[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
I’m saying they had no guilt at all.
[/quote]
As in you don’t believe they were guilty?[/quote]
They felt no guilt as per CB’s post that would goad them into a more correct course of action as we would see it.[/quote]
Do you believe they were guilty, though?
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
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. [/quote]
Doesn’t every Marxist revolution and dream of the utopian society, or any revolution really, pretty much make what you say here incorrect?
[quote]kamui wrote:
[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 opinions
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.
[/quote]
I know. I understand what you’re saying and how it works, and yes , you are right as far as it goes. I’ve never argued otherwise. That’s why we LIVE like moral absolutism is the norm, to avoid the unavoidable breakdowns at the edges of relative morality. But intellectually , as a construct, I cannot make the leap to the existence of morality as an absolute truth standing outside of human existence. I have not read an argument that convinces me of this yet, and believe me it isn’t because I don’t want it to be so. I do. But I don’t see it.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
AT THAT POINT IN TIME TO THOSE LIVING THEN, THEY CERTAINLY DID NOT HAVE VALUE.
[/quote]
And you agree with them?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
I’m saying they had no guilt at all.
[/quote]
As in you don’t believe they were guilty?[/quote]
They felt no guilt as per CB’s post that would goad them into a more correct course of action as we would see it.[/quote]
Do you believe they were guilty, though?
[/quote]
Do I believe slavery is wrong , completely and without reserve? Yes.
To me, was it wrong back then too? Yes.
But that is my current prism providing a judgement looking backwards. Would I have felt so if I had lived back then? Impossible to say. We all like to say we would, but what we know of the times back then suggests maybe it’s not all as clear cut as all that…
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
But that is my current prism providing a judgement looking backwards. Would I have felt so if I had lived back then? Impossible to say. We all like to say we would, but what we know of the times back then suggests maybe it’s not all as clear cut as all that…
[/quote]
The ends justified their means.
Does the rationalization of their behavior, or even human behavior itself, mean that the moral integrity of the situation comes and goes with how the majority see fit?
Seems to me that people would have an easier time explaining why immoral behavior was okay, than to try and change the moral itself.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
But that is my current prism providing a judgement looking backwards. Would I have felt so if I had lived back then? Impossible to say. We all like to say we would, but what we know of the times back then suggests maybe it’s not all as clear cut as all that…
[/quote]
The ends justified their means.
Does the rationalization of their behavior, or even human behavior itself, mean that the moral integrity of the situation comes and goes with how the majority see fit?
Seems to me that people would have an easier time explaining why immoral behavior was okay, than to try and change the moral itself. [/quote]
So you see the moral as fixed and unchanging over time and standing outside of human consciousness?
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
But that is my current prism providing a judgement looking backwards. Would I have felt so if I had lived back then? Impossible to say. We all like to say we would, but what we know of the times back then suggests maybe it’s not all as clear cut as all that…
[/quote]
The ends justified their means.
Does the rationalization of their behavior, or even human behavior itself, mean that the moral integrity of the situation comes and goes with how the majority see fit?
Seems to me that people would have an easier time explaining why immoral behavior was okay, than to try and change the moral itself. [/quote]
So you see the moral as fixed and unchanging over time and standing outside of human consciousness? [/quote]
Yeah, at this point in my life, yes.
I also see humans as just that, human. In so much that an evil human can change the minds of many to get his means if he is a good enough leader. People are followers more often than not, and good leaders aren’t always good people.
Many things are believed because they are demonstrably true, while others are believed simply because they are asserted repeatedly.
Thomas Sowell
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
But that is my current prism providing a judgement looking backwards. Would I have felt so if I had lived back then? Impossible to say. We all like to say we would, but what we know of the times back then suggests maybe it’s not all as clear cut as all that…
[/quote]
The ends justified their means.
Does the rationalization of their behavior, or even human behavior itself, mean that the moral integrity of the situation comes and goes with how the majority see fit?
Seems to me that people would have an easier time explaining why immoral behavior was okay, than to try and change the moral itself. [/quote]
So you see the moral as fixed and unchanging over time and standing outside of human consciousness? [/quote]
War is a good example. I would say the vast majority of people that are good at war, good at killing, are either a-moral or can convince themselves that they are.
That doesn’t mean the moral code isn’t there. Just that these people don’t follow it.
But I suppose it is a “if a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it” conversation as well. To me, the tree makes a noise, but some people are deaf.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
But that is my current prism providing a judgement looking backwards. Would I have felt so if I had lived back then? Impossible to say. We all like to say we would, but what we know of the times back then suggests maybe it’s not all as clear cut as all that…
[/quote]
The ends justified their means.
Does the rationalization of their behavior, or even human behavior itself, mean that the moral integrity of the situation comes and goes with how the majority see fit?
Seems to me that people would have an easier time explaining why immoral behavior was okay, than to try and change the moral itself. [/quote]
So you see the moral as fixed and unchanging over time and standing outside of human consciousness? [/quote]
Yeah, at this point in my life, yes.
I also see humans as just that, human. In so much that an evil human can change the minds of many to get his means if he is a good enough leader. People are followers more often than not, and good leaders aren’t always good people.
Many things are believed because they are demonstrably true, while others are believed simply because they are asserted repeatedly.
Thomas Sowell
[/quote]
Lol…I wasn’t expecting to see this become another Obama bashfest. You right wingers are relentless hehehehe…(I’m kidding, btw)
As I said before, we (me included) live our lives as if it was so, that moral absolutism exists. I have no issue with that. Doesn’t mean it’s so, but for our personal purposes and short time here, it will suffice.
I was more arguing against the ‘it’s all settled, done and dusted centuries ago’ thinking. Far from it.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
But that is my current prism providing a judgement looking backwards. Would I have felt so if I had lived back then? Impossible to say. We all like to say we would, but what we know of the times back then suggests maybe it’s not all as clear cut as all that…
[/quote]
The ends justified their means.
Does the rationalization of their behavior, or even human behavior itself, mean that the moral integrity of the situation comes and goes with how the majority see fit?
Seems to me that people would have an easier time explaining why immoral behavior was okay, than to try and change the moral itself. [/quote]
So you see the moral as fixed and unchanging over time and standing outside of human consciousness? [/quote]
War is a good example. I would say the vast majority of people that are good at war, good at killing, are either a-moral or can convince themselves that they are.
That doesn’t mean the moral code isn’t there. Just that these people don’t follow it.
But I suppose it is a “if a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it” conversation as well. To me, the tree makes a noise, but some people are deaf.[/quote]
Good example.
War is very def one of those situations that runs moral absolutism ragged, philosophically speaking. That’s when justifications for all kinds of actions and behaviours get trotted out…just war doctrines ,etc,etc.
Now don’t anyone take the above statement personally and get all defensive, I’m not trying to insult people or wind anyone up.
[quote]kamui wrote:
[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. [/quote]Which is why, philosophically speaking, only private consensus, which is unenforceable in the public arena can actually govern morality in fact and not just by external coercion upon the will under pain of punishment.
In other words a morally divided populous is utterly ungovernable without the group with the biggest gun denying the other groups the freedom to do as they please.
To quote (paraphrasing) that great French philosopher Kamui: “all propositions are in the end reduced to tautology”. Which from the standpoint of finite sinful autonomous man I agree with entirely. Faith is the only escape from tautology. Tautology being another word for uncertainty. Being unable to function pragmatically on the basis of uncertainty for even one millisecond we all live move and breathe in faith. It’s only a matter of what in. What does this have to with moral authority? I’m not asking Kamui because he already knows. Absolutely everything.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[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. [/quote]Which is why, philosophically speaking, only private consensus, which is unenforceable in the public arena can actually govern morality in fact and not just by external coercion upon the will under pain of punishment.
In other words a morally divided populous is utterly ungovernable without the group with the biggest gun denying the other groups the freedom to do as they please.
To quote (paraphrasing) that great French philosopher Kamui: “all propositions are in the end reduced to tautology”. Which from the standpoint of finite sinful autonomous man I agree with entirely. Faith is the only escape from tautology. Tautology being another word for uncertainty. Being unable to function pragmatically on the basis of uncertainty for even one millisecond we all live move and breathe in faith. It’s only a matter of what in. What does this have to with moral authority? I’m not asking Kamui because he already knows. Absolutely everything.
[/quote]
Many things cannot be proved or disproved, so we are left with faith. The amount of faith required in day to day life is quite staggering.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Thing is, you will appear before Him. Not the other way around.
[/quote]
I will admit that I have often found myself hoping this to be the case. The implications of materialism are at times difficult to accept.
It should be noted that I’m not an atheist. My fundamental belief is that I cannot and will not (in this life) know. But as I’ve said before on these boards, I find atheism to be an even less convincing explanation for matter’s existence than theism.
But a conversion to Christianity is extremely unlikely.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Do I believe slavery is wrong , completely and without reserve? Yes.
To me, was it wrong back then too? Yes.[/quote]
I don’t understand that. To say it wasn’t immoral because that was how it was, but then turn around to say it was immoral based on what you ‘know’ now.
But why are you doing that? Shouldn’t you simply say, no, it wasn’t immoral, period. If morality is relative to the times why would you consider it through anything but their prism? Why would you now assign those lives moral value that didn’t/doesn’t exist? You’re intellectually aware the morality is relative, so you should see their lives as a temporary resource. How can you believe something to be true that you’ve decided isn’t?
[quote] Would I have felt so if I had lived back then? Impossible to say. We all like to say we would, but what we know of the times back then suggests maybe it’s not all as clear cut as all that…
[/quote]
It wouldn’t have mattered what you decided (or decide today), because either way those lives would have had no moral value. You would knowingly be lying to yourself.
[quote]smh23 wrote:<<< But a conversion to Christianity is extremely unlikely.[/quote]In EVERY case where it occurs. Most assuredly including mine.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Do I believe slavery is wrong , completely and without reserve? Yes.
To me, was it wrong back then too? Yes.[/quote]
I don’t understand that. To say it wasn’t immoral because that was how it was, but then turn around to say it was immoral based on what you ‘know’ now.
But why are you doing that? Shouldn’t you simply say, no, it wasn’t immoral, period. If morality is relative to the times why would you consider it through anything but their prism? Why would you now assign those lives moral value that didn’t/doesn’t exist? You’re intellectually aware the morality is relative, so you should see their lives as a temporary resource. How can you believe something to be true that you’ve decided isn’t?
[quote] Would I have felt so if I had lived back then? Impossible to say. We all like to say we would, but what we know of the times back then suggests maybe it’s not all as clear cut as all that…
[/quote]
It wouldn’t have mattered what you decided (or decide today), because either way those lives would have had no moral value. You would knowingly be lying to yourself.
[/quote]
You asked me what I thought, personally, did you not?
That’s what I gave you, my personal answer…but then you want to extrapolate that to a generality. Apples and oranges.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Do I believe slavery is wrong , completely and without reserve? Yes.
To me, was it wrong back then too? Yes.[/quote]
I don’t understand that. To say it wasn’t immoral because that was how it was, but then turn around to say it was immoral based on what you ‘know’ now.
But why are you doing that? Shouldn’t you simply say, no, it wasn’t immoral, period. If morality is relative to the times why would you consider it through anything but their prism? Why would you now assign those lives moral value that didn’t/doesn’t exist? You’re intellectually aware the morality is relative, so you should see their lives as a temporary resource. How can you believe something to be true that you’ve decided isn’t?
[quote] Would I have felt so if I had lived back then? Impossible to say. We all like to say we would, but what we know of the times back then suggests maybe it’s not all as clear cut as all that…
[/quote]
It wouldn’t have mattered what you decided (or decide today), because either way those lives would have had no moral value. You would knowingly be lying to yourself.
[/quote]
You asked me what I thought, personally, did you not?
That’s what I gave you, my personal answer…but then you want to extrapolate that to a generality. Apples and oranges.
[/quote]
No, I understand that’s your personal belief. That’s what I’m getting at. If you know morality is relative, then why wouldn’t you suppress any urge to say American slavery was immoral? If you’re aware of your bias, and that it isn’t really founded in reality, why wouldn’t you master that bias, concluding that slaves were simply a resource that had no moral value, needn’t ever have been recognized as having moral value, etc. And THAT would be your intellectually informed personal answer, being aware that morality is relative.
Edit: You would simply say “no, I don’t believe they had moral value inherent to themselves because we hadn’t assigned them any, yet. Therefore, I don’t believe slavery was immoral.”
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Do I believe slavery is wrong , completely and without reserve? Yes.
To me, was it wrong back then too? Yes.[/quote]
I don’t understand that. To say it wasn’t immoral because that was how it was, but then turn around to say it was immoral based on what you ‘know’ now.
But why are you doing that? Shouldn’t you simply say, no, it wasn’t immoral, period. If morality is relative to the times why would you consider it through anything but their prism? Why would you now assign those lives moral value that didn’t/doesn’t exist? You’re intellectually aware the morality is relative, so you should see their lives as a temporary resource. How can you believe something to be true that you’ve decided isn’t?
[quote] Would I have felt so if I had lived back then? Impossible to say. We all like to say we would, but what we know of the times back then suggests maybe it’s not all as clear cut as all that…
[/quote]
It wouldn’t have mattered what you decided (or decide today), because either way those lives would have had no moral value. You would knowingly be lying to yourself.
[/quote]
You asked me what I thought, personally, did you not?
That’s what I gave you, my personal answer…but then you want to extrapolate that to a generality. Apples and oranges.
[/quote]
No, I understand that’s your personal belief. That’s what I’m getting at. If you know morality is relative, then why wouldn’t you suppress any urge to say American slavery was immoral? If you’re aware of your bias, and that it isn’t really founded in reality, why wouldn’t you master that bias, concluding that slaves were simply a resource that had no moral value, needn’t ever have been recognized as having moral value, etc. And THAT would be your intellectually informed personal answer, being aware that morality is relative.
[/quote]
I ‘know’ nothing, I have just said that I don’t believe that absolute morality can exist outside of a deist framework. That is, it does not exist outside of man on its own, unless there is a entity to give it existence. I also said we live our lives as if moral absolutism was the norm, and that I have no problem with that, in case you missed it. So no.