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."
That doesn't make the point you were trying to make, let alone making it clearer. Your favorite foods are not going to make racism "wrong", I'm not sure why you think they are.
The law is established by the government which is sometimes (but not always) a reflection of several of the proportionally-largest cultures present in the governed region. And I don't buy the claim that everyone agrees that murder is wrong, but the route you're taking with that would validate claims such as "everyone agrees that smoking pot is wrong, because it's illegal". Trying to define morality by the law is silly anyway as they're explicitly different things. Law is going to direct less of your actions than morality in most governments, and it does that because its purpose is to be a system of enforceable rules to maintain a functioning society in the face of at least as many different views of morality as there are citizens in the governed system in question.
The law is established by the government which is sometimes (but not always) a reflection of several of the proportionally-largest cultures present in the governed region. And I don't buy the claim that everyone agrees that murder is wrong, but the route you're taking with that would validate claims such as "everyone agrees that smoking pot is wrong, because it's illegal". Trying to define morality by the law is silly anyway as they're explicitly different things. Law is going to direct less of your actions than morality in most governments, and it does that because its purpose is to be a system of enforceable rules to maintain a functioning society in the face of at least as many different views of morality as there are citizens in the governed system in question.
So my critique is invalid because it doesn't include other critiques?
The law is established by the government which is sometimes (but not always) a reflection of several of the proportionally-largest cultures present in the governed region. And I don't buy the claim that everyone agrees that murder is wrong, but the route you're taking with that would validate claims such as "everyone agrees that smoking pot is wrong, because it's illegal". Trying to define morality by the law is silly anyway as they're explicitly different things. Law is going to direct less of your actions than morality in most governments, and it does that because its purpose is to be a system of enforceable rules to maintain a functioning society in the face of at least as many different views of morality as there are citizens in the governed system in question.
So my critique is invalid because it doesn't include other critiques?
No, your claim is meaningless because you've failed to connect it to anything, and because it relies on multiple false-premises.
ViolentChemistry on
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
So nihilism is a field of cognitive science or neurology? I'm pretty sure that tabula rasa has been pretty well struck down.
Don't label me with silly shit just because you don't understand an observational viewpoint.
I'm not saying I don't have morals, or at least impulses that would constitute morals.
I'm saying I wont discuss them, in the same way I wouldn't discuss anti-gravity devices. Not enough information exists for me to form an opinion I am happy with.
If this makes you a sad panda you'll just have to tough it out. One of the beautiful things about an emperical science is the confidence to say "I don't know" and not get into an angsty snit over it.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
The law is established by the government which is sometimes (but not always) a reflection of several of the proportionally-largest cultures present in the governed region. And I don't buy the claim that everyone agrees that murder is wrong, but the route you're taking with that would validate claims such as "everyone agrees that smoking pot is wrong, because it's illegal". Trying to define morality by the law is silly anyway as they're explicitly different things. Law is going to direct less of your actions than morality in most governments, and it does that because its purpose is to be a system of enforceable rules to maintain a functioning society in the face of at least as many different views of morality as there are citizens in the governed system in question.
So my critique is invalid because it doesn't include other critiques?
No, your claim is meaningless because you've failed to connect it to anything, and because it relies on multiple false-premises.
So saying that the argument that moral relativism is unsound because something is considered bad universally is not invalidated by the thing itself being relative?
The law is established by the government which is sometimes (but not always) a reflection of several of the proportionally-largest cultures present in the governed region. And I don't buy the claim that everyone agrees that murder is wrong, but the route you're taking with that would validate claims such as "everyone agrees that smoking pot is wrong, because it's illegal". Trying to define morality by the law is silly anyway as they're explicitly different things. Law is going to direct less of your actions than morality in most governments, and it does that because its purpose is to be a system of enforceable rules to maintain a functioning society in the face of at least as many different views of morality as there are citizens in the governed system in question.
So my critique is invalid because it doesn't include other critiques?
No, your claim is meaningless because you've failed to connect it to anything, and because it relies on multiple false-premises.
So saying that the argument that moral relativism is unsound because something is considered bad universally is not invalidated by the thing itself being relative?
I'm not saying I don't have morals, or at least impulses that would constitute morals.
I'm saying I wont discuss them, in the same way I wouldn't discuss anti-gravity devices. Not enough information exists for me to form an opinion I am happy with.
This strikes me as something that needs clarified. You won't discuss your morals because not enough information exists for you to form an opinion that you are happy with?
So nihilism is a field of cognitive science or neurology? I'm pretty sure that tabula rasa has been pretty well struck down.
Don't label me with silly shit just because you don't understand an observational viewpoint.
I'm not saying I don't have morals, or at least impulses that would constitute morals.
I'm saying I wont discuss them, in the same way I wouldn't discuss anti-gravity devices. Not enough information exists for me to form an opinion I am happy with.
If this makes you a sad panda you'll just have to tough it out. One of the beautiful things about an emperical science is the confidence to say "I don't know" and not get into an angsty snit over it.
Then why did you post an opinion in the first place?
I'm not saying I don't have morals, or at least impulses that would constitute morals.
I'm saying I wont discuss them, in the same way I wouldn't discuss anti-gravity devices. Not enough information exists for me to form an opinion I am happy with.
This strikes me as something that needs clarified. You won't discuss your morals because not enough information exists for you to form an opinion that you are happy with?
Not enough emperical, pyschological information on how people make moral decisions or how people develop them.
I'm not a fan of the essentialist viewpoint.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
So nihilism is a field of cognitive science or neurology? I'm pretty sure that tabula rasa has been pretty well struck down.
Don't label me with silly shit just because you don't understand an observational viewpoint.
I'm not saying I don't have morals, or at least impulses that would constitute morals.
I'm saying I wont discuss them, in the same way I wouldn't discuss anti-gravity devices. Not enough information exists for me to form an opinion I am happy with.
If this makes you a sad panda you'll just have to tough it out. One of the beautiful things about an emperical science is the confidence to say "I don't know" and not get into an angsty snit over it.
Then why did you post an opinion in the first place?
Why I'm glad you asked that question!
I posted this on page 3. Nobody even glanced at it. But it's what I'm talking about, so if you wanna remain ignorant don't expect me to.
Research on moral judgment has been dominated by rationalist models, in which moral judgment is
thought to be caused by moral reasoning. Four reasons are given for considering the hypothesis that moral
reasoning does not cause moral judgment; rather, moral reasoning is usually a post-hoc construction,
generated after a judgment has been reached. The social intuitionist model is presented as an alternative to
rationalist models. The model is a social model in that it de-emphasizes the private reasoning done by
individuals, emphasizing instead the importance of social and cultural influences. The model is an
intuitionist model in that it states that moral judgment is generally the result of quick, automatic evaluations
(intuitions). The model is more consistent than rationalist models with recent findings in social, cultural,
evolutionary, and biological psychology, as well as anthropology and primatology.
Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach
to moral judgment. Psychological Review. 108, 814-834
I had a quick view.
the basic idea is (and this is the models stance, not mine!) that people automatically and intuitively make a moral judgement, then construct justifications at a later date.
Was an interesting skim, will need to read it again later.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
The law is established by the government which is sometimes (but not always) a reflection of several of the proportionally-largest cultures present in the governed region. And I don't buy the claim that everyone agrees that murder is wrong, but the route you're taking with that would validate claims such as "everyone agrees that smoking pot is wrong, because it's illegal". Trying to define morality by the law is silly anyway as they're explicitly different things. Law is going to direct less of your actions than morality in most governments, and it does that because its purpose is to be a system of enforceable rules to maintain a functioning society in the face of at least as many different views of morality as there are citizens in the governed system in question.
So my critique is invalid because it doesn't include other critiques?
No, your claim is meaningless because you've failed to connect it to anything, and because it relies on multiple false-premises.
So saying that the argument that moral relativism is unsound because something is considered bad universally is not invalidated by the thing itself being relative?
What's considered bad universally now?
I don't care about that. I am talking about validity, which means that the truthfulness of the premise can suck a cock for all I care.
Morals are completely relativistic--animals have no conception of "morality" beyond what's biologically beneficial/detrimental. Most rational people have come to the conclusion that humans are not, in any literal sense, the children of God. The idea that morals are universal piggybacked on the arrogance of Western religion. It's a little funny to me that we hold on to these supposedly "universal morals" when, in all reality, all we have to do today is jump on the internet to know they're anything but.
That being said, I think one could make a strong argument that human "morals" have a good part of their foundation embedded in our communal nature and in group/out group dynamics. In order for a given society to work, regardless of size, there must be a certain amount of cohesion and understanding among its constituents. Those individuals who are found to act against the system (laws/norms) will either be rehabilitated or ostracized (prison, capital punishment, etc).
I could go on about this forever, but you get the gist.
Gravity and Punishment on
"I assure you, your distaste only reveals your ignorance."
Morals are completely relativistic--animals have no conception of "morality" beyond what's biologically beneficial/detrimental. Most rational people have come to the conclusion that humans are not, in any literal sense, the children of God. The idea that morals are universal piggybacked on the arrogance of Western religion. It's a little funny to me that we hold on to these supposedly "universal morals" when, in all reality, all we have to do today is jump on the internet to know they're anything but.
That being said, I think one could make a strong argument that human "morals" have a good part of their foundation embedded in our communal nature and in group/out group dynamics. In order for a given society to work, regardless of size, there must be a certain amount of cohesion and understanding among its constituents. Those individuals who are found to act against the system (laws/norms) will either be rehabilitated or ostracized (prison, capital punishment, etc).
I could go on about this forever, but you get the gist.
With a quick jump on the internet you could also see how close humanity is to each other morally. No one kills indiscriminately, no one steals willy nilly, no one eats babies regularly. These kinds of acts are always against the rules. Now, many cultures have many different rules about killing and stealing, but they all boil down to one important fact. You can't kill anyone you want, whenever you want, for whatever reason you feel like. You mentioned this phenomenon.
Is it not possible then that there is something essential to the fabric of the universe as far as morality is concerned? Something that exists outside of individuals, or cultures, or any of that stuff. Something that exists on the same level as gravity, thermodynamics, other complicated sciencey stuff that I don't know about; could there not be a thing that is part of "the rules" for the way everything works, in this case, humanity.
I don't pretend to have the answer, but that question is a very hard one to answer no to with any seriousness.
LoserForHireX on
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
With a quick jump on the internet you could also see how close humanity is to each other morally. No one kills indiscriminately, no one steals willy nilly, no one eats babies regularly. These kinds of acts are always against the rules. Now, many cultures have many different rules about killing and stealing, but they all boil down to one important fact. You can't kill anyone you want, whenever you want, for whatever reason you feel like. You mentioned this phenomenon.
Is it not possible then that there is something essential to the fabric of the universe as far as morality is concerned? Something that exists outside of individuals, or cultures, or any of that stuff. Something that exists on the same level as gravity, thermodynamics, other complicated sciencey stuff that I don't know about; could there not be a thing that is part of "the rules" for the way everything works, in this case, humanity.
I don't pretend to have the answer, but that question is a very hard one to answer no to with any seriousness.
I would think it more likely that these rules remain common because the actions you specified are counter to the very concept of society, which is to say the concept of any species living together for mutual benefit. All of the actions you stated, if performed with any degree of regularity, are detrimental to the survival of said society in the long run.
In short, I find it very easy to answer "no" to that question. It is of no benefit to belong to such a society, thus no one does.
Elitistb on
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
Morals are completely relativistic--animals have no conception of "morality" beyond what's biologically beneficial/detrimental. Most rational people have come to the conclusion that humans are not, in any literal sense, the children of God. The idea that morals are universal piggybacked on the arrogance of Western religion. It's a little funny to me that we hold on to these supposedly "universal morals" when, in all reality, all we have to do today is jump on the internet to know they're anything but.
That being said, I think one could make a strong argument that human "morals" have a good part of their foundation embedded in our communal nature and in group/out group dynamics. In order for a given society to work, regardless of size, there must be a certain amount of cohesion and understanding among its constituents. Those individuals who are found to act against the system (laws/norms) will either be rehabilitated or ostracized (prison, capital punishment, etc).
I could go on about this forever, but you get the gist.
With a quick jump on the internet you could also see how close humanity is to each other morally. No one kills indiscriminately, no one steals willy nilly, no one eats babies regularly. These kinds of acts are always against the rules. Now, many cultures have many different rules about killing and stealing, but they all boil down to one important fact. You can't kill anyone you want, whenever you want, for whatever reason you feel like. You mentioned this phenomenon.
Is it not possible then that there is something essential to the fabric of the universe as far as morality is concerned? Something that exists outside of individuals, or cultures, or any of that stuff. Something that exists on the same level as gravity, thermodynamics, other complicated sciencey stuff that I don't know about; could there not be a thing that is part of "the rules" for the way everything works, in this case, humanity.
I don't pretend to have the answer, but that question is a very hard one to answer no to with any seriousness.
No it's not. You can't test that. Ever.
Even if it does exist it's completely meaningless because there is no way to test if it does or not.
So who cares?
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
Is it not possible then that there is something essential to the fabric of the universe as far as morality is concerned? Something that exists outside of individuals, or cultures, or any of that stuff. Something that exists on the same level as gravity, thermodynamics, other complicated sciencey stuff that I don't know about; could there not be a thing that is part of "the rules" for the way everything works, in this case, humanity.
I don't pretend to have the answer, but that question is a very hard one to answer no to with any seriousness.
Ah, but you can commit any crime against people whenever you want for whatever reason you feel like. It happens all the time among humans. You just happen to have been born lucky enough not to be where it's going on right now in the world. Somalia, Myanmar, North Korea, Congo, etc. Conscripting children and forcing them to fight and die in wars, gang-raping women to death, child sex slavery, genocide, purposeful starvation, torture and public execution for using a cell phone, infanticide, etc. And this is just the actions of entire cultures; it doesn't even touch on the activities that individuals do by themselves. And that is also shit going on in this enlightened era; imagine how much worse it's been for most of human history.
150 Million women in the world right now have had their clits and labia sawed off by rocks because their backwater villages believe that female sexual pleasure is evil. And if you had been born there, you'd be believing that by doing this you're letting them into the gates of heaven and that this act is 100% purely good, moral, and benevolent. So, NO, I don't believe in a universal morality.
I still find morality such an odd concept to grasp. Not like ethics which continue to elude me. I try and live my a code that at its core consists of do not needlessly do harm to others. If given the choice between a small gain for me and another person, or a large gain for me and a loss for another person I choose a gain for everyone.
An interesting point was raised about infringement. When do I have the right to infringe upon anothers rights? As long as whatever they are doing does not harm me, why should i care. However there comes a point where a persons actions may not directly harm me, but still i should act.
For instance take rapists. I personally feel they should be executed for their crimes. To me I would consider it to be an amoral to allow one free to commit their crimes again. They have committed an infringement upon the rights of another to such a degree i feel that they lose the right to not have their rights infringed upon. In essence I feel people should be treated as they treat others, and if they cease to respect others then others have no obligation to respect them. Personally I prefer to give everyone enough rope to hang themselves with.
my personal view on morality is that it is determined by the person for each action he or others take and the difference between being a moral and an immoral person is making that calculation.
every time you do something where there is a moral choice, if you ask yourself "what is the best thing i can do considering who i know it will effect" you are making a moral choice. if you do what is the "best thing" with your given knowledge, then you are morally good despite the outcome of the choice. if you disregard the "best thing" and make a choice without incorporating that information into your decision, then you are morally bad. if you never make a moral choice, then you are amoral.
note that in my view, it doesnt matter the outcome of your choice or which choice you actually make.
The law is established by the government which is sometimes (but not always) a reflection of several of the proportionally-largest cultures present in the governed region. And I don't buy the claim that everyone agrees that murder is wrong, but the route you're taking with that would validate claims such as "everyone agrees that smoking pot is wrong, because it's illegal". Trying to define morality by the law is silly anyway as they're explicitly different things. Law is going to direct less of your actions than morality in most governments, and it does that because its purpose is to be a system of enforceable rules to maintain a functioning society in the face of at least as many different views of morality as there are citizens in the governed system in question.
So my critique is invalid because it doesn't include other critiques?
No, your claim is meaningless because you've failed to connect it to anything, and because it relies on multiple false-premises.
So saying that the argument that moral relativism is unsound because something is considered bad universally is not invalidated by the thing itself being relative?
What's considered bad universally now?
I don't care about that. I am talking about validity, which means that the truthfulness of the premise can suck a cock for all I care.
So then the deliberately-convolutedness is what you're after, you're picking "murder" instead of "killing people" so you can play a pedantry game about it and think you've proved something?
Morals are completely relativistic--animals have no conception of "morality" beyond what's biologically beneficial/detrimental. Most rational people have come to the conclusion that humans are not, in any literal sense, the children of God. The idea that morals are universal piggybacked on the arrogance of Western religion. It's a little funny to me that we hold on to these supposedly "universal morals" when, in all reality, all we have to do today is jump on the internet to know they're anything but.
That being said, I think one could make a strong argument that human "morals" have a good part of their foundation embedded in our communal nature and in group/out group dynamics. In order for a given society to work, regardless of size, there must be a certain amount of cohesion and understanding among its constituents. Those individuals who are found to act against the system (laws/norms) will either be rehabilitated or ostracized (prison, capital punishment, etc).
I could go on about this forever, but you get the gist.
With a quick jump on the internet you could also see how close humanity is to each other morally. No one kills indiscriminately, no one steals willy nilly, no one eats babies regularly. These kinds of acts are always against the rules. Now, many cultures have many different rules about killing and stealing, but they all boil down to one important fact. You can't kill anyone you want, whenever you want, for whatever reason you feel like. You mentioned this phenomenon.
Is it not possible then that there is something essential to the fabric of the universe as far as morality is concerned? Something that exists outside of individuals, or cultures, or any of that stuff. Something that exists on the same level as gravity, thermodynamics, other complicated sciencey stuff that I don't know about; could there not be a thing that is part of "the rules" for the way everything works, in this case, humanity.
I don't pretend to have the answer, but that question is a very hard one to answer no to with any seriousness.
In order for society to function, people have to be barred from just killing whoever they want whenever they want, and so every functioning society has that rule. That doesn't demonstrate any magical properties.
The law is established by the government which is sometimes (but not always) a reflection of several of the proportionally-largest cultures present in the governed region. And I don't buy the claim that everyone agrees that murder is wrong, but the route you're taking with that would validate claims such as "everyone agrees that smoking pot is wrong, because it's illegal". Trying to define morality by the law is silly anyway as they're explicitly different things. Law is going to direct less of your actions than morality in most governments, and it does that because its purpose is to be a system of enforceable rules to maintain a functioning society in the face of at least as many different views of morality as there are citizens in the governed system in question.
So my critique is invalid because it doesn't include other critiques?
No, your claim is meaningless because you've failed to connect it to anything, and because it relies on multiple false-premises.
So saying that the argument that moral relativism is unsound because something is considered bad universally is not invalidated by the thing itself being relative?
What's considered bad universally now?
I don't care about that. I am talking about validity, which means that the truthfulness of the premise can suck a cock for all I care.
So then the deliberately-convolutedness is what you're after, you're picking "murder" instead of "killing people" so you can play a pedantry game about it and think you've proved something?
I'm using it because someone tried to advance it earlier.
Doesn't it seem to you guys that there are certain common values of the human condition - the desire to survive, live in security, form social connections with other people, etc. - that essentially form a working stand-in for objectivism? They're not actually objective values, in the sense that they'd have no value if we didn't exist to value them. And not every person values those things, so the values are not universal. But they're so firmly established by the desires and practices of the overwhelming majority that they provide a workable foundation for all our moral structures anyway.
Moral relativism seems to be a term defined entirely by its detractors, and they define it as the position that no one culture can judge or condemn any other for any reason. But I don't see anyone here actually championing that position, and I certainly don't see it as the logical conclusion of the premise that there's no absolute standard for morality.
Doesn't it seem to you guys that there are certain common values of the human condition - the desire to survive, live in security, form social connections with other people, etc. - that essentially form a working stand-in for objectivism? They're not actually objective values, in the sense that they'd have no value if we didn't exist to value them. And not every person values those things, so the values are not universal. But they're so firmly established by the desires and practices of the overwhelming majority that they provide a workable foundation for all our moral structures anyway.
Moral relativism seems to be a term defined entirely by its detractors, and they define it as the position that no one culture can judge or condemn any other for any reason. But I don't see anyone here actually championing that position, and I certainly don't see it as the logical conclusion of the premise that there's no absolute standard for morality.
Universally common? No, none. Common in the sense that white, anglo-saxon protestants are common in Ohio? Sure, lots.
Darth: Dolphins are better at it. It has nothing to do with being human.
Thing is, humans eat eachother, rape eachother, torture eachother, lock eachother up in basements for DECADES, feed fecal matter to eachother, poison eachother, irradiate eachother, put eachother into microwaves, lynch each other, set eachother on fire, make suicide pacts with eachother, leave malformed children out in the woods to die of exposure, and then we make movies about it.
Darth: Dolphins are better at it. It has nothing to do with being human.
Thing is, humans eat eachother, rape eachother, torture eachother, lock eachother up in basements for DECADES, feed fecal matter to eachother, poison eachother, irradiate eachother, put eachother into microwaves, lynch each other, set eachother on fire, make suicide pacts with eachother, leave malformed children out in the woods to die of exposure, and then we make movies about it.
Dolphins only do like half of that.
So the human condition is being creepy fucks?
Sometimes. I'm comfortable admitting that we have the capacity to be a lot creepier than dolphins. There are a lot more of us, for one thing, so we shouldn't be surprised when a few of our number exhibit anomylous behavior. We're marginally more intelligent, our lives and social structures and problem-solving skills are more complicated, so it makes sense that we'd find more creative ways of being antisocial.
But notice that you, and I, are quick to recognize this behavior as fundamentally creepy. We understand instantly that it does not work, and that it should not be encouraged. How did we arrive at this understanding? Maybe the absolute force of morality, which exists objectively in the universe and permeates all reality, is whispering it in our ears. I can't prove that that's not happening. But it seems a lot more likely that people have simply been clever enough to recognize that raping each other and sticking one another in microwaves just can't be tolerated if we want to have a working society and live our lives in relative happiness. And they've used culture to pass that wisdom along to us.
Basically all I'm getting at is that morality is natively subjective, I'm not saying that that doesn't mean we can't believe our own moral codes are better than others. Apply a context or a goal (in this case, a functional society) and you can use that to compare the value of various systems of morality objectively as you've established an objective, so you can look at how well each one furthers that objective in comparison to the rest. Mine is clearly the best one, but mine is explicitly not for everyone. In fact mine should only be held by a small minority of people for it to have a positive impact. Agent-specific, situational morality is basically the way to go.
ViolentChemistry on
0
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
Morals are completely relativistic--animals have no conception of "morality" beyond what's biologically beneficial/detrimental. Most rational people have come to the conclusion that humans are not, in any literal sense, the children of God. The idea that morals are universal piggybacked on the arrogance of Western religion. It's a little funny to me that we hold on to these supposedly "universal morals" when, in all reality, all we have to do today is jump on the internet to know they're anything but.
That being said, I think one could make a strong argument that human "morals" have a good part of their foundation embedded in our communal nature and in group/out group dynamics. In order for a given society to work, regardless of size, there must be a certain amount of cohesion and understanding among its constituents. Those individuals who are found to act against the system (laws/norms) will either be rehabilitated or ostracized (prison, capital punishment, etc).
I could go on about this forever, but you get the gist.
Things animals have no concept of:
-morality
-gravity
-jazz saxaphone
-spaghetti
-nuclear fusion
-plate tectonics
-table manners
Basically all I'm getting at is that morality is natively subjective, I'm not saying that that doesn't mean we can't believe our own moral codes are better than others. Apply a context or a goal (in this case, a functional society) and you can use that to compare the value of various systems of morality objectively as you've established an objective, so you can look at how well each one furthers that objective in comparison to the rest. Mine is clearly the best one, but mine is explicitly not for everyone. In fact mine should only be held by a small minority of people for it to have a positive impact. Agent-specific, situational morality is basically the way to go.
i like to distinguish between moral values and morality to avoid any confusion.
your moral values are a subjective set of "goods and bads" determined by experience, education and social interraction. they are simply put prejudices against certain activities. mostly they are used to make value judgements.
morality on the other hand is a decision making process where you make a determination based on inputs that are not solely related to your goals and happiness.
everyone has moral values and some people go through the process of morality, other people have moral values and ignore the process. selfish people are immoral as they ignore other people's happiness as much as they can and selfless people are moral as they think more about other people than themselves. there are shades of grey to both positions though.
an amoral person would be someone who doesnt even consider someone elses feelings.... essentially a solipsist.
Assume we have some base quality that is accepted as inarguably Good or Bad.
It is for another discussion, but the ones generally used are that suffering is bad; satisfaction and joy are good. Those are the most basic good and bad that are possible, and all good and all bad come back to those in some fashion, over some timeframe.
If you do believe that, then beyond that there is no relativism in morality any moreso than there is realtivism in human reason. You may think killing your infertile wife is morally acceptable, but we can reason that you are wrong, that your practice of wife-killing creates more suffering than does my system of criminalizing such a thing. There are a number of ways we can go about this reasoning, and we are not omniscient and hence we don't necessarily have the one true correct answer to any situation. Somewhere in the future or on another planet there may be someone who can out-reason me and show that my system of laws is less moral than whatever he's got going on. But this is why I say that morality is no more relative than is our capacity to reason.
So long as we can agree on some assumed qualities that are inherently good or bad (such as joy or suffering), then the idea that morals are all just a cultural thing is completely false.
Is it not possible then that there is something essential to the fabric of the universe as far as morality is concerned? Something that exists outside of individuals, or cultures, or any of that stuff. Something that exists on the same level as gravity, thermodynamics, other complicated sciencey stuff that I don't know about; could there not be a thing that is part of "the rules" for the way everything works, in this case, humanity.
I don't pretend to have the answer, but that question is a very hard one to answer no to with any seriousness.
No it's not. You can't test that. Ever.
Even if it does exist it's completely meaningless because there is no way to test if it does or not.
So who cares?
We probably can't test for it, which makes it bad science. Could be true, though.
Regardless, what we can test is that among current non-outlier societies, there are a core set of axioms that may as well represent an absolute morality. There are, at the least, a core set of axioms that allow us to form a moral framework for any given society.
Murder is wrong pretty much everywhere. The definition of murder varies, but the idea of a wrongful killing is universal amongst human societies. There is no modern society that doesn't have a concept of a wrongful killing. So we can call that an absolute moral, even if the details of that wrongful killing vary widely from place to place.
I think we could also generalize some things like "Doing something bad to someone for no purpose other than to do something bad to them is wrong" is pretty universal. Probably some other things.
Point being, if we have something that's universal to modern human societies, that's as absolute as it needs to be, even if it might not apply to the hypothetical silicon beings of Betelgeuse-12.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Basically all I'm getting at is that morality is natively subjective, I'm not saying that that doesn't mean we can't believe our own moral codes are better than others. Apply a context or a goal (in this case, a functional society) and you can use that to compare the value of various systems of morality objectively as you've established an objective, so you can look at how well each one furthers that objective in comparison to the rest. Mine is clearly the best one, but mine is explicitly not for everyone. In fact mine should only be held by a small minority of people for it to have a positive impact. Agent-specific, situational morality is basically the way to go.
It seems to me the debate in these threads is really between absolutism and moral pluralism, as opposed to moral relativism which is really just a slur used by Christians against atheists or whatever. The problem of how to construct a society and which behaviors to encourage and condemn is a problem thrust on us by nature; we have certain needs which must be met, along with certain tendencies which may or may not be helpful. That's a problem, but it's not a puzzle - it was not formed with a solution in mind, a single answer which will work perfectly. It can, then, have many solutions which will be about as correct, in that they will meet the needs of society about as well even if they contradict one another in certain ways. But this does not mean that all solutions are equally correct.
Basically all I'm getting at is that morality is natively subjective, I'm not saying that that doesn't mean we can't believe our own moral codes are better than others. Apply a context or a goal (in this case, a functional society) and you can use that to compare the value of various systems of morality objectively as you've established an objective, so you can look at how well each one furthers that objective in comparison to the rest. Mine is clearly the best one, but mine is explicitly not for everyone. In fact mine should only be held by a small minority of people for it to have a positive impact. Agent-specific, situational morality is basically the way to go.
It seems to me the debate in these threads is really between absolutism and moral pluralism, as opposed to moral relativism which is really just a slur used by Christians against atheists or whatever. The problem of how to construct a society and which behaviors to encourage and condemn is a problem thrust on us by nature; we have certain needs which must be met, along with certain tendencies which may or may not be helpful. That's a problem, but it's not a puzzle - it was not formed with a solution in mind, a single answer which will work perfectly. It can, then, have many solutions which will be about as correct, in that they will meet the needs of society about as well even if they contradict one another in certain ways. But this does not mean that all solutions are equally correct.
Right, all of this jives with my analysis so I guess we're on the same page.
To all of those who think there's some underlying moral fabric in the Universe:
You're anthropomorphizing existence. With a Western tint.
"God," in any literal sense, has no place in discussions of the real world. In fact, many of us could argue the point that believing in God above science is, today, detrimental to the progress of our society, and therefore an immoral act.
Arguing the existence of God is, to me, thousands upon thousands of times more arrogant than saying that "He/She/It" probably doesn't exist. There's absolutely no reason for any of us to believe in some divine intelligence given what we know about the Universe right now. We're on earth, we have shit in front of us to deal with, and we should be talking about it realistically. Maybe later on we'll see Jesus come back, or the Four Horsemen, or even (insert favorite religious possibility here), but even if that were remotely possible, it's not happening right now. You know what is happening right now? Real stuff.
I'm more inclined to believe that Earth is some kind of perverted ET petri dish experiment than I am to live my life like some Old Angry Jewish Man's watching my every move.
Gravity and Punishment on
"I assure you, your distaste only reveals your ignorance."
To all of those who think there's some underlying moral fabric in the Universe:
You're anthropomorphizing existence. With a Western tint.
"God," in any literal sense, has no place in discussions of the real world. In fact, many of us could argue the point that believing in God above science is, today, detrimental to the progress of our society, and therefore an immoral act.
Arguing the existence of God is, to me, thousands upon thousands of times more arrogant than saying that "He/She/It" probably doesn't exist. There's absolutely no reason for any of us to believe in some divine intelligence given what we know about the Universe right now. We're on earth, we have shit in front of us to deal with, and we should be talking about it realistically. Maybe later on we'll see Jesus come back, or the Four Horsemen, or even (insert favorite religious possibility here), but even if that were remotely possible, it's not happening right now. You know what is happening right now? Real stuff.
I'm more inclined to believe that Earth is some kind of perverted ET petri dish experiment than I am to live my life like some Old Angry Jewish Man's watching my every move.
if you want to talk about religion, i suggest you go start a(nother) religion thread. the mere fact that you are argueing that people who believe in god are immoral tells me how little you actually know and have spent a little too much time cursing those "ignorant redneck christians".
morality has nothing to do with your belief in god, there are 'evil' atheists just like there are 'evil' christians.
Dunadan019 on
0
Options
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
edited November 2008
Oh ye gods I agree with Yar.
There is a moral law of the universe, and we can reason our way towards it by studying the natural effects of our actions. It's not some law decided by Yahweh that is permanent and unvarying by circumstance (killing is good sometimes) and that says that you can't have butt sex, it's just the simple fact that actions have consequences. The universe doesn't care what you do, it just hands you your rape-corn after you sow the seeds.
Is it not possible then that there is something essential to the fabric of the universe as far as morality is concerned? Something that exists outside of individuals, or cultures, or any of that stuff. Something that exists on the same level as gravity, thermodynamics, other complicated sciencey stuff that I don't know about; could there not be a thing that is part of "the rules" for the way everything works, in this case, humanity.
I don't pretend to have the answer, but that question is a very hard one to answer no to with any seriousness.
No it's not. You can't test that. Ever.
Even if it does exist it's completely meaningless because there is no way to test if it does or not.
So who cares?
We probably can't test for it, which makes it bad science. Could be true, though.
Regardless, what we can test is that among current non-outlier societies, there are a core set of axioms that may as well represent an absolute morality. There are, at the least, a core set of axioms that allow us to form a moral framework for any given society.
Murder is wrong pretty much everywhere. The definition of murder varies, but the idea of a wrongful killing is universal amongst human societies. There is no modern society that doesn't have a concept of a wrongful killing. So we can call that an absolute moral, even if the details of that wrongful killing vary widely from place to place.
I think we could also generalize some things like "Doing something bad to someone for no purpose other than to do something bad to them is wrong" is pretty universal. Probably some other things.
Point being, if we have something that's universal to modern human societies, that's as absolute as it needs to be, even if it might not apply to the hypothetical silicon beings of Betelgeuse-12.
If a killing is murder, it has to be considered wrongful, which means you just said that everybody agrees that wrongful killings are wrong, or, in other words, immoral things are immoral. Thank you for defining synonyms for us.
Also, many societies allow the causal of suffering of others for personal benefit to be acceptable. Look at modern capitalism. The question is how much you value the continuation of the familial line.
I would also point out the case study of the man who lost the ability to feel emotion and therefor was unable to make decisions, as he couldn't value anything.
Also, dolphins are evil bastards who have been documented torturing and killing other dolphins and porpoises for the hell of it, and the military is currently finishing the development of a transmitter than essentially sticks large groups of people in a microwave.
Posts
That doesn't make the point you were trying to make, let alone making it clearer. Your favorite foods are not going to make racism "wrong", I'm not sure why you think they are.
The law is established by the government which is sometimes (but not always) a reflection of several of the proportionally-largest cultures present in the governed region. And I don't buy the claim that everyone agrees that murder is wrong, but the route you're taking with that would validate claims such as "everyone agrees that smoking pot is wrong, because it's illegal". Trying to define morality by the law is silly anyway as they're explicitly different things. Law is going to direct less of your actions than morality in most governments, and it does that because its purpose is to be a system of enforceable rules to maintain a functioning society in the face of at least as many different views of morality as there are citizens in the governed system in question.
So my critique is invalid because it doesn't include other critiques?
No, your claim is meaningless because you've failed to connect it to anything, and because it relies on multiple false-premises.
Don't label me with silly shit just because you don't understand an observational viewpoint.
I'm not saying I don't have morals, or at least impulses that would constitute morals.
I'm saying I wont discuss them, in the same way I wouldn't discuss anti-gravity devices. Not enough information exists for me to form an opinion I am happy with.
If this makes you a sad panda you'll just have to tough it out. One of the beautiful things about an emperical science is the confidence to say "I don't know" and not get into an angsty snit over it.
So saying that the argument that moral relativism is unsound because something is considered bad universally is not invalidated by the thing itself being relative?
What's considered bad universally now?
Then why did you post an opinion in the first place?
Not enough emperical, pyschological information on how people make moral decisions or how people develop them.
I'm not a fan of the essentialist viewpoint.
Why I'm glad you asked that question!
I posted this on page 3. Nobody even glanced at it. But it's what I'm talking about, so if you wanna remain ignorant don't expect me to.
I don't care about that. I am talking about validity, which means that the truthfulness of the premise can suck a cock for all I care.
Nihilism is not an ethical guideline.
It's just an observation about reality so that you can get past all the make-believe crap leftover from superstitious times.
It's like saying E=MC^2 isn't practical.
That being said, I think one could make a strong argument that human "morals" have a good part of their foundation embedded in our communal nature and in group/out group dynamics. In order for a given society to work, regardless of size, there must be a certain amount of cohesion and understanding among its constituents. Those individuals who are found to act against the system (laws/norms) will either be rehabilitated or ostracized (prison, capital punishment, etc).
I could go on about this forever, but you get the gist.
With a quick jump on the internet you could also see how close humanity is to each other morally. No one kills indiscriminately, no one steals willy nilly, no one eats babies regularly. These kinds of acts are always against the rules. Now, many cultures have many different rules about killing and stealing, but they all boil down to one important fact. You can't kill anyone you want, whenever you want, for whatever reason you feel like. You mentioned this phenomenon.
Is it not possible then that there is something essential to the fabric of the universe as far as morality is concerned? Something that exists outside of individuals, or cultures, or any of that stuff. Something that exists on the same level as gravity, thermodynamics, other complicated sciencey stuff that I don't know about; could there not be a thing that is part of "the rules" for the way everything works, in this case, humanity.
I don't pretend to have the answer, but that question is a very hard one to answer no to with any seriousness.
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
I would think it more likely that these rules remain common because the actions you specified are counter to the very concept of society, which is to say the concept of any species living together for mutual benefit. All of the actions you stated, if performed with any degree of regularity, are detrimental to the survival of said society in the long run.
In short, I find it very easy to answer "no" to that question. It is of no benefit to belong to such a society, thus no one does.
No it's not. You can't test that. Ever.
Even if it does exist it's completely meaningless because there is no way to test if it does or not.
So who cares?
Ah, but you can commit any crime against people whenever you want for whatever reason you feel like. It happens all the time among humans. You just happen to have been born lucky enough not to be where it's going on right now in the world. Somalia, Myanmar, North Korea, Congo, etc. Conscripting children and forcing them to fight and die in wars, gang-raping women to death, child sex slavery, genocide, purposeful starvation, torture and public execution for using a cell phone, infanticide, etc. And this is just the actions of entire cultures; it doesn't even touch on the activities that individuals do by themselves. And that is also shit going on in this enlightened era; imagine how much worse it's been for most of human history.
150 Million women in the world right now have had their clits and labia sawed off by rocks because their backwater villages believe that female sexual pleasure is evil. And if you had been born there, you'd be believing that by doing this you're letting them into the gates of heaven and that this act is 100% purely good, moral, and benevolent. So, NO, I don't believe in a universal morality.
An interesting point was raised about infringement. When do I have the right to infringe upon anothers rights? As long as whatever they are doing does not harm me, why should i care. However there comes a point where a persons actions may not directly harm me, but still i should act.
For instance take rapists. I personally feel they should be executed for their crimes. To me I would consider it to be an amoral to allow one free to commit their crimes again. They have committed an infringement upon the rights of another to such a degree i feel that they lose the right to not have their rights infringed upon. In essence I feel people should be treated as they treat others, and if they cease to respect others then others have no obligation to respect them. Personally I prefer to give everyone enough rope to hang themselves with.
every time you do something where there is a moral choice, if you ask yourself "what is the best thing i can do considering who i know it will effect" you are making a moral choice. if you do what is the "best thing" with your given knowledge, then you are morally good despite the outcome of the choice. if you disregard the "best thing" and make a choice without incorporating that information into your decision, then you are morally bad. if you never make a moral choice, then you are amoral.
note that in my view, it doesnt matter the outcome of your choice or which choice you actually make.
So then the deliberately-convolutedness is what you're after, you're picking "murder" instead of "killing people" so you can play a pedantry game about it and think you've proved something?
In order for society to function, people have to be barred from just killing whoever they want whenever they want, and so every functioning society has that rule. That doesn't demonstrate any magical properties.
I'm using it because someone tried to advance it earlier.
Moral relativism seems to be a term defined entirely by its detractors, and they define it as the position that no one culture can judge or condemn any other for any reason. But I don't see anyone here actually championing that position, and I certainly don't see it as the logical conclusion of the premise that there's no absolute standard for morality.
Universally common? No, none. Common in the sense that white, anglo-saxon protestants are common in Ohio? Sure, lots.
But the second paragraph is a good point.
Thing is, humans eat eachother, rape eachother, torture eachother, lock eachother up in basements for DECADES, feed fecal matter to eachother, poison eachother, irradiate eachother, put eachother into microwaves, lynch each other, set eachother on fire, make suicide pacts with eachother, leave malformed children out in the woods to die of exposure, and then we make movies about it.
Dolphins only do like half of that.
So the human condition is being creepy fucks?
There are plenty of people who subscribe to nihilism as an ethical guideline. That being said, yeah i'm aware and I was making a joke
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Sir,_Nihilism_Is_Not_Practical
Sometimes. I'm comfortable admitting that we have the capacity to be a lot creepier than dolphins. There are a lot more of us, for one thing, so we shouldn't be surprised when a few of our number exhibit anomylous behavior. We're marginally more intelligent, our lives and social structures and problem-solving skills are more complicated, so it makes sense that we'd find more creative ways of being antisocial.
But notice that you, and I, are quick to recognize this behavior as fundamentally creepy. We understand instantly that it does not work, and that it should not be encouraged. How did we arrive at this understanding? Maybe the absolute force of morality, which exists objectively in the universe and permeates all reality, is whispering it in our ears. I can't prove that that's not happening. But it seems a lot more likely that people have simply been clever enough to recognize that raping each other and sticking one another in microwaves just can't be tolerated if we want to have a working society and live our lives in relative happiness. And they've used culture to pass that wisdom along to us.
Things animals have no concept of:
-morality
-gravity
-jazz saxaphone
-spaghetti
-nuclear fusion
-plate tectonics
-table manners
i like to distinguish between moral values and morality to avoid any confusion.
your moral values are a subjective set of "goods and bads" determined by experience, education and social interraction. they are simply put prejudices against certain activities. mostly they are used to make value judgements.
morality on the other hand is a decision making process where you make a determination based on inputs that are not solely related to your goals and happiness.
everyone has moral values and some people go through the process of morality, other people have moral values and ignore the process. selfish people are immoral as they ignore other people's happiness as much as they can and selfless people are moral as they think more about other people than themselves. there are shades of grey to both positions though.
an amoral person would be someone who doesnt even consider someone elses feelings.... essentially a solipsist.
It is for another discussion, but the ones generally used are that suffering is bad; satisfaction and joy are good. Those are the most basic good and bad that are possible, and all good and all bad come back to those in some fashion, over some timeframe.
If you do believe that, then beyond that there is no relativism in morality any moreso than there is realtivism in human reason. You may think killing your infertile wife is morally acceptable, but we can reason that you are wrong, that your practice of wife-killing creates more suffering than does my system of criminalizing such a thing. There are a number of ways we can go about this reasoning, and we are not omniscient and hence we don't necessarily have the one true correct answer to any situation. Somewhere in the future or on another planet there may be someone who can out-reason me and show that my system of laws is less moral than whatever he's got going on. But this is why I say that morality is no more relative than is our capacity to reason.
So long as we can agree on some assumed qualities that are inherently good or bad (such as joy or suffering), then the idea that morals are all just a cultural thing is completely false.
We probably can't test for it, which makes it bad science. Could be true, though.
Regardless, what we can test is that among current non-outlier societies, there are a core set of axioms that may as well represent an absolute morality. There are, at the least, a core set of axioms that allow us to form a moral framework for any given society.
Murder is wrong pretty much everywhere. The definition of murder varies, but the idea of a wrongful killing is universal amongst human societies. There is no modern society that doesn't have a concept of a wrongful killing. So we can call that an absolute moral, even if the details of that wrongful killing vary widely from place to place.
I think we could also generalize some things like "Doing something bad to someone for no purpose other than to do something bad to them is wrong" is pretty universal. Probably some other things.
Point being, if we have something that's universal to modern human societies, that's as absolute as it needs to be, even if it might not apply to the hypothetical silicon beings of Betelgeuse-12.
It seems to me the debate in these threads is really between absolutism and moral pluralism, as opposed to moral relativism which is really just a slur used by Christians against atheists or whatever. The problem of how to construct a society and which behaviors to encourage and condemn is a problem thrust on us by nature; we have certain needs which must be met, along with certain tendencies which may or may not be helpful. That's a problem, but it's not a puzzle - it was not formed with a solution in mind, a single answer which will work perfectly. It can, then, have many solutions which will be about as correct, in that they will meet the needs of society about as well even if they contradict one another in certain ways. But this does not mean that all solutions are equally correct.
Right, all of this jives with my analysis so I guess we're on the same page.
You're anthropomorphizing existence. With a Western tint.
"God," in any literal sense, has no place in discussions of the real world. In fact, many of us could argue the point that believing in God above science is, today, detrimental to the progress of our society, and therefore an immoral act.
Arguing the existence of God is, to me, thousands upon thousands of times more arrogant than saying that "He/She/It" probably doesn't exist. There's absolutely no reason for any of us to believe in some divine intelligence given what we know about the Universe right now. We're on earth, we have shit in front of us to deal with, and we should be talking about it realistically. Maybe later on we'll see Jesus come back, or the Four Horsemen, or even (insert favorite religious possibility here), but even if that were remotely possible, it's not happening right now. You know what is happening right now? Real stuff.
I'm more inclined to believe that Earth is some kind of perverted ET petri dish experiment than I am to live my life like some Old Angry Jewish Man's watching my every move.
if you want to talk about religion, i suggest you go start a(nother) religion thread. the mere fact that you are argueing that people who believe in god are immoral tells me how little you actually know and have spent a little too much time cursing those "ignorant redneck christians".
morality has nothing to do with your belief in god, there are 'evil' atheists just like there are 'evil' christians.
There is a moral law of the universe, and we can reason our way towards it by studying the natural effects of our actions. It's not some law decided by Yahweh that is permanent and unvarying by circumstance (killing is good sometimes) and that says that you can't have butt sex, it's just the simple fact that actions have consequences. The universe doesn't care what you do, it just hands you your rape-corn after you sow the seeds.
If a killing is murder, it has to be considered wrongful, which means you just said that everybody agrees that wrongful killings are wrong, or, in other words, immoral things are immoral. Thank you for defining synonyms for us.
Also, many societies allow the causal of suffering of others for personal benefit to be acceptable. Look at modern capitalism. The question is how much you value the continuation of the familial line.
I would also point out the case study of the man who lost the ability to feel emotion and therefor was unable to make decisions, as he couldn't value anything.
Also, dolphins are evil bastards who have been documented torturing and killing other dolphins and porpoises for the hell of it, and the military is currently finishing the development of a transmitter than essentially sticks large groups of people in a microwave.