why the hell are tax payers paying for these criminals anyways. (Kira only kills severe criminals) not like thiefs or stuff like that. These people are endangering society, wasting our resources.... Kira is doing justice because in our justice system there isn't death sentence... WAIT in japanese is there death sentence?


>.> don't mind me I'm watching the Death Note live action now lol seems like there are alot of different opinions in that show itself...

Alot of criminals even after getting out of jail they do crimes ago.. there is no saving these people. Why should we be in danger because the justice system was too linent on them.

[GorillaCP9]

Originally Posted by cindialai

I think criminals shouldn't be allowed to live (ones that did something extremely severe... why the hell are tax payers paying for these criminals anyways. (Kira only kills severe criminals) not like thiefs or stuff like that. These people are endangering society, wasting our resources.... Kira is doing justice because in our justice system there isn't death sentence... WAIT in japanese is there death sentence?


>.> don't mind me I'm watching the Death Note live action now lol seems like there are alot of different opinions in that show itself...

Alot of criminals even after getting out of jail they do crimes ago.. there is no saving these people. Why should we be in danger because the justice system was too linent on them.

a person is innocent until proven guilty right... well we are the one's that put criminals behind bars, and sometimes innocent ppl go behind bars. And who is Kira to judge a criminal..sure he goes after that really wacho one's...but when i look at the glow in kira's eyes...something doesn't seem right. ^_^ Plus how many ppl did kira kill who came close to finding him out.

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

The premise that the morality we go by today is based on early Christian moral codes is wrong, how? Where else did it come from? I'll like to see proof, not baseless statements originating from strawmen assumptions.

I don't always explain my thought processes because it can be (even more) long-winded and redundant. However, I have no problems in providing proof on request.

Much of Christianity is based upon the bible, and the bible doles out moral teachings in two ways: direct instructions on how to behave, and instructive parables. I don't want to get too deep into theology, so I'll just look at the portion that is often held up to be the main foundation of Western morality and legal systems: the Ten Commandments. For our purposes, I'll use the King James version.

1. I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
- Other than some religious people, we don't really care about this one.

2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me. And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
- We don't care about this one either.

3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
- We don't give a goddamn about this one.

4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
- This would mean no fixing the fence on a Sunday (or Saturday). Forget about it.

5. Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
- While it's nice to have a good relationship with our parents, people who have issues with their parents aren't exactly looked down upon.

6. Thou shalt not kill.
- This one we follow. However it's also common to all of the valid moral systems.

7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
- This one we follow, but not anywhere nearly as strongly as before. Again, most moral systems say the same thing.

8. Thou shalt not steal.
- This one we follow. Just like murder, stealing is just about universally regarded as bad.

9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
- This one we follow. Again, lying has been regarded as an evil for pretty much all of recorded history.

10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
Most of the West, and the United States in particular, ignores this one. Heck, coveting things is just about a cornerstone of the U.S.

So, as we can see, the West finds only about 4 (or 3.5) out of the 10 commandments to be useful. And of the ones that we use, every single one is held by just about all moral systems. If we looked at the other moral instructions, we'll get similar results. How then can you say that our morality is necessarily based on Christianity?

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

And, not once did I mention anything about appealing to popularity; please don't put words in my mouth. Also, prevailing standards can still be completely wrong......from what viewpoint? If some other moral standard is the prevailing standard today and can still be considered wrong......can it not be said the same of the moral standard that is the prevailing one today, from some other viewpoint?

Your post was basically about how there's an evolving moral standard. However, the hidden premise behind this is that this standard is somehow "right" for its time, and that it requires an opposing viewpoint to set it as wrong. To boil your argument down, it amounts to (please correct me if I'm wrong):

1. People in the past used X moral system.
2. These people prevailed, and their moral system became the moral standard.
3. This standard changed over time into the current system.
4. The fact that the moral standard can change over time proves that morality is an evolving concept.
5. Since morality evolves, then what is "wrong" presently wasn't necessarily "wrong" in the past.

If you remove popularity out of the equation, the the question of the moral standard becomes irrelevant, and your argument falls apart. Most examinations of morality don't care about what people thought historically unless it's some sort of historical analysis.

A prevailing moral standard doesn't need any opposing viewpoint to prove it wrong. All we need to do is apply the same metrics used to test the validity of any moral system to the moral standard, and see how it fares. And you're absolutely right to point out that the current moral standard could be wrong as well.

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

As far as I can see, your arguments have basically consisted of you attempting to impose your own moral standard on the rest of us. Again I reiterate, I'll like to see some proof, for a change.

In what way have I tried to impose my moral standard on anyone? In fact, I'm pretty sure that I haven't come out to say which moral system is the best at all. All that I recall doing is point out faulty reasoning, and clarify my position on request.

[UchihaByakuya]

1. People in the past used X moral system.
2. These people prevailed, and their moral system became the moral standard.
3. This standard changed over time into the current system.
4. The fact that the moral standard can change over time proves that morality is an evolving concept.
5. Since morality evolves, then what is "wrong" presently wasn't necessarily "wrong" in the past.

I see nothing wrong with that elighten me by going into more detail

Originally Posted by UchihaByakuya
This is what im getting at. The morally correct action depends on the person observing it, I used extreme examples of hitler and stalin to show to illustarte this point.

The "After all, we can simply say that they are wrong." no better way then to start thinking about arguments i put forward

Originally Posted by UchihaByakuya
The decision of what is correct of this person will be based on his experiences and teachings. This stems from parents and his or her surrounding. So basically Whats moral to you is not moral to someone else.

My point again however you just need to read my post more throughly and think about growing up in a utopia created by light. I am taking something like that as a basis argument

You're still beating the dead horse of associating popularity with morality. It makes no more sense here than it did before.

You might not accept this but when you and every who disagree with light dies ( so hence victory) Everyone will think what he does is right. Who do you expect to go against him? People who think what he does is morally wrong? Remember your experiences decide who you are. The environment you grow up in is also another factor.

why do you think moral standards evolve over time?[

My answer would be the people in control want them to change to suit themselves or fulfill some vision etc. AFter all they have access to the media and things that can turn the easily brainwashed people against us

As far as I can see, your arguments have basically consisted of you attempting to impose your own moral standard on the rest of us. Again I reiterate, I'll like to see some proof, for a change.

Your just doing it without realising it. You think certain things are wrong and always will be like that. Heres a start . Example you believe that something is wrong because its just wrong

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

Because of two factors; the increasing enlightenment of general society, and the increasing affluence that affords humanity the luxury to be human. Especially the latter; if we're still living in savage tribes like our ancestors back then used to, there would not have been such a thing as the moral standard we're accustomed to, today.

I'm afraid I had been a little too subtle, haha. Nevermind, I'll follow up on your own point of "increasing enlightenment". You take the optimistic view that we've become more "moral" today, compared to our ancestors. That's good to know. Not everyone feels the same way.

But you see, by what yardstick do you judge that we are more moral today? If morality were relative (ie, not absolute), as many people mistakenly claim, how can we confidently say that we are more "enlightened" today, compared to the past?

(Imagine it this way: "Absolute good" is a fixed goal. By claiming that we are more enlightened today, compared to the past, you are implying we are getting closer to that goal. If instead, you claim that only "relative good" exists, that's as good as saying that the goal post is shifting all the time. If that were the case, there is absolutely no grounds for saying we are more enlightened today compared to our ancestors. )

It follows, by intuition, that we, as rational human beings, have a common moral standard that we all strive towards, whether consciously or unconsciously. We may not know if such an absolute moral standard actually exists (in the same way that we will never know if God truly exists), but nonetheless we seem instinctively aware of such universal rules.

The fact that moral standards are evolving all the time (and, by your own admission, getting better compared to the past), strongly suggests that we are constantly aware of better alternatives. If we weren't aware of better alternatives, we'd still be living like brutal savages today.

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

If some other moral standard is the prevailing standard today and can still be considered wrong......can it not be said the same of the moral standard that is the prevailing one today, from some other viewpoint?

So yes, it may indeed be the case that our current moral standard is still not good enough. But it's the best we've got at the moment (at least, I'd like so; I prefer to be optimistic ), and it may get even better if we build upon it sensibly.

But, this by no means implies that "morality is written by history's winners". That is simply not the case. Morality, as I have repeatedly pointed out, is an absolute goal we are striving towards. Yes, it is an abstract concept, but no, we are not re-writing the concept of morality every generation.

What has changed, over time, is the different ways in which we try to achieve moral behaviour. And as history shows, we seem to have gotten better with time. Knowing that gives me hope for Mankind's future.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by -HyugaNeji-

A perfect society was impossible, is impossible and will always be impossible. As well as every human soul struggles throughout a whole lifetime, societies, countrys, worlds struggle throughout their lifetime. But this doesn't mean, the people in power are always right. Wrong is wrong, even if it becomes standard.

I don't know why it's so hard for many people to accept good or evil, when it is so clear to see.

Beeing good, having good intentions, doesn't mean to be perfect. Of course some of the actions of L, are quite drastic. But it's for a higher good. It's for catching Light. So i can clearly say, L is the GOOD one.

Sooner or later, like the Shinigami said, Light would be all alone in this world, because he would see that his perfect world was an impossible illusion from the beginning.

So, for me, it's pretty easy to say: Light is evil. I hope he will be torn apart later in the story. (I'm only at episode 18 now)

Hallelujah! At least one person agrees with me.

Originally Posted by UchihaByakuya

I see nothing wrong with that elighten me by going into more detail.

The reason you see nothing wrong with that is because you're confused over what we mean by "absolute good". Do read what we've written in previous posts, because we've been rebutting this point over and over again.

"Right" and "wrong" are absolute concepts. What is "wrong" for us now, would have been equally wrong for our ancestors, and vice versa. Our moral standards may change over time, but the concepts of "right" and "wrong" do not.

[Ascaloth]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

I don't always explain my thought processes because it can be (even more) long-winded and redundant. However, I have no problems in providing proof on request.

Much of Christianity is based upon the bible, and the bible doles out moral teachings in two ways: direct instructions on how to behave, and instructive parables. I don't want to get too deep into theology, so I'll just look at the portion that is often held up to be the main foundation of Western morality and legal systems: the Ten Commandments. For our purposes, I'll use the King James version.

Fair enough. Your point-by-point analysis is very informative; however, it is obvious that your arguments on each Commandment was based on current moral standards, and you've neglected to take into account how seriously people in the past took these Commandments; thus, you've entirely disregarded altogether the existence of a past moral standard. Therefore, I shall meet every one of your point-by-point analysis of the Ten Commandments, with a point-by-point analysis on my own.

Originally Posted by 4Tran

1. I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
- Other than some religious people, we don't really care about this one.

However, that is because religious people in this day and age are in the minority. In Victorian times and even further back, one who isn't a Christian is considered an apostate, and persecuted as such. You couldn't be a member of Western society if you're do not at least pay lip service to this Commandment.

Originally Posted by 4Tran

2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me. And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
- We don't care about this one either.

Admittedly, even in older times, there has been some debate on this; Catholicism, in particular, has been accused by other denominations of worshipping "graven images" of the Virgin Mary. So we'll skip this one for the time being.

Originally Posted by 4Tran

3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
- We don't give a goddamn about this one.

Not now, perhaps. But what about back then, when Christianity held sway over every part of society?

Admittedly, how can we know for sure? So again, let's skip this point.

Originally Posted by 4Tran

4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
- This would mean no fixing the fence on a Sunday (or Saturday). Forget about it.

What about back then? Yet again those, same as point 3, so another point we should skip.

Originally Posted by 4Tran

5. Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
- While it's nice to have a good relationship with our parents, people who have issues with their parents aren't exactly looked down upon.

Well now, this I can say with almost absolute certainty; this Commandment was certainly taken very seriously back then. Lack of filial piety IS considered a mortal sin, and those guilty of this WERE very much scorned much more than they are nowadays.

Originally Posted by 4Tran

6. Thou shalt not kill.
- This one we follow. However it's also common to all of the valid moral systems.

Point noted, and agreed with. No contest.

Originally Posted by 4Tran

7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
- This one we follow, but not anywhere nearly as strongly as before. Again, most moral systems say the same thing.

You've said it yourself; not anywhere nearly as strongly as before. Isn't that proof enough that moral standards change and evolve over time? Why, back then divorce was illegal, or at least scorned upon enough to discourage most from taking that option; don't take my word for it though, it's just an impression of the Victorian era I got from having read Jane Eyre.

Even so, this is basically the best proof of my argument; why, few bat an eye at affairs nowadays. Imagine what would have happened if such an affair was revealed in the past? The adulterous pair would have even been stoned in the Puritan period, and it would have been considered a moral act; these days, it's seen as the murder it really is.

Originally Posted by 4Tran

8. Thou shalt not steal.
- This one we follow. Just like murder, stealing is just about universally regarded as bad.

No contest.

Originally Posted by 4Tran

9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
- This one we follow. Again, lying has been regarded as an evil for pretty much all of recorded history.

No contest, even though it happens every day; why, it happens every time George W. Bush addresses the American public. J/K

Originally Posted by 4Tran

10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
Most of the West, and the United States in particular, ignores this one. Heck, coveting things is just about a cornerstone of the U.S.

No contest on this one either; I think it was even the case in Victorian times.

Originally Posted by 4Tran

So, as we can see, the West finds only about 4 (or 3.5) out of the 10 commandments to be useful. And of the ones that we use, every single one is held by just about all moral systems. If we looked at the other moral instructions, we'll get similar results. How then can you say that our morality is necessarily based on Christianity?

Simple; where else are the laws most of us use today based on? And how is the courtroom oath taken? There you have it; how is it not based on Christianity? Your argument basically utilized only the current moral standard; you has ignored the moral standard of the past, and accordingly dodged the main thrust of my argument. Granted, I see your point of other moral instructions having similar results; nevertheless, the laws are the indicator of the moral standard we are held to today, and the laws originated from early Christian moral code, and that can be proven at times when anachronistic laws are brought into the limelight for its outdatedness - laws which might have proven useful in earlier times.

Originally Posted by 4Tran

Your post was basically about how there's an evolving moral standard. However, the hidden premise behind this is that this standard is somehow "right" for its time, and that it requires an opposing viewpoint to set it as wrong. To boil your argument down, it amounts to (please correct me if I'm wrong):

1. People in the past used X moral system.
2. These people prevailed, and their moral system became the moral standard.
3. This standard changed over time into the current system.
4. The fact that the moral standard can change over time proves that morality is an evolving concept.
5. Since morality evolves, then what is "wrong" presently wasn't necessarily "wrong" in the past.

If you remove popularity out of the equation, the the question of the moral standard becomes irrelevant, and your argument falls apart. Most examinations of morality don't care about what people thought historically unless it's some sort of historical analysis.

A prevailing moral standard doesn't need any opposing viewpoint to prove it wrong. All we need to do is apply the same metrics used to test the validity of any moral system to the moral standard, and see how it fares. And you're absolutely right to point out that the current moral standard could be wrong as well.

Erm, you've got point 5 backwards; I was thinking more of;

5. Since morality evolves, then what is "wrong" in the past isn't necessarily wrong presently.

Not to say murder will become acceptable in the future or anything like that, but other aspects of the moral code can change and evolve, provided that doing so is not detrimental to the overall well-being of the society as a whole. The Sexual Revolution is a good example of that.

And on another point, one cannot remove the question of "popularity" out of the equation, without it turning out to be just a one-sided view on things. I mean, you said something about applying the same criteria to test the validity of any moral system; the question is, which set of criteria? Yours? Then wouldn't it just be a judgement of moral standards according to your views, views influenced and shaped by the times you are brought up and live in? This dichotomy applies to anyone of any age, of any time. So, to be blunt.....who has the right to judge?

From what I understand of your arguments (which, I suspect, is actually not very much at all), your premise is that there IS a universal standard of morality, that this universal standard of morality doesn't change with time, and that no matter whichever period in human history, the moral standards of that time can be compared to the universal standard to see how it fares. Therefore, the pertinent question is; what then, is this universal standard? Who decided the set of criteria that made up this universal standard, and how is it so universal that it is unerringly followed to the letter, no matter what period of time it is?

Unfortunately, I personally can't see which aspect of morality is that universal. Even murder, at least in the early days of human history, was acceptable in a sense; "honour killings" are an example of that, and cannibalism is another. The only plausible possibility for the existence of a universal standard is that it is a standard that was only formed relatively recently in human history, at the latest possible state of societal enlightenment; which is essentially an 'in-hindsight' judgement on history. But then, it would mean that it's only a judgement on earlier times based on that particular time period, specifically, contemporary moral standards, wouldn't it? Certainly not a "universal" standard, that's for sure.

Argh, I'm starting to lose my sense, again. The point is, evolving moral standards exist; and as far as I can tell, a "universal standard" can't possibly exist. What then, do you have left to compare changing moral standards with?

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

The point is, evolving moral standards exist; and as far as I can tell, a "universal standard" can't possibly exist. What then, do you have left to compare changing moral standards with?

Hmm....I think you misunderstand what we mean. There is a very subtle difference between:

1) "A universal standard does not exist."
vs
2) "A universal standard exists, but we don't know what it is exactly."

Do refer to what I wrote about the extent to which we "know" about the universal standard of morality:On Knowledge, Not All Roads Lead to Rome, Be Kind to Animals

Just because moral standards evolve with time doesn't mean that a "universal" standard does not exist. It merely shows that we don't have perfect knowledge about what that universal standard is, and that we are constantly improving our moral standards over time to approach that perfect standard (at least, I hope we are).

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

Therefore, the pertinent question is; what then, is this universal standard? Who decided the set of criteria that made up this universal standard, and how is it so universal that it is unerringly followed to the letter, no matter what period of time it is?

There are three points to be addressed here.

(A)
First of all, we've never claimed that "the universal standard is unerringly followed to the letter" -- if that we were so, we'd be living in Paradise today. Trial-and-error -- that's the best way to describe the history of Mankind's moral development. And we're nowhere near done yet. Judging by the sorry state of world affairs today, we've still got a lot to learn.

(B)
Second point, "who decided the set of criteria"? Well, it's a collective effort, so there is no one specific person we can point to. But I'm sure you'd agree that there have been a handful of people in history who have had a particularly major impact on our moral development, eg, Jesus, Confucius, Buddha, etc.

Guess what? If you study what each one of them said, you'd gradually realise that all of them share the same basic beliefs about what constitutes moral behaviour (they all espouse different versions of the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would wish them to do unto you). Frankly, I'm amazed. These were people separated by great distances in time and geography, but they've all expressed the same basic values that we still aspire to today.

(C)
Third point, "what then, is this universal standard"? This is a deeply philosophical question, so you'll get no easy answer. But first of all, you have to start with a few basic assumptions:

1) That there is such a thing as "goodwill".

2) That a universal standard of morality exists. Yup, I'm asking you to accept, on faith, that this standard does indeed exist. It doesn't matter whether or not it in fact exists. It doesn't matter, because even if this universal standard exists, we have no sure way of "knowing" what it is.

3) But it is not an empty faith. As I've pointed out, we all seem to be instinctively aware of the difference between good and evil. If a universal standard of morality did not exist, how come we are aware of good and evil? Sure, our parents and our teachers taught us the difference, but that begs the further question: who told them what to believe? How did the first Man know the difference? We come back to where we've started -- moral decisions are all ultimately based on "feeling", on "instinct".

We can then proceed to test the validity that instinct using rational analysis. Assuming that a universal standard of morality exists (even though we don't know for sure if it does), what would it look like?

Well, first of all, if it's meant to be "universal", it must apply equally to all people, regardless of race, language, religion, culture, or history. Using this simple test, we can then sift through all the ethical systems that had developed through history, and come to certain reasonable conclusions about which ethical systems were valid (and therefore worth learning from) and which ethical systems were invalid (eg, Nazism, rightly consigned to the trash heap of history).

----

Light's ethical system, by the way, is fatally flawed from the very beginning. He killed, not out of "goodwill", but out his selfish desire to become a "god" who decides what is right and wrong for the rest of us. What gives him the right to decide for us?! Nothing at all! As such, his actions are evil, no matter which way you look at it, and no matter how much time has passed.

[Ascaloth]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

Hmm....I think you misunderstand what we mean. There is a very subtle difference between:

1) "A universal standard does not exist."
vs
2) "A universal standard exists, but we don't know what it is exactly."

Do refer to what I wrote about the extent to which we "know" about the universal standard of morality:On Knowledge, Not All Roads Lead to Rome, Be Kind to Animals

Just because moral standards evolve with time doesn't mean that a "universal" standard does not exist. It merely shows that we don't have perfect knowledge about what that universal standard is, and that we are constantly improving our moral standards over time to approach that perfect standard (at least, I hope we are).



There are three points to be addressed here.

(A)
First of all, we've never claimed that "the universal standard is unerringly followed to the letter" -- if that we were so, we'd be living in Paradise today. Trial-and-error -- that's the best way to describe the history of Mankind's moral development. And we're nowhere near done yet. Judging by the sorry state of world affairs today, we've still got a lot to learn.

(B)
Second point, "who decided the set of criteria"? Well, it's a collective effort, so there is no one specific person we can point to. But I'm sure you'd agree that there have been a handful of people in history who have had a particularly major impact on our moral development, eg, Jesus, Confucius, Buddha, etc.

Guess what? If you study what each one of them said, you'd gradually realise that all of them share the same basic beliefs about what constitutes moral behaviour (they all espouse different versions of the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would wish them to do unto you). Frankly, I'm amazed. These were people separated by great distances in time and geography, but they've all expressed the same basic values that we still aspire to today.

(C)
Third point, "what then, is this universal standard"? This is a deeply philosophical question, so you'll get no easy answer. But first of all, you have to start with a few basic assumptions:

1) That there is such a thing as "goodwill".

2) That a universal standard of morality exists. Yup, I'm asking you to accept, on faith, that this standard does indeed exist. It doesn't matter whether or not it in fact exists. It doesn't matter, because even if this universal standard exists, we have no sure way of "knowing" what it is.

3) But it is not an empty faith. As I've pointed out, we all seem to be instinctively aware of the difference between good and evil. If a universal standard of morality did not exist, how come we are aware of good and evil? Sure, our parents and our teachers taught us the difference, but that begs the further question: who told them what to believe? How did the first Man know the difference? We come back to where we've started -- moral decisions are all ultimately based on "feeling", on "instinct".

We can then proceed to test the validity that instinct using rational analysis. Assuming that a universal standard of morality exists (even though we don't know for sure if it does), what would it look like?

Well, first of all, if it's meant to be "universal", it must apply equally to all people, regardless of race, language, religion, culture, or history. Using this simple test, we can then sift through all the ethical systems that had developed through history, and come to certain reasonable conclusions about which ethical systems were valid (and therefore worth learning from) and which ethical systems were invalid (eg, Nazism, rightly consigned to the trash heap of history).

----

Light's ethical system, by the way, is fatally flawed from the very beginning. He killed, not out of "goodwill", but out his selfish desire to become a "god" who decides what is right and wrong for the rest of us. What gives him the right to decide for us?! Nothing at all! As such, his actions are evil, no matter which way you look at it, and no matter how much time has passed.

You know......that actually makes a lot of sense. I've actually learned a lot from reading all of what you've posted.

My sincere thanks, TRL. I have no more questions left.


Just on another tangent, there was this one time I've tested myself with something that I call the "KIRA Test", which basically consists of just one question:

"Look inside your heart, and be thoroughly honest with yourself. If a Death Note landed in your hands, would you use it for any reason whatsoever?"

You know what? I'm pretty sure I failed the test. I don't think I'm strong enough to resist the temptation to wield its power for my own views on what would be for the betterment for the world.

But that's only me though, and it has no bearing on the main discussion here. Just thought there would be others who might be interested in trying out the KIRA Test on themselves.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Haha, you're welcome. I'm very glad to have been of help. After all, I've struggled with such questions my whole life, so I know how hard they are.

Remember, against the infinite possibilities of knowledge, we are all equally stupid. So, the proper attitude to life is humility.

Be nice, guys and gals . I'll be off on my well-deserved vacation (YES! AT LAST!). Maybe I'll get a Ryuk doll while I'm in Tokyo, kekekekeke.

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by UchihaByakuya

I see nothing wrong with that elighten me by going into more detail

Simple. Since popularity isn't a form of validation, the moral standard and morality are different things.

Originally Posted by UchihaByakuya

The "After all, we can simply say that they are wrong." no better way then to start thinking about arguments i put forward

My point again however you just need to read my post more throughly and think about growing up in a utopia created by light. I am taking something like that as a basis argument

I'm still not sure what you're trying to say. While a person may believe something to be moral, that in itself, doesn't mean anything, as he could be wrong. In what way could Hitler and Stalin be considered acting morally?

Originally Posted by UchihaByakuya

You might not accept this but when you and every who disagree with light dies ( so hence victory) Everyone will think what he does is right. Who do you expect to go against him? People who think what he does is morally wrong? Remember your experiences decide who you are. The environment you grow up in is also another factor.

Big deal. Again, a viewpoint that's not supported by the facts is essentially worthless.

Originally Posted by UchihaByakuya

Your just doing it without realising it. You think certain things are wrong and always will be like that. Heres a start . Example you believe that something is wrong because its just wrong

An argument which operates by faulty logic and/or is based on factually incorrect premises is just plain wrong. It's not a matter of imposing my opinion, it's a matter of pointing out the faults in an argument. If my points were incorrect, then they should also be relatively easy to refute. All told, this is the very point of debating.

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

Fair enough. Your point-by-point analysis is very informative; however, it is obvious that your arguments on each Commandment was based on current moral standards, and you've neglected to take into account how seriously people in the past took these Commandments; thus, you've entirely disregarded altogether the existence of a past moral standard.

That's correct. My point that morality isn't based on Christianity is just an observation; it's not a part of a larger argument, so I don't really care about whether people based morality on Christianity in the past. The very fact that they picked and chose little tidbits rather than adopting the Bible's moral teachings whole cloth does suggest that the correlation between the two are tenuous at best.

As it stands, I agree with you that moral standards change over time. However, my actual argument is that this isn't significant in and of itself because such moral standards are little more than an expression of popularity.

(By the way, I brought up the Ten Commandments for illustrative purposes only, so I'm not going to address those specific points. For the most part, I agree with your arguments there.)

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

Simple; where else are the laws most of us use today based on?

Most of the laws in the West are descended from the Roman legal codes.

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

And how is the courtroom oath taken?

It differs from country to country, but in the U.S., there's no requirement to swear an oath at all; one merely needs to make an affirmation. In most other countries, oaths can be taken on a wide variety of documents, the Koran, the Bible, the Torah, or secular documents, or no documents at all.

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

Your argument basically utilized only the current moral standard; you has ignored the moral standard of the past, and accordingly dodged the main thrust of my argument.

Technically, I didn't dodge the main thrust of your argument so much as I claimed that your argument is redundant.

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

Granted, I see your point of other moral instructions having similar results; nevertheless, the laws are the indicator of the moral standard we are held to today, and the laws originated from early Christian moral code, and that can be proven at times when anachronistic laws are brought into the limelight for its outdatedness - laws which might have proven useful in earlier times.

The cornerstones of Western Law are habeas corpus, due process, and the Rule of Law. As far as I can tell, none of these are based on the Bible. If anything, the Christian bits still found in legal texts seem to be rather haphazardly tacked on.

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

Erm, you've got point 5 backwards; I was thinking more of;

5. Since morality evolves, then what is "wrong" in the past isn't necessarily wrong presently.

Thanks for the clarification. Logically though, they sort of amount to the same thing, don't they? A position's validity isn't exactly based on when it was espoused.

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

And on another point, one cannot remove the question of "popularity" out of the equation, without it turning out to be just a one-sided view on things. I mean, you said something about applying the same criteria to test the validity of any moral system; the question is, which set of criteria? Yours? Then wouldn't it just be a judgement of moral standards according to your views, views influenced and shaped by the times you are brought up and live in? This dichotomy applies to anyone of any age, of any time. So, to be blunt.....who has the right to judge?

There doesn't really have to be a judge. It's not really a matter of personal interpretation; it's enough to just test the usefulness of any moral system. The exact criteria used aren't really that important either - it mostly depends on what you're most interested in addressing. However, all the valid moral systems work according to a similar framework. The questions address by this framework would include: "Does the system make sense?", "Is the system consistent?" and "Can the system function properly?" This kind of question isn't at all dependent on prevailing attitudes or anything like that.

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

From what I understand of your arguments (which, I suspect, is actually not very much at all), your premise is that there IS a universal standard of morality, that this universal standard of morality doesn't change with time, and that no matter whichever period in human history, the moral standards of that time can be compared to the universal standard to see how it fares. Therefore, the pertinent question is; what then, is this universal standard? Who decided the set of criteria that made up this universal standard, and how is it so universal that it is unerringly followed to the letter, no matter what period of time it is?

My position is similar to TinyRedLeaf's, but it differs in one important aspect. Most valid moral systems already have similar stances in regards to the major issues, which certainly suggests that there's some support for the universality of moral principles. However, I don't necessarily think that a universal standard of morality has to exist, but then again, I don't think that one's necessary either.

Since I posit morality to be a practical tool, that means that one purely based on the "universal standard" would be the perfect tool. However, I don't think that tools have to be perfect to be of use. I see morality in much the same light as logic or science: eminently useful, if imperfect, tools for improving our conditions.

[Moon Eclipse]

4Tran: Your "Do onto others as you would have done onto you" is very highly based upon the interpretation of the individual.

As for my own determining something based upon a result. The best result for all people is not necessarily what everyone wants. People may choose to be left alone but it's not necessarily moral to do that in some cases.

A child will want candy all the time, doesn't mean it's moral to give it to him all the time. I'd like everything to be handed to me on a silver platter, but it doesn't mean I should spoil the next person.

Morality should deal with what people need not what they want

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by Moon Eclipse

As for my own determining something based upon a result. The best result for all people is not necessarily what everyone wants.

As I've said, you shouldn't link the results to the action. In the first place, you need to judge both the "result" and the "action" separately. A "good result" does not excuse an "evil action". An evil action will stay evil, no matter what outcome it produces.

Also, you run into another problem. What is a "best" result? I don't think you've clarified that, whereas I think I've been pretty clear about what constitutes "good" -- a "good" action is taken 1) out of goodwill, 2) is something that all reasonable people agree is good.

[Ascaloth]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

Most of the laws in the West are descended from the Roman legal codes.


It differs from country to country, but in the U.S., there's no requirement to swear an oath at all; one merely needs to make an affirmation. In most other countries, oaths can be taken on a wide variety of documents, the Koran, the Bible, the Torah, or secular documents, or no documents at all.

..........

I'd be damned. Is that really how it is? And here I was thinking.....

Even so though, the Roman Empire eventually became the Holy Roman Empire, so surely there must have been at least some kind of Christian influence in today's laws? I'm not sure how much, though.......do you?

Originally Posted by 4Tran

Technically, I didn't dodge the main thrust of your argument so much as I claimed that your argument is redundant.

*shrugs* Fair enough, TRL proved that point to me as such, so I can accept it.

Originally Posted by 4Tran

My position is similar to TinyRedLeaf's, but it differs in one important aspect. Most valid moral systems already have similar stances in regards to the major issues, which certainly suggests that there's some support for the universality of moral principles. However, I don't necessarily think that a universal standard of morality has to exist, but then again, I don't think that one's necessary either.

Since I posit morality to be a practical tool, that means that one purely based on the "universal standard" would be the perfect tool. However, I don't think that tools have to be perfect to be of use. I see morality in much the same light as logic or science: eminently useful, if imperfect, tools for improving our conditions.

........

Sorry, but if there is a difference between yours and TRL's views, then it just flew right over my head. I don't see it at all.

If you would be so nice as to dumb down your explanation for me?

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by Moon Eclipse

As for my own determining something based upon a result. The best result for all people is not necessarily what everyone wants.

...Morality should deal with what people need not what they want

Having thought about it a little further, I believe I'm beginning to understand where you're coming from, but I still need to point out that you've used fallacious logic to determine right from wrong. Let me try to explain.

There aren't many real-life examples of "evil actions" I can think of that lead to "good outcomes", but examples do exist. Take euthanasia for example. I've already claimed that "killing is absolutely wrong". There are no exceptions, and this applies to euthanasia as well.

Arguably, we could say this case of killing leads to a "good outcome" (I don't necessarily agree, because it's not at all clear that it's always good). But that doesn't mean that the killing was "right" -- at best, we can only concede it had been "a necessary evil".

The ideal situation would have been one where doctors had been able to provide a cure. If we begin with the basic assumption that life is sacred (for reasons that I've explained more fully elsewhere on this thread), it is a doctor's moral duty to do everything in his power to save life, not to take it (the Hippocractic Oath).

Ultimately, did killing the patient (even if he had consciously asked for death) make the action of killing "right"? No, it doesn't. It'll never be right to take life. The ideal solution would have been to save the patient. But living as we are in an imperfect world, more often than not, we have to choose "the lesser of two evils". But even if it's "less evil", it's still evil nonetheless.

So you see, to clarify your own logic, you must learn to separate the action from the outcome, and judge the "rightness" of each thing separately. "Evil actions" might lead to "good outcomes", but the action remains "evil" regardless.

[TinyRedLeaf]

To Moon Eclipse:

There is one last point I'd like to bring up. It seems that your argument hinges more on the nature of "justice" rather than "morality", because you seem willing to excuse an "evil action" if it leads to a "good outcome". That is, you seem to claim that "a good outcome justifies an evil action."

If that is indeed what you're thinking, then you're still not off the hook. Very far from it . In fact, you would put yourself in a situation where you are forced to ask the same question that Socrates asked more than 2,000 years ago:

What is justice?

You know what? I have to admit, I don't have an answer to that deceptively simple question. At least, not at this moment.

Is justice revenge? If that's the case, is revenge good? (No, it can't be. Killing each other for revenge only leads to an endless cycle of death until we are all killed.) Well, if justice is not revenge, then what is it?

So you see, "justice" is an entirely different concept all together, very different from the concept of "morality".

[monir]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

It differs from country to country, but in the U.S., there's no requirement to swear an oath at all; one merely needs to make an affirmation. In most other countries, oaths can be taken on a wide variety of documents, the Koran, the Bible, the Torah, or secular documents, or no documents at all.

Just one off topic observation. While it is true that there is no requirement to swear an oath at all in the states, it seems to be the common practice in many venues of the politics when a candidate win an important position. Perhaps, you have heard about this political figure who wanted to take his oath with the Koran instead of the Bible. The news caused a few reaction from both sides of the politics, the right and the left.

I must say that I'm really enjoying this thread by reading these isightful comments made recently. Anyway, I'll go into the lurk-mode once again. Hopefully, I haven't damaged the flow of this very interesting disussion.