[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Does he only pray for all his necessities to live or does he still have to interact with other people to get them?[/quote]
I’m talking about someone that lives entirely on his own, without ever interacting with another human being. That individual clearly can still hold and exercise moral values. As I said earlier, you can value physical health, enlightenment, courage, etc. even if you are the only person living on the planet.
[quote]forlife wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Does he only pray for all his necessities to live or does he still have to interact with other people to get them?
I’m talking about someone that lives entirely on his own, without ever interacting with another human being. That individual clearly can still hold and exercise moral values. As I said earlier, you can value physical health, enlightenment, courage, etc. even if you are the only person living on the planet.[/quote]
This only happens in fairy tales. It is impossible to live in isolation. We are not born into isolation and cannot survive for long in isolation. Morals qua morals, have no meaning in isolation. Besides, the monk, even if entirely alone is not in isolation if he is living for the “will of god.” He acts in accordance to how god wishes him to interact with the world because he expects salvation in return. There is no other logical reason to live a moral life than for the expectation of salvation – whether it be from god or one’s community.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
As I said, certain general principles are necessary if we are to live together. Murder, adultery, and theft are the three actions Aristotle identifies as never being virtuous in any circumstance, although it is safe to assume that they may be more or less vicious. These are objectively vicious because they undermine polity; they make it difficult, if not impossible, for us to participate in a city.[/quote]
You are justifying these three values by referencing a fourth value (polity). That implies moral relativism, not moral absolutism. What is objectively moral about polity?
Also, do you agree with Aristotle that murder, adultery, and theft are always immoral? If a father could steal a bottle of medicine from a pharmaceutical company to save the life of his child, would it be immoral to do so?
Again, this only reframes the argument in light of a different value (happiness). What is objectively superior about happiness? Some would argue that there are other values, like growth and enlightenment, that supercede even happiness. It is the classic choice by Neo of the red vs. blue pill in the Matrix. Most of the time happiness is desirable, but sometimes happiness can lead to undesirable outcomes like complacency, pride, ignorance, and stagnation.
Wouldn’t the pursuit of absolute morality be undesirable if there is in fact no absolute morality? Binding yourself to an artificial set of moral values due to the belief that these values are absolute seems like a recipe for misguided development.
Further, why does a value need to be absolute in order to have personal meaning? I don’t derive my values from anything I consider to be absolute, but that doesn’t lessen their significance in my life. To the contrary, they are more meaningful now than when I believed they came from God, because they are internally derived. I follow them for their own sake, and not from a fear of damnation or a hope of eternal reward.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
There is no other logical reason to live a moral life than for the expectation of salvation – whether it be from god or one’s community.[/quote]
How about the desire for personal growth and enlightenment?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
If there is no natural morality, then you have no rights, only a preference - a preference that is equal to someone else’s preference of the opposite.[/quote]
Rights are a by product of moral values, irrespective of whether or not those values are absolute. If a certain value is held, that value invokes a set of rights.
You can still value life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as an atheist. You can believe every human being has the right to those things, as an inherent consequence of valuing them and considering them to be good for society.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
If you don’t have measurable proof of Objective Morality, it therefore does not exist.[/quote]
I never said this. I asked for evidence of the hypothesis, but didn’t imply that lack of evidence proved the hypothesis false.
It is, in fact, impossible to prove a null hypothesis to be true. You can only reject it or fail to reject it.
[quote]forlife wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
There is no other logical reason to live a moral life than for the expectation of salvation – whether it be from god or one’s community.
How about the desire for personal growth and enlightenment?[/quote]
What is personal growth and enlightenment? If these ideas could be objectively defined where would morality come into play in their attainment?
[quote]forlife wrote:
You are justifying these three values by referencing a fourth value (polity). That implies moral relativism, not moral absolutism. What is objectively moral about polity?
[/quote]
No. Morality is concerned with obligations between individuals. We may have a separate discussion about what is owed to the self, though the two sets of obligations are intertwined. What is objective about polity is that we require other human beings to live. “He who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god.”
Living together imposes duties upon us that would not be present otherwise. Insofar as being political is natural to human beings, so is morality. Prohibitions against murder, adultery, and theft are not merely conventional, they are fundamental to living together. Polity is not a “value;” it is necessary to us as human beings.
Note that I did not say “immoral.” I said “vicious.” All of these things may be more or less vicious depending upon the circumstances, but they are always so. Stealing from the pharmaceutical company would not be virtuous, but the vice might be excusable because of the circumstances. A virtuous human being acts in the most beautiful way the circumstances allow. We are sometimes compelled to choose between undesirable actions and outcomes; such a choice does not mean that those actions and outcomes are suddenly desirable in themselves, or no longer have an inherently objectionable nature.
Once we start discussing The Matrix, the discussion is probably beyond redemption. I encourage you to read the Nicomachean Ethics. It is a foundational work of Western philosophy, and it would be time well spent. But the answer to your question is that it seems we always act and acquire for the sake of something else. So what is it that we would seek for itself and not for the sake of any other good? Happiness. Or, more precisely, eudaimonia. Why would growth or enlightenment be considered good? Because those who seek them believe that they will lead to happiness. Note that happiness is not mere pleasure or satisfaction. And this is why, in my last post, I said that we would have to discuss what happiness might be, as well as those things commonly held to be happiness which are not happiness itself. And, of course, I don’t have time to go through the whole argument. So perhaps I should not have brought this up in the first place.
Why would it be undesirable? I never said that one should be bound by particular values, but rather that they should be pursued. And I would amend that perhaps one ought to be more cautious (and less hubristic) if one entertains the possibility that there are moral absolutes.
[quote]
Further, why does a value need to be absolute in order to have personal meaning? I don’t derive my values from anything I consider to be absolute, but that doesn’t lessen their significance in my life. To the contrary, they are more meaningful now than when I believed they came from God, because they are internally derived. I follow them for their own sake, and not from a fear of damnation or a hope of eternal reward.[/quote]
Please note that I never said a word about damnation or salvation.
Also, the idea that morality comes from divine fiat seems to undermine an attempt to study objective ethics. Such a formulation means that what is fine or bad is not due to the thing itself, but still due to convention. Maimonides recognizes this dilemma, and concludes that certain Laws are required of all nations and all times, but there are particular laws that are given and are not themselves absolute. They are peculiar to the religious community.
[quote]Gael wrote:
What eats lions?[/quote]
Gay lions?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
What is personal growth and enlightenment? If these ideas could be objectively defined where would morality come into play in their attainment?[/quote]
Studying the world and drawing conclusions about the nature of it, for example. One could value knowledge over ignorance, and pursue this value without requiring other people to exist on the planet.
Likewise for courage, which doesn’t require other people in any sense.
[quote]forlife wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
What is personal growth and enlightenment? If these ideas could be objectively defined where would morality come into play in their attainment?
Studying the world and drawing conclusions about the nature of it, for example. One could value knowledge over ignorance, and pursue this value without requiring other people to exist on the planet.
Likewise for courage, which doesn’t require other people in any sense.[/quote]
Morality concerns questions of “goodness” of interaction only. Outside of interaction morality does not mean anything. Humans always act in accordance to their presently held value scales; and these are known as “virtues” and “vices”. These are subjective qualities unrelated to morality.
Education prudence might be considered a virtue but never a moral.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Likewise for courage, which doesn’t require other people in any sense.[/quote]
Battle is paradigmatic for courage; one can be courageous in situations that do not involve other people, but such courage ought to be understood, I think, metaphorically.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
forlife wrote:
I’m not repulsed by the idea of objective morality, I just don’t believe it exists.
If you believe it exists, what is your proof?
As I said, certain general principles are necessary if we are to live together. Murder, adultery, and theft are the three actions Aristotle identifies as never being virtuous in any circumstance, although it is safe to assume that they may be more or less vicious. These are objectively vicious because they undermine polity; they make it difficult, if not impossible, for us to participate in a city.
Another mode of inquiry is to consider what behaviors seem to be best - most conducive to happiness. That is, are there certain ways of being in the world that we would always prefer if we were able to see the consequences of all possible ways of being? And we’d have to establish what happiness is, whether it is preferable to the sorts of things that seem to be happiness but are not, etc. And this is a long inquiry, and a topic about which real Philosophers have written volumes.
But I will say more particularly that I am not interested in proving that moral absolutes exist; rather, I am interested in advancing the view that the pursuit of objective morality is desirable in itself, irrespective of the actual existence of the morality it seeks.[/quote]
AHHH. It felt good to read that. And your further posts continue to suggest you are more or less an Aristotelian at heart, and that makes me like you. Anyone here who enjoys reading about the T-Nation philosophy will be able to appreciate the Nichomachean Ethics, and will understand a great deal about morality and virtue in the process.
Neph, do you own Marcus Aurelius’ ‘Meditations’?
[quote]Spry wrote:
There is no objective right or wrong.[/quote]
I disagree. The one virtue all organisms share is life. Nothing wants to die. That is the basis of morality.
[quote]beebuddy wrote:
Spry wrote:
There is no objective right or wrong.
I disagree. The one virtue all organisms share is life. Nothing wants to die. That is the basis of morality.[/quote]
Yet certain individual humans do in fact kill themselves with purpose. Maybe because they don’t view it as a virtue. Life is in fact not a virtue. It is a biological process.
Virtues are subjective qualities that define action; for example, exhibiting “bravery” in battle might be considered virtuous. They are not actions themselves but rather describe qualities of action.
[quote]Brayton wrote:
Neph, do you own Marcus Aurelius’ ‘Meditations’?[/quote]
I believe I have a copy, but I am sadly under-educated on the Latin philosophers.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Spry wrote:
There is no objective right or wrong.
Wahahahaha…is that what your Prof told you this morning?
Hooheeee…hahaha…[/quote]
I have never studied anything like this at school or university.
I am a IT consultant and have only ever studied nerd stuff and some law.
It’s just an obvious observation of mine.
I might be wrong.
[quote]beebuddy wrote:
Spry wrote:
There is no objective right or wrong.
I disagree. The one virtue all organisms share is life. Nothing wants to die. That is the basis of morality.[/quote]
Incorrect logic.
A and B both want to have life. Agreed.
A may have to take an action (killing B) to remain alive.
Is this right or wrong? In any scenario we imagine it will always be:
Right for A.
Wrong for B.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Rights are a by product of moral values, irrespective of whether or not those values are absolute. If a certain value is held, that value invokes a set of rights.[/quote]
I am not interested in your predictable obfuscation - there is no such thing as a right if there is no transcendent value that trumps individual preferences.
You say so yourself - If a certain value is held, that value invokes a set of rights - and, if I hold no such value, then there is no invocation of said set of rights. “Rights” are as disposable as my taste in your values.
Definitionally, you can’t have a right unless there is a morality outside of individual preference - otherwise you have merely a preference and no claim that others have to recognize your preference more than their own.
Who said anything about atheism? And if I came to the opposite conclusion - that humans are pawns in a power game and should be subjugated for my own good - my position is just as valid as yours, if there be no transcendent morality that prevails.
And what you suggest as a right isn’t one as you describe it - it is a preference. No problem, but as I said before, if there is no transcendent morality, there are no rights, so don’t call them as such.
I might prefer that no man be enslaved, but unless there is a transcendent moral that essentially holds “it is wrong no matter what for a man to be enslaved”, I merely have a preference that no man be enslaved, and should someone else decide something different and enslave a man, and his preference - morally - is just as valid as mine.