Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A morality discussion
Neutralmind
Member (Idle past 6123 days)
Posts: 183
From: Finland
Joined: 06-08-2006


Message 1 of 2 (396725)
04-21-2007 9:05 PM


This will be a great debate with me, crashfrog and Chiroptera (assuming he accepts)
I'd like to start from about nil, meaning that we assume we didn't yet arrive to many conclusion in the thread A personal morality but start fresh on here.
I'll go back and quote some of your replies I feel are important from the above link. I didn't include reference to the posts in any way because it would cause a lot of work, if it is against the forum guidelines or you want to know in which post you said what I quoted I can go back and find it.
All my replies and questions are intended for both so comment on everything you want.
Crashfrog
Moral relativism is simply the recognition that morality depends on the situation
So, does it exclude the possibility that morality is also absolute?
Don't get hung up on "good" and "bad." Moral relativism doesn't mean that good and bad don't exist. It means that determining which actions are good and which are bad depends on the situation, and it's not something that you can make universal rules about.
Okay, so that answers my question above. Good and bad can exist even outside the rules of a society. Just leaves me asking, how?
Crashfrog
You do what you feel is right. Almost everybody does what they feel is right. I don't see why that's something you would refuse to believe in.
But sometime's people do stuff that they think is only good or fun, not right. I would think taking drugs is "fun" but it's not "right".
Crashfrog
I honestly don't see what you're confused about. Recognizing relative morality isn't going to make you do things you don't want to do
It's that I want to do them but feel that I shouldn't.
Crashfrog
No. It just means you're wrong about what "good" and "bad" mean.
Look at it this way. Is it bad to eat peanuts? I don't think most people would say so, in fact, they might point to the numerous nutrients and health benefits of peanuts to suggest that peanuts are good to eat. -----
Or don't we conclude that the morality of peanut-eating depends greatly on who's to do the eating? That it's relative, in other words?
---------
If you were punished for not dotting your i's and crossing your t's, even though you thought you were doing what was right to the best of your knowledge, then is that objective moral code a code of Good or a code of Evil?
The latter, I should think. And how could following a morally evil code be something that you would want to do?
Seriously though, I think this is only a baiting tactic to get me to say "But eating peanuts/ dotting i's is neutral when it comes to morality" to which you reply " Oh, so morality can also be neutral, so much for objective morality".
If those are sincere analogies and a questions I apologise.
Neutralmind
But if stealing in certain situations is ultimately good and sometimes bad that would mean that there actually is an objective morality. Just a harder one to define.
Stealing is only good in these situations blablabla , killing is only good in these situations blablabla.
Crashfrog
But you could never list every single situation where stealing was OK; you could never identify a set of shared characteristics that encompassed every single situation where it was moral to steal. So clearly we're still not dealing with "objective morality" that's universally true for all people in all situations. We're still at the point where, ultimately, it comes down to your individual conscience.
(emphasis mine)
You could list every single situation where stealing was OK hypothetically. You could not write them down in a lifetime but in a thousand years or more, sure. Not grass root specifically but in general.
Crashfrog
Nonetheless you've confused moral relativism with nihilism. They're not the same thing.
I don't think I've confused them. I don't think there's any "meaning" to life anyway, just that it matters to me that I'm alive and what I do with it.
Neutralmind
That if I was to break these responsibilities or went outside my given freedoms I would have violated my "birth rights" and wouldn't no longer be considered worthy of living.
Crashfrog
You were born. It happens. Get over it. You are the one that has to live your life. If you feel you have responsibilities, you're the one that has to meet them.
My mysticism doesn't straight concern the topic. So let's leave it aside if possible, though it might be necessary to bring it into discussion later on.
Crashfrog
You're worried that, if you embrace a certain philosophical position on the nature of morality, you'll take actions that, currently, you consider immoral.
Yes, that's true to an extent. I'd never go as far as hurting anyone.
Neutralmind talking about one night stands
But that's just one thing, I think there's something I'd want to do but won't because I think it's wrong in my view of morality.
Crashfrog
But you don't know what it is? It sounds like you're worried about nothing.
Could be. But then again...
Crashfrog
If you knew that morality was subjective, how would what you were doing be immoral?
If there's an absolute right and wrong I would be doing something immoral. Is that dodging the question? I don't know.
Chiroptera
Now Neutralmind is claiming that if there is no objective standard for morality, he would do things that he would not want to do. As crashfrog points out, this makes no sense. What would he do things that he doesn't want to do depending on whether there is or is not an objective standard?
Pfft, whether you want it or not we're going to have to play a little semantics games (I don't like them either) before I can answer that. Is absolute morality the same as objective morality?
Chiroptera
Again, this makes no sense. Neutralmind is asking whether he should continue "believing" in something that he knows is not true, just to avoid doing stuff he doesn't want to do.
Yeah well, that's the question. Sounds stupid, maybe is
Chiroptera
But how does an objective standard help you? You still have to try and figure out just what it is, and so you end up "making it up" as you go along anyway. So you're still in the same boat.
I guess so. The difference is that... Well, I'll figure it out.
Just as a side note, why do I keep confusing relative morality with no morality?
Chiroptera
If there are objective standards of morality, then there will be consequences for not obeying them.”If there are objective standards and I disobey them, then I will suffer consequences.”Therefore, there might be objective standards of morality.
If this is what you are saying, then I hope that you see where it fails.
That is what I'm saying. Only to make clearer, that the consequences I would suffer would come back as me being a lesser human in terms of life (guess we'll have to deal with my mysticism as I said). Not like any disciplinary acts.
If you're saying that I'm presuming morality may be objective and that's where it fails it's just creating a loophole in my mind going like a broken record " If I disobeyed the...". Actually, it's the same thing you said.
So to answer the question. No, I have no idea where my logic fails me on that.
Chiroptera
As you have already asked yourself, how would you know whether this would be against some alleged "absolute moral code" to begin with?
I wouldn't. This is getting too absurd to answer.
Chiroptera
If morality is subjective and you wouldn't be any worse of a human for behaving in some manner, then what is the problem with behaving in that manner?
Again, I feel this is a bait. Just to get me to say " 'Cause I feel that way", to which you reply " How do you know what you feel is the same as the absolute moral code?", and I'm left to say " I have no idea". Hey, looks like I don't need you guys after all
Chiroptera
Now this is getting confusing.
I thought your problem in accepting that morality is subjective is that you would then behave immorally.
Your answer in this posts assumes that there is an objective morality. We already know what the problem would be if you behaved immorally while there were an objective morality. I thought your original question was that you were on the verge of accepting that morality is not objective, and you were distressed about the implications if morality was subjective.
Yeah, but I'm shifting my goal posts as need be. Makes it a lot more fun right?
If I seem to contradict my opening post or my initial problem it may be just hasty thinking on my part, if so, just point it out. I might not always realise it
Chiroptera
By the way, I think that I am going to reask a question that I asked before.
Namely, you seem worried that if morality were subjective you would stop listening to you inner conscience and behave in a way that you would feel is immoral.
But what about the implications of an absolute standard of morality? Why aren't you worried about the conflicts between your inner conscience and this absolute standard, that you might have to choose between behaving in a way that is absolutely immoral or behaving in a way that you feel is immoral?
Hmm... Never occured to me. That would be a bigger problem yeah.
Chiroptera
If you truly are worried about violating your inner conscience, I would think that you would be relieved if morality were subjective.
I'm not sure about my take on that yet. It's confusing
I hope some great enlightening answers are on their way.
Edited by Neutralmind, : No reason given.

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 2 of 2 (396732)
04-21-2007 9:12 PM


Thread copied to the A morality discussion thread in the The Great Debate forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024