Most people's "morality" is just popular opinion

The difference is significant. One person takes a life while risking theirs in the hopes of preserving their peace. The other one is some fool who does it with no cause or purpose other than their own self-satisfaction at that particular moment wherever they are at.

Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam

How do/did any of those wars preserve peace?

You use the word murder rather loosely here. It is possible for a soldier to murder. That is grounds for court martial and whatever punitive damages are given for a sentence. If you're alluding to the killing of armed enemy combatants, though, that doesn't fit the definition of murder.

In the same vein, there are cases in which a civilian might take a persons life and not have been guilty of murder.

You might be more specific as to exactly what you are calling murder.

That's great.

The definitions you're giving were made up by people and upheld by popular opinion. That's it, thanks for proving my point.

Ooookay, OP. So you just make up your own definitions and expect people to fall right in line in order to participate in a discourse.

I notice you didn't address the points that I did make which, by the way, in no way supported the non sequitur you fumbled through in your original post.

I'll ask you outright; is there any instance in which one person takes anothers life wherein you wouldn't consider it murder?

If it's intentional it's murder, imho. I believe manslaughter isn't intentional, that's a different category, imho.

So, self-defense or the defense of ones family isn't acceptable then?

How do you reconcile your definition with what a soldier does? Is every death in war a murder?

All killing is murder. There can be no justification for taking the life of another. No excuses. No lies. No sacrifices. A man or woman that kills, knows what murder is. It never leaves it is between you and your maker not you and other men.

I'm not saying what's acceptable, each individual has to decide that.

you cant just say civilian murder and war murder cause there is so many different reasons for these murders that you cant lump them together like that.

for example killing a man who murdered your wife is different from killing a man who called you dumb.

although i believe they are both wrong, there is a difference

I think this article is a more clear-cut example of what I'm saying:

Afghanistan approves law allowing husbands to starve wives for refusing sex

[link to news.bbc.co.uk]

Because this unconscionable act was made legal it would be considered morally ok by the masses. However, I think anyone with a brain can see it's only morally ok based on popular opinion and not actual reality.

See what I'm saying?

Ahhh, so it's relativism that we've stooped to. Well, since we have no need for widely accepted standards of behaviour, why don't we remove all stop signs and traffic lights. We'll just have a big free for all on the roads. If murder is such a big thing and we need no standards for that, traffic control should be a *relatively* minor thing so standards definitely shouldn't be applied there.

Can you see the failure with relativistic views? We do need standards and the legal definition of murder is one of those. You may choose to deny that standard as your view, but that doesn't render the mainstream posture as an opinion -- in all reality, it's your alternative view that's merely an opinion.

I'm done here, OP. I set out to insure that I understood what you were driving at and I'm satisfied that, with your assistance, I've done exactly that.

Peace.

Ok, I understand what your driving at now...disregard my post prior to this one. Cultural differences are an interesting issue when it comes to morality, as are religious views.

My question to you is this; just because a law is passed, does that mean that it is universally or even by majority, accepted as moral -- or *right*? Can we assume that the majority of Afghans agree with this law?

Legal and moral are 2 different things. Morality is held aloft by the tenuous threads of religion, law, personal insight, upbringing etc.. etc...

How do you propose that we develop standards by which to live and by what majority do we determine consensus?

Argued with devoutly Christian friend this evening.

She said she had a 'GUT FEELING' that it was right to wage war on Iraq.

I asked

1. if she'd read any of the facts pre-war and now from e.g. the Chilcott Inquiry (which unequivocally casts massive doubt on Blair's moral and legal position - he made stuff up in other words and knew he was making it up.)

No, she hadn't - She just 'felt it was right'.


2. what did Jesus teach us to do about our enemies?

Total silence there.


I told her that I was not interested in her opinion at all until she'd examined all the evidence and the facts, and said that her opinion was 'worthless'.

dayum, that felt good. FFS, this is an educated woman, a teacher.

Most 'morality' is herd survival acquiescence. That is, people adopt the prevailing opinion in order to fit in and be liked.

**Well...Keeping it Simple because we humans are Stupid...I've always thought that the Golden Rule (don't do to others what you don't want them to do to you) and Jesus's commandment to love our neighbours are pretty good.

I concur.

When a law is passed the majority will uphold it as right automatically without analysis, imho. Whether it's actually right or wrong seems to be insignificant to the herd.

To your last question, I would say that as long as the majority is deciding right and wrong then my initial assertion will remain true:

Most people's "morality" is just popular opinion

Most people are brainwashed sheep and don't actually have morality. They are nonthinking immoral reactionary and only want to be part of the greater herd.

Soldiers are murderers. You can do as many mental gymnastics as you want, but the bottom line is that the soldiers in Iraq, Afghanistan etc. are murderers.

I disagree. They're following orders. I'll not debate you nor anyone else regarding this. I stand firm in my convictions.

Okay, so we'll let the minority...well, one of the groups that comprise the plethora of the minority opinions, decide on which standard we should live by. This is getting richer with every post.

I think it's common practice here to believe that most people are like sheep and just go along with what every one else is doing. Sorta like most people here thinking others are like sheep? Hee. It becomes a value of a certain group of people with similar inclinations.

I have a few things to say about morality. I think it develops from trial and error and isn't something that an inexperienced person can adjust to themselves until they've had a number of difficulties and triumphs.

For that reason, the younger a person is the more he has to depend on someone else's idea of what is moral. It is taught to (or imposed upon) him. And because of that, a younger person is more apt to question the group's morality code.

It's nearly become obligatory for youth today to challenge moral code. Perhaps it has always been. All part of the maturing process?

History is a valuable tool for developing a country's moral values. A long period of time has shown what works well for a given social group and what does not.

Once that has become discernable and agreed upon, either tacitly or insisted upon by the more influential members of the group, it becomes difficult to deviate from those moral values without social pressure.

Some of those values seem to be universal, such as murder. Albeit, as you note, murder can become defined as acceptable under a set of moral rules.

A personal system of integrity is a good thing to have. A solid compass of sorts to keep you on track when you are being influenced by a variety of different persuasions.

And that doesn't come by thought, although thoughtfulness is a part of its formation. Personal trial and error will go a long way toward learning what are useful values and which aren't.

In my experience deviance from my own code of behavior will result in unpleasant outcomes and it keeps me from making those mistakes.

Countries? Ah, not so easy with increased diversity.

And in times of rapidly occuring changes a country's moral rules may undergo change rapidly.

Personal integrity is more static. I suppose that's part of what makes change so difficult for us.