Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A critique of moral relativism
Tusko
Member (Idle past 101 days)
Posts: 615
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 166 of 219 (413143)
07-27-2007 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by anastasia
07-27-2007 7:24 PM


Re: Listen to what I am saying, as opposed to hearing what you want to hear
You say that the issue isn't consent per se; I think this is untrue in some circumstances. I think there are some people for whom their interactions with other life forms are principally guided by the idea of informed consent.
By the way, I'm not saying that I'm one of them.
I was answering nem's question, namely, how might someone find having sex with men acceptable and yet having sex with children unacceptable. He posed it in such a way as to suggest that this was a difficult question to address. I don't think it is, because I think that in our culture, sex between adults and children is much more likely to be harmful to the children than sex between adults will be to those adults. I was merely responding with the first suggestion that came to mind - namely the idea of informed consent - however, there are many other moral schemes through which these two beliefs could entertained by one person simultaneously.
As I said, I don't actually agree with the "informed consent" deal in an uncritical way. Determining the magical moment when any child passes into a state of being able to make an adult decision is patently impossible, and so we are left with very imprecise legal definitions of childhood and the minimum required mental capacity needed to be considered an informed chooser.
However, that isn't to say that many people don't use the idea of informed consent in many of their dealings with other living things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by anastasia, posted 07-27-2007 7:24 PM anastasia has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 167 of 219 (413145)
07-27-2007 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by ikabod
07-27-2007 3:32 AM


Re: Reality check
ikabod responds to me:
quote:
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
Not at all. We even have a term for exactly that concept: Double standard.
And that it shatters the concept of the absolute. It can't be "absolute" if there's more than one.
quote:
the rules of football are absolute , but the players break them all the time
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?
quote:
you can still belive in a absolute , and fail to meet its standards .. we are only human .. we are allowed to fail
Of course. But we're not talking about simple failure. We're talking about people who fail and insist they didn't really, that the rules don't apply to them.
Rush Limbaugh said that anybody addicted to drugs needs to go to jail. Well, he got himself addicted to drugs. Why didn't he immediately turn himself in and insist on being sent to jail?
Simple: He's not really an absolutist. He's a relativist.
quote:
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 ?
Irrelevant. The "moral rebel" is only rebelling against the commonly accepted standard. That doesn't mean he has no standards of his own. And before anybody tries to be clever, the standard can be absolute or relative (in fact, since nobody is an absolutist, it is necessarily relative, but I'll humor the proposition that such a person exists).
It is by this logical fallacy that people claim that atheists have no morals when simple inspection shows they do. Just because a person's morality is different, that doesn't mean it is non-existent.
quote:
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 ...
Physical? Please. We're talking about philosophy here.
When people willingly, consciously, and deliberately engage in activity that they are not being forced into carrying out, then they have a reason for doing so. When that reason contradicts their so-called absolute, then it is clear that they don't really believe in that absolute. They may feel guilty about it afterwards and swear that they'll never do it again, but we all know that's just a rationalization.
quote:
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 ?
God? Who said anything about god? Morality doesn't come from god or atheists would have no morals. Since they clearly do, what does god have to do with it?
We're talking about morality, not religion.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by ikabod, posted 07-27-2007 3:32 AM ikabod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by ikabod, posted 07-30-2007 3:42 AM Rrhain has replied

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4493 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

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 169 of 219 (413266)
07-30-2007 5:27 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by ikabod
07-30-2007 3:42 AM


Re: Reality check
ikabod responds to me:
quote:
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 ..
But that's the point: There are no such people, not with regard to everything. There are always situations where they don't accept the consequences, where the double standard comes up.
quote:
by the way morality is a religion
Incorrect. Morality is a philosophy. 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.
quote:
i think the real issue is you are talking philosophy , im talking humanity
Um, you do know that humans are philosophical creatures, yes?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by ikabod, posted 07-30-2007 3:42 AM ikabod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by ikabod, posted 07-30-2007 10:50 AM Rrhain has replied

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4493 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

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 171 of 219 (413976)
08-02-2007 5:01 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by ikabod
07-30-2007 10:50 AM


Re: Reality check
ikabod responds to me:
quote:
so are you claiming morality covers everything ??
It wouldn't be very useful if it didn't.
quote:
every action , every though ...if so is that not a absolute
No. You're equivocating. You're confusing "absolute" as regards to physical reality with "absolute" as regards to a personal philosophy.
quote:
if not then waht does your statement mean ?
Just as I have been saying all along: There are no people who are true moral absolutists. Everyone is a relativist. If you examine what they do, 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.
quote:
no atheist do not belive in a god or gods.. they do belive in religions
Huh? Unless you're being facile, this statement makes no sense. "Believe" in religions? Religions are an objective reality. You don't "believe" in things that are objective.
Otherwise, you're trying to say that people who are defined by the trait of being without religion actually have a religion, which is illogical.
Or perhaps you are just being disingenuous and are defining the word "religion" so broadly as to make it useless.
quote:
if morality is mere philosophical conjecture there would be liitle us or fuss about it
(*chuckle*)
What on earth do you think politics is except a battle of philosophies? Are you saying that politics is religion?
I'm starting to think that your definition of "religion" is meaningless.
quote:
morality is a religon because that is how it is treated and used
Except the mere existence of atheists proves that claim false.
Or are you saying there are no atheists? Considering that it appears your definition of "religion" is meaningless, I wouldn't be surprised to hear you say yes.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by ikabod, posted 07-30-2007 10:50 AM ikabod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by ikabod, posted 08-02-2007 12:35 PM Rrhain has replied

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4493 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

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 173 of 219 (414589)
08-05-2007 2:42 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by ikabod
08-02-2007 12:35 PM


Re: Reality check
ikabod responds to me:
quote:
err so you claim morality covers everything .. hmm sound like a absolute to me
Now you're equivocating. You're equating the idea of a "moral absolute" with the idea of "morality," in general. The two are not the same thing.
You can have a morality that covers everything that is not absolute. After all, your morality should be able to handle anything that comes along. Whether or not something is right or wrong will depend upon the situation, but it should be able to handle all somethings that come come along.
quote:
go buy a pound of xian belief if you can
What does that have to do with anything? Are you saying unless it can be reduced to a physical measurement, it doesn't exist?
quote:
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 ?
But they don't exist.
quote:
ok so i think i can find a few people who agree with me ..
Ahem, argumentum ad thesaurus is not an actual argument. You do realize that words have multiple meanings and what allows you to understand which particular meaning is being implied is through the use of context, yes?
Otherwise, you engage in the logical error of equivocation. It's what creationists do when they claim that evolution is "just a theory." After all, the dictionary definition of "theory" is "educated guess," but that isn't what scientists mean when they use the word "theory."
And that's what you're doing with the word "religion." Since "religion" can mean "passionate adherence," you are left saying that football is just as much a "religion" as Catholicism since there are people who are just as passionate about football as there are about Catholicism. In fact, we even say that there are people who follow football "like a religion."
quote:
so yes i am saying atheist can have a religion .. and it might be called morality
Which means that your definition of "religion" is so broad as to be meaningless.
Edited by Rrhain, : Fixed some spelling errors.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by ikabod, posted 08-02-2007 12:35 PM ikabod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by ikabod, posted 08-05-2007 4:21 AM Rrhain has replied

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4493 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

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 175 of 219 (414595)
08-05-2007 4:41 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by ikabod
08-05-2007 4:21 AM


Re: Reality check
ikabod responds to me:
quote:
point out where they are failing to hold to thier moral code
That'd depend on their code. I've given certain examples previously, but not everybody who is an absolutist agrees with the specific method of relativism.
There is no absolute method of relativism.
And you didn't answer my question:
Are you saying unless it can be reduced to a physical measurement, it doesn't exist?
Yes or no.
quote:
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 ...
Same problem as before: Define what you mean by "theory." When science uses it, it doesn't mean "educated guess." Is that what you mean by "theory"?
Is "theory" just as nebulous a term for you as "religion"?
quote:
ok here you list 10 defining traits of a "religion" ... except no godhead .
Huh? Nice try, but you're shifting the burden of proof.
You're the one making "religion" a meaningless term by having any stray thought that is felt with any sense of conviction a "religion."
Philosophy is not religion, though religion is a kind of philosophy. You do understand why this is, right? Hint: All squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares.
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.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by ikabod, posted 08-05-2007 4:21 AM ikabod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by ikabod, posted 08-05-2007 12:18 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 176 of 219 (414604)
08-05-2007 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Modulous
07-18-2007 2:12 PM


Shared priorities
My working hypothesis: moral systems appear to be relative when we magnify the details. Put the magnifying glass down, though, and universally shared priorities emerge.
I'd say three priorities most human moral systems share are these:

Empathy
Choices arising from empathy are more valid morally than choices that do not.
Truth
Choices that recognize and accommodate truth are more valid morally than choices made in disregard of truth.
Life
Choices that nurture and sustain life are more valid morally than choices that extinguish it.
There could me more.
People agree on quite a lot. Few would have trouble using the word 'evil' of a person who, for the sheer power kick, deliberately released a microbe onto the world that would extinguish all life on the planet in a matter of weeks.
Moral debates arise in those cases where one universally shared priority conflicts with another. We argue at the boundaries.
Abortion, assisted suicide, capital punishment, warfare, animal rights--these debates are debates because they place the premises underlying our moral systems into conflict. The priorities of empathy, truth, and life seem at odds no matter what we choose.
One often hears some person sagely pronounce all morals 'relative' when witnessing such debates. The pronouncement is usually premature. It overlooks all the ideas in play. It overlooks the values that are not debated--the values that are simply assumed.
Both sides in these moral debates make their arguments using the same priorities, differently weighed.
Notice that there are some arguments you never hear. Supporters of abortion rights and capital punishment make their case many ways, but you never hear anyone say abortions and executions should take place because killing is just a dandy thing and the more killing we can have in the world, the better. Neither do opponents of abortion and capital punishment argue that pregnant teens and violent criminals are just so much inorganic matter worthy of no more empathy than a doorknob. Such arguments would not be moral arguments at all. They disregard the (recognized, assumed) foundations of morality.
We debate moral issues by appealing to our shared grounds. We ask which choice is more humane, more honest, more nurturing of life.
Sometimes no single answer ticks all the boxes. Even so, we know the questions.
________
Edited by Archer Opterix, : Clarity.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : Brev.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Modulous, posted 07-18-2007 2:12 PM Modulous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by PaulK, posted 08-05-2007 9:57 AM Archer Opteryx has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 177 of 219 (414608)
08-05-2007 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Archer Opteryx
08-05-2007 7:37 AM


Re: Shared priorities
I largely agree. There are shared basics and they are part of human nature. Morality is the name that we give to those behavioural instincts that positively contribute to working together as a society, balancing personal interest with the interests of others.
The points of difference are less important. I'd put fairness up with the rest, no matter that it overlaps with empathy. I'd also point out that application of the values listed does require knowledge. I'd point out that old applications of these basic values can become traditions, and adhered to even if the original basis has been discredited or forgotten. The systems of morality we have constructed around the basic underlying values are almost entirely learned, not derived anew. This they may contain errors or rules that no longer make sense given our current society - which, of course, has greatly changed over time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-05-2007 7:37 AM Archer Opteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-08-2007 1:09 AM PaulK has replied

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4493 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

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 179 of 219 (415064)
08-08-2007 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by PaulK
08-05-2007 9:57 AM


Re: Shared priorities
PaulK:
There are shared basics and they are part of human nature. Morality is the name that we give to those behavioural instincts that positively contribute to working together as a society, balancing personal interest with the interests of others.
A well crafted formulation. I will remember this. That's my take on it as well.
The points of difference are less important. I'd put fairness up with the rest, no matter that it overlaps with empathy. I'd also point out that application of the values listed does require knowledge. I'd point out that old applications of these basic values can become traditions, and adhered to even if the original basis has been discredited or forgotten. The systems of morality we have constructed around the basic underlying values are almost entirely learned, not derived anew. This they may contain errors or rules that no longer make sense given our current society - which, of course, has greatly changed over time.
Another variable is the shifting definition of one's 'society'--where we set the boundaries that separate the beings we protect from the beings we protect them from.
Relatives? Clan? Nation? Species? All living things?
Party? Religion? Ethnicity? Orientation? Gender?
Humane animal treatment is a case in point. It's not a cause our species musters much energy for when we are surrounded by predators that could kill us at any moment. The idea gains traction in societies where animals have been domesticated or even admitted as honorary members ('pets'). Animals now reside inside the circle of protection.
Even today, animal rights advocates have much more to say about the humane treatment of beef cattle than about the humane treatment of tapeworms. Some animals are more equal than others.
___
Edited by Archer Opterix, : detail.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by PaulK, posted 08-05-2007 9:57 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by PaulK, posted 08-08-2007 4:45 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 180 of 219 (415066)
08-08-2007 1:22 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by ikabod
07-25-2007 6:59 AM


ikabod:
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
On the contrary. PaulK did exactly this in Message 177:
quote:
Morality is the name that we give to those behavioural instincts that positively contribute to working together as a society, balancing personal interest with the interests of others.
This provides the basis you requested for the regulation of violence, property and so on.
___

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by ikabod, posted 07-25-2007 6:59 AM ikabod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by ikabod, posted 08-08-2007 4:34 AM Archer Opteryx 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