Claiming Moral Authority

[pat]

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:

[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]

As scattered as your brain is, I wonder how resolve anything. I am going to go out on a limb and say you were really bad at math, after all, all those numbers shouldn’t really have more value than other numbers, that’s just mean.

Anyways, to look at morality, you have to drill down on single acts. You cannot throw 5000 different things in the mix and think you can discern the morality of all of it simultaneously. You can look at slavery, OR, the holocaust, OR war, or killing, etc and look at each action. The war, POWs, economic distress, etc. has no bearing on whether or not slavery was evil.

The number two reason moral relativity fails is it disregards the victims.
Slavery was an accepted institution at one time. Saying that because it was accepted and therefore moral, totally disregards and therefore devalues the experience of the slaves and the slaves themselves. However, slavery was accepted, the slaves weren’t down with it. They were the recipients of socially accepted evil, that’s all.

[pat]

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[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:

1. Is lying always wrong? Is telling the truth ALWAYS the right thing to do?

2. Is taking another human life always wrong?

3. 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]

The truth hurts and I am no fan of eastern philosophy. That is simply a statement of fact. It’s actually not “deep” at all, but quite direct. My pot usage is irrelevant to the situation. Why is it, that this is all you could come up with as a counter argument?
You say it’s not true, prove it.

[pat]

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

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.
[/quote]
Well, this alone is a HUGE topic on it’s own. Freewil vs. determinism is a fascinating and infinitely deep topic. But I can be concise in my answer.
You are right that man’s will cannot trump God’s will. But God’s will was that we have freewill. So that by having freewill, we are fulfilling God’s will.

[quote]
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. [/quote]

These are age old questions, and there are only theories, no real answers, but potential answers. Like I said above, God willed man to have freewill, therefore by having it, we are fulfilling his will. If God decides something against our will, he certainly wins.

Now there are some paradoxical problems we have to deal with. This actually, would be a fascinating topic on it’s own. But to answer your question about omnipotence, to be omnipotent means that God can will us to have freewill, and have his own will and both co-exist. If they couldn’t, then he wouldn’t be omnipotent.

Like I said, this would be an awesome topic to dig deeper into. For the sake of this discussion, we know morality exists, we know that for something to be moral or immoral you must have freewill, therefore freewill exists. That or morality really doesn’t.

[Neuromancer]

[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:

1. Is lying always wrong? Is telling the truth ALWAYS the right thing to do?

2. Is taking another human life always wrong?

3. 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]

So if there are no humans, good and evil exist independently , regardless. I understand the argument …I’m just not sure I agree with the result.

[BrianHanson]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:

[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]

As scattered as your brain is, I wonder how resolve anything. I am going to go out on a limb and say you were really bad at math, after all, all those numbers shouldn’t really have more value than other numbers, that’s just mean.

Anyways, to look at morality, you have to drill down on single acts. You cannot throw 5000 different things in the mix and think you can discern the morality of all of it simultaneously. You can look at slavery, OR, the holocaust, OR war, or killing, etc and look at each action. The war, POWs, economic distress, etc. has no bearing on whether or not slavery was evil.

The number two reason moral relativity fails is it disregards the victims.
Slavery was an accepted institution at one time. Saying that because it was accepted and therefore moral, totally disregards and therefore devalues the experience of the slaves and the slaves themselves. However, slavery was accepted, the slaves weren’t down with it. They were the recipients of socially accepted evil, that’s all.[/quote]

Pat,

After reading your post I would like to ask how you can call morality a constant and then say to define the morality of an action it has to be viewed as an individual act, rather than as the exact same as any other of the same act. You my friend are espousing moral relativism. Morality is not a hard and fast law, it needs to be viewed in context. On earth gravity is a law morality is a suggestion. If I grow up in a tribe where we believe in human sacrifice and cannibalism, and nobody shows us anything different, and we are all okay with it how are you able to prove that it is morally wrong? The bible itself plays out quite a few “immoral” acts, many of them perpetrated by God himself, Moral relativism at its finest. I am not saying murder isn’t something that we should condemn, what I am saying is that morality is a lot more grey than you would play it out to be.

[pittbulll]

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:

[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]

As scattered as your brain is, I wonder how resolve anything. I am going to go out on a limb and say you were really bad at math, after all, all those numbers shouldn’t really have more value than other numbers, that’s just mean.

Anyways, to look at morality, you have to drill down on single acts. You cannot throw 5000 different things in the mix and think you can discern the morality of all of it simultaneously. You can look at slavery, OR, the holocaust, OR war, or killing, etc and look at each action. The war, POWs, economic distress, etc. has no bearing on whether or not slavery was evil.

The number two reason moral relativity fails is it disregards the victims.
Slavery was an accepted institution at one time. Saying that because it was accepted and therefore moral, totally disregards and therefore devalues the experience of the slaves and the slaves themselves. However, slavery was accepted, the slaves weren’t down with it. They were the recipients of socially accepted evil, that’s all.[/quote]

Pat,

After reading your post I would like to ask how you can call morality a constant and then say to define the morality of an action it has to be viewed as an individual act, rather than as the exact same as any other of the same act. You my friend are espousing moral relativism. Morality is not a hard and fast law, it needs to be viewed in context. On earth gravity is a law morality is a suggestion. If I grow up in a tribe where we believe in human sacrifice and cannibalism, and nobody shows us anything different, and we are all okay with it how are you able to prove that it is morally wrong? The bible itself plays out quite a few “immoral” acts, many of them perpetrated by God himself, Moral relativism at its finest. I am not saying murder isn’t something that we should condemn, what I am saying is that morality is a lot more grey than you would play it out to be.[/quote]

the way he is speaking is so convoluted , he doesn’t understand it either

[hungry4more]

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:

Pat,

After reading your post I would like to ask how you can call morality a constant and then say to define the morality of an action it has to be viewed as an individual act, rather than as the exact same as any other of the same act. You my friend are espousing moral relativism. Morality is not a hard and fast law, it needs to be viewed in context. On earth gravity is a law morality is a suggestion. If I grow up in a tribe where we believe in human sacrifice and cannibalism, and nobody shows us anything different, and we are all okay with it how are you able to prove that it is morally wrong? The bible itself plays out quite a few “immoral” acts, many of them perpetrated by God himself, Moral relativism at its finest. I am not saying murder isn’t something that we should condemn, what I am saying is that morality is a lot more grey than you would play it out to be.[/quote]

Viewing things in context =/= moral relativism. It simply means that there are certain factors that must be taken into account before one can determine whether or not an action (or inaction) was morally right or wrong.

For example, I could say “Murder is wrong”.

This does not mean that killing is always wrong, it means that killing someone who has not committed an equal or greater offense is not justified. I say “or greater”, because some people consider things like rape as worse than murder, and I can understand where they are coming from. The murder victim is arguably no longer in pain (of course this depends on religious beliefs and such, too much to get into here), while the rape victim has to live with that pain for the rest of their lives. I’m getting sidetracked.

So is “Murder is wrong” compromised as a moral law by taking prior/present circumstances and the actions of other people into account? Absolutely not.

This reminds me…the subject of only humans being subject to morality, and that stuff; When a human has sex with an animal, we consider it a pretty heinous crime (and rightfully so, I say). Why is that? As far as I am aware, animals aren’t traumatized by a human forcing himself upon them. It is because of what the human is doing (sex with another species), not what is being done to the animal, that it is wrong. We don’t consider it evil when a dog humps a cat, do we? Again, sorry for getting sidetracked. It came to mind from previous discussions, so yeah.

[BrianHanson]

hungry,

murder is a crime, a crime is only a crime because of the existence of law. Murder is only wrong because we classify it as such. killing (which is what I think you are referring to) is not really varied by context, dead is dead regardless of the social institutions we design to classify what “type” of killing it is (murder, manslaughter, execution, war, self defense etc).
i am not advocating killing everyone by the way, I am merely saying that morality is nothing more than our perception of what “should” be, this is pretty far from being a natural law.

[hungry4more]

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
hungry,

murder is a crime, a crime is only a crime because of the existence of law. Murder is only wrong because we classify it as such. killing (which is what I think you are referring to) is not really varied by context, dead is dead regardless of the social institutions we design to classify what “type” of killing it is (murder, manslaughter, execution, war, self defense etc).
i am not advocating killing everyone by the way, I am merely saying that morality is nothing more than our perception of what “should” be, this is pretty far from being a natural law.[/quote]

For one who believes in no higher power/authority/etc, yes, I understand your point of view. Since I believe in God, I disagree.

What is a “natural law” in your opinion? Are you talking about gravity, speed of light, that sort of thing? Or made-up “laws” that don’t mean anything with no higher authority creating them? Also, I presume you agree with “might makes right”, yes?

[BrianHanson]

[quote]hungry4more wrote:

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
hungry,

murder is a crime, a crime is only a crime because of the existence of law. Murder is only wrong because we classify it as such. killing (which is what I think you are referring to) is not really varied by context, dead is dead regardless of the social institutions we design to classify what “type” of killing it is (murder, manslaughter, execution, war, self defense etc).
i am not advocating killing everyone by the way, I am merely saying that morality is nothing more than our perception of what “should” be, this is pretty far from being a natural law.[/quote]

For one who believes in no higher power/authority/etc, yes, I understand your point of view. Since I believe in God, I disagree.

What is a “natural law” in your opinion? Are you talking about gravity, speed of light, that sort of thing? Or made-up “laws” that don’t mean anything with no higher authority creating them? Also, I presume you agree with “might makes right”, yes?[/quote]

Hungry,

I actually don’t believe in might makes right (though in a lot of ways I wish I did) but yes I am talking about natural laws. Again I don’t disagree that murder, rape, robbery etc is “bad” I just think it has more to do with who we are, where we are and most importantly when we are than a natural order of things.

[kamui]

Moral laws have been formulated millenia ago.
You’ll find various-but-similar expressions of the “Golden Rule” in virtually every civilizations.

It’s in the Code of Hammurabi.
It’s in Confucius.
It’s in ancien egyptian texts.
It’s in the Mahabharata.
It’s in the Bible.
It’s in the Tirukkural.
It’s in Jain texts.
It’s in buddhist texts.

Etc.

Why ?
Because it’s “embedded” in the very concept of Morality.

Now, that’s just the law, and we often break it. Individually and collectively.

And sometimes, we collectively find clever (political and/or religious) arguments to justify the “exceptions” and excuse our deeds.
Hence slavery and other “culture-wide” crimes.

The fact that we “tolerated” these crimes at various points of our history doesn’t invalidate the law itself.

[hungry4more]

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:

[quote]hungry4more wrote:

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
hungry,

murder is a crime, a crime is only a crime because of the existence of law. Murder is only wrong because we classify it as such. killing (which is what I think you are referring to) is not really varied by context, dead is dead regardless of the social institutions we design to classify what “type” of killing it is (murder, manslaughter, execution, war, self defense etc).
i am not advocating killing everyone by the way, I am merely saying that morality is nothing more than our perception of what “should” be, this is pretty far from being a natural law.[/quote]

For one who believes in no higher power/authority/etc, yes, I understand your point of view. Since I believe in God, I disagree.

What is a “natural law” in your opinion? Are you talking about gravity, speed of light, that sort of thing? Or made-up “laws” that don’t mean anything with no higher authority creating them? Also, I presume you agree with “might makes right”, yes?[/quote]

Hungry,

I actually don’t believe in might makes right (though in a lot of ways I wish I did) but yes I am talking about natural laws. Again I don’t disagree that murder, rape, robbery etc is “bad” I just think it has more to do with who we are, where we are and most importantly when we are than a natural order of things.
[/quote]

I disagree. Whether you realize it or not, you apparently do believe in might makes right. Otherwise, why would we lock up murderers? They just have different moral codes than us, how does that make them “wrong”? Answer: by your argument, it doesn’t make them wrong. The only reason we are able to lock them up, and impose our moral code on them, is due to greater numbers aka “might”. But there’s nothing to say we’re more right about anything than they are.

Also, what on earth are you talking about with “who we are, where we are, when we are”? Those mean literally nothing in the context of this discussion.

[BrianHanson]

Kamui,

Doesn’t it make more sense that we wrote these laws down to keep the peace and protect our property/family for the very reason that they are not laws at all but merely good guidelines for surviving in a group?

[hungry4more]

[quote]kamui wrote:
Moral laws have been formulated millenia ago.
You’ll find various-but-similar expressions of the “Golden Rule” in virtually every civilizations.

It’s in the Code of Hammurabi.
It’s in Confucius.
It’s in ancien egyptian texts.
It’s in the Mahabharata.
It’s in the Bible.
It’s in the Tirukkural.
It’s in Jain texts.
It’s in buddhist texts.

Etc.

Why ?
Because it’s “embedded” in the very concept of Morality.

Now, that’s just the law, and we often break it. Individually and collectively.

And sometimes, we collectively find clever (political and/or religious) arguments to justify the “exceptions” and excuse our deeds.
Hence slavery and other “culture-wide” crimes.

The fact that we “tolerated” these crimes at various points of our history doesn’t invalidate the law itself.

[/quote]

The argument can also easily be made that there are somewhat similar basic “moral codes” in most of humanity because of a creator that gave us that impetus.

[hungry4more]

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Kamui,

Doesn’t it make more sense that we wrote these laws down to keep the peace and protect our property/family for the very reason that they are not laws at all but merely good guidelines for surviving in a group?[/quote]

And if you believe that (not that there’s anything ridiculous about that belief), logically, there are no morals, only ethics.

[kamui]

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Kamui,

Doesn’t it make more sense that we wrote these laws down to keep the peace and protect our property/family for the very reason that they are not laws at all but merely good guidelines for surviving in a group?[/quote]

No. These laws are not just the opinion of their authors. They are more than good ideas or guidelines to protect property and family.
They are formal and logical. And that’s why they are morally legal so to speak

“Always lick the boots of the oppressor”
“Don’t forget the ammo”
“Do not rape your slave too often, or they might revolt”
“dress modestly if you wanna walk in Gomorrha’s suburbs at night”
“Don’t do drugs”
“Sane, Safe, Consensual”

those are “guidelines”

“Don’t fix what isn’t broke”
“Keep it simple stupid”
“Check your back, bro”

Those are a bit more abstract, and a bit better

“Carpe Diem”
“live your life as if you were to die tomorrow”

Those are even more abstract. We entered the philosophical realm of Ethics.

“do not do unto others what you do not want others to do unto you”

Now that’s an imperative, and a “principle”. A formal, universal rule. And we are in the realm of Morality.

[pat]

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[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:

1. Is lying always wrong? Is telling the truth ALWAYS the right thing to do?

2. Is taking another human life always wrong?

3. 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]

So if there are no humans, good and evil exist independently , regardless. I understand the argument …I’m just not sure I agree with the result.[/quote]

A ‘tool’ can exist, without ever being used. It’s also not to say that humans are the only creatures in the universe who are subject to morality.

[countingbeans]

[quote]kamui wrote:
No. These laws are not just the opinion of their authors. They are more than good ideas or guidelines to protect property and family.
They are formal and logical. And that’s why they are morally legal so to speak

“Always lick the boots of the oppressor”
“Don’t forget the ammo”
“Do not rape your slave too often, or they might revolt”
“dress modestly if you wanna walk in Gomorrha’s suburbs at night”
“Don’t do drugs”
“Sane, Safe, Consensual”

those are “guidelines”

“Don’t fix what isn’t broke”
“Keep it simple stupid”
“Check your back, bro”

Those are a bit more abstract, and a bit better

“Carpe Diem”
“live your life as if you were to die tomorrow”

Those are even more abstract. We entered the philosophical realm of Ethics.

“do not do unto others what you do not want others to do unto you”

Now that’s an imperative, and a “principle”. A formal, universal rule. And we are in the realm of Morality.
[/quote]

Your posts are a pleasure. Thanks

[Neuromancer]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[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:

1. Is lying always wrong? Is telling the truth ALWAYS the right thing to do?

2. Is taking another human life always wrong?

3. 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]

So if there are no humans, good and evil exist independently , regardless. I understand the argument …I’m just not sure I agree with the result.[/quote]

A ‘tool’ can exist, without ever being used. It’s also not to say that humans are the only creatures in the universe who are subject to morality.[/quote]

I get that. And I am also well aware of the breakdown ,at the edges, of moral relativism…it still doesn’t lead to the existence of metaphysical morality existing outside of human existence. Of course there could be other worlds where sentient beings exist and they may well be also subject to metaphysical moral ‘laws’, but in the world we live in, as of now, morality APPEARS to be a human construct, because outside of us I see no other species where we can reliably infer that a sense of morality exists, beyond a shadow of a doubt and without resorting to some serious anthromorphism.

I get that in a religious persons world view, god is the framework off which the metaphysical existence of a non relativist morality is given life. I just don’t see it for an atheist/agnostic. It can be believed , for sure , but not proved. I think you NEED a god /gods
to make it fly.

[pat]

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:

[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]

What you don’t understand, is that each isolated event is a moral or immoral action. If you are looking at the collectives you already have to concede that morality is not arbitrary, otherwise the conversation simply cannot had. All actions are moral to those who think it when it comes to relative morality. So Hitler was moral, Himmler was moral, the war was moral, etc.
You cannot start a conversation about morality in the collective series of events if you cannot agree that a even one action is a moral or immoral one.