We are forming propositions about it. It is being discussed. It exists for us. It is an object.
Likewise, logic is not real.
It is real. Math is based upon it. Now it may only be true to itself, and it may be artificial, but that does not mean it isn't real.
For the sake of argument, I've been granting that things that exist physically are objectively real. Don't push me here.
Objects don't have to have physical existence. The only way you could ever say that a triangle isn't an object, is if you asserted that it was a process.
The statement "A triangle has three sides" is an analytic a priori proposition - it is true by definition. Together with logical truisms (law of excluded middle, law of non-contradiction, law of identity), analytic a priori propositions make up the category of necessary truths. These must always be true at all places and at all times. Using these two things, I can make statements that are objectively true.
By me, yes. If someone can lay out an argument that convinces me that murder or rape can be moral acts, I'm ready to hear it.
The burden of proof lies upon you. You are the one making the positive claim that A) there exists an objective morality, and you have happened upon it, or a facet of it.
I'm arguing that there is an objective morality, and that I like to think that what I perceive to be morality is in fact correct, based on my studies. A facet of this is that I am willing to change what I hold to be moral in the event that someone can convince me, for example, that murder is not a net negative.
Okay, so you say there is an objective morality. That's cool. So what evidence do you have? You say murder is a net negative. Negative relative to what? Social cohesion? Societal standards? Individual self-interest? Even if I couldn't name counter-examples to each of those (I can), you would still have to provide a compelling reason for me to value social cohesion, societal standards, or my self-interest. What objective rubric can you apply to me that will prohibit me, logically and self-evidently, from committing, say, a murder that no one ever found out about?
So I maintain that A) an objective morality exists in that a relative morality seems lacking,
It doesn't matter if relative morality seems lacking. Of course it seems lacking. Hell, it seems much more than lacking. It seems almost incomprehensibly frightening. There is no standard out there that we must adhere to; there is no way to objectively show that a given morality is right. We live in a cold, uncaring universe and the meteor that will crash into the earth in the year 2082 will not give two shits how many babies I murdered and then deep-fried.
But the fact that something is depressing is not even relevant to the conversation we are having, which is asking if that thing is true or not.
MikeMan on
0
Options
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
The thing with rights is that they generally have to be listed and every one of them can be argued.
See: Communists vs. Capitalists.
Yeah no kidding. I've never taken the time to enumerate all of the rights that I feel should be guaranteed. America does a pretty decent job of setting up a system of rights and I don't think it would be a bad general guideline.
How do you feel about positive vs. negative rights obligation? Do you have a duty to protect others' rights, or merely to not interfere with their rights?
I think there's a duty to protect the rights of others but it is limited. Not familiar enough to say anything definitive on the matter.
Arguments for "Positive" vs. "Negative" rights obligations represent a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes a right (here's looking at you, libertarians). Having a right to something can only be understood in reference to another party having a duty not to violate that right. So if I have a right to life, that means you have a duty not to kill me. This does not mean that you have an obligation to protect my life from another person (that person, however, does have a duty not to attempt to take my life, as enumerated in my right to life).
Inquisitor77 on
0
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
By me, yes. If someone can lay out an argument that convinces me that murder or rape can be moral acts, I'm ready to hear it.
The burden of proof lies upon you. You are the one making the positive claim that A) there exists an objective morality, and you have happened upon it, or a facet of it.
I'm arguing that there is an objective morality, and that I like to think that what I perceive to be morality is in fact correct, based on my studies. A facet of this is that I am willing to change what I hold to be moral in the event that someone can convince me, for example, that murder is not a net negative.
Okay, so you say there is an objective morality. That's cool. So what evidence do you have? You say murder is a net negative. Negative relative to what? Social cohesion? Societal standards? Individual self-interest? Even if I couldn't name counter-examples to each of those (I can), you would still have to provide a compelling reason for me to value social cohesion, societal standards, or my self-interest. What objective rubric can you apply to me that will prohibit me, logically and self-evidently, from committing, say, a murder that no one ever found out about?
So I maintain that A) an objective morality exists in that a relative morality seems lacking,
It doesn't matter if relative morality seems lacking. Of course it seems lacking. Hell, it seems much more than lacking. It seems almost incomprehensibly frightening. There is no standard out there that we must adhere to; there is no way to objectively show that a given morality is right. We live in a cold, uncaring universe and the meteor that will crash into the earth in the year 2082 will not give two shits how many babies I murdered and then deep-fried.
But the fact that something is depressing is not even relevant to the conversation we are having, which is asking if that thing is true or not.
First off, thank you for being a reasonable person in the thread. 1. I admit that when constructing my OP I was looking for an example that would be axiomatic. I suppose if we had to specifically determine why murder was wrong, we would first look at the base act of taking the life of another human being. I would argue that taking a person's life causes harm to that person. Before people jump on that, remember that circumstances can outweigh this (self defense, euthanasia). From a practical point of view, we seek to live in a society that is generally free of crime and unfairness, and so enforcing a taboo against murder is a way of protecting the weak, old, or sick from those who would seek to do harm to them. This applies to your point about compelling you to personally value not murdering people. Since you're being so commendably exacting, I would say simply that a moral party seeks to minimize harm wherever possible, and it is in this sense that murder is immoral.
2.This is a problem with looking at morality as a solution to the problems of society. Unless you're trying to bill morality as God's law, enforceable by an omnipotent being, then it is not going to stop people from doing bad things for which there are no chances of being caught, as I said earlier.
TL DR on
0
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
The thing with rights is that they generally have to be listed and every one of them can be argued.
See: Communists vs. Capitalists.
Yeah no kidding. I've never taken the time to enumerate all of the rights that I feel should be guaranteed. America does a pretty decent job of setting up a system of rights and I don't think it would be a bad general guideline.
How do you feel about positive vs. negative rights obligation? Do you have a duty to protect others' rights, or merely to not interfere with their rights?
I think there's a duty to protect the rights of others but it is limited. Not familiar enough to say anything definitive on the matter.
Arguments for "Positive" vs. "Negative" rights obligations represent a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes a right (here's looking at you, libertarians). Having a right to something can only be understood in reference to another party having a duty not to violate that right. So if I have a right to life, that means you have a duty not to kill me. This does not mean that you have an obligation to protect my life from another person (that person, however, does have a duty not to attempt to take my life, as enumerated in my right to life).
So if you're walking by a swimming pool, and see a child fall in and begin to drown, and you are an Olympic swimmer, are you not obligated to save the child? For the purpose of argument, assume that there is no witness to see you act either way.
TL DR on
0
Options
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
edited November 2008
Are you saying that children have rights? (Enter giant debate about abortion, child slavery, etc. etc. etc.)
Assuming it is a person who has fallen into a pool and for some reason (umm...he doesn't have legs or arms) is unable to get himself out, am I obligated to save that person? From an "in Nature" rights standpoint, no, I'm not. Sorry, but that's how the cookie crumbles. And frankly, if you really thought this logic though, you'd be happy I drew the line in the sand there and not somewhere else (i.e. somewhere really stupid).
Now, in the United States, if we were both citizens? That's a good question, and I'm not really sure we have a definitive answer. Any lawyers in the thread? The key question to me, it seems, is whether or not the establishment of the United States and our citizenship within it obligates me to help you in some fashion (e.g., "to promote the general welfare").
Keep in mind this is argued from the perspective of "inalienable rights", etc. etc. etc. If you wanted to argue that, under a different moral code, I would be obligated to help, then I'm sure in some cases the answer is yes and in others, no.
Inquisitor77 on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
edited November 2008
I have yet to see how moral relativism doesn't collapse into nihilism. Nihilism is so implausible that it's more reasonable to believe there's some unknown defect in the arguments for it than it is to believe it's actually true on the basis of those arguments. Hence, I do not believe in moral relativism.
I have yet to see how moral relativism doesn't collapse into nihilism. Nihilism is so implausible that it's more reasonable to believe there's some unknown defect in the arguments for it than it is to believe it's actually true on the basis of those arguments. Hence, I do not believe in moral relativism.
Why is nihilism so implausible?
Couscous on
0
Options
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
I have yet to see how moral relativism doesn't collapse into nihilism. Nihilism is so implausible that it's more reasonable to believe there's some unknown defect in the arguments for it than it is to believe it's actually true on the basis of those arguments. Hence, I do not believe in moral relativism.
We have a winner. Moral relativism (any relativism, really), collapses upon itself into absurdity pretty quickly.
I have yet to see how moral relativism doesn't collapse into nihilism. Nihilism is so implausible that it's more reasonable to believe there's some unknown defect in the arguments for it than it is to believe it's actually true on the basis of those arguments. Hence, I do not believe in moral relativism.
We have a winner. Moral relativism (any relativism, really), collapses upon itself into absurdity pretty quickly.
You aren't explaining why it turns into absurdity.
Well for starters it upholds the nature / artifice and freedom / nature binary oppositions, which is pretty ridiculous.
Are you talking about nihilism in general or a specific form of nihilism?
Because this is the one I'm familiar with: "Nihilism (from the Latin nihil, nothing) is a philosophical position that argues that existence is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value"
This does not apply to all actions, however. Murder, for example, is not in and of itself amoral. Even in a society that allows a man to murder his wife for being infertile, to use a hypothetical, that act can be objectively declared to be something we ought not to do.
I think that the problem with this stems from your use of the passive voice. Try rewriting "that act can be objectively declared to be something we ought not to do" as active and I think you'll find yourself with a nice little contradiction.
This does not apply to all actions, however. Murder, for example, is not in and of itself amoral. Even in a society that allows a man to murder his wife for being infertile, to use a hypothetical, that shit is wrong.
Where's the contradiction? Are you questioning that we can objectively judge another culture?
Not what I'm looking for. Do you know the difference between active and passive voice? I want you to write the sentence, "that act can be objectively declared to be something we ought not to do," but include as subject the noun which (or, presumably, who) is doing the declaring.
"I declare that a man ought not to murder his wife, even if it is socially acceptable"
So you're questioning that we can objectively judge another culture.
But your concept of morality derives from your upbringing which is heavily influenced by your culture. So to me this is a silly conclusion.
Drez on
Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
It obliterates everything we hold dear? It's more plausible to believe it false that to believe we are laboring under complete delusion when we say things like: "it was good of you to help that woman across the street," or "it's important to comport yourself with dignity."
Depending on how saucy you feel, it can also in some senses be refuted by the very nature of the fact that you have some goals which prioritize over others.
MrMister: But is it false? I mean I recognize that the majority of the human population cannot be trusted with nihilism or ethical egoism because people tend to be raging assholes, but the value of ignorance is not the topic.
Incenjucar on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
edited November 2008
I don't know it's false, but I have sufficient reasons to believe that it's rational to think it's false.
MrMister on
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
This does not apply to all actions, however. Murder, for example, is not in and of itself amoral. Even in a society that allows a man to murder his wife for being infertile, to use a hypothetical, that act can be objectively declared to be something we ought not to do.
I think that the problem with this stems from your use of the passive voice. Try rewriting "that act can be objectively declared to be something we ought not to do" as active and I think you'll find yourself with a nice little contradiction.
This does not apply to all actions, however. Murder, for example, is not in and of itself amoral. Even in a society that allows a man to murder his wife for being infertile, to use a hypothetical, that shit is wrong.
Where's the contradiction? Are you questioning that we can objectively judge another culture?
Not what I'm looking for. Do you know the difference between active and passive voice? I want you to write the sentence, "that act can be objectively declared to be something we ought not to do," but include as subject the noun which (or, presumably, who) is doing the declaring.
"I declare that a man ought not to murder his wife, even if it is socially acceptable"
So you're questioning that we can objectively judge another culture.
But your concept of morality derives from your upbringing which is heavily influenced by your culture. So to me this is a silly conclusion.
It obliterates everything we hold dear? It's more plausible to believe it false that to believe we are laboring under complete delusion when we say things like: "it was good of you to help that woman across the street," or "it's important to comport yourself with dignity."
Depending on how saucy you feel, it can also in some senses be refuted by the very nature of the fact that you have some goals which prioritize over others.
So it conflicts with your personal values so it's absurd? That's, well, kind of absurd.
Well for starters it upholds the nature / artifice and freedom / nature binary oppositions, which is pretty ridiculous.
Are you talking about nihilism in general or a specific form of nihilism?
Because this is the one I'm familiar with: "Nihilism (from the Latin nihil, nothing) is a philosophical position that argues that existence is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value"
Indeed. Latin, the same one who translated the greek term of existence "phusis" (swaying, presenting) to "natura" (being born.) It basically says because we aren't born naturally with our values, even if we exist within a existential moral construct, everything is just a dream, a phantasy.
Well for starters it upholds the nature / artifice and freedom / nature binary oppositions, which is pretty ridiculous.
Are you talking about nihilism in general or a specific form of nihilism?
Because this is the one I'm familiar with: "Nihilism (from the Latin nihil, nothing) is a philosophical position that argues that existence is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value"
Indeed. Latin, the same one who translated the greek term of existence "phusis" (swaying, presenting) to "natura" (being born.) It basically says because we aren't born naturally with our values, even if we exist within a existential moral construct, everything is just a dream, a phantasy.
Not really. We're not living in a dream, we're just restraining our behavior to conphorm to a set of rules and values we made up.
ViolentChemistry on
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
Well for starters it upholds the nature / artifice and freedom / nature binary oppositions, which is pretty ridiculous.
Are you talking about nihilism in general or a specific form of nihilism?
Because this is the one I'm familiar with: "Nihilism (from the Latin nihil, nothing) is a philosophical position that argues that existence is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value"
Indeed. Latin, the same one who translated the greek term of existence "phusis" (swaying, presenting) to "natura" (being born.) It basically says because we aren't born naturally with our values, even if we exist within a existential moral construct, everything is just a dream, a phantasy.
Not really. We're not living in a dream, we're just restraining our behavior to conphorm to a set of rules and values we made up.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with this idea either. This is what Law essentially is.
As far as trying to work out where they apply goes, there's no real "danger" in an evaluation of what makes them up or why they exist. Any inherent fear or negative reaction of such a thing would, in essence, be a moral judgement.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
Well for starters it upholds the nature / artifice and freedom / nature binary oppositions, which is pretty ridiculous.
Are you talking about nihilism in general or a specific form of nihilism?
Because this is the one I'm familiar with: "Nihilism (from the Latin nihil, nothing) is a philosophical position that argues that existence is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value"
Indeed. Latin, the same one who translated the greek term of existence "phusis" (swaying, presenting) to "natura" (being born.) It basically says because we aren't born naturally with our values, even if we exist within a existential moral construct, everything is just a dream, a phantasy.
Not really. We're not living in a dream, we're just restraining our behavior to conphorm to a set of rules and values we made up.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with this idea either. This is what Law essentially is.
As far as trying to work out where they apply goes, there's no real "danger" in an evaluation of what makes them up or why they exist. Any inherent fear or negative reaction of such a thing would, in essence, be a moral judgement.
The problem is that some things can be empirically shown to be wrong. Take racism and prohibitions against interracial marriage, given that there is no difference in the phenotype between a black man and a tall man with a dark tan (phenotype is expression, right?)
On the other hand, while we can say murder is wrong, all the definitions list it as an unlawful killing, typically malicious, rendering it impossible to say exactly what it is.
Well for starters it upholds the nature / artifice and freedom / nature binary oppositions, which is pretty ridiculous.
Are you talking about nihilism in general or a specific form of nihilism?
Because this is the one I'm familiar with: "Nihilism (from the Latin nihil, nothing) is a philosophical position that argues that existence is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value"
Indeed. Latin, the same one who translated the greek term of existence "phusis" (swaying, presenting) to "natura" (being born.) It basically says because we aren't born naturally with our values, even if we exist within a existential moral construct, everything is just a dream, a phantasy.
Not really. We're not living in a dream, we're just restraining our behavior to conphorm to a set of rules and values we made up.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with this idea either. This is what Law essentially is.
As far as trying to work out where they apply goes, there's no real "danger" in an evaluation of what makes them up or why they exist. Any inherent fear or negative reaction of such a thing would, in essence, be a moral judgement.
The problem is that some things can be empirically shown to be wrong. Take racism and prohibitions against interracial marriage, given that there is no difference in the phenotype between a black man and a tall man with a dark tan (phenotype is expression, right?)
On the other hand, while we can say murder is wrong, all the definitions list it as an unlawful killing, typically malicious, rendering it impossible to say exactly what it is.
This is the application of morals.
It is a conceptually and logically different bag of angry dingos from the understanding of where they come from or wether they exist as a brain structure, social concept, or otherwise.
I will not, I repeat, not discuss the application of morals. You can do that all you like I will not do it. So don't waste your breath opinionising with me about it. I'm only interested in where they come from and how people make their decisions based on them.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
The problem is that some things can be empirically shown to be wrong. Take racism and prohibitions against interracial marriage, given that there is no difference in the phenotype between a black man and a tall man with a dark tan (phenotype is expression, right?)
On the other hand, while we can say murder is wrong, all the definitions list it as an unlawful killing, typically malicious, rendering it impossible to say exactly what it is.
How does that show racism to be empirically wrong? And what do you mean that definition makes it impossible to say what murder is? That definition tells you exactly what murder is. You just have to look at the law and see which conditions have to occur for killing to be unlawful. You're making tremendous logical jumps left and right without giving any of the in-between bits.
Well for starters it upholds the nature / artifice and freedom / nature binary oppositions, which is pretty ridiculous.
Are you talking about nihilism in general or a specific form of nihilism?
Because this is the one I'm familiar with: "Nihilism (from the Latin nihil, nothing) is a philosophical position that argues that existence is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value"
Indeed. Latin, the same one who translated the greek term of existence "phusis" (swaying, presenting) to "natura" (being born.) It basically says because we aren't born naturally with our values, even if we exist within a existential moral construct, everything is just a dream, a phantasy.
Not really. We're not living in a dream, we're just restraining our behavior to conphorm to a set of rules and values we made up.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with this idea either. This is what Law essentially is.
As far as trying to work out where they apply goes, there's no real "danger" in an evaluation of what makes them up or why they exist. Any inherent fear or negative reaction of such a thing would, in essence, be a moral judgement.
The problem is that some things can be empirically shown to be wrong. Take racism and prohibitions against interracial marriage, given that there is no difference in the phenotype between a black man and a tall man with a dark tan (phenotype is expression, right?)
On the other hand, while we can say murder is wrong, all the definitions list it as an unlawful killing, typically malicious, rendering it impossible to say exactly what it is.
This is the application of morals.
It is a conceptually and logically different bag of angry dingos from the understanding of where they come from or wether they exist as a brain structure, social concept, or otherwise.
I will not, I repeat, not discuss the application of morals. You can do that all you like I will not do it. So don't waste your breath opinionising with me about it. I'm only interested in where they come from and how people make their decisions based on them.
So nihilism is a field of cognitive science or neurology? I'm pretty sure that tabula rasa has been pretty well struck down.
The problem is that some things can be empirically shown to be wrong. Take racism and prohibitions against interracial marriage, given that there is no difference in the phenotype between a black man and a tall man with a dark tan (phenotype is expression, right?)
On the other hand, while we can say murder is wrong, all the definitions list it as an unlawful killing, typically malicious, rendering it impossible to say exactly what it is.
How does that show racism to be empirically wrong? And what do you mean that definition makes it impossible to say what murder is? That definition tells you exactly what murder is. You just have to look at the law and see which conditions have to occur for killing to be unlawful. You're making tremendous logical jumps left and right without giving any of the in-between bits.
Find me a person who thinks that "because pancake" is a valid argument. One person.
Also, there is no universal law. Therefor, it holds that there can be no universal classification of what is or isn't murder.
Well for starters it upholds the nature / artifice and freedom / nature binary oppositions, which is pretty ridiculous.
Are you talking about nihilism in general or a specific form of nihilism?
Because this is the one I'm familiar with: "Nihilism (from the Latin nihil, nothing) is a philosophical position that argues that existence is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value"
Indeed. Latin, the same one who translated the greek term of existence "phusis" (swaying, presenting) to "natura" (being born.) It basically says because we aren't born naturally with our values, even if we exist within a existential moral construct, everything is just a dream, a phantasy.
Not really. We're not living in a dream, we're just restraining our behavior to conphorm to a set of rules and values we made up.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with this idea either. This is what Law essentially is.
As far as trying to work out where they apply goes, there's no real "danger" in an evaluation of what makes them up or why they exist. Any inherent fear or negative reaction of such a thing would, in essence, be a moral judgement.
The problem is that some things can be empirically shown to be wrong. Take racism and prohibitions against interracial marriage, given that there is no difference in the phenotype between a black man and a tall man with a dark tan (phenotype is expression, right?)
On the other hand, while we can say murder is wrong, all the definitions list it as an unlawful killing, typically malicious, rendering it impossible to say exactly what it is.
I'm sorry...what? Where's your empirical proof that racism is wrong? Or is your phenotype shtick it?
Well for starters it upholds the nature / artifice and freedom / nature binary oppositions, which is pretty ridiculous.
Are you talking about nihilism in general or a specific form of nihilism?
Because this is the one I'm familiar with: "Nihilism (from the Latin nihil, nothing) is a philosophical position that argues that existence is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value"
Indeed. Latin, the same one who translated the greek term of existence "phusis" (swaying, presenting) to "natura" (being born.) It basically says because we aren't born naturally with our values, even if we exist within a existential moral construct, everything is just a dream, a phantasy.
Not really. We're not living in a dream, we're just restraining our behavior to conphorm to a set of rules and values we made up.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with this idea either. This is what Law essentially is.
As far as trying to work out where they apply goes, there's no real "danger" in an evaluation of what makes them up or why they exist. Any inherent fear or negative reaction of such a thing would, in essence, be a moral judgement.
The problem is that some things can be empirically shown to be wrong. Take racism and prohibitions against interracial marriage, given that there is no difference in the phenotype between a black man and a tall man with a dark tan (phenotype is expression, right?)
On the other hand, while we can say murder is wrong, all the definitions list it as an unlawful killing, typically malicious, rendering it impossible to say exactly what it is.
This is the application of morals.
It is a conceptually and logically different bag of angry dingos from the understanding of where they come from or wether they exist as a brain structure, social concept, or otherwise.
I will not, I repeat, not discuss the application of morals. You can do that all you like I will not do it. So don't waste your breath opinionising with me about it. I'm only interested in where they come from and how people make their decisions based on them.
So nihilism is a field of cognitive science or neurology? I'm pretty sure that tabula rasa has been pretty well struck down.
Well, the servers do come down in February, but that seems a bit off-topic to me.
The problem is that some things can be empirically shown to be wrong. Take racism and prohibitions against interracial marriage, given that there is no difference in the phenotype between a black man and a tall man with a dark tan (phenotype is expression, right?)
On the other hand, while we can say murder is wrong, all the definitions list it as an unlawful killing, typically malicious, rendering it impossible to say exactly what it is.
How does that show racism to be empirically wrong? And what do you mean that definition makes it impossible to say what murder is? That definition tells you exactly what murder is. You just have to look at the law and see which conditions have to occur for killing to be unlawful. You're making tremendous logical jumps left and right without giving any of the in-between bits.
Find me a person who thinks that "because pancake" is a valid argument. One person.
Also, there is no universal law. Therefor, it holds that there can be no universal classification of what is or isn't murder.
Why would I do that? I mean I gather that you think you've made a clever point here, but no, you have in fact merely found an excuse to say the word "pancake", which is great as it's a silly word that's fun to say, but it doesn't really do you any good.
And yes there is, it's unlawful killing. If there's no law in a place, then there can't be any murder there. There doesn't have to be a universal law for law to exist, that's kind of the point of it. If some cop pulls you over for going 60 in a 25 and you try to tell him there's no universal law so fuck his law, maaaaan, then you're going to jail.
ViolentChemistry on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
The problem is that some things can be empirically shown to be wrong. Take racism and prohibitions against interracial marriage, given that there is no difference in the phenotype between a black man and a tall man with a dark tan (phenotype is expression, right?)
On the other hand, while we can say murder is wrong, all the definitions list it as an unlawful killing, typically malicious, rendering it impossible to say exactly what it is.
How does that show racism to be empirically wrong? And what do you mean that definition makes it impossible to say what murder is? That definition tells you exactly what murder is. You just have to look at the law and see which conditions have to occur for killing to be unlawful. You're making tremendous logical jumps left and right without giving any of the in-between bits.
Find me a person who thinks that "because pancake" is a valid argument. One person.
Also, there is no universal law. Therefor, it holds that there can be no universal classification of what is or isn't murder.
Universal laws include:
People are born.
Individuals exist at one space at one time.
etc., etc.,
The problem is that some things can be empirically shown to be wrong. Take racism and prohibitions against interracial marriage, given that there is no difference in the phenotype between a black man and a tall man with a dark tan (phenotype is expression, right?)
On the other hand, while we can say murder is wrong, all the definitions list it as an unlawful killing, typically malicious, rendering it impossible to say exactly what it is.
How does that show racism to be empirically wrong? And what do you mean that definition makes it impossible to say what murder is? That definition tells you exactly what murder is. You just have to look at the law and see which conditions have to occur for killing to be unlawful. You're making tremendous logical jumps left and right without giving any of the in-between bits.
Find me a person who thinks that "because pancake" is a valid argument. One person.
Also, there is no universal law. Therefor, it holds that there can be no universal classification of what is or isn't murder.
Why would I do that? I mean I gather that you think you've made a clever point here, but no, you have in fact merely found an excuse to say the word "pancake", which is great as it's a silly word that's fun to say, but it doesn't really do you any good.
And yes there is, it's unlawful killing. If there's no law in a place, then there can't be any murder there. There doesn't have to be a universal law for law to exist, that's kind of the point of it. If some cop pulls you over for going 60 in a 25 and you try to tell him there's no universal law so fuck his law, maaaaan, then you're going to jail.
Let me make it clearer: if you say a Fenway Frank is better than an Oscar Meyer Weiner, you have an opinion. If you say a Fenway Frank is better than a Fenway Frank, you're an idiot.
What I was saying is that because the law is determined by culture, the decision of what is or isn't murder must also be culturally determined, so that saying "everyone agrees that murder is wrong" is like say "everybody agrees that doing bad things is wrong."
Posts
Objects don't have to have physical existence. The only way you could ever say that a triangle isn't an object, is if you asserted that it was a process.
The statement "A triangle has three sides" is an analytic a priori proposition - it is true by definition. Together with logical truisms (law of excluded middle, law of non-contradiction, law of identity), analytic a priori propositions make up the category of necessary truths. These must always be true at all places and at all times. Using these two things, I can make statements that are objectively true.
Okay, so you say there is an objective morality. That's cool. So what evidence do you have? You say murder is a net negative. Negative relative to what? Social cohesion? Societal standards? Individual self-interest? Even if I couldn't name counter-examples to each of those (I can), you would still have to provide a compelling reason for me to value social cohesion, societal standards, or my self-interest. What objective rubric can you apply to me that will prohibit me, logically and self-evidently, from committing, say, a murder that no one ever found out about?
It doesn't matter if relative morality seems lacking. Of course it seems lacking. Hell, it seems much more than lacking. It seems almost incomprehensibly frightening. There is no standard out there that we must adhere to; there is no way to objectively show that a given morality is right. We live in a cold, uncaring universe and the meteor that will crash into the earth in the year 2082 will not give two shits how many babies I murdered and then deep-fried.
But the fact that something is depressing is not even relevant to the conversation we are having, which is asking if that thing is true or not.
Arguments for "Positive" vs. "Negative" rights obligations represent a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes a right (here's looking at you, libertarians). Having a right to something can only be understood in reference to another party having a duty not to violate that right. So if I have a right to life, that means you have a duty not to kill me. This does not mean that you have an obligation to protect my life from another person (that person, however, does have a duty not to attempt to take my life, as enumerated in my right to life).
First off, thank you for being a reasonable person in the thread.
1. I admit that when constructing my OP I was looking for an example that would be axiomatic. I suppose if we had to specifically determine why murder was wrong, we would first look at the base act of taking the life of another human being. I would argue that taking a person's life causes harm to that person. Before people jump on that, remember that circumstances can outweigh this (self defense, euthanasia). From a practical point of view, we seek to live in a society that is generally free of crime and unfairness, and so enforcing a taboo against murder is a way of protecting the weak, old, or sick from those who would seek to do harm to them. This applies to your point about compelling you to personally value not murdering people. Since you're being so commendably exacting, I would say simply that a moral party seeks to minimize harm wherever possible, and it is in this sense that murder is immoral.
2.This is a problem with looking at morality as a solution to the problems of society. Unless you're trying to bill morality as God's law, enforceable by an omnipotent being, then it is not going to stop people from doing bad things for which there are no chances of being caught, as I said earlier.
So if you're walking by a swimming pool, and see a child fall in and begin to drown, and you are an Olympic swimmer, are you not obligated to save the child? For the purpose of argument, assume that there is no witness to see you act either way.
Assuming it is a person who has fallen into a pool and for some reason (umm...he doesn't have legs or arms) is unable to get himself out, am I obligated to save that person? From an "in Nature" rights standpoint, no, I'm not. Sorry, but that's how the cookie crumbles. And frankly, if you really thought this logic though, you'd be happy I drew the line in the sand there and not somewhere else (i.e. somewhere really stupid).
Now, in the United States, if we were both citizens? That's a good question, and I'm not really sure we have a definitive answer. Any lawyers in the thread? The key question to me, it seems, is whether or not the establishment of the United States and our citizenship within it obligates me to help you in some fashion (e.g., "to promote the general welfare").
Keep in mind this is argued from the perspective of "inalienable rights", etc. etc. etc. If you wanted to argue that, under a different moral code, I would be obligated to help, then I'm sure in some cases the answer is yes and in others, no.
We have a winner. Moral relativism (any relativism, really), collapses upon itself into absurdity pretty quickly.
Makes people feel bad.
Well for starters it upholds the nature / artifice and freedom / nature binary oppositions, which is pretty ridiculous.
Are you talking about nihilism in general or a specific form of nihilism?
Because this is the one I'm familiar with: "Nihilism (from the Latin nihil, nothing) is a philosophical position that argues that existence is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value"
But your concept of morality derives from your upbringing which is heavily influenced by your culture. So to me this is a silly conclusion.
It obliterates everything we hold dear? It's more plausible to believe it false that to believe we are laboring under complete delusion when we say things like: "it was good of you to help that woman across the street," or "it's important to comport yourself with dignity."
Depending on how saucy you feel, it can also in some senses be refuted by the very nature of the fact that you have some goals which prioritize over others.
Well, lay em out like a good philosopher and let's have a go at em. If they stand up to scrutiny you may keep them.
So it's basically suspension of disbelief.
Have you seen the Mormon episode of South Park?
http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showthread.php?p=7954890#post7954890
What say you?
Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, who knows?
So it conflicts with your personal values so it's absurd? That's, well, kind of absurd.
Absurd is just trying to make it sound like an intellectual position and not an emotional one.
Indeed. Latin, the same one who translated the greek term of existence "phusis" (swaying, presenting) to "natura" (being born.) It basically says because we aren't born naturally with our values, even if we exist within a existential moral construct, everything is just a dream, a phantasy.
It's this completely unrelated thing that is never associated with nihilism outside of whatever you get your version?
Well now you're playing around with ideas of immanence and transcendence.
If you turn this into a fucking Matrix debate...
Not really. We're not living in a dream, we're just restraining our behavior to conphorm to a set of rules and values we made up.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with this idea either. This is what Law essentially is.
As far as trying to work out where they apply goes, there's no real "danger" in an evaluation of what makes them up or why they exist. Any inherent fear or negative reaction of such a thing would, in essence, be a moral judgement.
The problem is that some things can be empirically shown to be wrong. Take racism and prohibitions against interracial marriage, given that there is no difference in the phenotype between a black man and a tall man with a dark tan (phenotype is expression, right?)
On the other hand, while we can say murder is wrong, all the definitions list it as an unlawful killing, typically malicious, rendering it impossible to say exactly what it is.
This is the application of morals.
It is a conceptually and logically different bag of angry dingos from the understanding of where they come from or wether they exist as a brain structure, social concept, or otherwise.
I will not, I repeat, not discuss the application of morals. You can do that all you like I will not do it. So don't waste your breath opinionising with me about it. I'm only interested in where they come from and how people make their decisions based on them.
How does that show racism to be empirically wrong? And what do you mean that definition makes it impossible to say what murder is? That definition tells you exactly what murder is. You just have to look at the law and see which conditions have to occur for killing to be unlawful. You're making tremendous logical jumps left and right without giving any of the in-between bits.
So nihilism is a field of cognitive science or neurology? I'm pretty sure that tabula rasa has been pretty well struck down.
Find me a person who thinks that "because pancake" is a valid argument. One person.
Also, there is no universal law. Therefor, it holds that there can be no universal classification of what is or isn't murder.
I'm sorry...what? Where's your empirical proof that racism is wrong? Or is your phenotype shtick it?
Well, the servers do come down in February, but that seems a bit off-topic to me.
Why would I do that? I mean I gather that you think you've made a clever point here, but no, you have in fact merely found an excuse to say the word "pancake", which is great as it's a silly word that's fun to say, but it doesn't really do you any good.
And yes there is, it's unlawful killing. If there's no law in a place, then there can't be any murder there. There doesn't have to be a universal law for law to exist, that's kind of the point of it. If some cop pulls you over for going 60 in a 25 and you try to tell him there's no universal law so fuck his law, maaaaan, then you're going to jail.
Universal laws include:
People are born.
Individuals exist at one space at one time.
etc., etc.,
Let me make it clearer: if you say a Fenway Frank is better than an Oscar Meyer Weiner, you have an opinion. If you say a Fenway Frank is better than a Fenway Frank, you're an idiot.
What I was saying is that because the law is determined by culture, the decision of what is or isn't murder must also be culturally determined, so that saying "everyone agrees that murder is wrong" is like say "everybody agrees that doing bad things is wrong."