With regards to the moral absolutists in this thread, a couple of questions:
Is lying always wrong? Is telling the truth ALWAYS the right thing to do?
Is taking another human life always wrong?
Do you think that you may find yourself in a situation someday that will require you to disregards some of your normally held values?
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
With regards to the moral absolutists in this thread, a couple of questions:
Is lying always wrong? Is telling the truth ALWAYS the right thing to do?
Is taking another human life always wrong?
Do you think that you may find yourself in a situation someday that will require you to disregards some of your normally held values?[/quote]
Is lying always wrong ? No, but it’s always bad.
Is taking another human life always wrong ? no, but it’s always bad.
I may find myself in a situaion that will require me to disobeye some of my moral |i]principles[/i] but i will never find myself in a situation that will require me to disREGARDS some of my moral VALUES.
I’m a moral absolutist but i do not believe in a omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient God, so this is “easier” for me.
Because this allow me to say “evil is sometimes necessary, but even when it is, it’s still evil”.
Believers can not say that because this would open the door to some embarassing paradoxes and internal contradictions.
Since God is good and omnipotent there need to be a good, sinless way to act, everytime, in any given situation.
That, or He is not that good, or not that omnipotent.
And to keep this idea, they always end up making convoluted, fragile (and morally dangerous) distinctions in order to explain the “exceptions” : “taking an human live =/= murder” “righteous war =/= murder”, etc.
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
With regards to the moral absolutists in this thread, a couple of questions:
Is lying always wrong? Is telling the truth ALWAYS the right thing to do?
Is taking another human life always wrong?
Do you think that you may find yourself in a situation someday that will require you to disregards some of your normally held values?[/quote]
Is lying always wrong ? No, but it’s always bad.
Is taking another human life always wrong ? no, but it’s always bad.
I may find myself in a situaion that will require me to disobeye some of my moral |i]principles[/i] but i will never find myself in a situation that will require me to disREGARDS some of my moral VALUES.
I’m a moral absolutist but i do not believe in a omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient God, so this is “easier” for me.
Because this allow me to say “evil is sometimes necessary, but even when it is, it’s still evil”.
Believers can not say that because this would open the door to some embarassing paradoxes and internal contradictions.
Since God is good and omnipotent there need to be a good, sinless way to act, everytime, in any given situation.
That, or He is not that good, or not that omnipotent.
And to keep this idea, they always end up making convoluted, fragile (and morally dangerous) distinctions in order to explain the “exceptions” : “taking an human live =/= murder” “righteous war =/= murder”, etc.
[/quote]
Good post. So what framework does your moral absolutism hang from? Is it a purely personal absolutism, or existent outside of yourself?
I’m not sure i really understand your question.
I think that morality
-is an inseparable and undeniable “dimension” of any action
-is metaphysical in nature (and as such objective, absolute and universal)
-can be rationally determined, defined and formulated
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Remember Pat this is not opinion I asked for proof [/quote]
First, I provided the logical argument that makes it true. If you cannot tell the difference I cannot help you.
[/quote]
I will agree with you that you can not help me with your opinion that morals are fixed and never change . I still belive morals are not fixed , they are molded by pressures on society.
I will say some morals have stood the test of time
[/quote]
Prove it.[/quote]
I thought you got my point there is no proof of anything concerning this point. Just because you have some unintelligible explanation does not make it fact . I have no proof either so I would say it is a wash . Your opinion is just as valid as my opinion
[quote]kamui wrote:
I’m not sure i really understand your question.
I think that morality
-is an inseparable and undeniable “dimension” of any action
-is metaphysical in nature (and as such objective, absolute and universal)
-can be rationally determined, defined and formulated
[/quote]
That answers it , thanks.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
With regards to the moral absolutists in this thread, a couple of questions:
Is lying always wrong? Is telling the truth ALWAYS the right thing to do?
Is taking another human life always wrong?
Do you think that you may find yourself in a situation someday that will require you to disregards some of your normally held values?[/quote]
is a tough one. Yes, telling the truth is always the right thing to do, but so is being kind and considerate. Achieving a balance of truth and consideration is something I struggled with for a long time. Still do, sometimes.
No. Defense, as good sense would dictate, is permissible. The real sticky situation comes into play with the understanding that sometimes you have to use offensive tactics as a defense.
Force me to face the decision to do so or die? Unfortunately, yes. I pray that when that time comes, the Father will grant me the strength to endure until the end.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
I’m not sure i really understand your question.
I think that morality
-is an inseparable and undeniable “dimension” of any action
-is metaphysical in nature (and as such objective, absolute and universal)
-can be rationally determined, defined and formulated
[/quote]
That answers it , thanks.
[/quote]
We really need a sarcasm font.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
^
Lol, if you’re anything like what you post, I don’t doubt it. I guess what I meant is that I don’t know where you think good and bad comes from and if you think there are some acts that are bad no matter who, what, or when. [/quote]
OK:) I do not think bad comes from any where . I think bad is the opposite of good :)[/quote]
And what’s “good?” What you say is good?[/quote]
the opposite of bad ?
[/quote]
And what’s “bad?” What you say is bad?[/quote]
IMO the definitions of good and bad are the largest two categories that encompass reality besides the grey areas 
[/quote]
And who defines the definitions of “good” and “bad?” You?[/quote]
No I let Satan , where the fuck you get these questions your 2 year old kid ?
[/quote]
The sure sign of a floundering argument without hope are comments like this. Pitt, you’ve painted yourself into a corner. No need to get all ugly about it. You’re the one who started with the ridiculous relative morality crap. You’re called and you have no answer, it’s that simple. Either that, or prove your claim.[/quote]
moral relativism is a tough argument to win or lose. 1500 years ago slavery and human sacrifice were the norm in the bulk of the world, 150 years ago our own super evolved nation had slavery. Right now in parts of the world “honor killings” are accepted and believed to be the will of god.
Morals are not constant, good and bad (or evil if you prefer) will be different 100 years from now, trying to develop a permanent moral code is a waste of time. We develop laws for safety (don’t steal, kill, assault, rape etc) but telling people what to feel or think is ridiculous. [/quote]
Not it’s not a tough argument to lose, it’s a losing argument. The point is as in your example, slavery and human sacrifice were still immoral even if accepted. Can you logically make an argument that these practices were morally good simply because they were accepted?
Moral relativism has been debunked for centuries. At least the last two. The act, being moral or immoral is NOT based on acceptance.
This is very amateurish reasoning. Well people did it, so it must have been good at the time? Really? Ask the slaves what they thought? The problem with relativism is it disregards the victim. The victim is irrelevant when the moral system is relative. so you technically have to make the case that some people’s personal values are more important than another’s. Good luck with that one, because in the end you’ff find yourself justify the most evil of actions.
The third Reich with the support of the German people thought it was a damn good idea to rid themselves of Jews, Gays, Catholic and various assortment of undesirables. In a morally reltive system, this is ok. It is morally just.
Let’s see you make that argument. Go on, this ought to be good.
For crying out loud I wish people would think sometimes.
The only impetus I can see for advocating a case for moral relativism is so that one can justify their own abominations. You don’t have to be a better person, you can just will your own evil to be right. Simple but wrong.[/quote]
You make an excellent point, I just don’t think it is the one you are trying to make. yes Hitler was evil, what he was doing was wrong, was our victory over the third reich moral? if we use your example and exclude moral relativism, our defeat of the Nazis’ (by killing lots of soldiers and civilians) is morally flawed, but to let the Nazis’ kill everyone in their path is equally flawed (it can’t be more flawed or less flawed because there is no such thing as moral relativism), if you cannot accept that the morality of a time, place or culture is independent of your own personal morality then you have to accept all actions as equal. You cannot say that killing in self defense is okay when we are sending boys 5000 miles away from home to fight in “self defense” in someone elses country. If you want to make it simple, we are descendants of more efficient murderers anyway, cro-magnon v neanderthal, revolutionaries v british, north v south, it’s silly to think that the moral code we have today will be the same one we have in 100 years.
Maybe I am misunderstanding your response to me, but I know for a fact you are misunderstanding my stance. Morality is a man made construct, as such it has no set immutable law. when you say “Ask the slaves if they thought slavery was good or moral” the answer is no, they would say it isn’t. By the same token the slave owners would say “yes it is”. Now go ask a soldier in WWII if killing Nazis’ is moral, he would say “Yes” as well, now go ask the Nazi if he thinks the actions of the allied soldiers who killed his friends and family are moral, what do you think he would say.
Morality, like history is the province of the victors.
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Morality, like history is the province of the victors.[/quote]
Interesting that the Roman historians who chronicled Hannibal’s campaigns ascribed to him impeccable morals. And the Greeks who chronicled the campaigns of Cyrus the Great did likewise - Xenophon even holding him to be the model of leadership and using him as the basis for his work on leadership: Cyropaedia
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Morality, like history is the province of the victors.[/quote]
Interesting that the Roman historians who chronicled Hannibal’s campaigns ascribed to him impeccable morals. And the Greeks who chronicled the campaigns of Cyrus the Great did likewise - Xenophon even holding him to be the model of leadership and using him as the basis for his work on leadership: Cyropaedia[/quote]
Very interesting.
[quote]kamui wrote:
I’m not sure i really understand your question.
I think that morality
-is an inseparable and undeniable “dimension” of any action
-is metaphysical in nature (and as such objective, absolute and universal)
-can be rationally determined, defined and formulated
[/quote]
How do you determine which beings are and aren’t capable of doing moral and/or immoral deeds?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
The fact is that there is good and there is evil. The fact is that neither are human constructs, we did not invent it. It was there before we were and will be there after we cease to exist. Just like the laws of physics do not need physical objects to exist, neither does morality need us to exist.
The abstracts are in control.[/quote]
Not so sure about the natural existence of morality. If that were the evident truth, then we would see morality among other animals.[/quote]
Morality centers on freewill. It’s tough to know if animals have that, but it’s seems as though they do not. Even if they display sometimes ‘human like’ characteristics, animals never seem to do harm for the sheer fact of doing harm. Humans can most definitely act morally or immorally for morality’s sake.
That doesn’t mean that animals can’t have it, it just appears as if they don’t. This is not provable however, there is a bit of a communication gap. [/quote]
You got me thinking there Pat.
I see it as being that sentient to the degree we are, we are subject to the laws of morality. But I thought some more… and all objects exhibit some degree of intelligence. I see it as degrees of sentience. Like a human is astronomically more intelligent than a single atom. But we are made of atoms. So somehow, that collection of atoms that makes a person and is constructed in such a way that creates a being capable of recognizing morality.
And I wonder how that is. And also it makes me wonder if our sentience is purely taken on faith.
[/quote]
Our own? No, I think we can make a pretty good case at least to ourselves, but in anybody or anything else, yes. We have know way of proving or knowing anything else is sentient. We assume that the behaviors exhibited, and communications made show evidence of sentience. But we don’t know that which cannot demonstrate sentience, doesn’t have it and we cannot know that what appears to have it, does in deed have it.
Sentience, though, is how we judge a moral act. Perhaps a dog cannot be immoral, but you can be immoral to a dog. If you make it suffer unduly then you are doing an evil act. We can tell only by the feedback the dog gives us.
On the other hand, the dog just does what it does. That doesn’t mean they don’t have personalities and act different, it means that they cannot purposefully go against their own nature to either do good or harm for the fact of doing good, or harm. If it does harm, it’s usually doing it because of a reason, fear, hunger, anger, etc.
Freewill. You have to be able to choose to act and have been able to choose otherwise. If you do not have that, then you are not capable of neither evil or good. It’s just stimulus, response, which is based on nature and nurture.
Freewill is the key to morality. And humans have it, most do. I cannot say all do. I don’t know that.
Well, this is an age old question we quite frankly will never have the answer to. I will give you a quick over simplified answer. Freewill hinges on choice and both are metaphysical constructs which are not subject to time. We interact with it temporally, but the objects themselves are not subject to time. We can make a good or evil choice, that is timeless, we see the results played out in time.
[quote]
I hope that makes sense to you. I’m just trying to bounce ideas off you and I thought this thread was as good as any. And I’m kind of trying to touch on the problem of the one and the many and how you view that one. I have a hunch it’s closely related to the question of morality. [/quote]
It’s all related in the end. And you are asking really good questions so feel free. I can go in to more detail about anything you are interested in.
God’s omniscience and Freewill for instance, may simply just be a paradox, or it may not be. [/quote]
The problem I’m seeing with what I see at the moment of your view and how can man have freewill in the sense you say? Man cannot have a freewill that can negate God’s will.
If an agent with freewill effects an omnipotent God’s will, than as I see it that entity called God is actually not omnipotent and not God at least in an Abrahamic religion’s sense or a pantheism/pandeism/panentheism.
Push,
At no point do I claim this to be my own unique view on the world, so the “Hanson Doctrine” seems like a bit of a lame ass title. Moral Relativism is how we view the world, it’s how we justify the death penalty while at the same time protest abortion, it’s how we throw ticker tape parades for our soldiers while dropping bombs on the opponents. It might be hard for you to understand, but western culture and your “judeo-chrsitian” values are not necessarily the be all end all for morality and ethics. the fact that you don’t acknowledge the ever changing moral structure of society makes it pretty clear to me that you live in the same type of bubble that led to nearly all of the atrocties of the past 2,000 years. You are either dense or naive.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
With regards to the moral absolutists in this thread, a couple of questions:
Is lying always wrong? Is telling the truth ALWAYS the right thing to do?
Is taking another human life always wrong?
Do you think that you may find yourself in a situation someday that will require you to disregards some of your normally held values?[/quote]
I believe I asked for proof of moral relativism. Asking more questions is not that. The fact that mitigating circumstances can alter what makes an action moral or immoral, is not related to the fact that good and evil are static. I really need to save this explanation out so I don’t have to retype it every time. But let’s look at what morality is:
Now of all the variables, the static portion is ‘good’ and ‘evil’. An action that helps or benefits another sentient being, was intended to help, was chosen to help, and did help is a good action. One that does harm, was intentionally done to do harm, and chosen to do harm when another option was available, is an evil action.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
With regards to the moral absolutists in this thread, a couple of questions:
Is lying always wrong? Is telling the truth ALWAYS the right thing to do?
Is taking another human life always wrong?
Do you think that you may find yourself in a situation someday that will require you to disregards some of your normally held values?[/quote]
Is lying always wrong ? No, but it’s always bad.
Is taking another human life always wrong ? no, but it’s always bad.
I may find myself in a situaion that will require me to disobeye some of my moral |i]principles[/i] but i will never find myself in a situation that will require me to disREGARDS some of my moral VALUES.
I’m a moral absolutist but i do not believe in a omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient God, so this is “easier” for me.
Because this allow me to say “evil is sometimes necessary, but even when it is, it’s still evil”.
Believers can not say that because this would open the door to some embarassing paradoxes and internal contradictions.
Since God is good and omnipotent there need to be a good, sinless way to act, everytime, in any given situation.
That, or He is not that good, or not that omnipotent.
And to keep this idea, they always end up making convoluted, fragile (and morally dangerous) distinctions in order to explain the “exceptions” : “taking an human live =/= murder” “righteous war =/= murder”, etc.
[/quote]
Good post. So what framework does your moral absolutism hang from? Is it a purely personal absolutism, or existent outside of yourself?
[/quote]
That which makes an action good or bad, is a self existent entity. The only thing that is relative is our awareness of it.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I thought you got my point there is no proof of anything concerning this point. Just because you have some unintelligible explanation does not make it fact . I have no proof either so I would say it is a wash . Your opinion is just as valid as my opinion
[/quote]
You failed to make that point, because it’s not true. You cannot make something not true, true because you want it to be true.
Like I told somebody else in another thread, skepticism is only valuable if it cuts both ways. You cannot only apply skepticism to things you disagree with, but not apply to the things you do agree with. You cannot discover truth by only being skeptical of others.
Yes, I am implying I have already done this exercise and I do it all the time. The answers always come out the same.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
With regards to the moral absolutists in this thread, a couple of questions:
Is lying always wrong? Is telling the truth ALWAYS the right thing to do?
Is taking another human life always wrong?
Do you think that you may find yourself in a situation someday that will require you to disregards some of your normally held values?[/quote]
Is lying always wrong ? No, but it’s always bad.
Is taking another human life always wrong ? no, but it’s always bad.
I may find myself in a situaion that will require me to disobeye some of my moral |i]principles[/i] but i will never find myself in a situation that will require me to disREGARDS some of my moral VALUES.
I’m a moral absolutist but i do not believe in a omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient God, so this is “easier” for me.
Because this allow me to say “evil is sometimes necessary, but even when it is, it’s still evil”.
Believers can not say that because this would open the door to some embarassing paradoxes and internal contradictions.
Since God is good and omnipotent there need to be a good, sinless way to act, everytime, in any given situation.
That, or He is not that good, or not that omnipotent.
And to keep this idea, they always end up making convoluted, fragile (and morally dangerous) distinctions in order to explain the “exceptions” : “taking an human live =/= murder” “righteous war =/= murder”, etc.
[/quote]
Good post. So what framework does your moral absolutism hang from? Is it a purely personal absolutism, or existent outside of yourself?
[/quote]
That which makes an action good or bad, is a self existent entity. The only thing that is relative is our awareness of it.[/quote]
meaning no disrespect but you sound like a pot head (Pat). You try and write as though you are Confucius or something . Life is not a riddle
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
I’m not sure i really understand your question.
I think that morality
-is an inseparable and undeniable “dimension” of any action
-is metaphysical in nature (and as such objective, absolute and universal)
-can be rationally determined, defined and formulated
[/quote]
How do you determine which beings are and aren’t capable of doing moral and/or immoral deeds?[/quote]
You need only two things to form the idea of morality :
a)-the ability to reflexively assign final causes to your actions
b)-a basic understanding of the irreversibility of time
without a) you’re not an agent. you’re just a factor.
without b) there is no point to act morally
we could add
c) -the ability to make axiological judgements.
but actually, c) is just the consequence of a) + b)
concretely, it means that :
*Everyone is is capable of doing moral/immoral deeds except young children and people with acute psychosis.
*Sociopaths are included. They fit the above criteria. Their lack of moral feelings does not prevent them from understanding the concepts and laws of morality. It just make it harder for them to act morally.
*AFAWK, non-human animals doesn’t fit the criteria.