To be clear, whether or not humans follow or do not follow the moral code is no indication of its existence. Indeed, the very idea that they transgress contains the assumption that there is a law that is being broken.
Whether humans intrinsically know what that code is, and we certainly seem to, is a far greater indication of something that is discovered, rather than crafted.
A final question for now. Sloth already asked it, but has been ignored (and I know why).
If morals are really relative, then upon what foundation can you continue to justify any moral belief?
If everything is just a preference, then why is your preference for abortion somehow more justified than my preference for no abortions? On what grounds do you defend the protection of children from predators? I could come up with examples all day, but the justification for any would be the same.
For a moral absolutist, it’s easy. Thomas Jefferson, a staunch moral absolutist, already provided us with a ready made answer. Here it is, in part:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
What’s yours?
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Cortes,
You mentioned earlier that all great stories have some sort of hero in them and that we basically never root for the bad guy who personifies all that we deem to be immoral. I used the example of Michael Corleone or Tony Montana to argue otherwise, but let’s face it. Those are bullshit pop culture examples.
Let’s examine some more time-tested examples instead. I agree that in general, we do “root” for the “good” guy, for the hero. But my point isn’t so much that we sometimes root for the bad guy. My point is more that what constitutes the good guy or the hero is relative and changes. For all intents and purposes, the hero is heroic and the good guy is ?good? because he personifies what we deem to be moral. He is an example of morality and his enemy is the personification of immorality. But what makes the hero and the villain what they are can change, and therefore morality can change as well, making it relative.
Take The Iliad for example. Achilles is the hero and Hector is the villain. But we know that many of the qualities that Achilles had, those which made him heroic, are the antithesis of later virtues that originated from Judeo-Christian beliefs.
Achilles was prideful and sought honor. He gained honor through killing people, more or less. He was covetous and bedded many women. He sought immortality and fame. He was petulant at times and refused to fight early on in the Trojan War because he did not feel it served him any purpose to, revealing his selfishness and an instinct for self-preservation that was only overcome by the chance to win glory in battle. He was consumed by this desire for immortality, to be remembered forever. We don?t really hold those qualities up as virtues anymore, but they were considered virtuous by the Greeks, and later the Romans.
Jesus is the source of most of Christian morality, morality which is completely at odds with certain aspects of Homeric morality displayed throughout ancient Greek culture and embodied by Achilles.
Jesus warned against pride and a desire for things like immortality or honor or glory, all things that the hero, Achilles, pursued through killing others. But is the ?bad? guy in The Iliad, Hector, the embodiment of Christian morality then? No, not at all. While he isn?t as egotistical as Achilles was, he wasn?t much different from him either. He too sought honor. In fact, if anything, he was more virtuous than Achilles because at least he killed in defense of his home, Troy.
But he was still the bad guy, for lack of a better term. Why? Because he lost, because he was killed by Achilles. He was not different than Achilles on any fundamental level, but since he was not a Greek he was not ?good? for the Greeks, so he was not moral.
Take a look at the story of the creation of Rome. Romulus is the hero. Why? Did he display what you argue are universal, never-changing virtues/morals? No. He killed his brother, Remus, in a fit of rage. Hardly a moral act by today?s standards. What made Romulus the hero, the virtuous one, is simply the fact that he was the victor. He made his own morality in that case. And he was not like Jesus or any other personification of Judeo-Christian morality.
What about slavery? For centuries, slavery was not considered to be immoral. It was simply a fact of life. The weak were enslaved and forced to labor for the benefit of their masters/owners. There was nothing immoral about this at the time, unless perhaps you were a slave. Now, there is almost universal agreement that enslavement is immoral, but that is a concept that did not really come about until the rise of ?slave morality?, which has its roots in Judeo-Christian morality. Later on, it gained even more traction during the massive revolution within political philosophy that started during the Renaissance and carried into the Enlightenment.
And speaking of political philosophy during the Renaissance, I assume you?ve read The Prince by Machiavelli. Well, who is the great hero in that text? Alexander.
But what made Alexander virtuous to the Greeks and Romans? Was it his compassion for others? No, he was a victor; he won, he conquered people, he took from them and gave to the Greeks. Today, we don?t look at being the victor in a conflict as a virtue in and of itself, and we don?t look at successfully conquering other people as an example of morality. If anything, conquering people and taking their resources for one?s own benefit is immoral now.
But in the time of Alexander those things were virtuous. Although Machiavelli takes a more realistic, pragmatic approach, in the time of the Greeks and Romans virtue/morality was measured by results and consequences, not intent.
Have you ever heard the phrase ?the gods have smiled upon him?? All that means is that someone who is doing well, such as Alexander, must be moral by virtue of his success. Because he is moral, the gods have allowed him to be successful and shown him great favor as a reward for such morality. Greek literature is filled that basic idea of morality.
But we don?t look at things like that at all anymore. So, morality has clearly evolved throughout history.
[/quote]
Okay, I get what you’re saying. My original example was probably not properly fleshed out.
I will take actually take your earlier pop culture examples, as they finally DO demonstrate what I mean.
First, no one is saying that we must support only the purest, most virtuous characters and historical figures in order to see the moral theme that has run through human history, Indeed, if that were the case, there wouldn’t be too many we could congruously support at all. However, we DO NOT support someone who openly transgresses taboos, for the most part.
Tony Montana’s entire world collapses, and he KNOWS it will, because he refuses to kill a woman and her child.
Darth Vader refuses to kill his son, and actually reverses and redeems himself at the end by saving his son and killing Emperor Palpatine.
I don’t think we actually root for Alexander, per se, so much as admire his power. That’s fine, my point is that we DO NOT and WILL NOT support or encourage someone who is openly evil, a child murderer or rapist, a pure sadist, a serial killer, or even just a lazy bastard.
To say that morals are relative, you need to be able to demonstrate that there are actual instances of massive plasticity in our moral code. I have yet to see an example anywhere of a society where wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony are the norm. Find me one of those, or show me how we can practically create a society with these “virtues” as its pillars, and I’ll concede my point. [/quote]
We don’t need to have a society built on “immorality” to show that morality is relative. Because if morality is not relative, then society’s approval of it is immaterial. By your own logic, since morality is not a human construct, according to you, whether or not society (humans) approves of ANY morality or immorality is completely irrelevant. Even if there WERE a society that completely accepted the seven deadly sins that you listed, according to your logic they would still be immoral. You yourself have been arguing that certain moralities are ALWAYS such. Well, that necessarily means that even if ALL people were to start holding up immoralities as moralities, they would still actually be immoral.
If I were to show you the example you asked for I would be showing you an example of one society’s relative idea of morality. But the fact that you even equate morality with its acceptance within a society is proof that you know deep down, perhaps subconsciously, that morality is a human construct. You’ve unwittingly asked me to use human examples of a moral system, yet you argue that morality is not a human construct. But you know that it actually is.
You’ve already inadvertently pointed out that morality is relative. It doesn’t need to be relative on the extreme ends of it such as the baby-raper example you provided. It also doesn’t need a negative example to reinforce my point. Something can be relative and still universally accepted as moral or immoral. It just so happens that, as I have argued previously, we define morality in terms of what is good for us and what is not. There are certain things that simply aren’t good for virtually all people. The seven deadly sins could probably fall into this category. But again, they are “deadly” because they are bad for humans and we have the ability to reason and understand why they are bad for us.
What about moralities? While we have almost universal agreement on certain immoralities, things become much more ambiguous when we discuss moralities. Like i pointed out earlier, there has been massive elasticity in society’s idea of what is moral, going from the ancient Greeks all the way until now. Entire societies have much different views on how virtuous things like strength and equality are. Do you think that a Communist or wholly socialist society places the same value on equality that a capitalistic society does? No, of course not, because it’s relative. What about strength? Do you think that our society places anywhere near the same importance on strength as a virtue that the Spartans did? No way. It’s relative to their circumstances. Strength is not nearly as important to staying alive today as it was then, so back then it was much more virtuous and much more “moral” to have strength than it is today. Has strength as a moral changed entirely? No, but there is clearly some “plasticity” there.
I could actually reverse your argument a little bit and put the onus of proof back on you, as well. If morality IS absolute or it is NOT relative and is NOT a human construct, can you give me an example of something moral or immoral that does not involve humans? Can you give me an example of a morality/immorality that is ALWAYS as such in any and all circumstances, including things other than human examples? Something without conditions or qualifications?
[quote]Cortes wrote:
A final question for now. Sloth already asked it, but has been ignored (and I know why).
If morals are really relative, then upon what foundation can you continue to justify any moral belief?
If everything is just a preference, then why is your preference for abortion somehow more justified than my preference for no abortions? On what grounds do you defend the protection of children from predators? I could come up with examples all day, but the justification for any would be the same.
For a moral absolutist, it’s easy. Thomas Jefferson, a staunch moral absolutist, already provided us with a ready made answer. Here it is, in part:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
What’s yours? [/quote]
Me. I am the origin of my morality, just as you are yours. What is good for me is what is moral to me. What makes me feel good is what is moral. Baby rapings, murder, death, destruction, wanton excess and so forth does not make me feel good, so it is not moral.
I don’t think that we have the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness in an absolute sense. The entire concept of “rights” is an entirely human one anyways.
In short, Cortes, if morality is not relative and therefore not a human construct, then why ask me for human examples? They wouldn’t carry any authority in regards to something that isn’t a human construct.
Virtues or values?
I have seven virtues I try to work on consciously:
Values
Actually, you already have conceded the point, Cortes, simply by virtue of acknowledging that what society says or does carries enough merit to make you concede the point if I provide an example. You’ve essentially just said that humans make morality so, and all you need is an actual example to really embrace that idea.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
A final question for now. Sloth already asked it, but has been ignored (and I know why).
If morals are really relative, then upon what foundation can you continue to justify any moral belief?
If everything is just a preference, then why is your preference for abortion somehow more justified than my preference for no abortions? On what grounds do you defend the protection of children from predators? I could come up with examples all day, but the justification for any would be the same.
For a moral absolutist, it’s easy. Thomas Jefferson, a staunch moral absolutist, already provided us with a ready made answer. Here it is, in part:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
What’s yours? [/quote]
Me. I am the origin of my morality, just as you are yours. What is good for me is what is moral to me. What makes me feel good is what is moral. Baby rapings, murder, death, destruction, wanton excess and so forth does not make me feel good, so it is not moral.
I don’t think that we have the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness in an absolute sense. The entire concept of “rights” is an entirely human one anyways. [/quote]
Cool.
To be honest, I’m bored with this topic. Not with arguing with you, which is always enjoyable. I’m just at a point right now where I’d rather spend my time on more positive fare. I know I opened this can of worms, and I may come back to it (it is the internet, after all), but for now, I’ll just say thanks for another good argument that caused me to dig deep to define my beliefs. I always appreciate that, and you do it better than almost anyone.
*edited
-Self-accountability
-Self-honesty
-Resillience
I’d say much of what makes me happy, productive & or enables me to make other people happy tends to flow from those things.
[quote]GorillaMon wrote:
-Self-accountability
-Self-honesty
-Resillience
I’d say much of what makes me happy, productive & or enables me to make other people happy tends to flow from those things. [/quote]
“self-accountability” seems pretty close to what some people say as “god/relationship with Jesus” or “integrity”
When I started this thread I listed these:[i]
After the thread and some thought, I’m going to change my mind:
I guess “service” got bumped off the list and/or moved to a “close six.” I thought about moving it and listing it as #5, but when I get right down to it, I “like” health/fitness more than I “like”…and if I’m speaking with integrity, I guess I have to be honest…lol
can you have integrity without religion?
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
I think the core value of a man can be summed up with one word: CONTROL
self control, lifestyle control, financial control, relationship control, penis control, etc…
Failing to control your impulses, instincts, cravings and addictions makes one less of a man.
Successfulling controlling them makes one a successfull man.
I’m not touching the moral argument here. LOL[/quote]
Good post[/quote]
You have to be being facetious, right?
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
This does not mean there are not man made rules that people have adopted as morality when it fact it’s just man made rules. But the fact that some people make up stuff does not snuff out the fact the morality at it’s core is fixed, unalterable, eternal and concrete.[/quote]
This speaks to the core of the matter: The source of your morality- God.
Other people do not use God or some other concept of a higher external being as the axiom of their morality, therefore their morality is somewhat more plastic.
I know that neither you of Cortes are shy about expressing your beliefs, so why the dancing around the source of your morality?
[/quote]
Again you assume too much. We’re talking about the existence of morality, not God. Morality can be argued to exist without the need to invoke God. While morality can be argued to be sourced from God, it’s not necessary to invoke God to prove morality exists.
Even if you do not believe in God, it does not excuse you from acting morally. You cannot do harm because you feel like it.
The inherent flaw to relativism is being able to justify horrific acts because relatively speaking, it doesn’t bother somebody.[/quote]
You can prove that morality exists by being a moral person, regardless of the belief which that morality stems from. The difference is in what is thought to be moral.
[/quote]
Acting morally, doesn’t necessarily proves morality itself exists. The reason why acts are either moral or immoral are how you prove it exists.
Technically speaking, the foundation for anything which exists, is God. I don’t have to talk about God, to talk about science. Likewise, I don’t have to talk about God to talk about morality.
If we are talking about the source of morality or where it came from or how it came to be then you will inevitably end up at God. IT actually has a name and is called the ‘Moral argument for the existence of God’. But as it is, morality is a particular identifiable that while originally sourced from God (like all of existence), does exist independently.
Now jumping back to the original idea that morality is relative, it’s a very simple to prove that it’s not true. For morality to be relative, you have to be able to justify the most horrific actions as amoral based on the person’s perspective.It cannot be done. Well it cannot be done and the one making the claim be right.
There are particular things that people can do, that cannot be justified with a relative argument. It’s this weakness that causes it to fail as a theory and hence is false.
Seriously, Moral Relativism hasn’t really been taken seriously or even considered for the last couple of hundred years. It seems this ‘new atheist’ movement dredged it up out of the muck, brushed it off and threw it back out there. Clearly some people bought it.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
I think the core value of a man can be summed up with one word: CONTROL
self control, lifestyle control, financial control, relationship control, penis control, etc…
Failing to control your impulses, instincts, cravings and addictions makes one less of a man.
Successfulling controlling them makes one a successfull man.
I’m not touching the moral argument here. LOL[/quote]
Good post[/quote]
You have to be being facetious, right? [/quote]
Nope, serious. I think he’s talking about what I called “discipline”. Without discipline little is possible, I think. Why, what were you thinking?
I should have also said respect. Being generally polite & respectful of people in spite of the many differences between myself & everyone else I encounter (even on the interets!!!) is hugely important to me.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
I think the core value of a man can be summed up with one word: CONTROL
self control, lifestyle control, financial control, relationship control, penis control, etc…
Failing to control your impulses, instincts, cravings and addictions makes one less of a man.
Successfulling controlling them makes one a successfull man.
I’m not touching the moral argument here. LOL[/quote]
Good post[/quote]
You have to be being facetious, right? [/quote]
Nope, serious. I think he’s talking about what I called “discipline”. Without discipline little is possible, I think. Why, what were you thinking?
[/quote]
Seems reasonable to me.
If your sense of conscience/ethics/morality/priorities or whatever provides your sense of direction, it is irrelevant if you lack the control to follow that direction.
Knowing what you “should” do is worse than useless if you can’t discipline yourself to do it, at least more often than not.
