On The Possibility of Objective Morality
Pages
| Author | Topic: On The Possibility of Objective Morality |
|---|---|
|
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
|
written Sunday, March 27 2005 18:03
Profile
Homepage
Steve, while you're sitting around posting, come and join in the Lyceum chat. (sorry mods) -------------------- Sex is easier than love. Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Sunday, March 27 2005 18:42
Profile
Homepage
quote:I want you to give me $1000. Does that mean you're morally obligated to do so? See, this is the part where, for me, religion-based morality falls over -- even saying "you should always follow any directive of an omnipotent being who created the universe" isn't self-evidently true. "You should always follow any directive of an omnipotent being who created the universe, because if you do he'll give you anything you want" is starting to get closer, but that's making some pretty big assumptions (and is also starting to seem less like morality as we usually think of it). [ Sunday, March 27, 2005 18:47: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
BoE Posse
Member # 112
|
written Sunday, March 27 2005 18:51
Profile
Did you see me say that? I simply said it wants us to behave a certain way. As to whether we should comply, we would have to reason further. The Moral Law implies the existance of a God or gods, but we are a long way from christianity. I would like to leave it there for today. I need a break. If you want, get a copy of Mere Christianity. It explains things much better and more thoughorly than I do. -------------------- Rate my scenarios! Areni Revenge To Live in Fear Deadly Goblins Ugantan Nightmare Isle of Boredom Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sunday, October 7 2001 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 5437
|
written Sunday, March 27 2005 18:57
Profile
So you are saying there are no morals without religion? Morals are a concept of right and wrong, they are not specific to a God or Gods. -------------------- Nena Posts: 2032 | Registered: Wednesday, January 26 2005 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Sunday, March 27 2005 19:00
Profile
Homepage
quote:I would, but frankly I've read quite a lot of Lewis and so far haven't found anything he's had to say that didn't strike me as elitist backslapping. -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Monday, March 28 2005 04:17
Profile
I'm just going to quickly insert my standard plug for Hobbes' Leviathan in this topic. I think laws and morals came from people being tired of living in fear of one another. Basic morality is similar in all societies because all societies were founded on the principle of preserving the lives of their constituents. This is basic state of nature/war stuff. Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 3364
|
written Monday, March 28 2005 07:57
Profile
Homepage
I would say that to prove the exsistance of right and wrong we must consider the world and it's peoples. Are there any peoples/cultures who do not have any laws? Is there any group which thinks that it is right to do whatever you want no matter what happens or who you hurt? I think even the most primitive of peoples have created 'laws' for themselves. These laws may vary greatly and allow for such things that others may consider taboo, but the laws exsist none-the-less. So even if in reality there is no right or wrong, all of humanity still wants to define what is right and wrong. For myself, the fact that all cultures have defined right and wrong in their own way says that the 'Moral Law' does exsist. Find me a culture that does not have laws (written or implied) and I'll be more inclined to believe that it does not. -------------------- "Even the worst Terror from Hell can be transformed to a testimony from Heaven!" - Rev. David Wood 6\23\05 "Do all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as you ever can." - John Wesley Posts: 1001 | Registered: Tuesday, August 19 2003 07:00 |
|
Guardian
Member # 3521
|
written Monday, March 28 2005 08:41
Profile
My concept of morality is religion-derived, but can apply even to the non-religious. I believe that one ought not to kill others, but not for the reason that the act of killing is inherently bad. As the goal in Hinduism is to attain an even-minded state, very violent extremes of emotion in life indicate that an individual's spirit (atman) is far from reaching the even-minded state it ought to be striving for. Most murders are committed by those in the throes of strong emotions like hate, envy, and avarice. If an individual manages to remain calm and at peace even while confronted with problems in the material world, he is highly unlikely to commit murder or any other activity intending to harm others. One ought not to adhere to a moral code out of fear of retribution from higher powers; one ought to adhere to a moral code out of a desire for self-betterment and inner peace. -------------------- Stughalf "Delusion arises from anger. The mind is bewildered by delusion. Reasoning is destroyed when the mind is bewildered. One falls down when reasoning is destroyed."- The Bhagavad Gita. Posts: 1798 | Registered: Sunday, October 5 2003 07:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Monday, March 28 2005 09:27
Profile
Homepage
Stug's theory makes a good deal of sense to pretty much any functioning member of a modern liberal democracy, and is probably the best way to defend what Creator is saying. Of course, Stug's theory only works with people emotionally aligned in a way conducive to this. Dare I say that post-modernism and economic determinism are both testaments that not all people genuinely like helping others. Of course it's possible to claim that all people work within a general set of complexes, but that makes for a good case of cultural hegemony. Nobody speaks ambivalently about human nature. On the other hand, some people are adverse to the law as well, and yet those who cannot understand or are "insane" beyond the point of minimal compliance will always exist. The question is, "Do we change society for these peoples' sakes?" Well maybe, but there will always be people not inclined to follow the rules up until the point where there are any, and that generates its own implications as a matter of course regardless. (Actually, I've made these points in Canopy... For proof, look at post-modernism.) When you relenquish belief systems for sake of "universality", you hand the reigns over to the market economy, and the results become just as disastrous. (This is, ultimately, why Communism as we know it was brought to fruition by a Christian.) Price tags, prejudices of the rich, increasing production and more uneven distribution become the maxims of the culture. To wit, the free market should increase the status of african-americans and women by letting their natural talents shine through. Why, then, do they remain repressed as such? The only logical conclusions are that the rich can unite to thwart the will of the "modern" free market at their leisure, despite the market's "intentions"; or that african-americans are genuinely stupider than caucasian-americans. So ultimately, trying to encourage acceptance will guarantee rejection, and often at a far grander scale than previously imagined. The only possible path to take is one of any given belief, stabilizing it as best as one is able and making it bereft of internal hypocrisy. Hinduism as Stug stated, most modern forms of Abrahamic religions, Buddhism and any other belief system of that sort would make a decent moral law, so long as it remains consistent with its own convictions. Simultaneously, so would many which we have not yet began to touch upon. -------------------- 人 た ち を 燃 え る た め に 俺 は か れ ら に 火 を 上 げ る か ら 死 ん だ Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2210
|
written Monday, March 28 2005 09:54
Profile
Unfortunately the idea of pure objectivity is false. Two points. 1) It is impossible to separate what is being observed from the observer. The schrodingers cat problem. 2) Logic -- objectivity is based on emotions. No matter how we would like to separate the two functions philosophically, the brain always attaches emotions to our decisions. The inability to separate ourselves purely from emotion limits our abilities to be objective. The problem of automatically changing the parameters of what is happening by our observation also changes the chance of being objective. This is one of the reasons why we can never have a completely "true" philosophy or even "science" we can never truly separate ourselves from our interactions, nor can we in an absolute sense have anything but theoretical ideas of how the world works because of the limits of our senses. -------------------- Wasting your time and mine looking for a good laugh. Star Bright, Star Light, Oh I Wish I May, I Wish Might, Wish For One Star Tonight. Posts: 1084 | Registered: Thursday, November 7 2002 08:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 5540
|
written Monday, March 28 2005 09:59
Profile
"yes, but subjectivity is objective" -Woody Allen, DIane Keaton Posts: 27 | Registered: Thursday, February 24 2005 08:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Monday, March 28 2005 10:04
Profile
Homepage
"1) It is impossible to separate what is being observed from the observer. The schrodingers cat problem." Perhaps. But false physics does not drive automobiles. How about this- if it's wrong, but EVERYBODY notices that it works despite that, why the hell even mention it? I mean, if you're a Matrix fan, I s'pose, but that's rife with its own problems. "2) Logic -- objectivity is based on emotions. No matter how we would like to separate the two functions philosophically, the brain always attaches emotions to our decisions." Well, obviously. Again, I pre-empted you: No system can accept everybody. So what? It beats a system that tries to accept everybody. "This is one of the reasons why we can never have a completely "true" philosophy or even "science" we can never truly separate ourselves from our interactions, nor can we in an absolute sense have anything but theoretical ideas of how the world works because of the limits of our senses." Great! So let's pound civilization back into the stone age. ...or, we COULD just accept the fact that a bunch of us are subject to parallax, but can still make computers operate. Heck, you're on a computer right now- does that work by magic? False science? Voodoo? As I have stated before, fragmentation only opens the door to more economic determinism and social obfuscation. Science is not always 100% true at the time- for instance, the world is round, and the rennaisance world could not accept that. On the other hand, we continually update ourselves, fixing our own mistakes. There's a physical reality out there, and it has certain incorrigible laws. Be glad that they aren't as fluctuating as you advertise them to be. -------------------- 人 た ち を 燃 え る た め に 俺 は か れ ら に 火 を 上 げ る か ら 死 ん だ Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2210
|
written Monday, March 28 2005 10:26
Profile
There may be no absolute morality, but there is something to be said for creating a world where all people are free to philosophize like us-- because: 1) They are fed properly. 2) They have a place to stay. 3) They have something meaningul to do. 4) They have enough time and freedom to sit around drinking beverages or gawking at a computer screen. :P The point of this is that any philosophy which is created depends on a persons interactions with other people. There is a vanity which happens where a person decides they somehow can create a superior moral philosophy and then export it to the world and it will work in real time. The idea is that an "objective" philosophy is good. It cannot be refuted. Purely objective philosophies tend to end up being totalitarian. There is a tendency to fill them with something called logical positivism. Statements like I believe in xxx. xxx is good. Therefore I am good. If I am not good you don't believe in xxx. The more charismatic or messianic the philosophy is the more destructive its potential becomes. The "superior" moral philosophies we accept are good are based on essentially charismatic works of self styled intellectuals. We somehow look at these works and say wow, this is how the world should be run. Violent charismatics appeal to a lot of people, and violent charismatics with a moral lesson inflame people. Then we turn the works over to the various smiling "leaders" and they mess things up. The most charismatic leaders cause havoc. Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, Idi Amin were all "charismatic leaders". We even have a "strong man" in office today-- what charisma, how religious. In opposition is an equally "violent charismatic". This is very satisfying for a lot of people. Focusing on pure morality to fulfill peoples needs causes more problems than taking the time to deal with peoples real needs. Starting from the point of helping in the real world in my opinion is more constructive and more moral than many objective moral arguments. I would like to see someone try to create a philosophy which could get every single person on earth headed towards reaching the pinnacle of Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs in the real world. Feed, clothe, shelter, educate, etc. [ Monday, March 28, 2005 11:12: Message edited by: Toasty Warm ] -------------------- Wasting your time and mine looking for a good laugh. Star Bright, Star Light, Oh I Wish I May, I Wish Might, Wish For One Star Tonight. Posts: 1084 | Registered: Thursday, November 7 2002 08:00 |
|
BoE Posse
Member # 112
|
written Monday, March 28 2005 14:27
Profile
I think I'll stick to debating about the Moral Law and what it means if it exists. What does it mean if it exists? Well, let's consider what it would mean to our veiws on the universe. Let us first consider the materialist veiw. The materialist veiw is that there is only what physically exists. The materialist position on the Moral Law would therefore be that it is just some strange quirk bred into us by evolution. On the other hand, we have the religious veiw. (I'm talking about religions in general here) The religious veiw is that there is something behind the universe that is more like a mind than anything else we can compare it to. It is generally accepted that it is like a mind in that it is conscious, and has puposes, likes, and dislikes. This reality behind the universe could never be discovered by simple obesvation of the facts, since if it exists it would not be one of the facts, but rather a reality that made them. To this end we should look for something that is not a fact but real nontheless. Let's say there is something in this world that the 'mind' behind the universe did not like. That would mean that there is not just what is, but also what it thinks ought to be. And what is the Moral Law but something telling us what ought to be? Going back to the issue of whether the Moral Law exists... Thuryl, judging by your other posts in the abortion topic, you seem to be of the opinion that people ought to do things that benefit society. Why? I'm guessing your answer will be something like 'Because people benefit from society, so when they benefit society they benefit themselves'. [ Monday, March 28, 2005 14:28: Message edited by: The Creator ] -------------------- Rate my scenarios! Areni Revenge To Live in Fear Deadly Goblins Ugantan Nightmare Isle of Boredom Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sunday, October 7 2001 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Monday, March 28 2005 14:39
Profile
Homepage
quote:Nope, it's just something I personally approve of. I don't really know whether they really ought to, I just think that I ought to convince them they ought to, because I'd like it if they believed that. I suppose I could justify a position such as the one you've suggested to me on the basis of social contract theory, but considering how bad governments can be at keeping their side of the bargain, I won't try. (Of course, I'm not debating primarily to convince anyone of anything anyway. I'm mainly doing it for fun and to show everyone else what very clever arguments I'm able to come up with; as such, the exact position each of us takes is more or less irrelevant. If you asked me to argue against abortion, I'd be just as comfortable doing that.) [ Monday, March 28, 2005 14:50: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 247
|
written Monday, March 28 2005 14:51
Profile
Homepage
quote:I would hope anybody could take either side to an argument. If not then perhaps one could be labeled an extremist. I do agree that personal stances are pretty much irrelevant. Because whatever side one ends up arguing for its all really a bunch of meaningless words, that do nothing but spin the issue into a multitude of angles. [ Monday, March 28, 2005 14:52: Message edited by: VCH ] -------------------- I stop rubber at 160km/h, five times a week. CANUCKS RESPEK! My Style The Knight Between Posts. Posts: 2395 | Registered: Friday, November 2 2001 08:00 |
|
BoE Posse
Member # 112
|
written Monday, March 28 2005 14:56
Profile
So there's nothing wrong in doing something that is to the detriment of society, its just inconvenient for society, and society should therefore stop it. There was nothing wrong or hateful with what the Nazis did, it was just inconvenient to the world in general, and so the world stopped it. They couldn't really be blamed for what they did, any more than you can really blame a driver for coming at you down a narrow street that doesn't have a one-way sign. In effect, there is no right, only might. [ Monday, March 28, 2005 14:58: Message edited by: The Creator ] -------------------- Rate my scenarios! Areni Revenge To Live in Fear Deadly Goblins Ugantan Nightmare Isle of Boredom Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sunday, October 7 2001 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Monday, March 28 2005 14:59
Profile
Homepage
I think the example of Nazi Germany is an apt one indeed; millions of people, all supporting a campaign of mass murder. In the face of something like that, to cling to ideas of right and wrong as if they constitute some sort of protection against such social forces seems almost laughable. After all, in the end the fascists weren't berated into submission with well-crafted moral arguments, they were overcome by another group who happened to have more power than they did. Am I saying the Nazis couldn't be blamed for what they did? No; even that would be a judgement of them, and a judgement has little effect unless someone's able and willing to back it up. I'm saying you could have chosen to blame them or not blame them, but it wouldn't have made much difference either way. In the end, I guess this is what I'm asking: what's the use of calling something right or wrong? What does it let you do that you otherwise couldn't? [ Monday, March 28, 2005 15:04: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2210
|
written Monday, March 28 2005 15:22
Profile
It is important in the ultimate sense to not let those who claim absolute moral authority and complete control to the point of totalitarianism to remain in power. Authoritarianisms natural enemy is debate and open mindedness. There was complete control in nazism and stalinism and outright destruction of any who opposed their philosophy. Moral relativism may not ultimately decide right and wrong, but it allows for freedom of thought. It is our right to defend ourselves from people or groups who attempt to take our freedom and openness of thought. -------------------- Wasting your time and mine looking for a good laugh. Star Bright, Star Light, Oh I Wish I May, I Wish Might, Wish For One Star Tonight. Posts: 1084 | Registered: Thursday, November 7 2002 08:00 |
|
BoE Posse
Member # 112
|
written Monday, March 28 2005 15:24
Profile
I don't recall saying that 'right and wrong' were any sort of protection from people doing 'wrong'. But let me ask you, do you really think your morals are no better than those of the Nazis? Do you in fact think that if the Nazis had conquered the world there would be nothing wrong with that? Or to approach it from another angle, do you only get upset about things because they are inconvenient? Let's say you are waiting in line with five people ahead of you, and then someone else pushes in ahead. Are you annoyed at him because he is inconvenient? The other five were also inconvenient. Are you just as annoyed at them? Edit: What use are morals? Well, they won't give you any kind of power, but they help you to know how to react. But really, what has use got to do with it? We were arguing about whether they exist. [ Monday, March 28, 2005 15:30: Message edited by: The Creator ] -------------------- Rate my scenarios! Areni Revenge To Live in Fear Deadly Goblins Ugantan Nightmare Isle of Boredom Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sunday, October 7 2001 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Monday, March 28 2005 15:30
Profile
Homepage
quote:The answer to that question is of no importance. The question of which of two opposing forces I happen to approve of is utterly and hopelessly irrelevant to which one actually succeeds. If there is a "worst", and the worst happens despite our best efforts, what more can be said? What consolation is there to be found in saying that even in failure we were doing right? quote:If two people, unbeknownst to each other, pushed in front of me in a line some time apart, I'd be much more annoyed at the second than the first. Both did the same thing and caused me just as much inconvenience. I'd say that's pretty compelling evidence that my annoyance, regardless of the exact details of what caused it, has more to do with me than with them. EDIT: quote:If something is of no consequence, what does it even mean to say it exists? If everything can be explained without the addition of another factor, why postulate it -- why not call your Moral Law simply a Law and be done with it? As for morals helping one "know how to react", the way I see it, people end up reacting somehow anyway, whether they attribute their actions to morality or not. [ Monday, March 28, 2005 15:34: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
BoE Posse
Member # 112
|
written Monday, March 28 2005 15:33
Profile
Of course it has to do with you! I was asking about what you really belive. Why would you be more annoyed at the second one by the way? While I would certainly be more annoyed overall, I wouldn't be more annoyed at one more than the other. [ Monday, March 28, 2005 15:36: Message edited by: The Creator ] -------------------- Rate my scenarios! Areni Revenge To Live in Fear Deadly Goblins Ugantan Nightmare Isle of Boredom Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sunday, October 7 2001 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Monday, March 28 2005 15:35
Profile
Homepage
In a social context, what I believe is irrelevant because I am irrelevant. And since society has far more effect on the shape of my life than I ever will, that means my own beliefs are irrelevant to the course of my life. quote:I can't hazard a guess as to why, but from experience I would be. I don't spend much time in shopping queues, but cars cut in front of me all the time when I drive, which is a closely analogous situation. On any given trip, the first couple of cars don't bother me, but the later ones infuriate me. [ Monday, March 28, 2005 15:40: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
BoE Posse
Member # 112
|
written Monday, March 28 2005 15:46
Profile
quote:We are talking about you, not society (for the moment). Just because something has a greater effect, doesn't mean something else has no effect. I would also contest that society has more effect than your beliefs. Your beliefs may be shaped by society, but that is not the same as saying they have no effect. -------------------- Rate my scenarios! Areni Revenge To Live in Fear Deadly Goblins Ugantan Nightmare Isle of Boredom Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sunday, October 7 2001 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Monday, March 28 2005 15:56
Profile
Homepage
Well, alright then. Personally, I disapprove of a lot of the things the Nazis did, such as the attempted genocide. (Let's keep in mind that that was certainly not the only side of the personality of each and every one of them; they were, after all, people, who did lots of nice or perfectly ordinary things as well; the whole approving-of-genocide thing was probably a fairly small part of the overall lives of most of them. You can look past differences and still be friends with people who support abortion, even though you strongly disapprove of it; if I lived in Nazi-era Germany, and a friend of mine were a Nazi while I wasn't, there's no reason to assume I wouldn't be able to look past that too. Although frankly, if I'd been raised in Nazi-era Germany, I'd probably be all for genocide.) But I'm hardly objective. [ Monday, March 28, 2005 16:00: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
