Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #26  
Old 01-07-2005, 01:11 AM
Adora's Avatar
Adora Adora is offline
Raping the Marlboro Man
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MMMLXXXVI
Images: 1
Default Re: Morality

Quote:
It's not that they are always bad, but I think purely subjective morality ends up being, not morality, but just a set of idle preferences about life, easily changed on a whim; without some kind of frame of reference, I don't think it means anything anyway.
Considering the way morality is so easily changed when the social forces want it to, how so very often it is just a set of idle preferences about life, I don't see the problem here with saying morality is entirely subjective.
__________________
I ATEN'T DED
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 01-07-2005, 04:55 PM
Sweetie Sweetie is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MVDCCCLXXX
Default Re: Morality

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar
I'm not sure how the alternative is unreasonable. Is a man drowning in the ocean free to live? Clearly not; nature has curtailed his freedom without, it appears, regret.
But nature is not a rational creature, so to speak. I don't find that if nature determines, genetically or by natural disaster or what have you, I don't find that a moral question. Man against man, or man against nature? I am speaking about man's "should", not nature's "should."

Quote:
Are we able to live to the best of our abilities? Certainly, but we're able to murder one another at our discretion too, and that doesn't mean we should.
We are capable of a lot of things, but that doesn't mean that are "right" or that those things we choose to do are rational.

Quote:
The word 'free' is a very slippery one too. Free with regards to what?
Well, I could put it this way:

I may live.

but the word "may" has different meanings and the prominant one is usually assumed, for instance, to many it says "I might" live, but that would not be my meaning.

Who knows, perhaps it is nature that determines that I "may" live becuase I am alive and she has not set herself against my being alive in particular.

Quote:
I find this very interesting. Perhaps we cannot tell if you are free to live or not free to live? But simply because we cannot tell, it doesn't follow that one or the other is true or false.
Correct, it could be that none are free to live but like I said, it's useless to determine that and once again, it leads us back to determining morality in a way similar to "might makes right" and the like.

Quote:
And you are certainly not free to live forever - your genetics have placed a death sentence on you, by determining that humans grow old and eventually cease functioning.
Whether or not nature determines I am free or not free to live forever is of no matter, I think.

Quote:
Hmm. Perhaps this question will shed some light for me. Is your statement 'I am free to live' simply a reworded form of 'I should not be stopped by others in pursuit of my goal to live'?
I don't know, hm, perhaps but that suggests an agenda so I'm not sure if it's right for what I'm meaning at present.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 01-07-2005, 05:08 PM
Dragar's Avatar
Dragar Dragar is offline
Now in six dimensions!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Cotswolds
Gender: Male
Posts: VCI
Default Re: Morality

Quote:
Correct, it could be that none are free to live but like I said, it's useless to determine that and once again, it leads us back to determining morality in a way similar to "might makes right" and the like.
I'm missing something..

1. We cannot tell if anyone is free to live.
2. ??
3. Might makes right, etc.

Can you fill in the blanks?
__________________
The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. -Eugene Wigner
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 01-07-2005, 05:15 PM
Sweetie Sweetie is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MVDCCCLXXX
Default Re: Morality

Another man can very well take my life and be saying the whole time, "see, I'm proving as you're dying that you are not free to live." What do you say to that? I would say I am free to live and because I am free to live I should have the right to live and thence you "should not" take that right from me and as you are taking away that right, you are questioning your own right to live, and I can say, "see, I'm proving as I'm dying that you are not free to live." Then we would be left with the idea that "might makes right," power whether pysical or psychological power determines what is right, from which basis we could not say that "slavery" should not be done, child sacrifice, etc., etc., and yet, we do and not only "do" we, we need to.


If it cannot be determined that I am free to live and that no man is free to live, then we are left with what man wills to do that determines what is right and that, to me at present at least, would lead me to think that the man who is stronger, whether politically or psychologically or physically, gets to say what is right.

It can't be determined that you are free to live, but I will that you not live and since I can take your life then that is how it is, that is right in this case because there is nothing you can say to prove to me that I should not. So too, if I want to sacrifice the lives of children, and I am stronger than you who thinks I should not but you can't tell me that I should not, then so be it, I can do what I wish. Who can say that he is wrong?
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 01-07-2005, 05:22 PM
Dragar's Avatar
Dragar Dragar is offline
Now in six dimensions!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Cotswolds
Gender: Male
Posts: VCI
Default Re: Morality

Quote:
If it cannot be determined that I am free to live and that no man is free to live, then we are left with what man wills to do that determines what is right and that, to me at present at least, would lead me to think that the man who is stronger, whether politically or psychologically or physically, gets to say what is right.
He gets to do what he pleases. This doesn't mean what he pleases is right.

You're confusing being able to do something with it being right to do something. 'Is' is not the same as 'ought'.

If no man is free to live, then no man is free to live. Anyone can come along and kill someone, yes. In fact, people do so! That's a fairly accurate picture of reality. But it doesn't mean they should

Quote:
Who can say that he is wrong?
Well, anyone can say 'he is wrong', if they like. It doesn't mean he is wrong. Likewise, he can say 'I am right!' as much as he likes. It doesn't mean he is.

Of course, this is still assuming 'right' and 'wrong' are objective facts.
__________________
The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. -Eugene Wigner
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 01-07-2005, 05:24 PM
Sweetie Sweetie is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MVDCCCLXXX
Default Re: Morality

Quote:
He gets to do what he pleases. This doesn't mean what he pleases is right.
Right, but without the assumption, I am free to live, then there is no way to ascertain that what he pleases is wrong either.

Quote:
You're confusing being able to do something with it being right to do something. 'Is' is not the same as 'ought'.
No, I don't think so. I think my point is that it's impossible to determine "is ought" without some assumptions, perhaps.

Quote:
If no man is free to live, then no man is free to live. Anyone can come along and kill someone, yes. In fact, people do so! That's a fairly accurate picture of reality. But it doesn't mean they should
Right, prescriptive and descriptive morality.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 01-07-2005, 05:31 PM
Dragar's Avatar
Dragar Dragar is offline
Now in six dimensions!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Cotswolds
Gender: Male
Posts: VCI
Default Re: Morality

Quote:
Right, but without the assumption, I am free to live, then there is no way to ascertain that what he pleases is wrong either.

No, I don't think so. I think my point is that it's impossible to determine "is ought" without some assumptions, perhaps.
Right. I agree; it's impossible without making some sort of assumption. But what happens when people make different assumptions? Can you think of any way to persuade someone to choose one assumption over another?
__________________
The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. -Eugene Wigner
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 01-07-2005, 05:32 PM
Sweetie Sweetie is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MVDCCCLXXX
Default Re: Morality

I suppose part of my point is, do you say that the man who is sacrificing children is wrong? Yes, I would think you do and most atheists and theists alike would. The question is, why? Is it in fact, rational to do so? No, not unless there is something objective to appeal to and we have to make assumptions about what that objective thing might be, but we do indeed have to and we have to indeed assume it is an objective thing otherwise we may not say anything, in fact.

Reason, I think, can determine the case of which assumption is the most rational one to assume.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 01-07-2005, 05:36 PM
Dragar's Avatar
Dragar Dragar is offline
Now in six dimensions!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Cotswolds
Gender: Male
Posts: VCI
Default Re: Morality

Quote:
I suppose part of my point is, do you say that the man who is sacrificing children is wrong? Yes, I would think you do and most atheists and theists alike would. The question is, why? Is it in fact, rational to do so? No, not unless there is something objective to appeal to and we have to make assumptions about what that objective thing might be, but we do indeed have to and we have to indeed assume it is an objective thing otherwise we may not say anything, in fact.
Sweetie, I've highlighted what I think is the most important part of your post. Why do you think that, if morality is not obective, we cannot say anything about it?

If I told you that I experienced your above example of the man sacrificing his children to be wrong, does it change your perspective at all?

Quote:
Reason, I think, can determine the case of which assumption is the most rational one to assume.
How does this work? I've never seen it done...
__________________
The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. -Eugene Wigner
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 01-07-2005, 06:00 PM
Sweetie Sweetie is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MVDCCCLXXX
Default Re: Morality

Quote:
Sweetie, I've highlighted what I think is the most important part of your post. Why do you think that, if morality is not obective, we cannot say anything about it?
Because then we have only a subjective thing to appeal to and then it is only a subjective opinion that the man sacrificing children is wrong.

Quote:
If I told you that I experienced your above example of the man sacrificing his children to be wrong, does it change your perspective at all?
If you think epistemology changes the nature of the case, denies the human need and necessity of determing morality and that even if we are well aware that if the thing we appeal to is subjective and that his actions are only subjectively wrong, and even if you can convince your conscience not to object that still does not prove that there is nothing objective to appeal to.

I echo Chesterton in this case, that one of things we must believe is that there is something objective to appeal to, and that we need to assume it and live by it. He would put it this way, this is his meaning though he was speaking about something else specifically at the time:

"This philosophy, indeed, is a kind of verbal paradox. Pragmatisim is a matter of human needs; and one of the first of human needs is to be something more than a pragmatist."

Morality is a matter of human needs, though the case is subjective, but one of the first of human needs is to assume the objective. Without doing so, we are helpless to be human, to act or to think, to judge or to condemn, to make decisions, to punish, to promote a moral code, to call another wrong, and everybody does this. My question is, is it rational to continue to do these things unless.....?

Quote:
How does this work? I've never seen it done...
Ok, but then from what basis do you promote your moral code? You do so because you think it is the most rational one, I disagree. To me I think what you and others promote prevents you from being able to have or promote a moral code at all, or so I think reason declares, so then I don't think your assumptions are the most rational ones.

If you and Zoot and others get angry with others because they do not approve abortion, because they do not approve homosexual marriage, it is irrational to do so, you have no basis to claim they are wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 01-07-2005, 06:16 PM
Dragar's Avatar
Dragar Dragar is offline
Now in six dimensions!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Cotswolds
Gender: Male
Posts: VCI
Default Re: Morality

Quote:
Because then we have only a subjective thing to appeal to and then it is only a subjective opinion that the man sacrificing children is wrong.
Yes. But it is only my subjective opinion that a painting is beautiful, or a poem wonderful.

Quote:
Ok, but then from what basis do you promote your moral code? You do so because you think it is the most rational one, I disagree.
I don't promote it because I think it's rational. I don't even think it's possible to promote a moral code, except by making very small changes to the way others think and feel - emotional appeals, perhaps.

Quote:
If you and Zoot and others get angry with others because they do not approve abortion, because they do not approve homosexual marriage, it is irrational to do so, you have no basis to claim they are wrong.
That's right. Me claiming that those people were 'wrong' would be like trying to claim someone was 'wrong' when they told me they didn't think a song was particularly beautiful. How can an experience possibly be 'wrong', any more than it can be 'wrong' to find coffee disgusting?

Regardless, hold on a moment. If I subjectively experience that something is wrong, this means the same thing as I would prefer it if that thing wasn't happening.

If I'd prefer it if that thing wasn't happening, surely the most sensible thing to do would be to go out and try to stop that thing happening? Assuming it mattered to me so much (my preference was so strong) that I wanted to go out and stop it.
__________________
The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. -Eugene Wigner

Last edited by Dragar; 01-07-2005 at 06:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 01-07-2005, 07:12 PM
viscousmemories's Avatar
viscousmemories viscousmemories is offline
Admin
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ypsilanti, Mi
Gender: Male
Posts: XXXDCCXLVI
Blog Entries: 1
Images: 9
Default Re: Morality

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sweetie
Because then we have only a subjective thing to appeal to and then it is only a subjective opinion that the man sacrificing children is wrong.
Actually if two or more people share that subjective opinion then we have an inter-subjective opinion, which in my view significantly lessens the need for an objective morality.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 01-07-2005, 07:23 PM
Sweetie Sweetie is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MVDCCCLXXX
Default Re: Morality

Quote:
Yes. But it is only my subjective opinion that a painting is beautiful, or a poem wonderful.
Your subjective opinion is that a painting is beautiful. I don't know that this says anything as pertaining to my arguement at all, for this reason. X painting is beautiful to you, Y painting is beautiful to me. Now Newman, in his "Essay in Aid of a Grammer of Assent" began by assuming that there was a thing called conscience which included the 'sense of the beautiful." Granted, I find the work too dry to get through it though I may one day, but what I'm thinking is that it does not matter whether or not you or I agree that a painting is beautiful, it needs only matter that there is such a thing as the sense of the beautiful in existence, and I call that objectively true. If it is true that I sense the beautiful then it is true that there is a sense that exists to sense it.

Now, the sense of the beautiful requires your existence in order to exist. Your existence is dependent upon factors, such as a mother and a father, and upon a moral code. King Herod, if he still existed and had power can say that all two year old males may die and thence your sense of the beautiful did not develop in order to exist. If you grew to be old enough so that the sense of the beautiful is devolped and recognized consciously, then you have a moral code that enabled that to be. If your moral code dictated that burning the house down was good, you may die with your code. If it dictated that burning another's house down is good, you may die because they disagree. It is required thence, that "you may live" is simply true in order to be able to form subjective opions which need not be true, they may be only true to you, in fact, it is not required that this sense exists at all, so Chesterton would address the "problem of pleasure."

Too, if you have no moral code you have prevented yourself from acting and deciding anything at all which can get you killed, prevent your survival, just as easily as an unreasonable moral code could.

So, what I'm seeing in my mind at present is that your subjective opinion about whether or not a painting is beautiful necessitates nothing. There is nothing to say that you should think the painting is beautiful, there is nothing to say that I should agree with you which is not the nature of the case of morality, but at least, a painting must exist in order to think it beautiful and a sense of the beautiful must exist in order to think that it is.

Quote:
I don't promote it because I think it's rational. I don't even think it's possible to promote a moral code, except by making very small changes to the way others think and feel - emotional appeals, perhaps.
If you don't promote a way of living or a moral code that is rational then is it irrational? Do you choose to live irrationally?

But how it is done is not the issue. As I stated previously, it is impossible that we assume that I may live and I may not live at the same time. A moral code must make decisions about one or the other.

Quote:
That's right. Me claiming that those people were 'wrong' would be like trying to claim someone was 'wrong' when they told me they didn't think a song was particularly beautiful. How can an experience possibly be 'wrong', any more than it can be 'wrong' to find coffee disgusting?
Coffee, murder? :chin:

Quote:
Regardless, hold on a moment. If I subjectively experience that something is wrong, this means the same thing as I would prefer it if that thing wasn't happening.
What if you prefer not to live? What if your moral code, your "preferences" are built on the notion that you shall not do what causes another suffering and what if you prefer not to live and therefore take your own life, what if that questions whether or not another may live and you have caused/helped along the death and suffering of millions?

Quote:
If I'd prefer it if that thing wasn't happening, surely the most sensible thing to do would be to go out and try to stop that thing happening? Assuming it mattered to me so much (my preference was so strong) that I wanted to go out and stop it.
Perhaps they may not prefer it that you step on their toes and try to prevent them doing what they will to do?
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 01-07-2005, 07:31 PM
Sweetie Sweetie is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MVDCCCLXXX
Default Re: Morality

Quote:
Actually if two or more people share that subjective opinion then we have an inter-subjective opinion, which in my view significantly lessens the need for an objective morality.
That to me though, would lead to the arguement that the majority determines what is right, and thence as well, we can complain about slavery in America all we wanted, but we cannot say that slavery was in fact actually wrong, that we should not enslave others. It in fact would say that the majority declares and the mighty and politically and physically declares, and therefore who am I to disagree? I may only disagree because I disagree with their assumption and I claim mine true because I think theirs is false. It was right then, it's wrong now because the majority decided. "What is right in one age is wrong in another."

Too, if 95% of the race decided that child sacrifice was wrong the entire 95% could be wrong. If only 45% of the race thought it wrong, well then of course, it's right, right?
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 01-07-2005, 07:32 PM
Dragar's Avatar
Dragar Dragar is offline
Now in six dimensions!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Cotswolds
Gender: Male
Posts: VCI
Default Re: Morality

Quote:
Too, if you have no moral code you have prevented yourself from acting and deciding anything at all which can get you killed, prevent your survival, just as easily as an unreasonable moral code could.
Tell me why I would need a moral code to decide something.

Quote:
So, what I'm seeing in my mind at present is that your subjective opinion about whether or not a painting is beautiful necessitates nothing. There is nothing to say that you should think the painting is beautiful, there is nothing to say that I should agree with you which is not the nature of the case of morality, but at least, a painting must exist in order to think it beautiful and a sense of the beautiful must exist in order to think that it is.
That's right.

Quote:
If you don't promote a way of living or a moral code that is rational then is it irrational? Do you choose to live irrationally?
What rationality is there about liking food? And yet, I like food. I don't know if that's rational or irrational, but that's the way things are.

In the same way, I have a list of preferences about how others behave toward each other, how we treat the environment, how old to be before having sex, etc. You can call it a moral code, if you like.

Quote:
But how it is done is not the issue. As I stated previously, it is impossible that we assume that I may live and I may not live at the same time. A moral code must make decisions about one or the other.
Sure.


Quote:
What if you prefer not to live?
I prefer to live.

Quote:
What if your moral code, your "preferences" are built on the notion that you shall not do what causes another suffering and what if you prefer not to live and therefore take your own life, what if that questions whether or not another may live and you have caused/helped along the death and suffering of millions?
I don't understand. If I prefer to avoid causing others suffering, then (unless I have an overriding preference, like preferring to live) I will avoid causing others suffering. If I prefer to murder people, I'll murder people (unless I have an overriding preference, like not going to jail).

As an aside, I prefer to avoid causing suffering, and I prefer not to murder people. :)

Quote:
Perhaps they may not prefer it that you step on their toes and try to prevent them doing what they will to do?
Well, as I said before, I don't like causing people suffering. So let's say these people were dancing. And I'd prefer that they weren't dancing. But I know that if I stopped them dancing, they'd be unhappy (suffering). So, now I have a decision, don't I? Which do I have the strongest preference for: stopping them dancing, or avoiding causing suffering?

Obviously, I'd prefer to avoid causing them suffering, so I'll let them be and go on my merry way.

But what if they're about to murder someone? Well, I'd prefer it if they didn't. Of course, I'd also prefer it if they didn't suffer, but in this situation I think I might prefer calling the police and stopping the murder, even if it means they suffer in a jail cell.

You see how that works?

Now, how is my decision making process in any way impaired?
__________________
The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. -Eugene Wigner
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 01-07-2005, 07:35 PM
Dragar's Avatar
Dragar Dragar is offline
Now in six dimensions!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Cotswolds
Gender: Male
Posts: VCI
Default Re: Morality

Quote:
That to me though, would lead to the arguement that the majority determines what is right
No, the majority determines what the majority finds subjectively right.
__________________
The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. -Eugene Wigner
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 01-07-2005, 07:36 PM
viscousmemories's Avatar
viscousmemories viscousmemories is offline
Admin
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ypsilanti, Mi
Gender: Male
Posts: XXXDCCXLVI
Blog Entries: 1
Images: 9
Default Re: Morality

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sweetie
That to me though, would lead to the arguement that the majority determines what is right, and thence as well, we can complain about slavery in America all we wanted, but we cannot say that slavery was in fact actually wrong, that we should not enslave others.
To me it's not about majority opinion, but the strength of the moral argument. Slavery wasn't deemed immoral because the majority suddenly came to believe it was, but because the majority were persuaded by the moral arguments of those who favored abolition. I think.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 01-07-2005, 07:50 PM
Sweetie Sweetie is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MVDCCCLXXX
Default Re: Morality

Quote:
To me it's not about majority opinion, but the strength of the moral argument. Slavery wasn't deemed immoral because the majority suddenly came to believe it was, but because the majority were persuaded by the moral arguments of those who favored abolition. I think.
Well, I think the Civil War was caused more by economics than morality, but that's neither here nor there.

But, yes, this is my point, the strength of the moral arguements which is what I call the most "reasonable", the arguements which make the most reasonable assumptions. In this case, I think my assumption that "I may live" is reasonable and also true and anything that necessarily follows from that assumption is true as well, I hold it as true and exceptionless which would qualify in my books, as a moral absolute.

Now, a black man could not kill a white person, but was it equally true that a white man could not kill a black person, in those days?

Now, that presupposes a definition of personhood. Are black peoples "persons"?

Is it true for all persons that they may live?

"Should" we enslave or deprive another of life deliberately and unnecessarily?

In order to say that we "should not" do the above, then we presuppose that a black man is a person, that all persons may live and that because they may live, we "should" not murder them. Now, slavery would be a secondary issue I think, because we would need to show why the "I may live" leads to "I should not enslave another," which is why instead I introduced the problem back then that a black man could not take the life of a white one, in the ethical or governmental system back then, that black men were not necessarily men but property, and therefore a white man could take the life of a black man (which, once again presupposes that a black man is a man or person, but I cannot call them "things" even for the sake of arguement.)
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 01-07-2005, 09:41 PM
viscousmemories's Avatar
viscousmemories viscousmemories is offline
Admin
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ypsilanti, Mi
Gender: Male
Posts: XXXDCCXLVI
Blog Entries: 1
Images: 9
Default Re: Morality

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sweetie
Well, I think the Civil War was caused more by economics than morality, but that's neither here nor there.
Actually America isn't the only country to have abolished slavery. ;) Britain managed to arrive at the same conclusion without bloodshed half a century earlier.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 01-08-2005, 12:20 AM
Sweetie Sweetie is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MVDCCCLXXX
Default Re: Morality

Quote:
Actually America isn't the only country to have abolished slavery. ;) Britain managed to arrive at the same conclusion without bloodshed half a century earlier.
Why?
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 01-08-2005, 01:07 AM
livius drusus's Avatar
livius drusus livius drusus is offline
Admin of THIEVES and SLUGABEDS
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: LVCCCLXXII
Images: 5
Default Re: Morality

Because, as vm said above, the majority -- or at least the majority of those with legislative power -- were persuaded by the moral arguments (coupled with fearless activism and genuinely creative PR approaches) of those who favored abolition.

This article might be of interest to you.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 01-08-2005, 02:06 AM
Sweetie Sweetie is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MVDCCCLXXX
Default Re: Morality

Quote:
Tell me why I would need a moral code to decide something.
When faced with two choices of a moral nature you can determine which one you will do without a moral code, a way of saying this is what you should or should not do?

Without that you would just do what you willed to do without cause and only desire which could get you into trouble real quick as any child knows. Soon enough you might determine that you will not do that because it hurts. Soon after that, "because it hurts" will become your moral code for the time being.

Too, a rational creature without a moral code is a rational creature without reason, forced to follow blind instinct. At puberty you will have intercourse perhaps, have babies, maybe have one baby every three years because instinct tells you that is what you should do regardless if the mate in question wants babies or not, maybe she gets tired. We cannot follow blind instinct because we are not blind.

That you question that though doesn't make any sense to me. Do we do anything without reason as rational creatures? That just boils down to, you will not do this or that for good reason maybe because it hurts, but that is a moral code, it just gets more complex as you grow older. You will say that you will not do anything that hurts but that can't last long, this must evolve into something else.

Further, it hurts because it is allowed to hurt because I am allowed to live and being allowed to live means that I have the right to live which means that I have the right to hurt, it's perhaps presupposed in even your moral code.

A moral code to me though, is if I ask you why you did that, you say "because ___," and when you take that one reason and apply it to any other situation that crops up. My question though, is whether or not it is reasonable or grounded.

Quote:
What rationality is there about liking food? And yet, I like food. I don't know if that's rational or irrational, but that's the way things are.
I would think it's rational because you need to eat to live, and in order to be allowed to eat, the moral code you are under must say first that you may live.

You "should" like food because you should live and you should live because you may live, you "should not" make it so that another does not have food because they should live. But as to the picture and poem, I don't see it's relation to morality, it's like apples and oranges to me. What if you don't see and can't hear and can't read? Does that make any difference as to the question of whether or not you should exist or you should not kill? Because your opinion about what is beautiful is subjective then there is no such thing as something true objectively? What about that it must be true that there be a picture to look upon and a person to see it, and thence a person who may live to look upon it?

Quote:
In the same way, I have a list of preferences about how others behave toward each other, how we treat the environment, how old to be before having sex, etc. You can call it a moral code, if you like.
What is this moral code grounded on?

Quote:
I prefer to live.
And if you do not?

Quote:
I don't understand. If I prefer to avoid causing others suffering, then (unless I have an overriding preference, like preferring to live) I will avoid causing others suffering. If I prefer to murder people, I'll murder people (unless I have an overriding preference, like not going to jail).
How can you live by a code of avoiding causing suffering to another if it is not first assumed that they may live? To me, having the right to live is to be given the right to experience pleasure or suffering.

Quote:
Well, as I said before, I don't like causing people suffering. So let's say these people were dancing. And I'd prefer that they weren't dancing. But I know that if I stopped them dancing, they'd be unhappy (suffering). So, now I have a decision, don't I? Which do I have the strongest preference for: stopping them dancing, or avoiding causing suffering?

Obviously, I'd prefer to avoid causing them suffering, so I'll let them be and go on my merry way.

But what if they're about to murder someone? Well, I'd prefer it if they didn't. Of course, I'd also prefer it if they didn't suffer, but in this situation I think I might prefer calling the police and stopping the murder, even if it means they suffer in a jail cell.
That misses the point. In that case, calling the police, you would be appealing to an already existing code that may not even be your own. The problem is, we are questioning whether or not the police can do anything at all on the matter. Who are the police to say, "you shalt not sacrifice children?" So sayeth the sacrificers, "Says who?"

Quote:
You see how that works?

Now, how is my decision making process in any way impaired?
My question is not whether your system is impaired, it's whether or not it's even viable without some necessary assumptions.

Too, what is suffering exactly? Causing a woman to be pregnant causes suffering does it not? I will testify to that. Then you might say, well yes but it's a requirement of existence therefore my impregnating her and causing her suffering was necessary, so too such a thing was necessary for my own existence. You then might have to clarify your moral code, because it has contradicted reason. It is not reasonable to assert that I shall not do something that causes suffering if that something is a requirement that questions my own ability to exist. So then you will say, it's ok to cause suffering if it's a requirement of existence, correct?
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 01-08-2005, 02:48 AM
Dragar's Avatar
Dragar Dragar is offline
Now in six dimensions!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Cotswolds
Gender: Male
Posts: VCI
Default Re: Morality

Quote:
When faced with two choices of a moral nature you can determine which one you will do without a moral code, a way of saying this is what you should or should not do?

Without that you would just do what you willed to do without cause and only desire which could get you into trouble real quick as any child knows. Soon enough you might determine that you will not do that because it hurts. Soon after that, "because it hurts" will become your moral code for the time being.
But my desires don't get me in trouble. I desire to be nice to people, for instance. How will that land me in trouble?

Quote:
Too, a rational creature without a moral code is a rational creature without reason, forced to follow blind instinct. At puberty you will have intercourse perhaps, have babies, maybe have one baby every three years because instinct tells you that is what you should do regardless if the mate in question wants babies or not, maybe she gets tired. We cannot follow blind instinct because we are not blind.
But I don't want to have intercourse with any old girl. Why would I? And I certainly wouldn't want babies at that age! Or even now! So again...why would I?

Quote:
That you question that though doesn't make any sense to me. Do we do anything without reason as rational creatures? That just boils down to, you will not do this or that for good reason maybe because it hurts, but that is a moral code, it just gets more complex as you grow older. You will say that you will not do anything that hurts but that can't last long, this must evolve into something else.

Further, it hurts because it is allowed to hurt because I am allowed to live and being allowed to live means that I have the right to live which means that I have the right to hurt, it's perhaps presupposed in even your moral code.
I don't understand what you're saying. 'It hurts because it is allowed to hurt'? What does 'allowed' mean?

Quote:
A moral code to me though, is if I ask you why you did that, you say "because ___," and when you take that one reason and apply it to any other situation that crops up. My question though, is whether or not it is reasonable or grounded.
What is yours grounded on? You told me earlier you had to make assumptions. What are they grounded on?

Quote:
I would think it's rational because you need to eat to live, and in order to be allowed to eat, the moral code you are under must say first that you may live.
But I don't eat chocolate to live. I eat it because I enjoy the pleasure it gives me.

Quote:
You "should" like food because you should live and you should live because you may live, you "should not" make it so that another does not have food because they should live.
Why 'should' I live? I'd prefer to, certainly. But can you tell me why? What's that 'grounded on'?

But as to the picture and poem, I don't see it's relation to morality, it's like apples and oranges to me.[/QUOTE]

I know. But you were saying that if morality were objective, we couldn't make decisions. I'm demonstrating that, in the same way we can make decisions about subjective beauty, we can make decisions with subjective morality.

Quote:
What if you don't see and can't hear and can't read? Does that make any difference as to the question of whether or not you should exist or you should not kill? Because your opinion about what is beautiful is subjective then there is no such thing as something true objectively? What about that it must be true that there be a picture to look upon and a person to see it, and thence a person who may live to look upon it?
I don't understand what you're saying here.

Quote:
Quote:
In the same way, I have a list of preferences about how others behave toward each other, how we treat the environment, how old to be before having sex, etc. You can call it a moral code, if you like.
What is this moral code grounded on?
I don't know. I just know I prefer some things - like pleasure, and other people being happy, and a world without war - to an absence of those things.

It's like asking me what my preferences for music is 'grounded in'. It's not 'grounded' in anything. But you wouldn't then say, "Well, how can you say Paul Simon is 'better' than the Beatles?!"

Quote:
And if you do not?
If I don't prefer to live, I'd imagine I'd kill myself. Unless I had some overriding preference. I might prefer to die, but also prefer to avoid causing my parents suffering - and if that second preference was strong enough, I'd avoid dying in order to avoid causing my parents suffering.

Did you really need to ask that? I'd thought it would be rather obvious.

Quote:
I don't understand. If I prefer to avoid causing others suffering, then (unless I have an overriding preference, like preferring to live) I will avoid causing others suffering. If I prefer to murder people, I'll murder people (unless I have an overriding preference, like not going to jail).
Quote:
How can you live by a code of avoiding causing suffering to another if it is not first assumed that they may live?
They do live. And I'd prefer it if they continue living. But I don't know what this 'assumption' that they 'may' live even means.

Quote:
That misses the point. In that case, calling the police, you would be appealing to an already existing code that may not even be your own.
Not really. I'd be calling some people who I know prefer a world where murders didn't happen, and were capable of dealing with people trying to do so. So they'd come and stop the murder.

Quote:
The problem is, we are questioning whether or not the police can do anything at all on the matter. Who are the police to say, "you shalt not sacrifice children?" So sayeth the sacrificers, "Says who?"
Why would the police say that? They'd say, "Don't sacrifice the children." And if the man continued to do so, they would arrest him, using force if necessary.

And this happens in reality. Well, okay, not the sacrificing, but the rest of it. So I don't see the problem here.

Quote:
My question is not whether your system is impaired, it's whether or not it's even viable without some necessary assumptions.
It seems to work so far.

Quote:
Too, what is suffering exactly? Causing a woman to be pregnant causes suffering does it not? I will testify to that. Then you might say, well yes but it's a requirement of existence therefore my impregnating her and causing her suffering was necessary, so too such a thing was necessary for my own existence.
Why would I say that? I wouldn't want to get a woman pregnant unless she wanted me to do so. And even then, I may have doubts about the matter.

Quote:
You then might have to clarify your moral code, because it has contradicted reason. It is not reasonable to assert that I shall not do something that causes suffering if that something is a requirement that questions my own ability to exist. So then you will say, it's ok to cause suffering if it's a requirement of existence, correct?
I don't understand the question. If the only way you can exist is to cause suffering, then there are two possibilities:

a) You cease to exist.
b) You cause suffering.

Since people don't 'pop' out of existence, I'd imagine that the answer of what happens is b), you cause suffering.

I'd rather suffering wasn't caused though, regardless. But I'd rather we didn't die, and that's a certainty too. :)
__________________
The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. -Eugene Wigner
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 01-08-2005, 02:58 AM
Sweetie Sweetie is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MVDCCCLXXX
Default Re: Morality

Quote:
Originally Posted by livius drusus
Because, as vm said above, the majority -- or at least the majority of those with legislative power -- were persuaded by the moral arguments (coupled with fearless activism and genuinely creative PR approaches) of those who favored abolition.

This article might be of interest to you.
I had intended it as a sort of rhetorical question but what you have presented is of interest. On the subject though, it was Protestant England who was the main cause of slavery in America, correct? I would be interested in seeing how they justified that. Too, slavery wasn't necessarily abolished in other places in Europe but it pretty much didn't exist I think, prior this event. I'm not sure, but I had heard/read something to that effect. It would indeed require verification. And then, the question is why as well. This one article said thus, I have no reason to especially trust this information but I'm not finding much else at present:

Slavery ended in Western Europe in the 7th century, when a British girl, Bathilde, was taken as a slave and sold to Clovis II, King of the Franks (638-655). Clovis fell in love with and married her. After the king died, Bathilde, acting as regent for their three young sons, outlawed slavery.

This site says that serfdom even, in Western Europe, had died out several centuries prior the Industrial Revolution the difference seems it had "died out" but in the case of England at the time, it was then after "outlawed" specifically.

http://www.arts.yorku.ca/econ/lagerl...laveryPerm.pdf

It seems that England, or an English King particularily, revived it and thence it was to be stamped out by a sort of international type decree, but it seems that England revived it more in the sense of trade, ie: slaves for the plantations in America which make one money, in Jamaica, etc., not necessarily that it was allowed at home. That's a good question, did the English have slaves in England prior abolition and when did Canada change her laws on the subject? Wow, I guess I have alot of questions still about the subject.

I'll try to remember to look into it a bit later.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 01-08-2005, 03:20 AM
livius drusus's Avatar
livius drusus livius drusus is offline
Admin of THIEVES and SLUGABEDS
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: LVCCCLXXII
Images: 5
Default Re: Morality

Quote:
On the subject though, it was Protestant England who was the main cause of slavery in America, correct?
Cause? No, I don't think "Protestant England" was the cause of American slavery, no. If you mean the British slave trade was the main source of slaves bought in the United States, then yes.

Quote:
I would be interested in seeing how they justified that. Too, slavery wasn't necessarily abolished in other places in Europe but it pretty much didn't exist I think, prior this event. I'm not sure, but I had heard/read something to that effect. It would indeed require verification. And then, the question is why as well.
Britian abolished the slave trade in 1805, not slavery. The article I linked to contains some information on the rationalizations supporting it -- mainly economic ones -- and the arguments for abolishing it -- mainly moral ones.
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:02 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 1.09219 seconds with 13 queries