Morals create order.

American Society is built upon Truth, Liberty, Freedom, and Justice for every man. It does not denote every "American" man. Just every "MAN".

""Torture threatens liberty because it gives the state the power to generate testimony and evidence contrary to fact, contrary even to the will of the witness. It thus removes the last constraint against tyranny, which is truth. Torture was forbidden in English common law since the middle ages, not because medievals were sqeamish about cruelty--their punishments and executions were spectacularly cruel--but because a king who could use torture in investigations and interrogations could reach any conclusions he wanted.""

Peter Levine-- Author of above quoted text.

Morals have nothing to do with religious belief. I can only say that so many times before I just have to conclude that you do not understand either term; morals, nor religious beliefs.

well then, no problem. since you say you don't care about what others think of us, or what our children think of us, as long as we don't preach to others we can do whatever we want. well let's stop preaching and start torturing. that's a deep hole to climb out of, dyshade.

again, that is in direct contrast to my statement. can you prove yours? i might be able to try my hand at my own...

you're right, morals have to do with society, and holding society together. but when morals cease to hold society together, they must be abandoned. and i repeat, a society's responsibility is to its people, not to others.

Again. You need to go back and read. You are making assumptions. We preach every day to our own citizens. If you wish to live in a hellhole you may go do so. You have the freedom to do it. I however wish to live in a society based on moral wellbeing and the freedom to exist without being tortured or persecuted.
It is a small leap for our government to go from torturing terrorists to torturing its own citizens.

That is our future if we continue.

there's nothing wrong with torturing citizens either, as i've said. sure, the english might have been right, but we don't have a king anymore. we are, nominally, a democracy. therefore the government better represents the people. and in a society, the people come first. let's say that our government kills somebody simply to make an example; say they force testimony. if it benefits the people (as it supposedly should, especially in a democracy) then by all means, who cares if it's true. truth is relative anyway. not really in this case, but... truth isn't always the absolute best thing. tyrannical democracy is the best possible form of government; the people rule themselves with an iron fist. if only individual assholes didn't try to fuck it up.

In order for a society to exist it must relate to other societies. If it does not we end up jumped like the Japanese jumped us in WW2.

We must coexist with others. We must also allow them thier beliefs as long as they do not infringe upon anothers right to exist. This is preeminent.

Morals-
Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.


Order-
1. an authoritative direction or instruction; command; mandate.
2. a command of a court or judge.
3. a command or notice issued by a military organization or a military commander to troops, sailors, etc.

The "mandates" must have a moral framework from which to derive themselves from. One cannot create a society based on Justice without moral obligation.

An ordered society is based on moral laws not on DIVINE LAWS. That is the difference between religious belief and morality. Religious belief is based on divine law and morality is based on humanistic law. Divine law need not be humane. Humanistic law by nature is based on humane and ethical treatment of those who do not care to be moral or follow humanistic law.

Why didn't you say that you were a fascist to begin with. I feel as if I have now wasted my breath.

lol

plus, your definition for order is good but your definition for moral/morals is weak. moral means "from custom, habit". it's a way of doing things, or thinking. that's what it really means behind its 'righteous' connotation. check the latin...

seriously though, are you familiar with locke? or is it hobbes... either way, i agree with them 100% on what society is and what morals are. as i've said, we'll have to agree to disagree. no sense in my repeating myself and you repeating yourself, then it's just a dick-weighing.

Meh. I posted the Merriam/Webster definition of morals above. The Latin root meaning does not connotate the modern English definition. I go with modern English as that is what I speak and use to communicate.

A verbis ad verbera.

the modern english definition is a self righteous wet dream. at least in latin it made sense....

but you're right of course in saying that the modern day 'idea' of what 'moral' means has changed a good deal. however, why call them morals when what you're really talking about are... hmmm... let's use the online thesaurus to look for a word that hasn't changed meaning over time...

for 'morals' (applicable)
dogmas, ethics, ideals, scruples

for 'moral conduct' (applicable)
ethicalness, ideology

for 'morality' (applicable)
chastity, decency, ethicality, ethicalness, gentleness, godliness, honesty, honor, ideals, incorruptibility, incorruption, justice, manners, probity, purity, rectitude, righteousness, rightness, saintliness, uprightness

for 'value judgement' (applicable)
bias, ethics, evaluative criticism, stocktaking, subjective evaluation, valuation

ethics seems to be a fair substitute for the idea you're trying to convey, and the word ethics means the same thing to me as it did to everybody else since it was first spoken. are morals and ethics interchangeable, according to you? i'll admit it's ethically wrong to torture people, but not that it's morally wrong. ethics deals with right and wrong. morals deal with conduct and how to get the job done. morally, anything that works towards your ends is right. ethically, and i don't buy into ethics (notice the phrase subjective evaluation above), things can be right or wrong based on one's beliefs.

connotations don't change the meaning of a word, they mask it; the word means the same thing, it just gets a different flavor. one of my things is always abandoning connotations of any kind. i find that removing a word from all extraneous connotations helps me better use it, as its meaning is distilled. it's more precise. and precision breeds clarity...

Nope. Check the modern Definition.

Morals-
1)Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
2)Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
4)Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
5)Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
6)Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.

Yes morality is pretty much the same as ethics. Ethical behaviour will fit humane morality.

Ethics however is not a substitute nor does it change the argument. You have a grave misunderstanding of the word "morality".

the common sense of the word is wrong. just because it is generally accepted does not make it right. not objectively.

i'm not arguing that the definition in the dictionary isn't what you put, i'm arguing that ethics is a better, more generally agreed upon word to use. and it is, as both you and i agree that's what you're talking about. either way, what you're describing (which you call morals and which i understand to be ethics) are neither objective nor factual. ethics are a waste of time.

and it isn't a misunderstanding of the word morality to know what a word does mean as well as what a word should mean. morality is a damned tricky thing to try to talk about, since its meaning has changed over the years. philosophically, morals and ethics are different. or so i believe. and whether i misunderstand the term morality or not has no significance whatsoever. i know what you mean, i call it ethics, scoff at it and see it for the subjective, self serving and ridiculous horse shit that it really is. to say that what we invent must remain such is to express fully one's fear of change. mankind made morals, and can, when it best suits him, unmake them. members of a society are not above its laws, but the society as a whole is. this is what you fail to understand.

I do not fail to understand it at all because there is nothing in your argument to understand. Humanistic Law is based on humane morality. Quibbling about a word only draws away from the theme of the argument. Morality, or ethics if you so wish, are the basis, the foundation if you will, of our modern day societal structure. Our form of democracy has shown to be successful, so successful that other countries such as Israel are thinking about adopting it wholeheartedly. This is because our laws are based on the humanistic approach and therefore are ethical, moral, and just.
Divine law need not be just. It just needs faith.

With those ideals you should move to the mountains and away from any societal structure. We exist and communicate through generally accepted terminology. Without this language does not exist. If you wish to speak latin be my guest but do not associate its meaning to the meanings of words that are part of the modern english language. Go find a forum whose base language is latin and converse with them.

I am using "generally accepted" modern day plain old english. I am of the mind that it is the best way in which to communicate my feelings, opinions, ideals, and anything else that tickles my ass

I can respect your "individuality" but, and I do not mean to offend, you are just plain wrong.

It is unjust and wrong to utilize torture as a means of information gathering. The information gathered is as trustworthy as the source, (a known enemy), and it is morally reprehensible.