A morality discussion (Neutralmind, Crashfrog, and Chiroptera only)

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. So, does it exclude the possibility that morality is also absolute? Okay, so that answers my question above. Good and bad can exist even outside the rules of a society. Just leaves me asking, how? 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". It's that I want to do them but feel that I shouldn't. 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. (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. 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. 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. Yes, that's true to an extent. I'd never go as far as hurting anyone. Could be. But then again... If there's an absolute right and wrong I would be doing something immoral. Is that dodging the question? I don't know. 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? Yeah well, that's the question. Sounds stupid, maybe is 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? 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. I wouldn't. This is getting too absurd to answer. 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 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 Hmm... Never occured to me. That would be a bigger problem yeah. 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.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added the "(Neutralmind, Crashfrog, and Chiroptera only)" part to the topic title.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.Hope I didn't promote this before you were ready. AdminnemooseusEdited by Adminnemooseus, : No reason given.

You edited out the important part of the analogy, which makes me think you didn't understand it.The part you excerpted was where I said:

quote:

---

But what if you have a peanut allergy? Then it would be very, very bad for you to eat peanuts, even if they're good for everybody else. Where's the "objective" morality of eating peanuts? Good or bad? Do we say that peanuts are objectively good, and force the guy with the allergy to eat them, or do we say that they're objectively bad, and prevent anyone from eating them?

---

Do you see how that makes all the difference? For people with peanut allergies, feeding them peanuts could rise to the level of murder. For people with no such allergy, feeding them peanuts (say, on an airplane) is a courtesy.That's what morals are like. In the same way that it's impossible to develop a coherent "morality of peanuts" that doesn't have a hundred-page codicil of exceptions, and exceptions to the exceptions, etc.; it's impossible to develop a coherent, universal, absolute morality. It just can't be done! Which is why we observe that all morality is, in practice, flexible and relative. No, of course you couldn't. New, unknown situations are always happening. At the end of your thousand years you might have listed every possible situation that had every happened at the time that you started, but now there's a thousand years of new situations that you're behind on.You could never, ever list every situation. Which means that we're always going to be developing our morality "on the fly", as it's necessary, as those new situations arise. No, it's actually begging the question. If you think there's an absolute right and wrong, then why would you believe in a relative morality? And if you believe in a relative morality, what would possibly lead you to think there was an absolute morality?You're all twisted up in circles about this, and I don't understand what the big deal is. It seems like you're worried that there's an objective absolute reality inherent in the universe that you simply can't perceive. But how could such a thing be worth worrying about? If the morality is "invisible", then what power does the universe have to hold you to it? Or punish you for infractions? (None whatsoever.)If you don't believe in a judgmental God, sitting there waiting to pass sentence on you for breaking laws you didn't even know existed, then what the hell are you so worried about? After all these posts, I still don't understand. Look, they're not. The clouds aren't going to part after you read my posts. Light from Heaven isn't going to shroud you when you fully understand my words. You don't need enlightenment; you just need to stop twisting yourself up in word games and figure out what your mental block is. If you're having obsessive thoughts, or you feel like you're under compulsions, or you have an unshakable sense that you're being "judged" or watched at all times, then maybe you should seek professional counseling about that, because those are all signs of mental disorders.

... I thought you said somewhere before (in the before thread) that a relative morality doesn't mean that right and wrong don't exist. So, can right and wrong exist in the view of relative morality? I disagree. Even if something doesn't have consequences to you doesn't mean it's immoral.
I'll borrow an analogy I remember from another morality thread in this board.If you'd get rich by just pushing a button, but some poor chap on the other side of the world would die because of that, would you push the button? If you were absolutely sure that it beared you no consequences for pushing the button, except you getting rich, would you push it?
Or, if you don't care about getting rich, switch it to being anything you desire. You're always such a joy crash Edited by Neutralmind, : No reason given.

Of course. They just depend.Go back to the peanut example. An absolute morality would say that feeding peanuts to people was either wrong or right. But the relavtive morality recognizes that whether its right or wrong depends a lot on whether or not the person is allergic to peanuts. Ok, look. Is this just going to be a "debate" where I make statements and you respond with complete non sequiters? Because if so I'm going to bow out right now. If there's no guarantee that you're actually going to respond to what I'm saying then I don't see the point.No, I didn't say that "if it doesn't have consequences to you it's not immoral." I have no idea where you got that. That has nothing to do with what we're talking about. The situations you seem to be concerned about have no discernable negative consequences to any persons at all. You're worried about them running contrary to some objective moral code - that you don't know about - even though they have no other consequence.It's still not clear why you're twisted up about this. You're inventing a morality you don't even believe in so that you have something to be afraid of. How the hell does that make any sense? There's no dilemma here except the one you're twisting yourself into.

But how can we know what's good and what's not? Isn't it all personal? Someone might think differently and say it's good to give him/her one peanut if he really likes them as it won't kill him/her yet.
I guess that's the deal with absolute morality too, you can't know if what you're doing is actually good or bad. Or can you? Don't get so hasty, this is how I read your statement.Going to quote you again So, how I read that statement is that you're saying because there is no force to hold me onto my actions it means I shouldn't worry about morality, just do as I see fit?Then, how is it bad for me to push the button and get rich if the universe doesn't hold me to it? It has no consequences to me.

It doesn't seem "all personal" to your buddy with the peanut allergy. The harm that would come to him if you served him peanuts against his will is pretty objective and real to him. Don't you think? Wait, what? How do you get from that to: It has consequences for that guy, though. Obviously.I'm not following your thought process, I guess. It really seems like you're having a lot of trouble with simple statements in plain English, which is why I wondered if we're going to debate or just lob non-sequiters at each other.

Okay, we came off with the wrong foot. Let me try take another stab at this.Assuming morality is relative, how could good and bad ever exist?PS. I'd also like to point out that this is not supposed to be a debate in the formal sense of the word. I'm not holding a counter position to yours, I'm just trying to understand.

How can they not exist? Even under relative morality, we all recognize that there are consequences that we would prefer, and ones we would not prefer, and when we don't agree exactly, we develop means to come to some kind of compromise that pleases the most people.Presumably, you don't want me to hit you in the foot with a hammer. Does there really need to be some absolute, unchanging, eternal universal law for you to not want me to do that?Isn't the fact that it's going to hurt a lot sufficient for you to prefer an alternate outcome?

But then, when morality is relative. What keeps me from doing something "immoral"? Why would I want to be moral anyway?
Of course there are obvious circumstances where being moral has benefits, but say I meet a very rich, total stranger in the middle of nowhere. Why would I not just take his money and leave him to die?

Okay, I think we have different ideas about "absolute" or "objective" morality. To me, it means that some actions on certain circumstances are ultimately either good or bad.

Wow! I've been invited to a Great Debate! Cool. Thanks, Neut, I'm honored. Sorry it's taken me so long to respond. Now it looks like you and crash are into a conversation; if you want to focus on him you can ignore this post.It's been a bit since we've discussed this topic, so let me sort of hit the reset button and see where it goes from there.First, I'm just going to say that "absolute morality" and "objective morality" both basically mean the same thing, namely the opposite of "subjective morality". And "subjective morality" simply means that what is morally right and what is morally wrong depend on the culture, or maybe even on the individual.So I am going to say that "morality" is subjective for precisely the same reason that "triangle" is a three-sided polygon, namely because that is the way it is defined. "Morality" simply means that some things are "right" and some things are "wrong". Things are "right" or "wrong" depending on how people feel about them. Something is "immoral" precisely because a large number of people who are not directly affected by it find it revolting or unpleasant. How else would one define "morality"?I think that the problem here is that you are confusing "morality" with the idea of some sort of "karmic law". The principle of "karma" (note the quotes -- I'm not necessarily speaking of the principle in Buddhism and Hinduism) is that actions have consequences, and that this is the result of some law of nature, sort of like the laws of physics.Now if I let go of a ball, it will fall to the ground do to the nature of the universe. There is nothing morally right or wrong with letting go of the ball, it is simply a statement of fact that if I let go of the ball, there are some definite consequences that will result from it.In the same way, to take your example, it may very well be (for the sake of argument) that the nature of the universe is such that if you engage in a one-night-stand then you will eventually suffer some sort of punishment for it. That is, your actions will have consequences. This is not to say that a one-night-stand is right or wrong -- this would simply be the expression of the possible fact that if you engage in one then you will, someday, somewhere, find the consequences unpleasant.The reason that these two ideas get conflated is that Christianity has traditionally conflated them. One the one hand, God the Judge will punish those who act against his commands. On the other hand, Christians are generally revolted (or feel that one should be revolted) when someone acts against his commands, thereby conflating their conception of morality with their conception of "karma". And of course those societies that had sense of karma also often conflated karma with their notions of right and wrong.So, just to be clear on things, morality is not necessarily the same as some law that says that certain actions result in unpleasant consequences.Also, the existence of a deity does not change the fact that morality is, by definition, subjective.Also, the existence of a deity is independent of karmic law. After all, a deity may not herself particularly care enough to punish people who go against karmic law. Or, karmic law may exist, like physical law, even though there is no deity.And, to bring up your original statement on this topic, all of this is independent of whether the theory of evolution is true of false.

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

The same thing that keeps you from doing something immoral under absolute morality - nothing but your own volition.Even the people who assert absolute morality don't claim that the universe stops you from doing bad things. I mean, it's pretty hard to escape the conclusion that people are free to do bad things if they want to, except for how the rest of us react (with laws and stuff.) Self-interest. We know from game theory (a branch of mathematics) that egalitarian, moral behavior is advantageous in most situations.And honestly? In most situations where it's against self-interest to be moral, people act immorally. They steal pens from work. They take a penny from the tray but never put one in. People don't always follow their self-interest, and there are situations where society conditions us to act against self-interest for the good of all. Some say that's even in our genetics. You tell me. Why wouldn't you? Maybe because you hope that others wouldn't do that to you? It's called "empathy." It's just the ability to imagine yourself in another person's situation. I don't want to get stolen from - so I help society develop and enforce rules against stealing, even though they mean that I can't steal things for myself.

Glad to have you. I've always had particular interest on your posts in other discussions as well. I can see this now. Thanks for a few good examples.I knew it was always due to my bad logic but these two posts have really cleared things up. I think I understand now that I always thought I believed in absolute morality when in fact I believed in relative morality.
It sounds stupid but this relative morality thing had really kept bugging me, mostly because I had a faulty picture of it.There's still one thing though I have no idea where this fails Edited by Neutralmind, : No reason given.

Huh. It seems pretty obvious to me that the argument is not valid. Let me type a different argument using the same form; maybe it will be more clear why it is invalid.If there are elves who hate coffee, then they will give coffee drinkers wedgies. If there are elves who hate coffee and I drink coffee, then they will give me a wedgie. Therefore, there are elves who hate coffee.This argument has exactly the same form as the previous one. If this one is fallacious, then so is the previous one.That is why I was asking whether you really were making the previous argument. Because that argument is clearly invalid. The conclusion does not automatically follow from the premises (and we haven't even really determined whether the premises are even true).

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine