Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A critique of moral relativism
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4492 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 23 of 219 (411173)
07-19-2007 8:07 AM


The problem as i see it is that there are no absolutes , unless you pick up some as part of a religion , our you get universal agreement .
This lack of absolutes means anything is up for discussion , and given the human skill at bending and twisting rules .. well you can get away with murder . ****
Moral code it is just a personal score card you invent or adopt ,
you want to be a morally good american use this set of rules , to be british use this varient , for french see this set , for iranian use this code , for chinese use this one ...
if you want to join the golf club follow this moral code .
its just away to see if you fit in .. it might as well be a dress code ...
****which is a good case in point ... we cant even agree as to when its murder ...
a national leader sends armed men to shoot other people is it murder , war , counter terroisuum , self defence , " the only language such people understand " , a sad but nessary duty ...
and what of the soliders .. are they blindly following orders , are they following moral orders , are they just as bad as those they shoot , are they heroic defenders risking their own lives ,
and remember both side can use the same reasoning
we use "our" moral codes as a stick to beat other much more often that we use it to correct are own behaviour ...
Edited by ikabod, : tidy up

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-19-2007 7:00 PM ikabod has replied

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4492 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 52 of 219 (411333)
07-20-2007 5:50 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Hyroglyphx
07-19-2007 7:00 PM


The problem as i see it is that there are no absolutes
And yet you just posited an absolute in order to deny all absolutes.
The more one hammers away at the law of non-contradiction, the more it pulverizes them in the process.
err dont take a line out of context otherwise you may get confused ...read the whole , if fact i have not posited a absolute as i go on to say "unless ...." also how else can you deny the exsistance moral absolutes ?? i just used the normal way .. as if i was denying the exsistance of mating rituals of the lesser spoted pink unicorns .
Thus far, I have asked an incredibly simple question: Is murder right or wrong.
Can you answer that honestly without throwing a wrench in your own gears?
murder is neither right or wrong .. it is a act , it is a part of reality , its only when human opinion becomes invold does it gains a label ..
when a lion murders a zebra is it right or wrong.. is it moral ???
when a lion murders the offspring of the defeated pride leader is it right or wrong.. is it moral ???
when a lion murder a man is it right or wrong.. is it moral ..???
when a man murder a cow is it right or wrong.. is it moral ...???
when a human murders a human is it right or wrong .. is it moral ...???
the act is not wrong or right , it is only when murderer tries to justifie their act , and the rest of the socitey look apon and judge the the actions of the murderer that any label to its place in the moral or legal structure of that society occurs , and the labels that get applyed are not absolutes .... even within that society there may be differing opinons ....
further a murder could be right or wrong and yet still be moral or immoral ....because there are no absolutes .. only opinion
UNLESS you are a follower of a religion or a code, then you will have absolutes , these may be invented but as long as you hold to the code they are treated in all respect as absolutes ..
if you examine may of these religions and codes murder can be either right or wrong , moral or immoral depending on specified condistions
look at how murder cases are handled in courts .. there is a dead body , they show who killed it , THEN they look for motive , extenuating curcumstances , the reputaion and nature of the victim is held up for examination , it is never as simple as the actual act of firing the gun ... even with our eons of legal prcatice we still look at each murder case individually ....and then we rely on 12 people to ageree on the judgement
we accept this as for legal judgement ..would you take less for a moral one ? ?
The circumstances are what qualify or disqualify whether or not its murder. But "murder," is always wrong, always has been, always will be. There seems to be a problem with distinction.
BUT those circumstances are viewed differnetly by different poeples , cultures , socities , religions , et al ..thus there is no agreement on what murder is .. if you cant define it how can it be wrong , right , moral , immoral ?? you cannot commit a murder with out circumstances , its the judgement of those circumstances which define if the act is wrong or right moral or immoral ... and it we humans who make those judgements .. based on which set of rules we currently follow .
What is the meaning of justice without an absolute truth
very simple the meaning is justice in its truest sense .......
justice is not about truth , truth is merely a tool used to example something , justice is about ideals , that go far beyond truth , justice is a goal to be strived for , it is what need , truth just is ..
example .. you only have enough food for 10 people to stay alive the 3 weeks till rescue , but 11 are present ,
what is the just way to distribute the food ??
cos the truth is harry over there is a total waste of space , low intelligence , poor motor skills , no usfull knowleged , we could do with out him ..
justice is a human concept and consturct based on how we would like reality to opperate ..
truth is the steamroller that charges through reality reguardless of what we humans want ,need or hope for ...
re your Singapore situation .. neither you plead your case on the fact the judge is treating you differently .. he is making an example ..he may have the right to do this , and the truth is you spat , but it is not just that you should pay more for other peoples crimes , your crime should be judged for what it is , and the penalty imposed .... you ask for justice ..
There are not only easy answers, but impossible one's. What is the meaning of justice without an absolute truth? There is no right or wrong. There is no point of reference. You can't trust other people's judgments, much less, your own thoughts. You are a vessel tossed about in a sea of disorder.
You desperately wanted life to be capricious so that you could deal with the cold, hard realities of the world. And so you see yourself as water-- fluid, undulating-- never staying in the same spot, never able to identify itself with it surroundings. You are neither here nor there. You are indistinguishable in the same way you view life.
You are a body of water inside an ocean of water, climbing a staircase of water, into a sky made of water.
And at some point you ask, "Is this what life is? Is this all that it is? Do my own feelings betray me? Oh, I am utterly lost because I'm anchored by nothing-- the very thing I wanted to believe about life.... That its nothing.
Unfortunately, this is the bleak reality that you believe exists, simply by default. Because without truth, there is nothing.
*****sorry for a big quote , but this needs dealing with as a whole *****..
gosh which deep dark hole dig you drag that from ...
no there is a anchor , a point of reference , a meaning , a prupose .. its called living and its what ever you make of it ..you can allow other to give you truths , anwsers , guidelines and codes , you can let given absolute dictate your path ...OR you can take responcability for your self , your actions , and your opinions .....look reality in the face and say wow what a neat place lets explore ....lets us think about things why they are the way there are , do i agree with that way , what are the other options , are they better or worst for me ,for those i know , for the whole of reality ?? challenge reality to meet your standards , aim beyond high , seek the impossible , then you may just reach something worth having ....
right and wrong , moral and immoral , good and bad are usefull tools to help us deal with aspects of reality ....
BUT avoid , flee from any absolute that stops you questioning , that stops you doubting , that tries to releave you from making judgments ... they will imprison you , cut you off from reality and all its varity and wonder

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-19-2007 7:00 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4492 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 99 of 219 (411920)
07-23-2007 7:02 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Rrhain
07-23-2007 5:40 AM


Re: Oh, Buddha...not again
There are no absolutists.
It doesn't matter what they believe. It only matters what they do.
sorry but i think you are wrong here , some people are able to do things , that because of their beliefs and the way in which they belive do not conflict with them being absolutists .. what you and i would clearly point to as exceptions , thus negating the absolutisum , they can belive that to do that is conforming .
They create a different reality to you and i , and as they are the percever they must be correct .. we become the uninformed , the unenlighted, the ones who just cant understand , the plain wrong .
Humans have a talent for viewing reality that forces reality to conform , pro life-er's can support the death penalty , people can burn books , while defending a constitution that upholds the right to free speach , people can complant about drug use while sitting in a bar drinking till they cant drive home... we are very skillfull at the art of beliving ..
In lots of cases we all have a cop out clause .... this does not really mean me ....
eg ... speed limit is 70mph .. ya well im a good driver thats just for the idiots ....
...its not stealing its a perk of the job
and so on , some people are able to scale this up to allow them to be absoluteist in their minds ..
remember we are all equal , cos they tell us we are

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Rrhain, posted 07-23-2007 5:40 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4492 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 128 of 219 (412212)
07-24-2007 6:50 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Rrhain
07-24-2007 5:31 AM


Reality check
If they don't actually hold to that standard, then they don't actually think there is an absolute moral standard.
incorrect , i can think / belive there is a absolute moral standard , i can then chosse to behave immorally .. its called free will ...
others can belive in a absolute moral code , and can "belive" that they never break it , even if they do ..
people can belive in a religious code , totally and absolutely , and yet can behave at variance to that code ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Rrhain, posted 07-24-2007 5:31 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Rrhain, posted 07-27-2007 3:02 AM ikabod has replied

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4492 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 151 of 219 (412514)
07-25-2007 6:59 AM


having read through the ongoing debate , it seems that part of the issue is that no one is willing or able to define any sort of moral code , relative or absolute to justifie any statement about murder , homosexuality , beastilaty , incest , celibacy, adualtury, coverting someones ox/BMW , taking drugs ,stealing.. et al
all of us carry so much historical moral junk with us , plus all the moden legal confusions ,that can any one point to a clear moral code , even from the vast varity of churchs and religions and great thinkers and leaders that pour out the "truth".
with out any starting point how can we ever hope to agree ....
we just end up in our own heads , or we allow our self to be lead by "intrested "parties ...
with no absolutes , or even a agreed set of incorrect absolute to reference against we are all trying to navigate with our own version of the moral map ....

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-08-2007 1:22 AM ikabod has replied

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4492 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 156 of 219 (412982)
07-27-2007 3:32 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by Rrhain
07-27-2007 3:02 AM


Re: Reality check
sorry but breaking a rule from a moral code does not mean the code is not absolute ..otherwise if you cant break the code there is no immorality ....
the rules of football are absolute , but the players break them all the time .....
thieves still belive / know that there is a absolute law they break it and take their cahnce of suffering .
you can still belive in a absolute , and fail to meet its standards .. we are only human .. we are allowed to fail ..
consider the moral rebel .. the rebel also belives in the absolute moral code .. how else can she/he plan to act in oppersition to it ?
OR do you consider a absolute moral code to have some physical power over people that would prevent them acting against its rule .. like the fundermental laws of physics or chemistry ...
OR are you saying some superpowered enitiey would intervent to keep you on the moral path and prevent you making any action in violation of the code ?
Edited by ikabod, : was interupted

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Rrhain, posted 07-27-2007 3:02 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Rrhain, posted 07-27-2007 9:22 PM ikabod has replied

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4492 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 168 of 219 (413245)
07-30-2007 3:42 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by Rrhain
07-27-2007 9:22 PM


Re: Reality check
And they get punished for them and they accept the punishment. You do understand the difference between doing something wrong and being willing to accept the consequences and doing something wrong but trying to weasel out of it, yes?
yes i do , and its the people who belive in the absolutes , break them and are willing to accept the consequences , these are the people who have absolute moral codes ..
heck weasels will weaselvs any code absolute realtive, what every ..BUT thta does not mean the other sort do not exsist ...
rush limbaugh .. is/was a showman and a political animal ...who i would not trust to sit the right way on a toilet seat ... he is a typical do as i say ,not do as i do ..what he belives in has zero to do with morality .. little do do with humanity as well....
he is not absolute or relative .. hes oppertunist....
ok absolute moral rebel .. i conceious objector ..go read some history... will not bear arms , will not "fight" ....look up ww2 and you will find some , i admitt not all .. we are only human....who go 39 to 45 in the army .. as a con ob , see frount line action with medical units , see other killed , yet hold to their absolute code .... go call them relative ...
ok is let me get this .. if there where absolutes , all it takes to destroy this mighty object is one human to say .. i am really really pxxxed off i will drag the world down with me , hmm atom bomd , vx gas na i know and break a moral absolute .. that single act will thus invalid that absolute for the rest of humanity for ever and ever ...gosh arnt i powerful ....
by the way morality is a religion ..unless there are absolutes ..
as morality become a choice .. you follow its dogma and doctrines , you wear the fasions it follows , you meet fellow belives and discuss, you point out non belives , you act with a bias towards non belives , you suffer guilt if you fail to live up to the code , and once tainted by corruption there is no way back , as the moral cogregation will have cast you to the wolves ...
gosh .. add in a few candles , and a large building , a few deamons to temp you and boy you got a religion ....
and BTW you said god .. i said superpowered enitiey ..no mention of the divine ... it could be wonder women or superman , ET or that robot old sci film The Day the Earth Stood Still ...
all that is needed is power .. no measure of wrong or right .. its just enforcing the code ....
i think the real issue is you are talking philosophy , im talking humanity ...
moral philosophy is a chocolate fireguard ... 1 min in the hands of human beings and its a brown stain on the floor ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Rrhain, posted 07-27-2007 9:22 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Rrhain, posted 07-30-2007 5:27 AM ikabod has replied

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4492 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 170 of 219 (413317)
07-30-2007 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by Rrhain
07-30-2007 5:27 AM


Re: Reality check
There are no such people, not with regard to everything..
so are you claiming morality covers everything ?? every action , every though ...if so is that not a absolute ..if not then waht does your statement mean ?
If morality were a religion, there would be no such thing as atheists. Since atheists do exist and since they do have morality, your premise is trivially proven false.
no atheist do not belive in a god or gods.. they do belive in religions , they just dont follow the ones claiming a divine mandate, morality is a religion with out a godhead , if morality is mere philosophical conjecture there would be liitle us or fuss about it ....how many popular figures are in the news over "immoral" behavoiur .. compare that to those in the new for being at odds with a philosophical concept .... morality is a religon because that is how it is treated and used ....
Um, you do know that humans are philosophical creatures, yes?
are we .. here a few humans views on philosophy ....
Ambrose Bierce:
Philosophy, n. A route of many roads leading from nowhere to nothing.
Bertrand Russell:
Science is what you know. Philosophy is what you don't know.
Cicero:
There is no statement so absurd that no philosopher will make it.
Freda Adler:
Stripped of ethical rationalizations and philosophical pretensions, a crime is anything that a group in power chooses to prohibit.
H. L. Mencken:
Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself.
HH the Dalai Lama:
This is my simple religion. There is no need for temples; no need for complicated philosophy. Our own brain, our own heart is our temple; the philosophy is kindness.
Henry Ward Beecher:
The philosophy of one century is the common sense of the next.
John Adams:
I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain.
John D. Rockefeller:
I can think of nothing less pleasurable than a life devoted to pleasure.
Mark Twain:
The perfection of wisdom, and the end of true philosophy is to proportion our wants to our possessions, our ambitions to our capacities, we will then be a happy and a virtuous people.
Thornton Wilder:
My advice to you is not to inquire why or whither, but just enjoy your ice cream while it's on your plate -- that's my philosophy.
The Skin of Our Teeth, 1942
William James:
If a man's good for nothing else, he can at least teach philosophy.
William James:
Philosophy is at once the most sublime and the most trivial of human pursuits.
.. at the end of a great philosophical debate on the true nature and worth of man , who sweeps the floor , tidies the chairs and puts the light out ...
..philosophy occurs when there are enough farmers, labours , servents , carriers ,traders,solidiers,winemakers et al that the philosophers family can become so rich as to breed a philosopers..
me thinks we are human creature who sometime suffer out breaks of philosophy ..like when there is nothing good on telly .. like a drama with a moral message ...or a football match ..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Rrhain, posted 07-30-2007 5:27 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Rrhain, posted 08-02-2007 5:01 AM ikabod has replied

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4492 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 172 of 219 (414032)
08-02-2007 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Rrhain
08-02-2007 5:01 AM


Re: Reality check
err so you claim morality covers everything .. hmm sound like a absolute to me ,,, if it includes all how can it be relative .. nothing else exsist to be relative to ..or are you into moral realism now ??
well where in this magic code does it cover debating about morality ?
where does it cover absolutes ..ok j/king, hmm or am i .
so are you going to reply to my examples of absolute behaviour or just ignore them , as they do not fit in to the picture you wish to paint ?
Religions are an objective reality.
no the followers , the building used by , the texts writen for , any religion are objective reality , the belife is not , go buy a pound of xian belief if you can ..,, religions are about what happens in our heads our view, our take on the world .. the rest is trappings .. and morality is just the same .. a system giving you a way to react to the real world when you encounter it a look up table... and you need to belive in it for it to have an effect ...
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
re·li·gion /rld’n/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-lij-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
hmm so religion / morality hmm number 1 fits well , and it does say god/gods arnt needed , gosh 2 fits if you pick the moral population as the agreeing people , 3 yes that to , ok hand up 4 dont fit , 5 just about , 6 well yep again
Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus - Cite This Source
Main Entry: religion
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: belief
Synonyms: adoration, bent, ceremonial, church, communion, connection, conscientiousness, consecration, creed, cult, denomination, devotion, devoutness, doctrine, faithfulness, fidelity, godliness, morality, myth, mythology, observance, orthodoxy, persuasion, pietism, piety, prayer, preference, religiosity, rites, ritual, sacrifice, sanctification, sect, spiritual-mindedness, spirituality, standards, superstition, theology, veneration
ok so i think i can find a few people who agree with me ..
so give me 3 reasons why morality is not a religion ..
Now as to what a atheist is and does ...... an atheist doe not belive in god/gods ...
look
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source a·the·ist ('th-st) Pronunciation Key
n. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
and from goof old wikipedia....
Although people who self-identify as atheists are usually assumed to be irreligious, some sects within major religions have atheistic beliefs, and even reject the existence of a personal, creator God. In recent years, certain religious denominations have accumulated a number of openly atheistic followers, such as atheistic or humanistic Judaism and Christian atheists.
As the strictest sense of positive atheism does not entail any specific beliefs outside of disbelief in God, atheists can hold any number of spiritual beliefs. For the same reason, atheists can hold a wide variety of ethical beliefs, ranging from the moral universalism of humanism, which holds that a moral code should be applied consistently to all humans, to moral nihilism, which holds that morality is meaningless.
so yes i am saying atheist can have a religion .. and it might be called morality ... absolute or otherwise ....
by the way politics is not a battle of philosophies , it s a full scale global war for power thats all , religion , morality philosophies are merely stances to be used on the route to power ...oooh or do you belive in absolutes in politics ..... if you look close "you find that they tailor their opinions as to what is right and wrong, good and bad according to the situation in which they find themselves", and which gives them the better edge in the power race ..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Rrhain, posted 08-02-2007 5:01 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Rrhain, posted 08-05-2007 2:42 AM ikabod has replied

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4492 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 174 of 219 (414592)
08-05-2007 4:21 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by Rrhain
08-05-2007 2:42 AM


Re: Reality check
please tell me why when asked to to reply to my examples of absolute behaviour , you say..
But they don't exist.
... point out where they are failing to hold to thier moral code .....
belief has every thing to do with it ... because thats the only reason you hold to a moral code ... there are no good or bad unless the code tell you , absolute or relative , so you hyave to belive the code is correct ..if you douth the code it fails ...
Are you saying unless it can be reduced to a physical measurement, it doesn't exist?
.. well give me the number of protons in a kg of bad , whats the wavelenght of good , is good pos / neg or neut charged , what is the spin state in very bad , how long , in microns , is a good judgement , what colour is justice , how many hates can you fit in a 1cm cube , if you convert love to energy how many homes can you light ...
do these exsit or are they our constructs .. lets ask a star , a moon , and rock , a H2O molecule , a quarke , a photon .
morality only "exsists" cos we make it so .... or maybe im wrong and there is lumps floating in space ..
btw evolution is just a theory ...ok its a darn good one and i would put money on it being right but end of the day its a just theory ...
ok fair point some people do treat foolball like a religion .. they attend services , the make unreasoned statements about the ability of the team , the distort historical events to show the team in the best light , they dress acording to the codes of the team , they honnor the ex menbers of the team for their deeds ..yep it fits so well
ok here you list 10 defining traits of a "religion" ... except no godhead .
otherwise we dont know how closed and locked down your use of the word religion is ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Rrhain, posted 08-05-2007 2:42 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Rrhain, posted 08-05-2007 4:41 AM ikabod has replied

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4492 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 178 of 219 (414614)
08-05-2007 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Rrhain
08-05-2007 4:41 AM


Re: Reality check
There is no absolute method of relativism.
no problem there .. the issue is you claimed that anyone breaking their moral code means that they do not belive in a absolute moral code , which lead me to ask if you are saying that a absolute moral code would have the "power" to pervent a follower breaking it ? , where as i said the failure to met the code is a failure of the follow not the belief in the absolute moral code .
Are you saying unless it can be reduced to a physical measurement, it doesn't exist? Yes or no.
(gaps removed )
answer i do not know , because everything about everything.BUT in this case we are specifical talking about belief and morality ...and i said they only exsist as a human construct .. and that you can go out and get a lump of beleif or morality .
no it is the theroy of evoultion , on the rule , law , definition or any other scientific term you wnat to use its a theroy ..
My definition of the term "religion" is the standard one. It is why it includes such things as Catholicism, paganism, and Buddhism but excludes football and atheism.
brilliant thank you ... ok so i was using the term global term religon to include morality and atheisum ,just like Catholicism, paganism, and Buddhism they are both system based on belief , and that they both impose behavioral patterns on those who adhere to them , the all offer a way of living ...they are all the same beast , just different colours ....atheisum is the zero of the religon scale, but is still part of the scale .
anyways lets try to get back on topic more ....if all morality is relative what was the first moral choice made relative to?
given a newborns limited experience are you saying they are unable to make a moral choice until one has been demonstrated to them ?/
Edited by ikabod, : more thinking.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Rrhain, posted 08-05-2007 4:41 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Rrhain, posted 08-12-2007 6:19 AM ikabod has replied

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4492 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 181 of 219 (415092)
08-08-2007 4:34 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by Archer Opteryx
08-08-2007 1:22 AM


Sorry i was not clear .. i ment the actual content of the code .. not the just basis on what those rule are arrived from ..
PaulK's post 177 does give a excellent basis ..
but i was talking about the path to the rules dreived from that basis ... particualy in the case of relative morality ... what is considered to be a valid to make a relative choice from ..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-08-2007 1:22 AM Archer Opteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-08-2007 6:08 AM ikabod has replied

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4492 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 184 of 219 (415125)
08-08-2007 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by Archer Opteryx
08-08-2007 6:08 AM


Wouldn't the path consist of asking what actions and restraints (1) positively contribute to working together as a society and (2) balance personal interest with the interests of others?
Then making prescriptions and proscriptions accordingly?
it would BUT we have human beings involded and i belive most are not that logical and resonable when they come to a moral code ... which is why i was asking to see some versions that people follow ...
unreasoned personal "tastes" play a major part .. also the power of the skilled few to set agendas and manipulate the majorities thoughts into the fews vision.....and the influance of history .. all bias the code away from your statement ...
which is what i felt might be exposed by looking at example of actual moral codes .... look at how and why the codes reach the view they do ......

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-08-2007 6:08 AM Archer Opteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-08-2007 12:35 PM ikabod has replied

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4492 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 186 of 219 (415278)
08-09-2007 4:56 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by Archer Opteryx
08-08-2007 12:35 PM


what actions and restraints (1) positively contribute to working together as a society and (2) balance personal interest with the interests of others?
arh but the "skilled few" are also subject to unreasoned personal tastes , and often those skilled few wish to promote their own agenda , they are still only human beings .. your method becomes...
what actions and restraints (1) positively contribute to working together as a society ***** that works the way i think it should ****and (2) balance personal interest with the interests of others*****as long as im getting what i want first, and those others dont included ...say the uneducated , the landless , women , ethnic minorities , those living south of the river , who dont worship my gods etc etc ?
the masses are steered by the "skilled few" ...just look at democrecy , morality is built the same way . . . .
it SHOULD be the way you say but , us humans are not that good at such things , i mean to the list i gave i should have added inaction one of our greatest crimes ....
should we not all as individuals work out from first principles our own moral code ? ? to make sure its correct ... instead we pick up whats laying around as we grow up ....its only debates like this that challenge us to question those moral values ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-08-2007 12:35 PM Archer Opteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-12-2007 7:25 AM ikabod has replied

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4492 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 189 of 219 (415821)
08-12-2007 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by Rrhain
08-12-2007 6:19 AM


Re: Reality check
If you can't follow your own code, then you don't believe in it.
.. then no one really belives in morality , or truth , or freedom , or justice , or human rights , or good , or bad ..
as none of us are 100% followers of any of those things , we are all failures ,because we are only human ..
we set up absolutes we can never hope to reach .. BUT those absolutes are our ideal , our goal , the thing we strive to be , they are the standards by which we measure ourself to see how far we have successed or failed ....
we belive in such absolute because to not to is to give up trying ...
what is the point of a moral code that does not expect 100% adherance ...you do not set up a set of laws and then say well btw we expect you to break about 3 a week ... you set up absolutes and try your hardest to make the grade ...
BTW what is this power you have to read people deep inner feelings ?? that you can say no one feel guilt ?? that you can see the lack of remorse ? ? ... if you really have this power you could rule the world ....
or do you demand a mass of wailing and weeks of acts of contrition when some one fails to meet their own standards of conduct ...may be shame make them hide their feelings , maybe its very personal and not for public dispaly ???
when i use the word theory in conection to evolution i use the word theory in the scientific sense .. why is that so hard to see .. what is wrong with saying evoultion is just a theory .. what else is it in scientific terms .. it is a theory its not a absolute.. as i stated ages ago i agree its the best theory we have and yes i would put money on it ..but it is just a theory .... to do presume to give the ToE some "sacred" status ....the first 100 rules of science are question , question and question again and even then be ready to test it again ....
One of the defining characteristics of atheism is the lack of belief. That's the entire point. Ergo, atheism cannot be a "religion" by your definition.
no atheism is the BELIEF that there is no god ....how do you know there is not a god ??? ...if there is a god then atheist belive in something untrue .. they hold to a false belief ... and all the non atheist belive in something real ... they hold to a true belief..
and before you come in with your burden of proof retort ...find me one atheist that can prove they are correct .....or one non atheist who can prove they are correct ....ill take either , but at this stage both view are a belief in how reality is .. without proof ..
now as to morality i refer you to your own wordsa quoted at the start of this post ...
to paraphrase , if i may , ..... if you follow you moral code , then you belive in it .....
why would you follow any moral code you did not belive to be of value ??? ok cos you a weak social conformatist .. no ...why follow the code .. cos you have a belief its the right thing to do ...you give it a value by you belief in it for its own sake ....
it is your own personal religion .. your belief in it shapes and determine you path through life ....
But morality and atheism aren't religions. The former does not require the concept of supranormal activity and the latter can't even relate to the concept of such a thing.
suparnormal activity .. what like good , justice ,fairness , equality , freedom show me these in the natural world , find me a fish that is just , a rock that knows good from bad , a ray of light that shine for freedom ... all the concepts of morality are suparnormal they go beyond harsh reality ...
and i think all atheist can relate to a concept of a god i mean just look at these forums and you will find a few concepts .. they just dont belive it to be true , they are not in a stae of ignorance ..many rock hard atheist spend lots of there time looking at the concepts of god/gods better to show the foly of belief in them ....
you say
If there were no theists, do you think anybody would go around declaiming, "I don't believe in god"? With no concept of "god" to react to, why would anybody waste any thoughts upon pointing out they did not react to something that nobody even considers?
correct you make my point ...there are theist hence atheists , they are part of the same whole , they are oppersite side of the same coin ...you cant have atheist unless you have theists ... the question of god is central to define what each is ...
my question to you was ....if all morality is relative what was the first moral choice made relative to?
Something else, obviously. That's the point: You can't make any solid decisions without knowing the scenario in which the decision is to be made.
what something else? ..if you have no moral stance to compare to you are going to compare like with unlike ..you have no measure to judge the value of any fact ...
for example Man A tell a untruth to Man B , and causes Man B to miss his chance to get to the apple tree which there are apples on it ....
now there is a mass of other facts in this scenario .. but how do you tell which ones are relevent to the moral question ?? if this is the first case ...you have no reference points...
which of these facts effect the question ?
Man A is from your tribe
the apple where nearer to man B home
Man A likes dogs
Man B like cats
Man B and his family is straving
Man A trades apples for eggs with Man C
Man E,F,G,H,T, all got apples but only man H does not know Man A
how many facts do you need to make your moral judgement ???
do you assume life comeswith all the facts .??
As perr your request rephrasing the newborn question
a baby is born .. does it have a inbuilt moral code ...or does it neeed to be taught a moral code ... in which case .. before they are taught a code are they making moral , immoral or amoral choices.... and IF as you demand, all morality is relative , if the baby was taught a moral code , how do you teach it with out examples , which are absolutes by their nature ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Rrhain, posted 08-12-2007 6:19 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Rrhain, posted 08-12-2007 11:48 PM ikabod has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024