Emotions and Consciousness Seperate from the Brain ??

It's not a matter of what I feel or what I believe. The issue is whether in fact there is a moral absolute. If there is, we could decide the difference between me and the Islamic conservative lickety-split.In the absence of that, we can't decide anything. Yes, I can criticize but I have no reason to other than the "feeling in my heart"--which presumably is culture-specific and therefore meaningless outside of my culture.

Hey Holmes, thanks for the reply:You said:

quote:

---

This is not true at all. Absolute (meaning external and objective) moral rules are not necessary as a basis to truly condemn anything, nor for one to be appalled.

---

So you are saying society sets up the standard and we could feasably be "appalled" that one or several members do not choose to live their lives by this particular societies manufactured set of rules. I think, at the least, you make "appalled" a relative term as well. There could not be an absolute appalling incident so much as "I am appalled because I buy into the moral construct I live in". The person living next to you could just as easily be appalled that you buy into such an immoral society.

quote:

---

There would not be a debate in the first place if people all felt in there hearts that there were moral absolutes, and more importantly that these absolutes were absolute.Really, if they are absolute, then why must we quest for them? How did we lose them?

---

Putting together a cohesive worldview it would seem to me would entail a quest for morality. I think we, (Americans in this case) began to lose sight of Ultimate Moral Guidlines early in this century when naturalistic philosophy began to ooze out of academia and permeate society at large. This really should be another thread, don't you agree?

quote:

---

Once we understand that morals are not absolute we may then address how we can best live within a moral diversity, which is a much more practical pursuit.

​

Moral relativism does not require us to abandon or berate ethics as meaningless. What it says is that they are individually derived and so will differ, it does not make them less important. I consider them quite important.

---

You are obviously young enough to believe this has a prayer of working in the real world. Consider my scenarios in two previous posts in which future societies could quite easily be led to some truly appalling outcomes with moral relativism in place.DennisThis message has been edited by dshortt, 12-29-2004 19:19 AM

Very good. That's one that I would agree with. But it is also found in every single religion as well as in Naturalistic based ones.No flaw found.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Really? I would like to see that. What exactly are you going to use to decide which of your moral positions is the moral absolute one?Remember you said that if there is a moral absolute, this can be done lickety split. Since it is your contention that there is a moral absolute this should be easy.Of course I am assuming that by "difference" you mean that one is right and one is wrong. If you are meaning just that they are different, any subjective or relative moral philosophy can do the same thing. And what is the difference between that and how you will determined what moral absolutes exist?Of course I actually listed more ways to criticize another ethic and for the second time you have avoided mentioning them, in order to reassert your premise that there are no other ways. This is strike two for you. Either honestly refute the other methods of criticism I mentioned, or stop replying to my posts.I don't think you would appreciate it if I kept half answering your arguments, leaving out key portions in order to reassert my premise. Indeed, deep in my heart I feel that is wrong. I wonder if intellectual honesty is a moral absolute?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I didn't say society creates anything. I think society itself is a construct, though it has ways of maintaining its general norms through socialization. Of course they are not always effective which is why subcultures exist.Here's the deal... I am more than just a relativist, I am a moral subjectivist. Indeed, if you want to get down to facts I don't even believe in right and wrong as you know it which is only one way of thinking of morality.But let's make this easy. Lets say morality is a set of rules of right and wrong.In the end, individuals acquire a set of rules for themselves based on experience (some of which are the effects of socialization within cultures), and introspection. As much as the rules reflect societal norms the actors will help reinforce those norms while interacting with others. As far as those rules defy societal norms, the actors will try and change the opinions of those around them and change thus societal norms.It is an ebb and flow carried out locally, regionally, and globally.Being horrified or appalled is something separate from morality. While morality may help push one's emotional buttons, this is not necessarily so. One can think something is right and yet be sickened. One can think something is wrong and yet find it quite seductive. This is the most profound and terrible mistake that this generation is making. It is not just the religious conservatives making it either. For some reason, actual moral diversity has become a hated thing. Actual tolerance has become a hated thing. It is creating the very wars we are in now, both military and civil.A cohesive worldview can be an understanding that many different moralities do coexist and so should find ways to smooth frictions, rather than stamping one "right" morality one everyone. It is not only more practical, it allows for greater flexibility for the human race.Indeed I do not find your "worldview" cohesive at all. It is divisive, until there is only the victor and the conquered... the right and the wrong.I am curious. You used loaded langauge to describe naturalist understanding of how the world works. Did something happen from this that is objectively "bad"?Also, how will you determine what the one uniform everyone must wear will look like? I don't know but I am willing to move to a new thread. I suspect I am older than you think.The fact is that there have been plenty of examples of morally diverse societies living together peacefully for long periods of time. The greatest conflicts have not emerged from societies recognizing diversity, but rather from individual groups damning diversity and demanding a singular worldview stamped on everybody else.Other than your statement people cannot live together with diverse moralities (ironically disputing the rationale of our founding fathers), what examples do you have that it can't work?Or do you simply have faith in the utopian vision that once everyone looks and acts alike, there will be no reason for conflict? Please restate them. If you want to, use them as a beginning example in a new thread. Before you do, I think you should look at them yourself and ask if they could not equally happen, in fact will more likely occur, in a quest for moral absolutes.I think at least one of your examples is highly ironic. It has moral relativists acting to maintain relativism by killing absolutists, which of course is exactly what the moral absolutists would actually do, rather that relativists.Again, relativism and subjectivism does not mean that morals have no value nor function in the world. It merely defines what is the source of moral knowledge for people in the world.Let me use an analogy. We can state that each person's blood supply is pumped by a heart and circulatory system. While each may be similar, no two are really the same. Just because each person has a different heart, does not mean hearts are devalued.For some reason, which has no basis in logic, you feel everyone must collectively use one giant heart, or hearts have no value nor basis for evaluation.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

The problem Jar, is that in a purely naturalistic philosophy, no Ultimate Truth or Ultimate Reality statements can even be made. I have argued this point in another thread (if you are part of the discussion over there, forgive me for not remembering) in that, truth itself is a shifting sand or evolving landscape, if you will, under a purely naturalistic philosophy. Therefore there is no Ultimate Truth which is sought or can be known, and an Ultimate Truth statement becomes self-defeating. So my statement "Love your neighbor as you love yourself", taken as an Ultimate Morality or Ultimate truth statement, cannot even exist in a purely naturalistic philosophy.Dennis

As regards consistency, is there any particular reason why they ought to be consistent? How are we to decide between these rules?:
1. Thou shalt be consistent within thy own moral system.
2. Thou shalt not commit gender apartheid.Any reason why we should select one over the other?Next alternative:
"Imam, your rules are not absolute."
Imam: "Neither are yours. Ours are just as good."These "alternatives" are arbitrary. Sorry. It seemed to me obvious that any alternatives beg the question.However, having said all this, I will still continue to judge the gender apartheid of Islamic conservatives. In practice, we feel and act AS THOUGH there were an absolute, and that we know what it is.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 12-30-2004 07:40 AMThis message has been edited by robinrohan, 12-30-2004 12:38 AM

Hello Holmes, Thanks for the reply in which you say:

quote:

---

In the end, individuals acquire a set of rules for themselves based on experience (some of which are the effects of socialization within cultures), and introspection. As much as the rules reflect societal norms the actors will help reinforce those norms while interacting with others. As far as those rules defy societal norms, the actors will try and change the opinions of those around them and change thus societal norms.

​

It is an ebb and flow carried out locally, regionally, and globally.

---

Yes, I agree that is a pretty good description of how morality is shaped and has become what it is today. The problem for me is that at some point (at least in America) the Ultimate Moral Guidlines have gotten sidelined or even thrown out altogether in favor of this more pragmatic approach. This "off the rails" approach is what could (very possibly in my mind) lead us to my scenarios. As long as the UMG's were in place, those scenarios, in spite of what you believe, are impossible. Jar ask me to put forth an UMG, and I chose "Love your neighbor as you love yourself". With a UMG like that, how could my scenarios ever happen?The other problem with a purely naturalistic approach to morality is there is no provision for evil. The terrorists of 911 were at a minimum evildoers, if not flat out evil men. Dealing with evil is a whole lot different than dealing with a people who just don't happen to share some of your moral derivatives (morality of the pragmatic sort derived from the UMGs).Also:

quote:

---

For some reason, actual moral diversity has become a hated thing. Actual tolerance has become a hated thing. It is creating the very wars we are in now, both military and civil. A cohesive worldview can be an understanding that many different moralities do coexist and so should find ways to smooth frictions, rather than stamping one "right" morality one everyone. It is not only more practical, it allows for greater flexibility for the human race.

​

Indeed I do not find your "worldview" cohesive at all. It is divisive, until there is only the victor and the conquered... the right and the wrong.

---

Actually I think hate is the wrong word. Feared would be better. Moral diversity under a naturalistic philosophy will lead to a totalitarian regime imposing it's morality by force. There is no logical alternative. A people trying to live together that don't recognize, at least, some set of UMG's will continue to have conflicts that are not solvable at the local or even regional level ultimately. Somebody will have to come in with some big guns to stop the madness, especially when and if our economy begins to be, shall we say less robust. And please make the distinction, because I think there is a vast difference between right and wrong and evil and good. So I would see no problem with the hope and prayer that evil be ultimately defeated. I, and I hope you as well, want to see Osama Bin Laden and his ilk defeated and wiped from the face of the earth. I have no such wish for, nor is there any room in my worldview for, people who just don't happen to share my worldview. It is a completely different set of circumstances for, say, you and I to disagree on whether or not there is a Creator, how society should run itself (as long as we agree on some basics like don't kill each other), etc, and myself or even you trying to live side by side with a Muslim who wants you and I dead.

quote:

---

I think at least one of your examples is highly ironic. It has moral relativists acting to maintain relativism by killing absolutists, which of course is exactly what the moral absolutists would actually do, rather that relativists.

---

As I have stated above, you are just dead wrong here. I think it results from a lack of understanding of what my worldview instructs. Consider this: Mother Teresa is the Ultimate Example of a Christian, Osama Bin Laden is the Ultimate Muslim, and Madeline Murray O'Hara or Woody Allen are the Ultimate Atheists. (I am quite sure a major firestorm awaits me as a result of this statement).And lastly:

quote:

---

...what is the source of moral knowledge for people in the world.

---

For you and other relativists this source is yourself or some group of people, which leads to the Infinite Sez Who. "You shouldn't kill", oh yeah, sez who, "You shouldn't challenge my authority to tell you not to kill", oh yeah, sez who, etc, etc.Thanks for the dialogue,DennisThis message has been edited by dshortt, 12-30-2004 08:28 AMThis message has been edited by dshortt, 12-30-2004 08:29 AM

Substitute the word, Spirit for the word Heart.
There is but one Spirit, in absolutist belief. Individual spirits, if in tune, are really part of the one. If not, relativistic values pale next to the Origin(al).

My own situation on whether or not there is an objective morality might be summed up as follows:My heart says yes, my mind says no.In other words, if I have some strong moral feelings about something, I don't FEEL that my sense of justice or injustice is merely a cultural product or subjective product.However, the evidence suggests that it is.So obviously that is a problem.I was wondering if others felt that way.

Your story is clearly not about a pink elephant named Elsie, but about the meme of a pink elephant named Elsie. The meme exists, the pink elephant does not. (If you don't know what a meme is, google 'memes' to find out.)

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Perhaps, perhaps not. However... This is a non-sequitur.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

I looked it up. It figures that your guru Dawkins is involved in defining it. He is such a freethinker that he resists the very idea of God having any influence upon his mind, as evidenced by your signature quote. By rejecting that "one God further", he establishes that his own skeptical inquiring mind will always occupy the throne in his head. Well bully for him, then. If emotions and "religious experiences are seperate from the brain," a true skeptic will always need proof that their rationality can verify. If by nature humans do not wish to surrender control of their decisions about allegences and beliefs in their mind and soul, we must conclude that our nature is not in our best interests....if we entertain belief in God.This message has been edited by Phatboy, 12-30-2004 15:17 AM

Yes, its called consistency. That's what allows sets of rules to make sense. It is possible for someone to follow a set of rules which are inconsistent, or inconsistently follow their rules, but it doesn't make for a very coherent position. I honestly have no clue what the above was trying to get at. If you feel that they are inconsistently applying rules in order to create what you call "gender apartheid" then you can bring this to their attention. Or if such a practice is consistent with the moral rules they subscribe to, then you will have to appeal to other reasons for them not to use those rules, more than likely emotional appeals.I am curious how you believe absolute morals would change this... you get to say what I feel is right and you are wrong (objectively)? Yes. There are plenty of reasons. But they will depend on your initial tastes and experiences. In other words they will be personal reasons. For example you may hate to see violence against women in any form. Thus such restrictions may violate this taboo and so you agree that women should not be forced to live separate lives from men (with fewer freedoms).Now, how does an absolute morality allow us to select one over the other? You have yet to explain how you know the islamic conservative morality is not that absolute morality. "Imam, your rules are not the absolute ones."
Imam: "Neither are yours. Ours are just as likely to be the absolute ones as yours."You are projecting that is all.I don't see why you have the relativist saying what you have him saying. What was the point of that comment?While it is true that there are no objective standards to say I am right and you are wrong, there are always practical and personal reasons one may use to criticize another's moral system. There certainly is no problem in admitting, another person's system just doesn't work for you.Or is there a problem? You have yet to address my points. Where did you examine appealing to the consistency of a person's beliefs? Where did you examine appealing to a person to change based on practical or emotional criteria?There is no begging the question, they were a direct rebuttal of your position that without absolute morality one is incapable of criticizing moral systems. Yes, we feel very strongly about our personal moral systems, so much that they feel absolute. Now open your eyes and look around. Despite how much you feel your personal rules are correct, there are people who do not hold those beliefs, and may hold diametrically opposed beliefs with as much conviction as you.That is why moral absolutism is a fiction and subjectivism is reality.But let's say you are right for just a second... why have you still not shown how we know that Islamic conservative morals are not the moral absolutes? Because you don't feel they are?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

No, my description is how it has always been. Please describe what evidence you have of an ultimate moral guideline within America at any time in this nation's history. Ad hominem and blank assertions. This will not get you far. Pick a specific scenario and explain exactly why the above rule eliminates its possibility. Also explain why everyone has that rule (since it is an absolute). And are there no other rules? My guess is as you begin listing rules you will find some that allow the scenario to occur and create a conflict with the first stated rule.One cannot live by love thy neighbor alone. Indeed if everyone is going to start dying due to overcrowding, one might say that killing others is an inherent result of loving others. What on earth is evil? Why were they evil? As far as I understand they believed they were doing absolute good and there are many people that feel that way. Indeed there are many people that feel our invasion of Iraq was evil and commited by wholly evil people.As far as I can tell you are all pointing at each other and calling each other names. Please prove me wrong.From my position the terrorists involved in 9-11 were religious zealots, throwing their lives away on mistaken principles, and in the process causing immense damage and death, with nothing to show for it except creating a large spectacle.Why do I need to call them evil? Blank assertion is not impressive. Please explain why totalitarianism is the inherent result of moral diversity. As far as I can tell this is the pot calling the ivory black. It appears you have not read anything by the people that founded the United States of America. The only thing necessary is an agreed method of dealing with conflicts. At most this will be based on some shared practical civic values, not moral absolutes. That's interesting. In my life as an atheist I have had more threats from Xians than muslims for my beliefs and life practices. In fact I have had many Islamic friends with no problems.Militant Islamic fundamentalism is a problem. So is militant jewish, Xian, and any other religious/philosophical fundamentalism. In the US you are more likely to be killed by a Xian fundamentalist.Moral absolutism is behind all of this. Despite your claims to the contrary you say we must find a singular UMG's for everyone and that will require wiping out opposition. Given that evangelicals dislike Catholics, and have supported Bush and Co's most outlandish policies, I am unsure how Theresa becomes the ultimate example of a Xian.Why on earth is Bin Laden the ultimate Muslim? Given that the vast numbers of Muslims are his sworn enemy, this is absurd on its face.As an atheist I can say I don't have anything against O'Hara or Allen, but neither are they "ultimate". What makes you feel they are ultimate examples? What criteria are you using?And most importantly, how does any of this prove anything regarding how relativists would react in your scenarios as compared to absolutists? How many atheists kill on the word of God? Hmmmmmmm. So you tell a religious zealot "you shouldn't kill". Oh yeah, sex who? You? "You shouldn't challenge my authority to tell you not to kill", oh yeah sez who etc etc... and in the end there is a moral absolute which comes from God and he says kill you.Bang, you and your theory are dead.I have yet to see a moral absolutist stop a bullet with words, despite claims to the contrary. However I have seen plenty of absolutists firing bullets in order to make their morality the UMG, because they say if they don't create a totalitarian dictatorship founded on their morality, society will become a totalitarian dictatorship based on moral diversity.Please explain how you know Islamic militants do not have the moral absolute?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)