[quote]forlife wrote:
I never said this. I asked for evidence of the hypothesis, but didn’t imply that lack of evidence proved the hypothesis false.[/quote]
Don’t flake out on me now.
You know - I charitably presume - that there is no such empirical proof prior to even asking.
As such, what was your point in asking if not the rhetorical point that absence of proof means there isn’t any such thing?
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again - nephorm scares the shit out of me.
I have no idea why anyone would even attempt to continue a debate with him.
And to get T-bolt23 AND nephorm tag teaming? I would just defer to them and move on.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
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.
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]
OK, then take the second sentence out. Also, the exception proves the rule re. suicide. Isn’t that what they say about stuff like that?
[quote]Spry wrote:
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.
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]
I suppose some could accept doing immoral things to survive every now & again, without the reflex to justify it or rationalize it. After all, nobody is keeping score.
[quote]beebuddy wrote:
Spry wrote:
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.
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.
I suppose some could accept doing immoral things to survive every now & again, without the reflex to justify it or rationalize it. After all, nobody is keeping score. [/quote]
Ummm, no. You don’t understand.
The fact that something is done TO SURVIVE makes it MORAL.
But only for the guy doing the surviving.
The guy doing the dieing would find it rather immoral.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
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.[/quote]
How could you categorize something as a virtue or a vice without having a morality scale to inform the categorization? The very act of labeling something a virtue or a vice requires a moral judgment.
Here’s another example. If morality only concerns interaction with others, why do some religions condemn masturbation as immoral?
[quote]nephorm wrote:
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.[/quote]
The two sets of obligations can be intertwined, but need not be. In a Venn diagram, there is some unique variance in self obligations which doesn’t overlap with obligations to others. That variance is still in the realm of moral behavior.
How is the human need for interaction with our own kind any more a standard for morality than the human need for survival?
Living in general imposes duties upon us, irrespective of whether or not we are living with others. Just as moral values can help society thrive, moral values can help an individual thrive whether or not he is part of society.
I’m not arguing that morality doesn’t relate to community, only that morality is larger than community because it also involves obligations to the self.
Which reinforces the case for moral relativity. You cannot argue that a particular action is objectively moral, without considering the morality of alternate actions. Sometimes the most moral action is that which does the least harm, even when that action might be labeled immoral in isolation.
Personal growth and enlightenment don’t always lead to happiness. They can be valued and pursued for their own sake. Sometimes people choose the truth over a lie, even knowing that the truth will bring them long term misery. Why is that?
Why would it matter whether or not the values are believed to be absolute? Isn’t the essential thing whether or not people believe in and align their lives with that value?
What does it mean to say that a law is “required”? Who is doing the requiring, or are you only referring to the desirability outcomes? Are you arguing that following a universal law will always lead to a positive outcome, while violating the law will lead to a negative outcome?
[quote]nephorm wrote:
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]
Why metaphorically rather than literally? Courage when faced with a lion, or the need to leap across a raging river, or amputating one’s leg to avoid gangrene doesn’t require the presence of other people to be called courage.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
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.[/quote]
Exactly. Rights are as relativistic as values, because they are informed by values.
In a monarchy, the king determines the rights of his citizens based on whatever values he holds. In a democracy, the majority determine those rights based on consensual values. Neither rights nor values require universal application in order to exist.
Bingo.
Values are stronger than preferences. They inform moral behavior. If a person deeply values freedom, that value holds regardless of whether or not the person believes it to be a universal constant.
[quote]forlife wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
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.
How could you categorize something as a virtue or a vice without having a morality scale to inform the categorization? The very act of labeling something a virtue or a vice requires a moral judgment.
Here’s another example. If morality only concerns interaction with others, why do some religions condemn masturbation as immoral?[/quote]
There is no moral scale but rather only a value scale. The study of goodness falls under the more general category of axiology. It is, more or less, the study of values – how we judge goodness. Morality and virtue are related as they both fall under this category of knowledge (as does aesthetics) but are not the same thing.
Morality describes interaction and in the case of spirituality morality describes interaction within that realm – thus masturbation might be immoral in the spiritual realm but the vice/virtue corollary would describe the quality of the act itself – e.g. intemperance. It does not necessarily follow that intemperance is immoral thus virtue/vice verses moral/immoral are not the same category of judgments.
Personally, I don’t agree with the notions of describing virtues because I believe every case of individual action is dependent on circumstance.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
You know - I charitably presume - that there is no such empirical proof prior to even asking.
As such, what was your point in asking if not the rhetorical point that absence of proof means there isn’t any such thing?
[/quote]
The point in asking was that you can’t conclude absolute morality exists without having objective proof for that conclusion.
I’m not trying to prove absolute morality doesn’t exist, since it is impossible to prove a negative. I’m only pointing out that there is no evidence for the idea that absolute morality exists.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again - nephorm scares the shit out of me.
[/quote]
As a side note, I’ve enjoyed the debate with Nephorm so far. He is intelligent, educated, and makes good points that allow the discussion to move forward. He also avoids ad hominem attacks, which is a nice change from the norm around here.
[quote]Spry wrote:
The fact that something is done TO SURVIVE makes it MORAL.
[/quote]
What about the moral responsibility the person might have to others though?
For example, a mother might be driving down the road in her mini-van and see her toddler standing in the middle of the road. She could swerve to avoid the toddler, potentially crashing into an oak tree at the side of the road and losing her life in the process. Or she could run over her child to minimize the chance of her own life being threatened.
What would be the most moral action here?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
There is no moral scale but rather only a value scale. The study of goodness falls under the more general category of axiology. It is, more or less, the study of values – how we judge goodness.[/quote]
I guess we’re just talking semantics then. Whether you label it “morality” or the “study of goodness”, my point is that there is no evidence for an objective, universal set of values.
I agree that you need to consider circumstances and context to determine whether or not an action is virtuous.
[quote]forlife wrote:
I guess we’re just talking semantics then. Whether you label it “morality” or the “study of goodness”, my point is that there is no evidence for an objective, universal set of values.[/quote]
If we are going to have serious discussions about concepts then semantics matters. It is one thing to use terms generally in every day speech and an other thing to use those same terms in context within the confines of academic discussion. How words are used affect understanding of concepts.
If you are going to engage in discussions on the PWO forum you need to become a philosopher.
I agree with your assessment of objective value; however, I must declare that I judge truth in a different manner. There must be objective truth or else we cannot say we know anything.
It sounds like you’re implying that unless I share your personal definition of morality, I can’t be a “philosopher”? Do you have any references for your definition of morality being the standard in philosophical discussions (not saying it isn’t, just curious)?
In any case, I’m curious what you mean about masturbation being interpersonal by virtue of having spiritual consequences. Can you explain?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I agree with your assessment of objective value; however, I must declare that I judge truth in a different manner. There must be objective truth or else we cannot say we know anything.[/quote]
I define objective truth as the way things really are, i.e., a correct and accurate description of the physical universe.
What is your definition?
[quote]forlife wrote:
The two sets of obligations can be intertwined, but need not be. In a Venn diagram, there is some unique variance in self obligations which doesn’t overlap with obligations to others. That variance is still in the realm of moral behavior.
[/quote]
We don’t have to discuss all of moral behavior. I would be pleased if we could get a handle on a subset of it.
It is not a standard for morality. Clearly this would be problematic, because such a standard would suggest a false extreme that does not accord with human nature (that we are human beings, rather than herd animals). Rather, we have individual and communal requirements. Murder, adultery, and theft do not allow us to become more human; which is to say, they do not tend toward our perfection. Nor do they allow us to live together easily. These actions are ill-fitted to human beings: vicious. Further, they are objectionable aesthetically. Such actions simply aren’t noble, beautiful, or fine. I do think that most human beings are born with an innate sense of what is beautiful and what is ugly, and are able to judge actions as such.
I see no reason to increase the scope of the discussion, until we’ve settled at least some small part of it. Unless the inquiry is somehow unsatisfactory because we are addressing only a species of behavior?
This is where we get into trouble with language. I think it is easier to discuss in terms of virtue and vice. Given the available options, sometimes one must differentiate between actions that are more or less vicious, but the least vicious action is not at all virtuous. I do not think this reinforces the case for moral relativity; it merely acknowledges that the world of action is complex and not suited to those who are dogmatic. One may argue that there are certain active conditions of being which are objectively virtuous, while acknowledging that circumstances do not allow for such. In which case, a virtuous person is pained at having to commit a base action (acknoweldging it as base), but not overly so, having recognized the necessity of it.
Well, why is that? The situation is false, because the choice presupposes some amount of knowledge. No person is blessedly happy, and without prompting, suddenly demands to know a truth with which he has had no former acquaintance. Rather, a person chooses truth over ignorance because he has learned that there is such a choice to be made, and he believes that it is better to know than to not know. That is, that knowing will bring him greater happiness, or not knowing will cause greater pain. That we are often mistaken in such calculations is a different issue. Again, I do not think you understand my meaning of happiness. I do not mean joy. Indeed, it is difficult to be happy, and the things we choose for the sake of happiness do not always lead to it.
Because it is difficult for people to align their lives with a value that they do not believe to have any objective foundation, and which is merely conventional. It is even more difficult to say that such people would “believe in” such a value, for what would that even mean? To believe in a something is to believe it to be a good, simply. If one does not believe it to be a good - if one recognizes that it is merely a convention - then one must “believe in” something other than that which is supposed.
[quote]
What does it mean to say that a law is “required”? Who is doing the requiring, or are you only referring to the desirability outcomes? Are you arguing that following a universal law will always lead to a positive outcome, while violating the law will lead to a negative outcome?[/quote]
A law is required in the sense that it is necessary to our living as human beings. Required for the perfection of our beings. Not merely conventional. I am not arguing that following a universal law will always lead to a positive external outcome, nor that violating a universal law will lead to a negative external outcome. That would be very naive, and contradicted by the experience of most people. Courage in battle - while a virtue - may cause the courageous man to die. This is surely not a positive external outcome for him. But such courage does allow him to view his actions as though from outside of himself, and recognize the beauty of what he does.
[quote]forlife wrote:
nephorm wrote:
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.
Why metaphorically rather than literally? Courage when faced with a lion, or the need to leap across a raging river, or amputating one’s leg to avoid gangrene doesn’t require the presence of other people to be called courage.[/quote]
It doesn’t require the presence of other people to be called courage. Courage in battle is, as I said, paradigmatic for courage, which means that it is the situation in which courage is most easily understood, analyzed, and sensed. All other forms of courage are metaphorical insofar as courage in battle is the standard by which they are judged and understood.
[quote]forlife wrote:
It sounds like you’re implying that unless I share your personal definition of morality, I can’t be a “philosopher”? Do you have any references for your definition of morality being the standard in philosophical discussions (not saying it isn’t, just curious)?[/quote]
We do not need references. Arguments are either logical and consistent and based on reason or they are not.
You don’t have to agree with me. Essentially, philosophy is all about the methods used to define reality.
[quote]
In any case, I’m curious what you mean about masturbation being interpersonal by virtue of having spiritual consequences. Can you explain? [/quote]
I do not assume that masturbation has any spiritual (religious) consequences. I am only trying to demonstrate that morality is a judgment of interaction.
The person who acts believes that his actions have consequences hence it has any moral relevance to him. They may or may not have any consequence but that is irrelevant and only for the actor who believes they may to consider.
Objective truth is a claim that agrees with our understanding of concepts.
For example, we can evaluate the truth of the below statement based on our understanding of the meaning of the symbols =, +, 1, and 2.
1 + 1 = 2 ==> true.