Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation among intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and bad (or wrong).

If the differentiation between what is right and wrong only exists in the mind, then under what circumstances could anyone's actions be judged as "wrong", by another?

Start reading with Mill and Kant, then work your way forward.

Or stay ignorant. Your choice.

Ah yes, the call someone ignorant if they haven't referenced philosophers of your choice tactic of shutting down discussions on morals again.  It would be nice if you offered something more than the implied intellectual superiority you can keep to yourself because you won't share the applicable points you are challenging others to come up with.

Or you can keep acting like the professor giving your underlings homework assignments.  It's a forum.  Try sharing the "wealth".  I read Kant a long time ago, but would have to spend a bunch of time going back through his works.  Maybe you can talk about why his ideas may apply here, or why meanceprimea should "read XYZ or stay ignorant".  Without that it just looks like a thinly veiled insult - or challenge to meanceprimea's intelligence. 

Are you looking for references to the "categorical imperitive"?

Or maybe to "good will" or "dutiful" motivations behind good actions?

Kant's written a lot.  I don't remember too many specifics personally, but would it kill you to talk about what you're looking for instead of dismissing anyone who hasn't brought up their intellectual background to your satisfaction?

Just like in the abortion thread awhile back, you didn't address mean's point on its own merit, you dismissed mean the person, based on your own assumption about whether or not he (she?) could stand with you intellectually about philosophers.  Those discussions have merit on their own, but so does mean's rhetorical question.  Your diversion and demand for context with respect to those philosophers doesn't change the merit of the point, regardless of whether of not mean has read or understands the works of Mill and Kant.  You're a smart guy anton; you can do better.  Maybe you can show some good will and share what ground you'd like to see covered in a moral discussion.

Posted by antonsirius on 11/1/2011 12:03:00 PM (view original):
Start reading with Mill and Kant, then work your way forward.

Or stay ignorant. Your choice.

Yes. I read Mills and Kant in my freshman yr. 

Both make some valid points, and I agree with a lot of what they stated. 

However the problem lies in that Kant's "categorical imperatives" are not always as cut and dry as they may seem.

Are you familiar with the “Trolley Problem”?

On your morning walk, you see a trolley car hurtling down the track, the conductor slumped over the controls. In the path of the trolley are five men working on the track, oblivious to the danger. You are standing at a fork in the track and can pull a lever that will divert the trolley onto a spur, saving the five men. Unfortunately, the trolley would then run over a single worker who is laboring on the spur. Is it permissible to throw the switch, killing one man to save five? Almost everyone says “yes.”

Atheists can judge right and wrong to at least the same degree as those believing in a deity. Because every perception of right and wrong is, indeed, a perception. A Christian, for instance, bases his idea of right and wrong based on what he thinks some mystical being in the sky defines as right and wrong. An atheist perceives right and wrong based on rational consideration of – but not limited to – what is generally harmful, generally beneficial and generally neutral and to what degree. Whether that is based on effects upon only humans, all living creatures, or the universe as a whole varies from person to person but most arrive at similar macros of good and bad. The Christian (or Muslim or whatever) foregoes the rational. His thought leads him instead to the idea of a God who defines right and wrong. It is no more legitimate than the thought of an atheist. In fact, in the eyes of the atheist, it is less so because it eschews reason. Through whatever thought process, you think what someone has told you that this mystical being has proclaimed defines right and wrong. My thought process leads me to just as strong a judgement of right and wrong through a different process.

Regarding abortion, your viewpoint fixates entirely on the fetus. You completely reject a woman's right to her own body, giving that right, instead to the fetus. If you regard the fetus as a person, you are then saying that one person can have a right to another person's body? Do you believe that to be true? If you have a ten-year-old daughter and her only chance of living is to be hooked up to your liver with a short tube, do you have the right to say no? Of course you. You might well agree to it but it is your decision because it is your body. You would deny women that very same right.

Maybe people could drive a little more slowly on the exit ramp?

If every problem since your perceived removal of god from our society is the fault of that removal, the nit stands to reason every problem before that was the fault of god IN our society. Thank you, Lord, for Slavery. And a man's right to abuse his wife and children. And child prostitution. And the genocide against Native Americans. And so on.

Posted by gridguru on 11/3/2011 4:14:00 PM (view original):
Atheists can judge right and wrong to at least the same degree as those believing in a deity. Because every perception of right and wrong is, indeed, a perception. A Christian, for instance, bases his idea of right and wrong based on what he thinks some mystical being in the sky defines as right and wrong. An atheist perceives right and wrong based on rational consideration of – but not limited to – what is generally harmful, generally beneficial and generally neutral and to what degree. Whether that is based on effects upon only humans, all living creatures, or the universe as a whole varies from person to person but most arrive at similar macros of good and bad. The Christian (or Muslim or whatever) foregoes the rational. His thought leads him instead to the idea of a God who defines right and wrong. It is no more legitimate than the thought of an atheist. In fact, in the eyes of the atheist, it is less so because it eschews reason. Through whatever thought process, you think what someone has told you that this mystical being has proclaimed defines right and wrong. My thought process leads me to just as strong a judgement of right and wrong through a different process.

I would agree 100% with your first line.

I know many examples of self-proclaimed Christians who demonstrate a lack of understanding of many many principles taught in the Bible. 

That is why I dismiss the notion of people, regardless of their faith or lack thereof, defining right and wrong.

We are a selfish species, and our desire to justify ourselves as good, often can cloud the judgement of what is right or wrong. It is very rare to hear someone judge their own actions as wrong. Most people believe that they are good and moral. When the world is in such an obvious downward spiral, can they all be right?

Oddly enough it is the very fact that we are created in God's image that we are so self-centered.
We want all the glory and all the power and all the praise as does our Creator, who demands just that.

Posted by gridguru on 11/3/2011 4:27:00 PM (view original):
Regarding abortion, your viewpoint fixates entirely on the fetus. You completely reject a woman's right to her own body, giving that right, instead to the fetus. If you regard the fetus as a person, you are then saying that one person can have a right to another person's body? Do you believe that to be true? If you have a ten-year-old daughter and her only chance of living is to be hooked up to your liver with a short tube, do you have the right to say no? Of course you. You might well agree to it but it is your decision because it is your body. You would deny women that very same right.

I am truly at a loss with this argument.

The woman CHOSE to be irresponsible and when the consequences for that behavior is an unplanned pregnancy, she should then have the right to kill an innocent person? 
What choice did the fetus have in this process? Did the fetus act irresponsibly? Did the fetus force itself into the womb of the woman? How is it that the fetus through no fault of its own is the one that is condemned to death?

I do not reject the woman's right to her own body. What I reject is her being free from responsibility of her own actions.
Once she acts irresponsibly with her "right to her own body" and creates another life, why should her "rights" trump the truly innocent's rights?

Personal responsibility has been tossed from our society. Very rarely is anyone held accountable for their own actions. We now have a litany of others to blame for any wrongdoing.

Posted by gridguru on 11/3/2011 4:36:00 PM (view original):
If every problem since your perceived removal of god from our society is the fault of that removal, the nit stands to reason every problem before that was the fault of god IN our society. Thank you, Lord, for Slavery. And a man's right to abuse his wife and children. And child prostitution. And the genocide against Native Americans. And so on.

It is not "my perception", it is a fact.

Engel v. Vitale (1962).

I didn't claim that "every problem" was a result of this, but I did list a few social issues that I think are obviously correlative.

Since your initial "If" allegation is inaccurate, your "then" statement is irrelevant, however I am not opposed to addressing some of them anyway.

You could in fact blame God for slavery. God punished His chosen people by allowing them to become enslaved by the Egyptians. If it weren't for the leadership and counsel of the slave Joseph, Egypt, most likely doesn't survive the great famine. 

There are people who misinterpret or outright pervert the Word of God, to justify racism and other horrible things. Some will tell you that the Canaanites were the ancestors of the modern day negro. I find NOTHING to support this claim, yet it is a belief held by many. 
This is a clear example of even self proclaimed Christians not being fit to judge what is right or wrong.

I don't think any person has the right to abuse anyone or anything. It is shameful that was the case. Are you implying that  since 1962 this is no longer happening? I would need some sources or data if I were to give any credence to the notion at all.

I believe if you actually look into the issue, you will find that child prostitution has actually increased since the 60's.

If you look at our history you will find that while many came to this great country for religious freedom and more actively seek His guidance (The Mayflower Compact for example), there were just as many if not more that came with the intention of looting and plundering. 

Let me expand on this a bit, as it will also touch on the absurdity of "moral relativity".

Remember Hernando Cortez? The brutal destroyer and conqueror of the Aztecs? History looks unfavorably on him as basically a barbarian.
What is not generally discussed, is the vile and reprehensible practices of the Aztecs. Human sacrifice, including the sacrifice of children was not only commonplace, but an essential part of their culture. Cannibalism also was widely practiced.

I don't know what the true motive that drove Cortez to brutally destroy that culture, it could very well have been nothing more than empirical expansion and greed. But I do find it odd that while we have no problem condemning Cortez's actions we, seemingly dismiss the atrocities that the Aztec culture embraced.Who was more "right" and who was more "wrong"?

Posted by gridguru on 11/3/2011 4:28:00 PM (view original):
Maybe people could drive a little more slowly on the exit ramp?

This is a cop-out. 

If you value the life of a bird over the life of a person just say so.
If you think they are equal just say so.
If it is too tough of a call just say so.

Posted by gridguru on 11/3/2011 4:14:00 PM (view original):
Atheists can judge right and wrong to at least the same degree as those believing in a deity. Because every perception of right and wrong is, indeed, a perception. A Christian, for instance, bases his idea of right and wrong based on what he thinks some mystical being in the sky defines as right and wrong. An atheist perceives right and wrong based on rational consideration of – but not limited to – what is generally harmful, generally beneficial and generally neutral and to what degree. Whether that is based on effects upon only humans, all living creatures, or the universe as a whole varies from person to person but most arrive at similar macros of good and bad. The Christian (or Muslim or whatever) foregoes the rational. His thought leads him instead to the idea of a God who defines right and wrong. It is no more legitimate than the thought of an atheist. In fact, in the eyes of the atheist, it is less so because it eschews reason. Through whatever thought process, you think what someone has told you that this mystical being has proclaimed defines right and wrong. My thought process leads me to just as strong a judgement of right and wrong through a different process.

There's a lot to quibble with in your post, though not with everything...

First:  "Because every perception of right and wrong is, indeed, a perception."  This is merely an assertion on your part and unsupported.  My assertion with respect to a statement like this is that "a perception of right and wrong is an observation of actual natural law.  Not in every case, but all you need to do is take certain things to extreme in order to demonstrate.  I don't need to "perceive" right or wrong or appeal to groups to know that torturing babies for shear pleasure is wrong.  It's wrong on it's face.  We know this to be true without the need the need for someone to "prove" it to us.  Much the same as knowing the law of gravity is true without proof.  We observe it.

Next:  "A Christian, for instance, bases his idea of right and wrong based on what he thinks some mystical being in the sky defines as right and wrong"  This again is an assertion without base.  This may be the case for some, but for me and many many others, there are observations of natural law - things that exist outside of our perceptions.  In the example I use above, I need not perceive it as wrong for it to be actually be wrong.  I don't need a "mystical being in the sky" to tell me that.  The fact that there are things that are right or wrong are part of the way things are.  These moral issues exist outside and independent of our thought processes about them.  Do Christians (and those of many other faiths) attribute those things to God?  Sure.  But in many cases, the fact there exists a such thing in the first place leads us to question where those things came from.  You also have no basis in saying that only the atheist bases their ideas of right on a wrong on rationality (we could go hundreds of posts on that alone).

I do not believe you arrive at your observations of right and wrong without reason.  But I reject your assertion that people who believe the source of right and wrong is the creator of those things are doing so without reason.

Posted by gridguru on 11/3/2011 4:27:00 PM (view original):
Regarding abortion, your viewpoint fixates entirely on the fetus. You completely reject a woman's right to her own body, giving that right, instead to the fetus. If you regard the fetus as a person, you are then saying that one person can have a right to another person's body? Do you believe that to be true? If you have a ten-year-old daughter and her only chance of living is to be hooked up to your liver with a short tube, do you have the right to say no? Of course you. You might well agree to it but it is your decision because it is your body. You would deny women that very same right.

This is a misrepresentation of the position.  Pro-Life people do not "completely reject a woman's right to her own body".  We reject the idea that it is okay to kill an unborn human person without justification.  If the fetus was not a human person, but only a "part of her body", we would have no reason to oppose abortion.  That's obviously not the position.

One of the potential consequences of a sexual relationship is the creation of human life.  The fact that this life is domiciled within the body of a woman is just the way humans are supposed to be developing (by design or evolution or whatever).  Your liver example is not an equal comparison in any way.  The withholding of help and allowing the natural course of things (whether right or wrong) is a totally different thing than taking active steps to kill a human being, who would otherwise (barring disease or other causes) survive if no action was taken.  It's not the "very same right".

Posted by silentpadna on 11/3/2011 1:29:00 PM (view original):
Ah yes, the call someone ignorant if they haven't referenced philosophers of your choice tactic of shutting down discussions on morals again.  It would be nice if you offered something more than the implied intellectual superiority you can keep to yourself because you won't share the applicable points you are challenging others to come up with.

Or you can keep acting like the professor giving your underlings homework assignments.  It's a forum.  Try sharing the "wealth".  I read Kant a long time ago, but would have to spend a bunch of time going back through his works.  Maybe you can talk about why his ideas may apply here, or why meanceprimea should "read XYZ or stay ignorant".  Without that it just looks like a thinly veiled insult - or challenge to meanceprimea's intelligence. 

Are you looking for references to the "categorical imperitive"?

Or maybe to "good will" or "dutiful" motivations behind good actions?

Kant's written a lot.  I don't remember too many specifics personally, but would it kill you to talk about what you're looking for instead of dismissing anyone who hasn't brought up their intellectual background to your satisfaction?

Just like in the abortion thread awhile back, you didn't address mean's point on its own merit, you dismissed mean the person, based on your own assumption about whether or not he (she?) could stand with you intellectually about philosophers.  Those discussions have merit on their own, but so does mean's rhetorical question.  Your diversion and demand for context with respect to those philosophers doesn't change the merit of the point, regardless of whether of not mean has read or understands the works of Mill and Kant.  You're a smart guy anton; you can do better.  Maybe you can show some good will and share what ground you'd like to see covered in a moral discussion.

I have neither the time nor the energy to teach meance what morals and ethics are from the ground up.

I know of no way to interpret a statement like "If the differentiation between what is right and wrong only exists in the mind, then under what circumstances could anyone's actions be judged as "wrong", by another?" as anything other than ignorance of the subject, or trolling. I assumed it was the former; if it's the latter, then I owe meance an apology.