I did.
Using the internal logic of axiology. (the “not everything can become a rule” line of reasoning).
Without any transcendantal or supernatural reference.
Strangely, you didn’t reply.
[quote]kamui wrote:
I did.
Using the internal logic of axiology. (the “not everything can become a rule” line of reasoning).
Without any transcendantal or supernatural reference.
Strangely, you didn’t reply.
[/quote]
Point me towards the post please.
I’m sure you realise that, in order for something to be absolute, it must be objective [equally true for everyone]?
[quote]kamui wrote:
Morality is, by definition, the respect for and obedience to the rules of right conduct.
Forget about “right conduct” for a moment.
Let’s focus ourselves on this “rules” thing.
Not everything can become a rule. A rule requires some kind of universality and systematicity.
It’s something you do (or don’t do) each time you are in a specific situation.
If X, then (i do or don’t do) Y.
Ie : Each time X, then (i do or don’t do) Y.
In other words, a “do” or “don’t do” imperative need to be universalizable.
If it’s not, then it can not become a rule.
And if it can not become a rule, then it has nothing to do with morality.
No matter our feelings and opinions.
What it means is that, even if the actual definition of “good” may be relative, the (negative) definition of “not good” is not.
Ie : Evil is absolute.
We can know with an absolute certainty (not think, not feel, not believe, but actually know) that some things are definetely immoral.
And we are not speaking about Nazi-like evil here.
But very “simple” things.
“Lie”, “Cheat” “rape your child” can not become universal imperatives.
Therefore, no morality will ever be derived from these imperatives.
again, regardless of our feelings about it.[/quote]
Every moral rule has exceptions. “Knowing” is not an absolute source because what kamui or pat “knows” to be morally true is not [does not have to be] equally true for me.
I can only act, or not act, based on my own conscience, but it would be hubris to point to others and tell them to act, or not act, according to my set of rules.
Again, this does not mean that all moral acts are equal.
Tell me kamui, what do you think is the source of this “knowing”?
[quote]
Every moral rule has exceptions. “Knowing” is not an absolute source because what kamui or pat “knows” to be morally true is not [does not have to be] equally true for me.[/quote]
it doesn’t matter.
The fact that someone doesn’t know the rule of chessgame doesn’t change the rules. It just means that said person ignore them and is probably a bad player.
It’s the same thing with the “rules of rulegame” (ie morality).
[quote]
I can only act, or not act, based on my own conscience, but it would be hubris to point to others and tell them to act, or not act, according to my set of rules. [/quote]
Usually, most of those self-made set of rules doesn’t contain anything remotely close to an actual “rule”.
In which case, it would actually be hubris to point to others and tell them to act or not to act according to it.
On the other hand, if your “set of rules” is a true set of rules, then pointing to others and telling them to act or not to act would not be “hubris” at all.
[quote]
Tell me kamui, what do you think is the source of this “knowing”?[/quote]
i think that your issue with the “source” is a non-issue.
I can learn the rules of chess by reading its rulebook. What is the rulebook for morality, and what is its source? I come back to “source” because a religiously inclined person would point at a holy book and argue that a deity is the source of morality and therefore morality is absolute.
[quote] Usually, most of those self-made set of rules doesn’t contain anything remotely close to an actual “rule”.
In which case, it would actually be hubris to point to others and tell them to act or not to act according to it.
On the other hand, if your “set of rules” is a true set of rules, then pointing to others and telling them to act or not to act would not be “hubris” at all. [/quote]
If you define a true set of rules by claiming to “know” the right set of rules, what stops me from claiming the same even if that means my set of true rules differ from yours?
[quote]
I can learn the rules of chess by reading its rulebook. What is the rulebook for morality[/quote]
I’m not sure you can learn chess by reading its rulebook. You learn it by playing chess.
Practice.
Same thing for morality.
[quote]
If you define a true set of rules by claiming to “know” the right set of rules, what stops me from claiming the same even if that means my set of true rules differ from yours?[/quote]
Nothing.
But if my rules are really rules (ie really universalizable), and if your rules are really rules, our rules will not be mutually exclusive.
If our rules are mutually exclusive, then one of our rules is not really a rule. and one of us is wrong.
Again practice may show us who is right and who is not.
Morality is not “our opinion”, and it’s not “what an hypothetic absolute being said”.
It’s a “meta-rule”.
It’s own ruleset forbid everything that make it impossible to create and follow the rules of other games.
That’s why “lying”, “cheating” and “killing” are “bad”, for example.
Not only you can’t make a “You shall cheat” rule, but if you actually try to do it, you make it impossible to follow or create other rules.
the statement “cheating is morally bad” is not relatively true. It’s absolutely true. By definition(s).
Ok, there’s not a real ‘moral’ and ‘immoral.’ So, it wouldn’t really be immoral to make abortion illegal. And an innocent, individual, human life is protected from a deliberate killing. There you go.
I’m sorry kamui, your justification for why morality is absolute is very convoluted and baseless.
I don’t think lying is always bad. Killing a person isn’t always bad.
Your true set of rules aren’t absolute, nor are they true universally. What they are is your set of rules you choose to live by.
Either you are the only one following the true set of moral rules, or there are many true sets of rules.
You and pat and other conservatives on PWI for instance agree on the topic of abortion, but I’ve no doubt that there are other moral rules you disagree on. Is it uberhaupt possible to have a congruent set of moral rules equally true for everyone?
Where does that leave your true set of moral rules?
I agree. Outlawing abortion would not be an immoral act.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
I agree. Outlawing abortion would not be an immoral act.[/quote]
Excellent. Now, since it’s not immoral to outlaw it, and as outlawing it applies the protection of the rule of law to the already present individual human life developing in the womb, there is no reason not to.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
I agree. Outlawing abortion would not be an immoral act.[/quote]
Excellent. Now, since it’s not immoral to outlaw it, and as outlawing it applies the protection of the rule of law to the already present individual human life developing in the womb, there is no reason not to.[/quote]
Your supreme court disagrees with you, sloth. Overturn Roe vs Wade, and try to outlaw all forms of abortion. Good luck!
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
I agree. Outlawing abortion would not be an immoral act.[/quote]
Excellent. Now, since it’s not immoral to outlaw it, and as outlawing it applies the protection of the rule of law to the already present individual human life developing in the womb, there is no reason not to.[/quote]
Your supreme court disagrees with you, sloth. Overturn Roe vs Wade, and try to outlaw all forms of abortion. Good luck![/quote]
Slavery was abolished, and so will this. As there is no REAL moral reason (since there are no real morals) for not abolishing it, even the moral relativists can be persuaded.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
I agree. Outlawing abortion would not be an immoral act.[/quote]
Excellent. Now, since it’s not immoral to outlaw it, and as outlawing it applies the protection of the rule of law to the already present individual human life developing in the womb, there is no reason not to.[/quote]
Your supreme court disagrees with you, sloth. Overturn Roe vs Wade, and try to outlaw all forms of abortion. Good luck![/quote]
And, good for you, getting on-board the pro-life movement. Having abandoned any moral objections to doing so, let’s get this monstrous activity outlawed!
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Slavery was abolished, and so will this. As there is no REAL moral reason (since there are no real morals) for not abolishing it, even the moral relativists can be persuaded.
[/quote]
You could argue that you’d sentence your female population to a form of slavery and secondclass citizenry by abolishing abortion though.
But you wouldn’t care about that, would you?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Slavery was abolished, and so will this. As there is no REAL moral reason (since there are no real morals) for not abolishing it, even the moral relativists can be persuaded.
[/quote]
You could argue that you’d sentence your female population to a form of slavery and secondclass citizenry by abolishing abortion though.
But you wouldn’t care about that, would you?
[/quote]
Even if it was equivalent, it isn’t REALLY immoral. You said it yourself, it wouldn’t be immoral to outlaw abortion.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Slavery was abolished, and so will this. As there is no REAL moral reason (since there are no real morals) for not abolishing it, even the moral relativists can be persuaded.
[/quote]
You could argue that you’d sentence your female population to a form of slavery and secondclass citizenry by abolishing abortion though.
But you wouldn’t care about that, would you?
[/quote]
Even if it was equivalent, it isn’t REALLY immoral. You said it yourself, it wouldn’t be immoral to outlaw abortion.[/quote]
No, wanting to outlaw abortion isn’t immoral, imo.
And I reiterate: relative morality doesn’t mean all moral acts are equal.
It means you decide, based on culture/context and bias, what is right and wrong.
Personally I think forcing women to gestate against their will is immoral.
[quote]Rohnyn wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
Given the recent trend in biological reductionism on PWI, i think some of you may benefit from an “introduction to human behavioral biology”.
enjoy 
[/quote]
My IQ has gone up 5 points from watching that.[/quote]
So your up to an IQ of 55 now, yay for you.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
No, wanting to outlaw abortion isn’t immoral, imo.[/quote]
You said, [quote]Outlawing abortion would not be an immoral act[/quote]
So, there is no moral objection outlawing it…
[quote]And I reiterate: relative morality doesn’t mean all moral acts are equal.
It means you decide, based on culture/context and bias, what is right and wrong.[/quote]
They ARE all morally equal, then…
[quote]Personally I think forcing women to gestate against their will is immoral.
[/quote]
But, objectively, you KNOW it isn’t. Tomorrow you might hear the greatest argument as to why you personally should think the opposite. You might even change your mind. So, tomorrow, it could be just as moral as it is immoral today. And I don’t mean just in your head, but in reality. In reality, because the truthfulness of morality and immorality, never actually existed. Morality can’t be offended either way. With that knowledge, one can make what decision/act one wants, and be rest assured that is as moral/immoral as the opposite, in reality. Slavery didn’t have to become immoral, for one. Had the folks only realized morality was what you decided it to be.
If a person like you wants to outlaw abortion then I can’t judge that as immoral.
I should’ve made that distinction clearer. My apologies.
If you want to believe that all moral acts are equal = relative morality inspite my objections, then there’s little I can do or say that will change that.
Objectively, I KNOW forcing women to gestate against their will is immoral. You see, there’s no difference between knowing, believing, feeling, realising, sensing or having had a revelation of sorts. They all are a product of the mind and subject to a meriad of influences.
For millenia slavery was normal and accepted. It was part of everyday life. Why did someone decide one day it was immoral to enslave a fellow human being? Did we wake up from a morality slumber after all those years?
Or did our outlook on what makes us human change [the french revolution]? Did the slaves themselves revolt against being enslaved [Haiti]? Was slavery becoming old-fashioned due to technological advances [high powered steam engines]?
I’d really like to know why suddenly it was decided that slavery is immoral and should be abolished inspite of people’s acceptance of slavery for thousands of years.
Do you know?