Your Internal Moral Compass

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]therajraj wrote:
No one can prove the source of morality, it’s all a personal opinion.

I’m hesitant to jump into this thread with both feet since I already went over my position in the roots of human morality thread.[/quote]

Really, so like if I think it’s cool to rape a child, it’s therefore cool? After all, that’s my opinion. Who are you to question?

You don’t see the issue with that?

Further you say no one can prove the source of morality and then you proceed to provide a source of morality. You cannot have it both ways.

82

[quote]pat wrote:

Really, so like if I think it’s cool to rape a child, it’s therefore cool? After all, that’s my opinion. Who are you to question?

You don’t see the issue with that?

[/quote]

I said the SOURCE of morality, not whether or not something is moral

[quote]pat wrote:

Further you say no one can prove the source of morality and then you proceed to provide a source of morality. You cannot have it both ways.[/quote]

??

I hold a personal opinion on the matter that I cannot prove. Just like you.

83

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ranengin wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ranengin wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Possible I would’ve been a slave owner if I had been born to a plantation owner, too. [/quote]

Then possibly the vast majority of christians are only christians due to societal brainwashing and not because of any rational decision on their part?

[/quote]
Oh brother.[/quote]

And yet you too would most likely be a muslim if you had been born and raised in Iran.[/quote]
Maybe and so would you, they tend to put a gun to your head there.[/quote]

Do people born and raised in Spain speak Spanish because Spanish society puts a gun to their head?

84

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Don’t we have this conversation already?
No morality is not a human construct, nor is it relative. For morality to be relative you have to be able to justify evil, not matter how evil it is. Since, nobody is able to do that, it lends credibility to the fact that it is not relative. No matter how hard you try, you can make a wrong, right.[/quote]

Why do we have to be able to justify evil? And in our history people have justified it, we just disagree with them which is kind of the whole point to it being relative.[/quote]

If you are claiming moral relativism, you necessarily have to prove that what is intrinsically evil, can be construed as not evil depending on the humanity your dealing with. [/quote]

Since when is that proof required for moral relativism? We don’t know what is truly good or evil.[/quote]

Because its a claim? If you make a claim the burden of proof belongs to you to prove it. However, case-in-point, since you cannot define ‘good’ and ‘evil’, it proves it is not a human construct. If humans invented it, we’d know what it is.
Which also goes to the bigger point that we, humans, don’t actually invent anything, we only discover and manipulate that which is already there.
On that basis alone, moral relativism is debunked.[/quote]

How would you define morals/morality without using the concepts good or evil? And no similar words like wrong/right either.

85

[quote]kamui wrote:
The vast majority of people do respect the wisdom collected by their ancestors throughout millenias.
Only a small minority think they have figured it out themselves. Rationally. Usually at 16.
[/quote]

Some sixteen year-olds are far more advanced thinkers than adults.

But most youngsters haven’t had time to acclimate to the bullshit smell and have no problem calling out the stink.

86

Yes, our beliefs are shaped by experience.

I could have been born in Iran and still possibly have become an atheist, too - albeit, a less vocal one.

87

[quote]ranengin wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ranengin wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ranengin wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Possible I would’ve been a slave owner if I had been born to a plantation owner, too. [/quote]

Then possibly the vast majority of christians are only christians due to societal brainwashing and not because of any rational decision on their part?

[/quote]
Oh brother.[/quote]

And yet you too would most likely be a muslim if you had been born and raised in Iran.[/quote]
Maybe and so would you, they tend to put a gun to your head there.[/quote]

Do people born and raised in Spain speak Spanish because Spanish society puts a gun to their head?
[/quote]

In Iran…It’s a militant islamic theocracy, same with Saudi Arabia. To not be muslim is illegal, so whether you like it or not, your muslim.

88

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Really, so like if I think it’s cool to rape a child, it’s therefore cool? After all, that’s my opinion. Who are you to question?

You don’t see the issue with that?

[/quote]

I said the SOURCE of morality, not whether or not something is moral
[/quote]
I listed three sources, for it. Sourcing it easy, figuring out what it is, is the hard part. Morality, like everything else, is made of stuff. The stuff it’s made of is it’s source.

No, no…You cannot say that the source of morality is personal opinion and also say it has no source. If the source of morality is personal opinion, then that’s it’s source. Then you said cannot know it’s source after you stated a source. It cannot both have a source you can name and have a source you cannot after you name it.

89

[quote]ranengin wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:
why is this thread aimed ONLY at die hard Christians? [/quote]

Because christian die hards (that REALLY like to argue) are a dime a dozen here.

If I had said Hindu die hards, no one would have shown up to the “party”.[/quote]

There’s more atheists apparently. It’s the know-it-all bunch.

90

[quote]ranengin wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:
why is this thread aimed ONLY at die hard Christians? [/quote]

Because christian die hards (that REALLY like to argue) are a dime a dozen here.

If I had said Hindu die hards, no one would have shown up to the “party”.[/quote]

There’s at least one Jew. You could include Jewish ‘brainwashing’ to expand a bit.

91

[quote]pat wrote:

I listed three sources, for it. Sourcing it easy, figuring out what it is, is the hard part. Morality, like everything else, is made of stuff. The stuff it’s made of is it’s source. [/quote]

Where does the “stuff it’s made of” come from?

[quote]pat wrote:

No, no…You cannot say that the source of morality is personal opinion and also say it has no source. If the source of morality is personal opinion, then that’s it’s source. Then you said cannot know it’s source after you stated a source. It cannot both have a source you can name and have a source you cannot after you name it.[/quote]

I didn’t say it has NO source, I said I cannot prove my opinion of what I think the source is.

92

[quote]ranengin wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:[quote]sufiandy wrote:There is a high probability that Sloth would not be Christian/Catholic if born and raised in Iran.[/quote]It’s an absolute certainty that Sloth was born exactly where, at precisely the microsecond and with the comprehensively detailed genetic sequence decreed by God from all eternity. Children are influenced by their upbringing? UNBELIEVABLE!! How could I have missed that. God decreed that too.[/quote]Could this be the beginnings of a free will argument shit storm?[/quote]Not unless you push it. I’m busy.

93

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

I listed three sources, for it. Sourcing it easy, figuring out what it is, is the hard part. Morality, like everything else, is made of stuff. The stuff it’s made of is it’s source. [/quote]

Where does the “stuff it’s made of” come from?

[quote]pat wrote:

No, no…You cannot say that the source of morality is personal opinion and also say it has no source. If the source of morality is personal opinion, then that’s it’s source. Then you said cannot know it’s source after you stated a source. It cannot both have a source you can name and have a source you cannot after you name it.[/quote]

I didn’t say it has NO source, I said I cannot prove my opinion of what I think the source is.

[/quote]
Oh, well I posted this on page 3 already but I’ll re-post since you missed it…

"That’s a broad question isn’t it? I know what you want me to say, but I don’t have to say that because of what morality is.

Morality has 3 basic conditions:

  • There must be a choice involved.
  • The objects of morality must ultimately have consciousness.
  • The most be an option to do evil, do good, or withhold evil, or withhold good.

Morality comes from ability to choose good or evil, but not they are not mutually exclusive.

Because ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are metaethical principles that exist beyond the constraints of our limited epistemology, it is there for necessary that the ability to choose and act between the 2, exist beyond our abilities. We cannot make a bad thing good and a good thing bad."

94

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

I listed three sources, for it. Sourcing it easy, figuring out what it is, is the hard part. Morality, like everything else, is made of stuff. The stuff it’s made of is it’s source. [/quote]

Where does the “stuff it’s made of” come from?

[quote]pat wrote:

No, no…You cannot say that the source of morality is personal opinion and also say it has no source. If the source of morality is personal opinion, then that’s it’s source. Then you said cannot know it’s source after you stated a source. It cannot both have a source you can name and have a source you cannot after you name it.[/quote]

I didn’t say it has NO source, I said I cannot prove my opinion of what I think the source is.

[/quote]
Oh, well I posted this on page 3 already but I’ll re-post since you missed it…

"That’s a broad question isn’t it? I know what you want me to say, but I don’t have to say that because of what morality is.

Morality has 3 basic conditions:

  • There must be a choice involved.
  • The objects of morality must ultimately have consciousness.
  • The most be an option to do evil, do good, or withhold evil, or withhold good.

Morality comes from ability to choose good or evil, but not they are not mutually exclusive.

Because ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are metaethical principles that exist beyond the constraints of our limited epistemology, it is there for necessary that the ability to choose and act between the 2, exist beyond our abilities. We cannot make a bad thing good and a good thing bad."[/quote]

You haven’t done anything but describe morality.

Where do good and evil themselves come from?

95

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

I listed three sources, for it. Sourcing it easy, figuring out what it is, is the hard part. Morality, like everything else, is made of stuff. The stuff it’s made of is it’s source. [/quote]

Where does the “stuff it’s made of” come from?

[quote]pat wrote:

No, no…You cannot say that the source of morality is personal opinion and also say it has no source. If the source of morality is personal opinion, then that’s it’s source. Then you said cannot know it’s source after you stated a source. It cannot both have a source you can name and have a source you cannot after you name it.[/quote]

I didn’t say it has NO source, I said I cannot prove my opinion of what I think the source is.

[/quote]
Oh, well I posted this on page 3 already but I’ll re-post since you missed it…

"That’s a broad question isn’t it? I know what you want me to say, but I don’t have to say that because of what morality is.

Morality has 3 basic conditions:

  • There must be a choice involved.
  • The objects of morality must ultimately have consciousness.
  • The most be an option to do evil, do good, or withhold evil, or withhold good.

Morality comes from ability to choose good or evil, but not they are not mutually exclusive.

Because ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are metaethical principles that exist beyond the constraints of our limited epistemology, it is there for necessary that the ability to choose and act between the 2, exist beyond our abilities. We cannot make a bad thing good and a good thing bad."[/quote]

You haven’t done anything but describe morality.

Where do good and evil themselves come from?[/quote]

Damn it, make up your mind, do you want the source of morality, or what it is?
I did describe where it comes from, which is the question you actually asked.

I don’t know what ‘good’ and ‘evil’ actually are, I know something about it. I can describe incidences of ‘good’ and ‘evil’.

I like Kant’s take on it, though far from bullet proof, it’s very good and has some great epistomological insight.

http://www.jcu.edu/philosophy/gensler/ms/kant--00.htm

96

I want to know what is the ULTIMATE source of morality according to you?

Do you think morality is universal?

97

Theists, does this page agree with you?

98

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ranengin wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:
why is this thread aimed ONLY at die hard Christians? [/quote]

Because christian die hards (that REALLY like to argue) are a dime a dozen here.

If I had said Hindu die hards, no one would have shown up to the “party”.[/quote]

There’s more atheists apparently. It’s the know-it-all bunch.[/quote]

This could be a good idea for another thread topic Pat.

99

[quote]therajraj wrote:
I want to know what is the ULTIMATE source of morality according to you?

Do you think morality is universal?[/quote]

You’re really trying to get me to say “God” aren’t you? Well if your looking for ultimate sources, God or something with ‘God like’ powers would necessarily be the source or utimate dependency, depending on how you look at it.

The top moral imperatives are universal. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t sociological manipulation of imperatives. But the basics are universal. One cannot argue that the most morally repugnant shit is ‘moral’ just because their local society thinks it’s fine and dandy. Slavery, for instance, was always wrong, despite societal acceptance of the practice.

100

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Theists, does this page agree with you?

http://www.angelfire.com/mn2/tisthammerw/rlgnphil/morality.html[/quote]

It’s a Kantian take, which is basically a reworking of cosmology from the point of contingency but solidly based in the metaphysics of ethics. Kant would disagree with that definition, but cosmology works from any starting point, be it metaphysical or physical.

I don’t think it’s a matter of agreeing or not agreeing with it. It’s a matter of is the argument correctly assembled and is it true.

It is correctly assembled in that the premises lead to the conclusion directly making it a proper deductive form. Is it true, is a likely probability, but that’s it’s inherent flaw in that the premises are not definable, so it’s difficult to argue they exist when you cannot even define them. I prefer more solid premises. It’s not that this Kantian view isn’t correct, it’s to reach said “ultimate good” or ultimate moral form. You can regress from any point of existence. Starting with a premise such as morality is not intuitive to most…