Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Conventionalism is Dead - Society does NOT determine what is moral.
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 76 of 113 (386131)
02-19-2007 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by kuresu
02-19-2007 7:25 PM


kuresu writes:
somehow this doesn't seem quite right. we have a tendency to backslide, especially when you have extreme conservatism/nationalism and a culture/society that does not look favorably (either disliking or indifferent) on education.
But of course we have a tendency to backslide! That is the nature of a dualist philosophy...human versus divine, good versus evil, whatever. We are sipposed to keep reminding ourselves not to backslide, and you know how it goes, landslide effect.
If we can slide back on technology, science, treatment of minorities, treatment of women, erode civil liberties, what makes you think that slavery won't happen again
I don't know if it will happen again. I know that it will never again be ok even if does happen. I know that even if the last anti-slavery advocate passed away, it would still not be ok. It is an uphill battle, sliding back down a tunnel doesn't give us an excuse to forget about the light, and even if we DID forget about it, that doesn't mean it is not there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by kuresu, posted 02-19-2007 7:25 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by kuresu, posted 02-19-2007 8:38 PM anastasia has replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 77 of 113 (386133)
02-19-2007 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by anastasia
02-19-2007 8:26 PM


it will never again be ok even if does happen
by your moral code. your's. not the future's, not the past's. because these codes change, it may once again become "ok". your code will always condemn it. but your code will not always be.
that's the point. what is moral changes--and what once was moral, now isn't, might be again.

"Have the Courage to Know!" --Immanuel Kant
" . . .and some nights I just pray to the god of sex and drugs and rock'n'roll"--meatloaf
Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by anastasia, posted 02-19-2007 8:26 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by anastasia, posted 02-19-2007 10:09 PM kuresu has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 78 of 113 (386134)
02-19-2007 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by anastasia
02-18-2007 5:09 PM


quote:
My main problem is that codes change; what was once bad is now good. What was once good was now bad. But that is soooo weird to me. On a surface level it appears true.
Of course it's true.
Your morality is relative, as is the morality of every person who has ever had a morality.
There is no, and never has been, an objective morality. It's all subjective, and always has been.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by anastasia, posted 02-18-2007 5:09 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by anastasia, posted 02-19-2007 9:59 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 79 of 113 (386137)
02-19-2007 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by anastasia
02-19-2007 11:29 AM


Re: Morality: limited by code
Is it ever OK for one person to call another person a "nigger"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by anastasia, posted 02-19-2007 11:29 AM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by anastasia, posted 02-19-2007 10:00 PM nator has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 80 of 113 (386154)
02-19-2007 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by nator
02-19-2007 8:39 PM


nator writes:
There is no, and never has been, an objective morality. It's all subjective, and always has been.
Morality is objective. Morals are of course subject in how close they come to absolute morality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by nator, posted 02-19-2007 8:39 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by nator, posted 02-19-2007 10:13 PM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 81 of 113 (386155)
02-19-2007 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by nator
02-19-2007 8:42 PM


Re: Morality: limited by code
nator writes:
Is it ever OK for one person to call another person a "nigger"?
I am really not sure what the purpose of this question is, or how it contributes to the topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by nator, posted 02-19-2007 8:42 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by nator, posted 02-19-2007 10:14 PM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 82 of 113 (386158)
02-19-2007 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by kuresu
02-19-2007 8:38 PM


kuresu writes:
that's the point. what is moral changes--and what once was moral, now isn't, might be again.
My point, is that we just don't know this. For example, there could be a god, or even just a natural hard-wired moral code that has nothing to do with god. If it turns out that some actions are 'really' wrong, and some are 'really' good, it would be accurate to say that slavery was always wrong, is now, and always will be. We just didn't KNOW it.
Funny, tho. There is some saying; God was, is, and ever shall be...and an opposite saying about Satan's rule, that what once was, now is not, and again will be. This is not exact, and not something I want to dwell on, but it has something to do with the confusion and temporary state of the world compared to the natural order of God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by kuresu, posted 02-19-2007 8:38 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by nator, posted 02-19-2007 10:16 PM anastasia has not replied
 Message 86 by kuresu, posted 02-19-2007 10:19 PM anastasia has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 83 of 113 (386159)
02-19-2007 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by anastasia
02-19-2007 9:59 PM


quote:
Morality is objective.
Says who?
Can you give an example of an "objective morality"?
quote:
Morals are of course subject in how close they come to absolute morality.
When you give us an example of an "objective moral", then we will be able to tell how close we are to it, right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by anastasia, posted 02-19-2007 9:59 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by anastasia, posted 02-19-2007 11:17 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 84 of 113 (386160)
02-19-2007 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by anastasia
02-19-2007 10:00 PM


Re: Morality: limited by code
It relates.
It has to do with if something that was considered moral, then later immoral, could ever return to moral again.
So, is it OK for a person to call another person a "nigger"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by anastasia, posted 02-19-2007 10:00 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by anastasia, posted 02-19-2007 11:27 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 85 of 113 (386161)
02-19-2007 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by anastasia
02-19-2007 10:09 PM


quote:
For example, there could be a god, or even just a natural hard-wired moral code that has nothing to do with god. If it turns out that some actions are 'really' wrong, and some are 'really' good, it would be accurate to say that slavery was always wrong, is now, and always will be. We just didn't KNOW it.
An unknowable objective morality is the same as a nonexistant objective morality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by anastasia, posted 02-19-2007 10:09 PM anastasia has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 86 of 113 (386162)
02-19-2007 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by anastasia
02-19-2007 10:09 PM


My point, is that we just don't know this. For example, there could be a god, or even just a natural hard-wired moral code that has nothing to do with god. If it turns out that some actions are 'really' wrong, and some are 'really' good, it would be accurate to say that slavery was always wrong, is now, and always will be. We just didn't KNOW it.
this is really irrelavent though. what we do know is that what we view as moral changes through history. that's what's important.
I'm not holding out for an "absolute morality" to be found anytime soon--we've been searching for over 4,000 years. so far, we all have a different morality.

"Have the Courage to Know!" --Immanuel Kant
" . . .and some nights I just pray to the god of sex and drugs and rock'n'roll"--meatloaf
Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by anastasia, posted 02-19-2007 10:09 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by anastasia, posted 02-19-2007 11:14 PM kuresu has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 87 of 113 (386168)
02-19-2007 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by kuresu
02-19-2007 10:19 PM


kuresu writes:
this is really irrelavent though. what we do know is that what we view as moral changes through history. that's what's important.
I'm not holding out for an "absolute morality" to be found anytime soon--we've been searching for over 4,000 years. so far, we all have a different morality.
Yeah, I know. I think that there is an absolute morality, which is just my belief, kind of Platonic in nature, and loosely substantiated by the progress we seem to be making towards equality of others, etc.
I think we now 'know' that doing good to others is moral. We quibble about why, when, how, and who...but you know the drill. If in the year 3054 we start thinking that being evil to others is moral, I still insist it wouldn't be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by kuresu, posted 02-19-2007 10:19 PM kuresu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Jaderis, posted 02-20-2007 12:57 AM anastasia has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 88 of 113 (386169)
02-19-2007 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by nator
02-19-2007 10:13 PM


nator writes:
Can you give an example of an "objective morality"?
Sure, my objective for instance is serving God.
Can I tell how well I've done? Only in relation to what I know now, and how hard I have worked to get better.
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by nator, posted 02-19-2007 10:13 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by RickJB, posted 02-20-2007 4:02 AM anastasia has not replied
 Message 94 by nator, posted 02-20-2007 3:34 PM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 89 of 113 (386170)
02-19-2007 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by nator
02-19-2007 10:14 PM


Re: Morality: limited by code
nator writes:
It relates.
But there is no point. What the heck is the point in bringing the 'n' word into a conversation where I have clearly said that I don't think certain things were ever moral or ever will be?
Fine, tho, if you want an answer; if some group of Asians colonizes a corner of New York and suddenly takes a notion that they like the word, it will be very moral to call them that. Does that mean that morality changes? No! As long as some poeple don't like the word, it will be wrong to call them that, because the moral is to treat others well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by nator, posted 02-19-2007 10:14 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by nator, posted 02-20-2007 3:31 PM anastasia has replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3425 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 90 of 113 (386176)
02-20-2007 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by anastasia
02-19-2007 11:14 PM


I think we now 'know' that doing good to others is moral. We quibble about why, when, how, and who...but you know the drill. If in the year 3054 we start thinking that being evil to others is moral, I still insist it wouldn't be.
Forget 3054...we still have yet to definitively define "evil" and some people still have difficulty defining "others."
The subjectiveness of morality is shown with the necessity of these definitions.
There may one day be an "absolute" morality meaning all the world agrees on the semantics (the why, when, how, who), but it will still be a subjective, not an objective, morality as it will have been the collective world society (meaning people) that established the moral structure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by anastasia, posted 02-19-2007 11:14 PM anastasia has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024