What are morals

[TheGoldoffEternal]

According to you

There are many non physical legal sanctions. Fines for one. Curfews and restraining orders too.

Absolutely. Plus the entire apparatus of hellfire, eternal damnation, and internalised shame -- all the psychological weapons of religion. Positive and negative reinforcement. The carrot and stick approach. In all religions. Karma and reincarnation in Hinduism. Paradise and hell in Islam, reaching enlightenment and getting off the cycle of suffering in Buddhism etc.

It was created by human beings for the purpose of tribal social cohesion, to enforce certain behaviours, and to maintain conformity and control within that 'tribe'. Almost all the major religions emerged from a period of violence and turmoil, for obvious reasons.

You're still not getting my point. Of course there are other sanctions, I'm not arguing that there aren't.

My initial point was that the fundamental underlying threat is the use of force.

Nobody can 'make' you pay fines, and there is a threat of force if you do not.

And a restraining order, again is the threat of using restraint, a physical force, if you don't comply.

So every law is enFORCED with a physical threat.

If it wasn't then what is it that deters people. It's the UNDERLYING threat of force.

And BTW there is no force without it being physical. Where is the force otherwise. If its psychological then the word you're looking for is coeorcive, as there was no actual force used in the process.

I do wish people would use and understand the terms that they use and misuse interchangeably, it would save so much confusion.

Actually I think most people don't need a deterrent to not rape, murder, steal etc. The idea doesn't occur in the first place. Or do you really think that the only thing holding people back from doing hideous things is fear of the consequences? That's a sad view of human nature. I have lived for 57 years and found the vast majority of people are essentially good.

I think your vocabulary is as confused as your theology.

Good point. The idea that force has to be physical is also a lovely method people use to say 'it wasn't really abuse, because he didn't hit you'.

Yes but it doesnt take most people to commit heinous crimes to cause a breakdown of society, it only takes a few.

You really haven't thought this through very well. I think you'll find it would be a slippery slope were deterrants for crimes not imposed. Even people who murder usually aren't murdering on a day to day basis. It's a one off extreme event often preceded by extreme circumstances. So I think it would be fair to assume that a high percentage of people could be pushed to murder were they to witness someone torturing, raping then killing a close family member or a child, then laughing about it after. You can quite easily say that a deterant is most certainly the only reason they wouldn't commit the crime of murder to the perpetrator. Besides no one said everyone would be out there committing crime but it only takes a few.

Deterants are the only thing between a lawful society and an unlawful one

This isn't an idea. It's a straight categorical fact that force must be physical. That is literally what the word means. You can't just change the meaning of words to suit your agenda.

Abuse can occur with or without force involved. That's a different matter altogether

A deterrent for a crime is the punishment. Fines, tags, prison. In some places the death penalty or corporal punishment. That's nothing to do with morals, that's the law in action. I never said societies don't need laws.

What they don't need is religion. Secular laws work fine.

Also the Venn diagram of what is moral and what is legal isn't a perfect circle.

That is only the case if you use the word solely in the literal sense. And that falls apart the moment 'enforcement ' happens in a non physical sense, which happens all the time.

For example, as parents, we enforce the boundaries of behaviour in non physical ways all the time. By saying no. And no, that isn't backed up by a threat of force all the time.

Language evolves.

Oh dear, well I wasn't aware until now there was any other possible way to use words other than in a literary sense. If you wish to use words in a different way to everybody else and make up your own vocabulary terms then I guess you live in the right place to do that, although I'm not sure that's very different behaviour than from the children you mention.

Just because you don't enact the fundamental punishment, again, doesn't make the word mean something else. You're still not grasping the concept, whichever way you want to put it. OK I accept people know what you mean when you say enforcement, but you go a step further and make the claim that the word means something only you claim to know the descriptor of, namely that force doesn't equal something physical, yet no matter the argument you put forth it still fails to change the facts of the matter.

Even your descriptor of disciplining children saying no. Just because many children adhere to that doesn't mean the fundamental threat of physical force isn't there. If you've never had to physically take a toy from a child or physically move a child from a situation I can't even begin to imagine what kind of parenting is being provided. I imagine any child growing up without a threat of force being used will receive a double dose of whatever force is withheld as they'll likely end up in prison.

I don't even know a parent who says 'no' to a child without the underlying message being 'or else'. Otherwise children will fairly quickly realise that a simple no, has no meaning whatsoever so they could do as they please.

If it wasn't then what is it that deters people. It's the UNDERLYING threat of force.

If your point about deterrents were true, our prisons would be empty!

there are many people who, by dint of the environment into which they were born and raised, were not given any framework of morals or ethics to live by.

yes, many such people are fortunate to have some innate sense of moral values, perhaps through role models they come across in their life, but an awful lot end up in and out of prison on the recidivism revolving door, because other factors influence their behaviours more strongly than morals. Often through MH, poverty, anger and frustration at their lot in life, influence of others etc.

Why would prisons be empty. I didn't say they were effective 100% of the time as there's always going to crimes, simply that they deter the majority from committing them.

So in your world, are there no such things as metaphors, similes, hyperbole and other such linguistic devices, as used by humans to enhance their communications?

If I tell my child to 'stop that' and they stop that, without any force having been used, have I not enforced the boundaries? I've managed to raise two funcitonal and well behaved young adults without having it constantly in the back of my head that there has to be an 'or else' and that my every intervention in their behaviour is in fact a threat of force.

As I've said, language changes.

But this is a derail. Going back to laws and rules and why people obey them - it's not just about the threar of force. It's because there is a recognition that with rules, things work better.

For instance, in traffic red means stop and green means go in the vast, vast majority of places. This useful consensus means that there isn't constant and daily chaos on our roads. It's pragmatic. Much adherence to laws and rules is pragmatic and not driven by fear of anything.

And much moral behaviour is not driven by fear of a deity - it's driven by a desire to live in a functioning society where people get along.

Your love of semantics is something else...

But are you saying that you can only enforce boundaries by physical force? May I ask where you stand on hitting children?

My stance on hitting children is irrelevant but it's not something I'm fond of by any means and as a general rule believe it should be discouraged. However, you don't have to hit a child to be using physical force. It can be as straight forward as "give me that toy you shouldn't have or I'll come over and physically take it from you myself". I don't believe there's a parent on earth who hasn't had to physically place their toddler somewhere because they wouldn't do it when requested, often because they didn't understand. Threat of physical force is administered at an early age often without either party even being aware.

However, to your question of "can you only enforce boundaries by the threat of or use of physical force"? Yes, as that's what it means.

You can 'reinforce' boundaries using any kind of non physical action you like, but enforcing is by definition a physical act of force.

The words force and enforcement are used metaphorically everywhere! If the police can enforce the law by fining someone, and they can, then your hyper literal use of the word falls flat.

And taking a toy away from a child can be done gently - so now we have 'gentle force'?

In any case - morals. Many people act morally because it makes sense. No fear of force involved. Also no fear of a nonexistent afterlife.

Exactly. I think @Alicealig 's peculiar literalism seems to manifest also in her worldview.

I know there's no deity in the sky keeping score of what I do, likewise no carrot-and-stick of heaven and hell. I think a truly adult ethics means acting well without the fear of divine punishment or hope of reward, and I do my best to give back where possible. I used to teach literacy as a volunteer in prisons, I'm being vetted for the next available Samaritans training, I do a regular beach litterpick, I try to contribute to my community and society where possible. It is its own reward.

Absolutely. Just as hurt people hurt people, so helping people helps people.

It's quite easy to always be right if when you are wrong but claim to be right because the words you were using had a meaning that only you were subscribed to.

I've just looked up 'Enforcement'. Guess what? It isn't just me who uses it with different meanings. It's the Cambridge English Dictionary, for just one. Is that wrong too?

That's correct!!! Which, you guessed it, is the ideal type of force to use when dealing with small children.

But gently taking a toy from a child's hand is not force. No violence or strength is used. Your definition of what force is appears to broaden and narrow as it suits your narrative.

For example; Who decides what is moral? And, because it makes sense; makes sense to who? You? And if you think people act morally because it makes sense, then do you mean ALL people act morally because it makes sense? What about those that don't act morally? Do you think they act with no morals because it doesn't make sense to them? That doesn't even make sense.

People decide what is moral. At a societal level, not an individual level. We've been through this. Societies do not function without rules. Rules make things run smoothly. They make things work. Everyone benefits. Take traffic lights: globally, a red traffic light means stop. Everyone knows that. Imagine what would happen if everyone decided for themselves how to respond to traffic lights: crashes, deaths, chaos. How that consensus was reached doesn't matter all that much. It's there, it works, all agree on it. The same thing applies to things like theft, rape, murder, fraud. All those things carry a societal cost. Therefore they are frowned upon and rules are made to keep people from committing those actions. The fact that some people break those rules is immaterial - the rules come from a consensus. There have always been people who break rules, for a variety of reasons. People shoplift because they have no money to buy food. People beat up their partner because they lose their temper. People defraud others because they are greedy for more money. The vast majority of those people know that what they are doing is wrong, and they choose to do it anyway. A small minority break the rules because of severe mental ill health or intellectual disability - and the rules probably don't make sense to those people. There are frameworks for that, too.
And as I've also said, laws change. It used to be legal to rape your wife in the UK. Now it isn't. Getting to the stage where that law changed took time, hard work, protest from the women's movement - but eventually the consensus was reached and the law changed.
People decide what is moral. And what is moral can change over time. It is a good thing that nothing is set in stone and that everything is open to question and scrutiny. A lot of the time, that question and scrutiny does not lead to change: we aren't legalising rape, theft or murder. But some of the time, a change is deemed to be needed.

People with no understanding of God and deitys always seem to think they must be more clued up, after all, anyone who actually believes that someone sits in the sky watching our every move must be daft in the head, right?

Putting words in the mouths of atheists is a favourite tactic of the religious, isn't it? I'm sure there are some atheists who really think that they are intellectually superior. People are flawed, after all. However, I put it to you that the religious are equally arrogant at times, given that they genuinely believe that only they are capable of being moral people. The problem sits equally with both sides. It would be helpful if everyone could just accept that some of us take our morality from faith in a deity; others follow a secular morality, and that both are equally valid.

This isn't actually what most people of religion believe. These common images of what a god are, are the most widely used metaphors for that which cannot be explained as quickly or as easily. And it's usually the case that people of religion have faith, rather than actually believe, which are different things entirely.the expol

Your last sentence confuses me a little, but I can kind of understand the distinction between believing in a deity (that they exist) and having faith in a deity (that this deity is there to care for and support me, and hears my prayers).

However, when it comes to things that cannot be explained, the religious like to assume that the explanation is always 'because God'. And that's fine as far as it goes, but then you end up with Chesterton and his incredibly patronising claim When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything'

Well, maybe - but one could also argue that people who choose to believe in God become capable of believing in anything. Conversely, atheism for a lot of people is not about 'believing in anything', it is about accepting that there are things we do not know yet and that there are things we cannot know - and yet live our lives in serene acceptance that we do not know it all and that we do not require an explanation. The religious need God as an explanation. Many atheists just don't need an explanation at all. Both positions are equally valid.

I abhor the kind of atheist who goes on about sky fairies, by the way. It's rude.

I think morals are the codes that are socially agreed upon. Sometimes they allign with the law, but can also be separate to it. When something goes against the prevailing morality of a group, it is likely to provoke outrage and social consequences, even if there are no legal repercussions.

There are certain core issues that most people and most societies agree are immoral, and others that there is significant variation across individuals and societies. I suspect theoretically liberal societies generally allow for a wider variation in moral codes, on the basis of the focus on individual freedom, autonomy and something akin to J S Mills 'harm principle' underlying beliefs about personal morality. However, in practice, I think morality is extremely complex and emotive meaning that whilst people may hold publically to certain values that the moral values they live may be different.

Really interesting topic!