[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
If morality is an immutable metaphysical law existing forever and always, it sure took a very long time to shine through, didn’t it? [/quote]
Is that really that crazy of a notion though?
If a few “powerful” people are willing to use immoral means to gain more power, why wouldn’t the followers, just follow? The person making the social rules isn’t moral by default, he or she is human. [/quote]
I’m afraid it really is a crazy notion to me. History tends to show us otherwise. Slavery in ancient times wasn’t just the preserve of “powerful” people, it was quite a middle class pursuit too. Lots of people of different means had slaves. So either it wasn’t considered immoral then, or the universal moral laws were in hiding or retreat. If something is to be that self evident as being a universal law, surely it defeats the object that no one can recognize it at all times?
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
If morality is an immutable metaphysical law existing forever and always, it sure took a very long time to shine through, didn’t it? [/quote]
Is that really that crazy of a notion though?
If a few “powerful” people are willing to use immoral means to gain more power, why wouldn’t the followers, just follow? The person making the social rules isn’t moral by default, he or she is human. [/quote]
I’m afraid it really is a crazy notion to me. History tends to show us otherwise. Slavery in ancient times wasn’t just the preserve of “powerful” people, it was quite a middle class pursuit too. Lots of people of different means had slaves. So either it wasn’t considered immoral then, or the universal moral laws were in hiding or retreat. If something is to be that self evident as being a universal law, surely it defeats the object that no one can recognize it at all times?[/quote]
Why does man have to follow the moral law? We still have free will. Just because it is there doesn’t mean people will instantly choose to follow it. Given the economic advantages, and the social acceptance, the temptation to follow could out weight any guilt.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Seems to me that moral absolutists are just one personal situation away from being a situational ethicist. Is there really such a thing as ABSOLUTE morality? [/quote]
Yes.[/quote]
Then tell me, what are these absolute values?
[/quote]
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Pat, you have a serious time scale flaw with the slavery story. Why only go back to the 1800s? Prove to me how slavery was considered immoral in ancient Egypt for eg, 5000 years ago. You cannot apply your chosen prism looking back, you need to take it on what the standard was THEN. If morality is an immutable metaphysical law existing forever and always, it sure took a very long time to shine through, didn’t it? And funny how it coincided with human thought becoming more enlightened.
[/quote]
Irrelevant. Choose any time you wish, it doesn’t affect the morality of an action…
Funny how all this enlightened thought was thought of about 2000 years before the supposed “Enlightenment”. Rediscovering what the Greeks and Romans already knew is hardly a feather in anyone’s cap.
[quote]
Surely it would have been a moral imperative to end it THEN, or in the many millennia prior to Egypt or post Egypt? Not just in the last few centuries? I don’t recall reading of too many Egyptian abolitionist movements. And certainly none with traction. And I can quite comfortably guarantee that the slave owners of the day lost no sleep about it being immoral. I would probably wager they thought it moral. So where all those masses confused way back when?[/quote]
It doesn’t matter what they thought, it only matters what it is.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Pat, you have a serious time scale flaw with the slavery story. Why only go back to the 1800s? Prove to me how slavery was considered immoral in ancient Egypt for eg, 5000 years ago. You cannot apply your chosen prism looking back, you need to take it on what the standard was THEN. If morality is an immutable metaphysical law existing forever and always, it sure took a very long time to shine through, didn’t it? And funny how it coincided with human thought becoming more enlightened.
[/quote]
Irrelevant. Choose any time you wish, it doesn’t affect the morality of an action…
Funny how all this enlightened thought was thought of about 2000 years before the supposed “Enlightenment”. Rediscovering what the Greeks and Romans already knew is hardly a feather in anyone’s cap.
[quote]
Surely it would have been a moral imperative to end it THEN, or in the many millennia prior to Egypt or post Egypt? Not just in the last few centuries? I don’t recall reading of too many Egyptian abolitionist movements. And certainly none with traction. And I can quite comfortably guarantee that the slave owners of the day lost no sleep about it being immoral. I would probably wager they thought it moral. So where all those masses confused way back when?[/quote]
It doesn’t matter what they thought, it only matters what it is.[/quote]
Come now, you have more game than this. You’ve evaded like a fiend here.
…We found them “as is”. Inside us, or more accurately in the “logic” of our relationship to the world…
[/quote]
I know Pat and some others (the theists) have expressed, but especially Kamui and others (the atheists), that God/a god is not a requisite at the morality origins parley but He sure does make a whole lot more sense when it comes to “How We Found Them (morals) ‘As Is.’”
When you allow for Him doing the creating and “instilling” the intellectually painful struggle to arrange the blocks of logic is mitigated.
So yes, the invocation of Occam’s Razor in this regard sure seems to be in order. When it is rejected we find a repeat of the original original sin, “I will make myself like the Most High (Isaiah 14:14),” and the last stepping stone to the original sin, “you will be like God (Genesis 3:5).”
In essence the attempt to establish that we found our moral base “as is,” without Deity placing it there is the same ol’ age old “original sin.” Man has been there and done that since…the original man (woman).
There is nothing new under the sun.[/quote]
I am actually merely identifying morality as it’s own entity without regard to it’s source. Indeed, all things physical and metaphysical can trace their originating source to the same place. I am just saying you can have the discussion without having to refer to it’s source. Morality is it’s own metaphysical object.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
If morality is an immutable metaphysical law existing forever and always, it sure took a very long time to shine through, didn’t it? [/quote]
Is that really that crazy of a notion though?
If a few “powerful” people are willing to use immoral means to gain more power, why wouldn’t the followers, just follow? The person making the social rules isn’t moral by default, he or she is human. [/quote]
I’m afraid it really is a crazy notion to me. History tends to show us otherwise. Slavery in ancient times wasn’t just the preserve of “powerful” people, it was quite a middle class pursuit too. Lots of people of different means had slaves. So either it wasn’t considered immoral then, or the universal moral laws were in hiding or retreat. If something is to be that self evident as being a universal law, surely it defeats the object that no one can recognize it at all times?[/quote]
Why does man have to follow the moral law? We still have free will. Just because it is there doesn’t mean people will instantly choose to follow it. Given the economic advantages, and the social acceptance, the temptation to follow could out weight any guilt.
Sorry for any spelling issues.[/quote]
I’m saying they had no guilt at all. Zero. We’re projecting our current values back in time. There was no question of morality or immorality then in this particular issue (slavery), by and large.
See my point? Now that is if you’re arguing that morality stands aside and apart from a morality giving god/s and requires nothing to exist other than itself and that it stands independently of us .
Once you bring a deity in I can fully accept that rational absolutism could be the order of the day. No deity? Relativism it is.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Pat, you have a serious time scale flaw with the slavery story. Why only go back to the 1800s? Prove to me how slavery was considered immoral in ancient Egypt for eg, 5000 years ago. You cannot apply your chosen prism looking back, you need to take it on what the standard was THEN. If morality is an immutable metaphysical law existing forever and always, it sure took a very long time to shine through, didn’t it? And funny how it coincided with human thought becoming more enlightened.
[/quote]
Irrelevant. Choose any time you wish, it doesn’t affect the morality of an action…
Funny how all this enlightened thought was thought of about 2000 years before the supposed “Enlightenment”. Rediscovering what the Greeks and Romans already knew is hardly a feather in anyone’s cap.
[quote]
Surely it would have been a moral imperative to end it THEN, or in the many millennia prior to Egypt or post Egypt? Not just in the last few centuries? I don’t recall reading of too many Egyptian abolitionist movements. And certainly none with traction. And I can quite comfortably guarantee that the slave owners of the day lost no sleep about it being immoral. I would probably wager they thought it moral. So where all those masses confused way back when?[/quote]
It doesn’t matter what they thought, it only matters what it is.[/quote]
Come now, you have more game than this. You’ve evaded like a fiend here. [/quote]
Evaded what? You’re trying to make some point about going further back in time, and I am telling you when is irrelevant. Good and evil don’t change. It’s the same 5000 years ago as it is today.
I know you’re trying to bait me into some biblical discussion. “Well in the bible it says…”. I don’t want to hear it unless you’ve read and studied it properly to understand the points, messages, context, audience, etc. of each book and passage.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
If morality is an immutable metaphysical law existing forever and always, it sure took a very long time to shine through, didn’t it? [/quote]
Is that really that crazy of a notion though?
If a few “powerful” people are willing to use immoral means to gain more power, why wouldn’t the followers, just follow? The person making the social rules isn’t moral by default, he or she is human. [/quote]
I’m afraid it really is a crazy notion to me. History tends to show us otherwise. Slavery in ancient times wasn’t just the preserve of “powerful” people, it was quite a middle class pursuit too. Lots of people of different means had slaves. So either it wasn’t considered immoral then, or the universal moral laws were in hiding or retreat. If something is to be that self evident as being a universal law, surely it defeats the object that no one can recognize it at all times?[/quote]
Why does man have to follow the moral law? We still have free will. Just because it is there doesn’t mean people will instantly choose to follow it. Given the economic advantages, and the social acceptance, the temptation to follow could out weight any guilt.
Sorry for any spelling issues.[/quote]
I’m saying they had no guilt at all. Zero. We’re projecting our current values back in time. There was no question of morality or immorality then in this particular issue (slavery), by and large.
See my point? Now that is if you’re arguing that morality stands aside and apart from a morality giving god/s and requires nothing to exist other than itself and that it stands independently of us .
Once you bring a deity in I can fully accept that rational absolutism could be the order of the day. No deity? Relativism it is.
[/quote]
Really, so it’s acceptable to abuse, mistreat, beat, malign, and devalue other human beings just because others think it’s ok? Relative to whom, the victims or the perpetrators? Why don’t the victims matter in the scheme? Are they not good enough to matter? Have they no value to you?
So whose values count in a relative system? The slave owner or the slave?
I’m saying they had no guilt at all. Zero. We’re projecting our current values back in time. There was no question of morality or immorality then in this particular issue (slavery), by and large.
See my point? [/quote]
I do. You very well may be 100% correct.
I just don’t see people not following something as a lack of it being there.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Pat, you have a serious time scale flaw with the slavery story. Why only go back to the 1800s? Prove to me how slavery was considered immoral in ancient Egypt for eg, 5000 years ago. You cannot apply your chosen prism looking back, you need to take it on what the standard was THEN. If morality is an immutable metaphysical law existing forever and always, it sure took a very long time to shine through, didn’t it? And funny how it coincided with human thought becoming more enlightened.
[/quote]
Irrelevant. Choose any time you wish, it doesn’t affect the morality of an action…
Funny how all this enlightened thought was thought of about 2000 years before the supposed “Enlightenment”. Rediscovering what the Greeks and Romans already knew is hardly a feather in anyone’s cap.
[quote]
Surely it would have been a moral imperative to end it THEN, or in the many millennia prior to Egypt or post Egypt? Not just in the last few centuries? I don’t recall reading of too many Egyptian abolitionist movements. And certainly none with traction. And I can quite comfortably guarantee that the slave owners of the day lost no sleep about it being immoral. I would probably wager they thought it moral. So where all those masses confused way back when?[/quote]
It doesn’t matter what they thought, it only matters what it is.[/quote]
Come now, you have more game than this. You’ve evaded like a fiend here. [/quote]
Evaded what? You’re trying to make some point about going further back in time, and I am telling you when is irrelevant. Good and evil don’t change. It’s the same 5000 years ago as it is today.
I know you’re trying to bait me into some biblical discussion. “Well in the bible it says…”. I don’t want to hear it unless you’ve read and studied it properly to understand the points, messages, context, audience, etc. of each book and passage.[/quote]
I’m not trying to bait you into ANYTHING, fucking hell. I have zero interest in quoting the bible, have never done so and will never do so. I have better things to do with my time than bait you.
All I’m saying is - No framework (god, gods, whtever) , moral relativism is what there is.
So, I wonder about abolitionists in slavery-practicing America. Were they wrong to say it was an immoral practice? Those who were persuaded over time, were they foolish for being conned into believing it was immoral as a rule?
…The rules under which we’ve come to live were determined over millenia by biology and evolutionary imperative…
[/quote]
Once again, this is why the creation/evolution debate is so fundamental.
It’s either one way or the other. There is no middle ground.
[/quote]
The problem is that that debate, too, is almost always irreconcilable. I will never believe that the Biblical creation story is true, and I doubt you’ll ever believe that it isn’t (if I’m remembering your position correctly).
There is no amount of logical discussion that will move either of us an inch in either direction.
Edit: if God appeared before me, established credibility by performing a miracle, and explained to me that the creation story in Genesis is true, I would probably believe it. Barring that, I won’t.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
If morality is an immutable metaphysical law existing forever and always, it sure took a very long time to shine through, didn’t it? [/quote]
Is that really that crazy of a notion though?
If a few “powerful” people are willing to use immoral means to gain more power, why wouldn’t the followers, just follow? The person making the social rules isn’t moral by default, he or she is human. [/quote]
I’m afraid it really is a crazy notion to me. History tends to show us otherwise. Slavery in ancient times wasn’t just the preserve of “powerful” people, it was quite a middle class pursuit too. Lots of people of different means had slaves. So either it wasn’t considered immoral then, or the universal moral laws were in hiding or retreat. If something is to be that self evident as being a universal law, surely it defeats the object that no one can recognize it at all times?[/quote]
Why does man have to follow the moral law? We still have free will. Just because it is there doesn’t mean people will instantly choose to follow it. Given the economic advantages, and the social acceptance, the temptation to follow could out weight any guilt.
Sorry for any spelling issues.[/quote]
I’m saying they had no guilt at all. Zero. We’re projecting our current values back in time. There was no question of morality or immorality then in this particular issue (slavery), by and large.
See my point? Now that is if you’re arguing that morality stands aside and apart from a morality giving god/s and requires nothing to exist other than itself and that it stands independently of us .
Once you bring a deity in I can fully accept that rational absolutism could be the order of the day. No deity? Relativism it is.
[/quote]
Really, so it’s acceptable to abuse, mistreat, beat, malign, and devalue other human beings just because others think it’s ok? Relative to whom, the victims or the perpetrators? Why don’t the victims matter in the scheme? Are they not good enough to matter? Have they no value to you?
So whose values count in a relative system? The slave owner or the slave?[/quote]
Did I at any point point say anything of the sort? Do me a favour and don’t put words in my mouth. AT THAT POINT IN TIME TO THOSE LIVING THEN, THEY CERTAINLY DID NOT HAVE VALUE. Prove otherwise. Where was this universal law THEN to protect the oppressed way back then? Surely if it exists it was recognized back then? Where was it?
I’m not here debating the merits of relativist vs an absolute moral system. Please, quote me where I have even hinted at this.
I’m talking about what possibly exists or doesn’t exist as far as systems go. Take the emotional strawmen somewhere else .
[quote]All I’m saying is - No framework (god, gods, whtever) , moral relativism is what there is.
With deities- Moral absolutism is possible.[/quote]
I can see why you’d think like that.
You systematically reduce morality to opinions about morality.
with such a premise, absolute morality would be an absolute opinion about morality.
Only an absolute being can have absolute opinion
Therefore moral absolutism is only possible “with deities”.
Is this pseudo-syllogistic rendition close to your views ?
The problem with such a view is its premise.
if you don’t accept that morality is not (or not only) opinion, but actual truth, there is another immediate, unavoidable consequence :
propositions about morality can not be falsified or disproved in any way.
If that’s true, then all discussion of this subject are ultimately pointless.
that would obviously include our current discussion, and any discussion taking place in a democratic parliament.
If you are trying to make that point that morality is something other than a man made apparatus designed to create guilt (another man made apparatus) then you should never bring religion into the conversation.
[/quote]
I never said it was designed to create guilt. You cannot ‘create’ guilt, you can only experience it, secondly, and I never brought religion into the conversation. If anything I avoided it at all costs because it’s not necessary to the discussion. You must be mixing up posts.
Dude what ever drugs you take, they are scrambling your brain. You are all over the map. how in the fuck did you get from Hitler thinking he was moral, to being a Christian of “some sort” then to being some what religious. Do you think before you type?
As far as what Hitler thought, it doesn’t really matter one hardy fuck what hitler thought, what he did was an abomination and exceedingly immoral. Do you not agree, or do you put what Hitler thought over those of his victims? Because the Hitler was the executioner of his own actions, does his will automatically supersede those of the people he murdered, tortured and oppressed?
Oh I know this shit totally went over your head.
What in the hardy hell are you talking about now? Introducing about 10,000 Red Herrings into the conversation does not prove that morality is a man made construct, nor that it’s relative. Brian I don’t mean this as insulting, but I don’t think you have actually given this a moments thought.
There is something called logic and reason that is designed to guide us in these discussions. Abandoning that completely is going absolutely no where. I have seldom run across thought patterns as fractured as this. Hell, I never even introduced religion into the conversation, you just did, I did not.
The point is, to get to the truth, you have to get past what people ‘think’ and drill down on what things actually are. THEN you can determine the morality of the action. Misunderstanding affects culpability, but it does not remove it completely.
You are very confused. That which is socially acceptable may or may not be moral. Social acceptability does not dictate morality. If it did, then slavery would have been moral. Sex slavery today is moral, killing people not like you would be moral. The point is, it’s not. Doesn’t matter what everybody thinks, it only matters what things are. Can you tell the difference.
How much shit do you want to drag into one conversation? Why are you passing political judgments on me, in the scope of a conversation where the topic is whether or not morality is relative or a static entity. You are as lost as lost can be.
You’re one of these surface thinkers. Do you understand what it is to take a single topic, drill down on the one single topic and hash out the truth from the fiction about that single topic? The topic is moral relativity. It’s ok to bring in examples to prove your point but to throw in everything to see if anything sticks is not going to work. Again, logic needs to drive this process. There is a complete absence of logic in your posts. None, zeta, nada, zero.
First I never said you thought morality was designed to create guilt, I actually said if you are trying to prove anything OTHER than that, you should leave religion out of the calculation.
As far as the rest, I am of the belief that you have either moral absolutism (or some farmclub of that belief), moral relativism (or again its minor league affiliates) or something more like the belief that morals are not anything but a man made construct designed to make us all better neighbors and co-workers (pretty much what I believe).
Your belief that there are “universal truths” regarding morality is only relative to you and yours, which means that they are not “universal”, labeling an action as immoral is limited to people that have the same beliefs as you. I’m not sure how this is so hard to understand for you, cultural morality is by its’ very nature unfit for universal consumption, I brought up Hitler and all the rest because if you look at the past it dictates the present. For example, if Hitler had won and somehow gained control of the world and eradicated all the Jews, Gypsies, Catholics, Gays etc, we would have a different idea of morality wouldn’t we? In a world run by Nazis’ the presiding morality would be formed by the winners, three or four generations after the war we wouldn’t even question the way things are, we would all accept it as the “right way” to live. You will of course deny this and say that you would hold on to your innate moral guidelines, but you would of course be full of shit because you would be born in a world where the cultural norm is whatever the fuck the Nazis’ were selling. Again, imagine the US if the South had won the Civil War, not pretty is it? We are who we are because of where we are, not just because we are human beings, our culture shapes our beliefs.