|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Absolute Morality...again. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trump won  Suspended Member (Idle past 1240 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
Forgive my ignorance Jar but could you please enlighten me on to what "JRR" and "CoE" mean?
I'm not good with abbreviations but once I learn them I remember.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
JRR = JRR Tolkien
CoE = Church of England. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
All Lewis has shown is that there are generally accepted moral standards. Right. So if its so often that people innately understand a sense of morality, save the occasional sociopath who destroys his conscience, what explanations do we have to understand how we have it. We've been over this argument many times. (Not you and I, but EvC). How do you personally reconcile the notion of humans having this intrinsic quality?
If moralities differ, and they clearly do, the only way to justify a claim to moral universality is via the divine. To suggest that Lewis can proceed here without anticipating the divine is whistling past the churchyard. Lewis embraced Christianity only after his late-in-life conversation. It were questions such as these that led him to his inevitable conclusion. Lewis was very much an agnostic for the majority of his life. As far morals being different from culture to culture and from time to time, I'd say that the only thing relative is what people constitutes murder, for example. Everyone is in agreement that murder is "wrong." What they differ in, is what constitutes murder and what constitutes jusifiable homicide. But that intrinsic Law is already established. No one needed to be taught that. A child who sees a vicious murder has never known such attrocities exist. He/she is innately horrified by such acts. Lewis uses a much simpler example. He speaks about being on a train where you get up to go to the bathroom. When you come back someone is sitting in your seat. You and everyone near you are in agreement that the man "stealing" your seat was "wrong." But what makes it wrong? What gives us the understanding that its wrong? Who sits and reads law books for us to know whether or not it is unlawful for someone to do that? Few of us. So, why is it and how is it that this law is implanted in us?
P.S. Nice avatar image. Very ur-delic. Thanks. I thought it was an interesting avatar. After scouring many, many images, I found quite a few. Perhaps I'll change avatars once a month to keep it interesting. “Always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
That's evidence that morality is relative to the culture, rather than to the individual. It does not make the case for an absolute morality. Because there is an unspoken understanding that crosses the boundaries of culture. If I went to India, Tibet, Paraguay, Cuba, Iceland, or Malaysia and walked up to someone and took their seat, they'd all have this understanding that what I had done was wrong. And when they begin to argue that point, they are appealing to me to uphold some intrinsic standard of humanity. So, where does it originate from? “Always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Reading the book would require one to think which is a laborious task for some, yes. It would be better form if you read the work and expressed your views on it. The laborious task I was referring to was transcribing the book verbatim because it takes a long time to do so, not reading or thinking.
Having a general sense of right and wrong is very different from an absolute morality. Then what is it and how does it exist? If morals are purely relative then no one should have any "sense" of right and wrong, because right and wrong would be completely arbitrary. “Always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
If I went to India, Tibet, Paraguay, Cuba, Iceland, or Malaysia and walked up to someone and took their seat, they'd all have this understanding that what I had done was wrong.
Yet if I got on a subway train in Chicago, and took somebody's seat, most people would understand that it is entirely proper for someone of my age to have seating priority over a younger person. (There is even a sign on the train saying as much).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Annafan Member (Idle past 4579 days) Posts: 418 From: Belgium Joined: |
NJ writes: quote: Right. So if its so often that people innately understand a sense of morality, save the occasional sociopath who destroys his conscience, what explanations do we have to understand how we have it. We've been over this argument many times. (Not you and I, but EvC). How do you personally reconcile the notion of humans having this intrinsic quality? In the case of a social species, asocial behaviour is simply not viable in the longer term. A certain 'baseline morality', although somewhat flexible and with considerable differences possible between larger somewhat seperated social groups, maintains itself. Isn't that all obvious? I really don't see the problem. Edited by Annafan, : formatting and last sentence
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5908 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
nemesis_juggernaut
Right. So if its so often that people innately understand a sense of morality, save the occasional sociopath who destroys his conscience, what explanations do we have to understand how we have it. I would imagine it is hardwired into the brain by evolution. Since the way a society thrives is dependant upon behaviour it follows that behaviours that allow for order will be prevalent in a population.
As far morals being different from culture to culture and from time to time, I'd say that the only thing relative is what people constitutes murder, for example. Everyone is in agreement that murder is "wrong." What they differ in, is what constitutes murder and what constitutes jusifiable homicide. But that intrinsic Law is already established. No one needed to be taught that But then we could just as easily say that the soiciopath considers murder in a societal sense as simply justifiable homicide. If murder can be reinterpreted as justifiable then just what does this intrinsic law mean? Is it even a law?
He speaks about being on a train where you get up to go to the bathroom. When you come back someone is sitting in your seat. You and everyone near you are in agreement that the man "stealing" your seat was "wrong." But what makes it wrong? What gives us the understanding that its wrong? I absolutely disagree. The seat on the train is not yours in the sense of your property. The man could just as easily have been unaware that the seat was yours,perhaps having come from the sleeper car or having just got on at the station 5 minutes back. The "wrong" you claim in this context is dependant upon the circumstances and therefore is not an absolute law at all. Wars are started on such misunderstandings of the nature of the "crime" when all the evidence is not considered.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Because there is an unspoken understanding that crosses the boundaries of culture. If I went to India, Tibet, Paraguay, Cuba, Iceland, or Malaysia and walked up to someone and took their seat, they'd all have this understanding that what I had done was wrong. And when they begin to argue that point, they are appealing to me to uphold some intrinsic standard of humanity. So, where does it originate from? It comes from shared experiences and the majority view in the era. When I was little if I boarded a crowded bus and there was a black person sitting they would have gotten up to give me their seat, both through custom and through LAW. I was white, he was black, the moral thing was for him to move. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
nemesis_juggernaut writes: If morals are purely relative then no one should have any "sense" of right and wrong.... Are you suggesting that humans are born with that "sense"? In my experience, newborns don't exhibit an innate sense of right and wrong. It's instilled in them socially - so it pretty clearly is not "absolute". Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
yeah.. kids are generally very selfish naturally as would be suggested by an innate survival instinct. they are also very agressive until taught not to be.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
happy_atheist Member (Idle past 4914 days) Posts: 326 Joined: |
Just one small point...
nemesis_juggernaut writes: Everyone is in agreement that murder is "wrong." This statement can be expanded toEveryone is in agreement that killing that is wrong, is wrong This statement holds true in both moral relativism and moral absolutism because it is a tautology. A person who deems no killing to be wrong could truthfully agree to this statement equally with a person who deems that all killing is wrong. Thus saying that "everone condisders murder to be wrong" in no way implies moral absolutism or denies moral relativism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3978 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.3 |
How do you personally reconcile the notion of humans having this intrinsic quality? Personally, I feel that humans have an intrinsic capability to develop a "moral sense"--the terms of that sense, however, are undetermined. Both the innate capability and its plasticity, I believe, are rooted in evolution, since the cohesive group improves the survival chances of all its members, and complex behaviors have evolved to maintain that cohesion. The human development of culture--including widely disparate cultures, where the basic terms of allowable sexuality, applications of lethal force, etc. vary widely--provides another layer of complex flexility between us and the environment. All the examples I have seen offered to demonstrate an innately determined moral sensibility involve the same behaviors seen in other social mammals: that food is mine, that mate is mine, that position in the social hierarchy (and around the kill) is mine...both the individual and the group will enforce these distinctions, but no one claims that the wolf possesses an innate morality.
As far morals being different from culture to culture and from time to time, I'd say that the only thing relative is what people constitutes murder, for example. Everyone is in agreement that murder is "wrong." What they differ in, is what constitutes murder and what constitutes jusifiable homicide. I think it's important not to start this chain of reasoning with the word "murder" which already incorporates the notion of a moral judgment. Rather, all cultures mediate our sense of which killings are appropriate because killing is both a fundamental response to threat and a threat to social cohesion. History has amply demonstrated that humans can be socialized to accept the killing of any class of persons for reasons that vary from religious difference to ideological choice, even when that culture has long established mores to the contrary. When an individual transgresses the socially determined boundaries of acceptable killing, that society calls it murder--but the norms vary enormously. Killing is the real universality here, not the existence of proscriptive boundaries.
No one needed to be taught that. A child who sees a vicious murder has never known such attrocities exist. He/she is innately horrified by such acts. I think you are blurring two things together--the instinctive distress prompted by a bloody killing of one's group and the socialized response: both are amenable to mediation by the cultural environment. I agree that most young children will be traumatized by watching a bloody killing, but that is true whether their society sanctions that killing or not: to me, this argues not for a universal moral sense but for an instinctive distress at an act of predation. The moral distinctions are cultural, and children can quickly learn to accept the most awful sanctions. In some societies, a child will be horrified to witness the killing of an animal; in others, children participate gladly in group activities of that sort. Most American children would be horrified by bear baiting, but just a few centuries ago they would have accompanied their parents to that same entertainment. Most of us would consider it abusive to bring children to a public execution; but only decades ago in America, hangings took place in a carnival atmosphere that included entire families of enthusiastic onlookers. Some Ameican Christians advocate a return to public executions by stoning for their edifying effect, but most of us find that prospect horrific. Some Buddhist societies consider all killing murder, whether one is killing insects or persons, whether for self-defense or food. Cattle become quite alarmed when one of their number is killed, but we do not ascribe a moral sense to cows. Agitation in the face of one's "kind" being killed makes obvious survival sense. All these considerations indicate to me that, yes, killing is a significantly fraught stimulus to most species, especially social species and including ours, but the response is too plastic to support any universal conclusions beyond that. Jean Piaget found what he felt was the emergence of moral sensibility in witnessing toddlers cry when an object was broken, theorizing that the destruction of form triggered a sensation of wrongness--but only once the brain had developed far enough to contain a mental representation of the object. If one can create the same distraught reaction by breaking a vase or a head, that reaction hardly seems to support a universal morality. God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, ”Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It’s yours.’ --Ann Coulter, Fox-TV: Hannity & Colmes, 20 Jun 01 Save lives! Click here!Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC! ---------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
I would imagine it is hardwired into the brain by evolution. Since the way a society thrives is dependant upon behaviour it follows that behaviours that allow for order will be prevalent in a population. But why such conflicting premises that war within us? If we see a child drowning in the rapids, we feel an impulse to want to help. Why? I ask why in light of another impulse, arguably a much stronger desire, which is self-preservation. In fact, for a person to jump in to save the life of someone else, they must deny their own sense of self-preservation, which has always been the instinct most critical to pro-evolutioon arguments. We find ourselves obligated to follow our strongest impulse. What determines which impulse will win out the decision? The problem with this rejoinder, as I've quoted elsewhere, is that our strongest impulse is not always the right thing to do. For example, there are times when self-sacrifice is the right thing to do, yet it is not something that could be explained by what was once commonly referred to as, the 'herd instinct.'
But then we could just as easily say that the soiciopath considers murder in a societal sense as simply justifiable homicide. If murder can be reinterpreted as justifiable then just what does this intrinsic law mean? Is it even a law? Yes, but that's what I'm saying. No one is 'bad' for the sake of being bad. For them, their acting upon being bad gives them a sadistic pleasure, in which case they feel a desire towards. So for a sociopathic killer, however warped his ideals may be, he feels justified in his actions. It doesn't make him absolutely right. And during interviews/interrogation, they understand on an academic level that what they've done is wrong, they are just indifferent to it. They've assassinated their own conscience.
I absolutely disagree. The seat on the train is not yours in the sense of your property. The man could just as easily have been unaware that the seat was yours,perhaps having come from the sleeper car or having just got on at the station 5 minutes back. The "wrong" you claim in this context is dependant upon the circumstances and therefore is not an absolute law at all. Certainly, if someone assumed that I wasn't coming back, this would be one thing. That would be an honest mistake. I thought what I was arriving at was obvious, which is, I come back to my assigned seat and the man is sitting in it. I inform him that he's in my seat. Instead of apologizing for the inconvenience, he is simply indifferent to it. When I engage him in an argument, I am appealing to him to understand a sense of justice that I expect him to understand. “Always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
When I was little if I boarded a crowded bus and there was a black person sitting they would have gotten up to give me their seat, both through custom and through LAW. I was white, he was black, the moral thing was for him to move. I don't deny that certain customs and certain laws aren't derived relatively from culture to culture. Certainly many do. I am making the appeal that at on some level, there must exist a specific standard because without it, there is no basis for arriving at any decision on any level of morality. If I draw what I think is a straight line, you inform me that its crooked. Without their being some absolute understanding of a straight line is, how could any of us understand what a straight line is? The same goes for mores. If there was not a level of deep understanding for why something is 'wrong,' then there is no basis in which to even relatively reach a decision. If morals were truly as arbitrary as people claim, then why aren't they arbitrary? Who feels that it is more moral to own Poodles than it is to not commit murder? There is an intrinsic sense that exists. If there wasn't, then what we might consider the most off-the-wall morals might exist. “Always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024