Morality

[Sweetie]

I'm in the mood for a deep discussion. The ones already started on the issues of Good or Free-will it is either the case that I have not been following them or I have no interest in them, or perhaps they got too technical too fast on a subject I am not well-versed in.

I do understand a bit about morality though, and some of the complications bound up in such a thing as morality, determining what is or is not "moral", licit or illicit so I thought we might have a discussion about such. Terms can get technical really quick, but I think I can follow though the terms may need to be defined.

I would like to say that it is often the case that I cannot speak so readily about what I think though I do know what I think, but that what I think can be shown by what I don't think (in the sense of agree or disagree), so if it is of interest to anybody what I think it could come out in the process of such a discussion.

Now, I would add that I am usually capable with grammar, I do often recognize my own errors but sometimes it's the case that I'm in a hurry, that I'm too lazy, I don't care or because I am the author that when just doing a read-back I do not pick them out because in my head whether or not it is clearly so on the page, I know what I meant to say and so sometimes what I know I'm saying and what I have said become the same thing and my eye misses the error, only to be recognized later. To complicate matters, I have a read a large amount of historical novels and men who speak in an older sort of English so I usually speak in both and try to do so at once, which doesn't always work, of course. Too, a further complication is that I rarely ever "read," I have to make a concerted effort to, I skim, I pick out catch words, I can get the point of the whole thing usually without actually having to read. Sometimes I am caught in this, in that I missed an important qualifier but usually I get by but sometimes only by the skin of my teeth. :P I will make a concerted effort to read and follow the discussion, because it is of interest to me.

So, that said, I would like someone to prove to me that I should not murder, "thou shalt not murder." I will start though by stating my own clarification, I do not consider self-defense murder, if someone were to die in the process of someone defending themself. Murder is pre-meditated and it is deliberate and usually an unnecessary act. Unfortunately, we could then very easily throw out the question, "is it moral to kill someone for the sake of a greater good" which is bound up in the problem of morality, but if we ask the question, "would it be moral to kill Hitler," it would be technically an unnecessary act, he could be imprisoned and not killed so I think the qualifier "unnecessary" could stand for at least a short time.

Thanks all, I'll be around later and I look forward to an interesting discussion.

[Socratoad]

Edit

[Sweetie]

LOL, damn. I was in a hurry and that's the mess I wrote. :eek: Keep in mind, sometimes I have the kids around when I'm on here so I'm not allowed to finish thoughts and do strange things like think things through and the like. :D Also, I've only been writing sparingly lately so I kinda got to get back into the groove.

I'm trying to find a better place to start from, it's so much easier to start with controversial issues but I don't want to start there. I don't really have anything to pose on the subject, just some random thoughts from a few months ago when I was studying the subject where I saw it was necessary to break things down into norms, goods, values, etc. The problem is, I don't absorb information unless I use information and so all the reading I did was mostly for naught. I want to use the information so I can absorb it, any ideas where one might start the process of working through morality?

[viscousmemories]

What's your objective, Sweetie? I mean are you looking for an academic exploration of ethical systems, are you trying to refine your own opinion on a particular issue, or...?

[Sweetie]

What's your objective, Sweetie? I mean are you looking for an academic exploration of ethical systems, are you trying to refine your own opinion on a particular issue, or...?

Mostly an exploration of ethical systems, I think. Just a discussion, something of interest, something to learn, something to ponder, something for me to do, not much to it, hey? :wink: I just never know where to start, these mindboggling complex systems. I have a bird's eye view of them I think, a general understanding of some basic concepts, I know some of the reasonings behind them, which directions I take and what my reasonings are but to map it out is just incredibly difficult. I just, like I said, never know where to start. How do we define terms, how do we redefine our terms, where do we refine our thoughts? I want to speak in the language of these terms.

I would think morality in history would be a good place to start, but that's not an easy place to start. :sadcheer:

[viscousmemories]

Well for what it's worth I know what you mean. I've been reading various introductory ethics texts almost every waking minute I'm not actively reading or posting about something else on these fora the last few weeks, and I'm just barely beginning to understand just how complex the subject really is. I found a couple of interesting Wikipedia entries earlier tonight, including this Simple View of Ethics and Morals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_view_of_ethics_and_morals). Maybe that could give you some idea of a particular problem you want to tackle...

[Adora]

Morality is the system of judgements in any culture/society that determine the value of individuals in that society in relation to others through their actions. There can, of course, be many moralities in one society, and many societies that share the same or similar morality/ies.

For my personal definition, when a set of personal ethics become widely held by a number of people, who then form communities based on these ethics, and create laws written and unwritten that create/change behaivour according to these ethics, then they can be classified as morals.

In other words, what is moral, or even ethical, to one person may not be to the next.

[Godless Dave]

So, that said, I would like someone to prove to me that I should not murder, "thou shalt not murder."

I don't think that's the sort of thing that can be proved. Proof is for facts of existence, not recommended behavior. There are reasons not to murder: self-interest as a member of an interdependent social species and empathy for other humans being the ones that spring to my mind. But you can't "prove" that an individual should or should not do something. You can only advocate what you would like them to do.

[Sweetie]

Yes, perhaps to a certain extent but looking at it another way we know we have to make decisions about these things. We can't just relativize all the time, we will not be able to act or to speak, to make laws or decisions/judgements so it is a necessity perhaps that it not be proven persay, but it is required by necessity that we choose one ethical system over another and have good reason to show why another ethical system is not as adequate as this one and then promote the one.

Right from the start, for instance, whether or not we can prove it, it is the closest thing to an absolute moral that we have to appeal to, that we shall not kill. Now this cannot be contained to any one culture because very quickly we have a conflict and that conflict will need to be resolved. The first conflict asks the question, if what is right in one culture wrong in another, how can disputes be settled between cultures? Very quickly we could get into a circle of destruction, revenge unless there is a way, something above both cultures, a principle perhaps. So we could take for example, say in America we consider it wrong to kill and in Afghanistan, let's assume they do not, or perhaps at least, it is not wrong to kill Americans. Now, the bombers on the planes we will all say they were wrong in their actions, they "should not" have done what they did, but to them our "should not" is meaningless but to be relativistic in this area is ridiculous to me and also impossible, I think life has a "reality beyond intention." How to map out what and where that is is a bit difficult. We could ask the question though, is it reasonable to assert that it is wrong to kill in America, but if we go to Iraq, assuming a much different ethical system that to us translates as that it's right to murder in some instances, then is it right for us to kill when we are in Iraq? Does not the "should not" apply in all countries, or shouldn't it?

Perhaps I will restate the question though. It is true to me, seems to me, or is proven to me in that sense that we absolutely have to make decisions about these things and that by the necessity of the decision we disprove the possibility of relativism as an answer or even if relativism is possible, it is useless for all intents and purposes, it does not change the necessity of determining "is ought" "should". Morality is the question of prescribed human behavior. Anything we take as true negates the possibility of another thing, unless our system is so versatyle as to have almost a different principle for every different situation which to me is also a bit absurd and perhaps that falls under the weight of the necessity of the decision that closes the door to all other decisions. Now, I'm just throwing this paragraph out there, it is possible that I may have to revise it in the near future, or justifiy it.

If we started with something so simple as murder, we discover very quickly the difficulties bound up in the concept of morality, the prescribing of human behavior and of even determining what can qualify as murder. It's an easy thing to focus on though because it's something we all think about, have strong views about and can cite examples and references for easily. It's also something we all usually fear as a possibility, that another is free to murder oneself and something, at least our Western culture, has always made provisions against but even if they did not then we would have been fighting it the whole time. Freedom is important to us and the first rule of freedom is that you are free to live and being free to live means that others are and that you are not free to deprive them of life because then, no one would be free, so this provision is absolutely necessary. The thing is, I feel it's a universal necessity, a universal "should," or "natural law," in that sense, absolute.

If we focus on murder for a minute, we very easily see some complications, the first revolves around the area of abortion and slavery. To murder is to deprive another person of life in a way that was premeditated, deliberate and also unnecessary. However, that presupposes that we first define what qualifies as a person, a universal question of personhood and who has the right to determine personhood, who is or is not a person, what is or is not a person, whether or not a black man is a person, whether or not a Jew is a person, one may not be a person if one does not have blue eyes, for example, and at what point personhood can be assigned. Who has the right to determine that and what criteria do you use to determine that?

Next is the question of euthenasia which brings in even more complications and some ethical conflicts depending on your system. Let's say that your moral code begins from the premise that you shall not do what causes suffering to another. I don't think this principle stands, but if we are to assume it let's say that another is suffering and wants to kill themself. There are some very complex issues tha arise from such a possibility and so the question of a greater good is brought up. In such a case, we have left behind the notion that thou shalt not murder and it has become we can murder, if someone wants to be murdered or if someone is suffering. To me, this type of thing can very easily get out of one's hands and leave the initial premise open to attack or it undermines the initial premise which is, I should be free to live. Being free to live may in fact mean that I am not free to murder even myself and no one may murder me even with my own consent. If I should be free to murder myself, then should I also be free to live?

Anyways, some thoughts. We can extend this line of thought to touch the death penalty, imprisonment and the question of responsibilty vs punishment, a closer look at the question of suicide and the principles that go with that, martyrdom, the concept of the greater good which is where things really start getting hairy. For instance, am I not to do something that causes suffering to someone else in the moment, but in the end, my "ought not" became something that caused greater suffering in the end. Do I put myself ahead of the society? What if my "ought-not" conflicts with the very society and premises on which I built my ethical system on, my context?

Is an interesting subject at least.

[Sweetie]

Actually, I do want to continue even if I'm only talking to myself. :D It's getting me thinking and it's helping the problem I had, working through morality, at what place do you start.

Now, I think I will start here, with the assumption that:

I should have the right to live.

Now, most of us don't state it that way, the right to live is assumed and so it's stated:

I have the right to live.

In the way the latter is stated it speaks against such notions that it could be otherwise. For instance, I say I have the right to live, it is my infallible dogma. I may not be able to prove it but that does not make it not true. So, someone says, "I say you do not have the right to live." Then the question is, on what basis do you claim the right to determine that I do not have the right to live? Too, by claiming that I do not or should not have the right to live, you question whether or not you have the right to live. By saying I, as a person, do not have the right to live is saying that you may not necessarily have the right to live either. If you can take my life, another can take yours. Even if you take my life, if you are capable, that does not mean you should have. Who gets to live? Does might make right? Do the stronger get to live and the weaker die? I say no. I assume the inherent value of all human beings because I claim the right to live. It could be that I should not have the right to live, but I don't know if that can be established, that's the point of thinking it through I guess. The stated assumption, my own I guess it is, is that I do indeed have the right to live.

However, a complication. Does having the right to live assume or say that I "should" want to live? If I have the right to live and no one may take that right from me, does that mean that I should want to live and that something should be forced upon me that I may not want, life in this case?

We could then say, you may not want to live but you should want to live.

Another comes along and says, why should I want to live? If we are products of blind nature and blind instinct/evolution, the only reason I really want to live is because it's ingrained in my being through instinct. Instinct says that I should survive and I should keep seeking to survive, but why should I do what instinct tells me when there is nothing more to life than be born and die, and I take no joy in it.

If the stated assumption is that I should have the right to live, that presupposes that I should want to live but that assumes that I should only want to live because instinct tells me I should. Well, no not necessarily. There need not necessarily be any reason why we could say that it is a natural law that you should want to live. There need not be any reason for why you should want to live, it need only be that you should have the right to live therefore, within an ethical system, you should want to live. You may or may not want to, but that is something wrong with you then because of the stated assumption, if I should have the right to live then there is something wrong with me if I do not want to live so it's simply, to the question of morality, what "should" be? I "should" have the right to live and I "should" want to live, does the stated assumption demand that it be that way? :chin:

[Socratoad]

Why must you try to complicate that which is sooooooo simple?

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

[Adora]

We can't just relativize all the time...
Except we do. Everything that happens is relative to that exact moment in time, every moral relative to that exact cultural context. We may not realise we are being relative, or we may create lies of universalism to try and hide it, but that doesn't change the facts.

Right from the start, for instance, whether or not we can prove it, it is the closest thing to an absolute moral that we have to appeal to, that we shall not kill.
Hardly. And what's with the "whether or not we can prove it" thing? Are you saying you have faith in the current belief that "thou shalt not kill" is absolute?

We kill everyday. We kill complicitly. We kill by-proxy. We kill actively. The point is, this phrase is judged not on the act of killing, but what and who we kill, as all morals do. If that thing that is killed is judged to be highly valuable to the time and place which the moral is held in, then you are punished. If the thing that is killed is not valued highly, then there's a stronger chance you can get away with it.

Who has the right to determine that and what criteria do you use to determine that?
The hegemony. And who said anything about having the right to determine a criteria? If we're going to talk about "rights" (which is another step over from morality), then who has the right to determine the right for someone to determine criteria? It's a constantly expanding system, that most of the time doesn't exist, or is exceeding limited. This is why we have hegemony. This is why we have faulty-yet-helpful solutions like democracy. Because there is no "right" to determination, unless we make one up. There is no "mandate" for a ruler, unless the masses give it to them. And now we're getting into power and politics, so I'll stop.

The point is, human beings don't need a right to do something to do it. Or they make up their own rights without anyone telling them it's okay for them to do it, because they want to, or they think society needs it. If enough people get behind such movements, no matter how illogical or inhumane they are, no outside dictation of the people's "right" (or lack of a right) to make those changes matters, because they are answering to no-one except themselves. I'm not saying they can't be manipulated by outside factors, or take them into consideration, but in the end, they will do what they have to do. Thus, the hegemony.

I should have the right to live.
Why?

Even if you take my life, if you are capable, that does not mean you should have.
Why not? If my moral system says you have somehow been devalued, or need to be punished through death, what is saying I should not take your life? Because you say so?

You're mistake here is imposing an assumed modern (hypocritical) moral system as a universal across all moral systems.

...you may not want to live but you should want to live.
And again, you're imposing a moral system onto someone who does not hold that same moral system (or at least one that is slightly different). What about if that person holds the moral view "the right (and responsibility) to live also creates the right (and responsibility) to die"? Are you going to impose your moral judgements upon them, simply because you think you're more right?

I should have the right to live, that presupposes that I should want to live...
Does it? I doubt it does, because whenever there is an unquestioned supposed right ingrained in society, it is usually taken for granted by most of the population.

There are many things people have the right to do in a given society that they either do not use or take comepletely for granted. The right to live is one that's becoming more common in modern society.

[seebs]

I don't see an easy way to determine whether or not morality is objective. I don't think the assumption that it isn't is justified by the argument that individual people change their minds; we change our minds about physics, too, but I generally assume it is a thing external to us that we experience and observe.

[Sweetie]

I don't see an easy way to determine whether or not morality is objective. I don't think the assumption that it isn't is justified by the argument that individual people change their minds; we change our minds about physics, too, but I generally assume it is a thing external to us that we experience and observe.

Yes. Too, I'm focusing on prescriptive not descriptive morality. You can state the way things are, but that's not necessarily how they should be. You can say that people think child sacrifice is great in whatever country, but that's not to say that child sacrifice should be considered great or that it should be done at all.

Too, I think it's a question of either we impose and promote one ethical system or we will have another imposed on us in an unreasonable way. It is unreasonable to say, well if someone devalues another then they can kill, but if they can kill, they question their own right to live which is unreasonable. You don't cut off the limb you are sitting on. You don't say to another, well, I have the right to live but you may not agree and therefore, feel free to take my life. You may be allowed to think that, though it's unreasonable, but you should not be allowed to take my life even still. Where there is direct contradiction and also clear unreasonableness, then yes, we fight, there is no relativism possible. It is not possible to live peacefully with a person who thinks that they have the right to take your life and it would not bother their conscience to do so. Too, if it was true that morality was relativistic and peacefully, then we could not even say to Hitler, you were wrong to do what you did. How can we say he was wrong and we certainly do, but from a relativistic standpoint, is it reasonable to do so?

[Sweetie]

Why must you try to complicate that which is sooooooo simple?

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

I'm sorry Toad. It's got Shrek written all over it ie: onions, layers. :P

So far nothing has even really been said on the subject. We must go beyond that to the things that aren't necessarily applicable in the same way murder is, to just basic behaviors: sexuality, relationships, etc. Certainly, where there is no direct contradiction then some ethical systems can exist together. I'm just laying something down for myself, a place to start for instance, so that I can start getting to that point, the not so serious problems of human behavior. Once I can get to that point, I can start bringing in terms that I want to learn, so that I can look and identify, ok, so this is what is called a more, a norm, a good, this is called a premoral good, a right, etc.

You can live by the Golden Rule, but we could question at least, what if what you want done to you is itself, not so seemingly good? You can say that you will not do what causes another suffering, but what qualifies as suffering? Is disciplining your children a form of suffering, causing suffering, for instance?

[Adora]

So far nothing has even really been said on the subject.
It has, but you're obviously ignoring it. *pats*

[seebs]

I think there's a tendency to conflate a hypothesized "real" morality with social standards. This sounds, to me, like asserting that science is purely subjective because different cultures have had different scientific opinions.

[Adora]

I think there's a tendency to conflate a hypothesized "real" morality with social standards.
Care to elaborate? Last time I checked, many perceived social ideological standards (as opposed to the reality of those standards) heavily relied upon or were deeply connected in some way to the morality of the society.

One could argue though, that the actual reality of social standards, of levels of tolerance, of actual practices within a society is more real than an ideological standpoint that says "This is the way human beings should be". If you wan't to get subjective/objective about it, it's certainly more grounded in objective truths than subjective beliefs of a morality that is out-of-touch with the reality around it.

And since when were the words "purely subjective" said like they leave a bad taste in your mouth?

[Sweetie]

One revision, from "I should have the right to live", "I have the right to live" to:

I am free to live.


I was reading this book, "Principles for a Catholic Morality" by Timothy E. O'Connell, very similar to a Liberal Christian's way of determing morality. He uses alot of terms I'm not familiar with which is why I want to learn them and too, this way of determining morals I found, has been rejected by the Church, it's called proportionalism. The Church finds it a flawed theory. Now, as I was reading I thought, you know this sounds very thorough, it seems reasonable, maybe I'll adopt some of these thoughts, etc. One of the reasons though, why I started to have difficulty with it is because you cannot then determine officially that it is wrong to murder:

"In one of their papers the authors of the majority opinion say: "To take another's life is a sin not because life is under the exclusive dominion of God, but because it is contrary to right reason unless there is a question of a good of a higher order. It is licit to sacrifice a life for the good of the community. According to this "principle" it is morally permissible to destroy human life (or other human goods) if doing so is necessary for the sake of a greater good. I call this the "Caiaphas principle," although proportionalist theologians now refer to it, as will be seen below in more detail, as the "preference principle" or "principle of proportionate good.""

http://www.cfpeople.org/Apologetics/page51a079.html

Now, yeah I was having difficulty with the ends, with what this theory actually means and how it could effect me. Pope John Paull II finds the theory philosophically and theologically flawed, and I want to understand why. Too, I don't, especially by ignorance want to promote an ethical system or even help along an ethical system that questions my own freedom to live, I am not suicidal, that can put my children's freedom to live in jeopardy. The freedom to live is the fundamental principle I think, of the Western world. Now, if the "theory" was so true that I'd have to accept it or be an idiot, that would be a different story, but so far, I don't find that it is.

So anyways, so that's what motivates me primarily.

However, I don't think I'll be able to just take an abstract look at morality in general and I don't know how to go about learning the terms. I think I will have to build or identify how my own system works, why I built the system this way and then have to defend it, have it critqued and see if it is as defensible and reasonable as I think it is.

[Sweetie]

Now, in my own ethical system I assume and would not seek to prove:

I am free to live.

Because I am free to live, I may not murder:

Murder - Deliberately and unnecessarily depriving another of life. (I am removing the condition "premeditated" from my definition of murder for the time being.)

I can defend myself because I am free to live and if a death occurs incidentally or accidentally in the process of me protecting myself, or better stated, protecting my freedom to live, then that is not murder, we have protected the "god" so to speak, aka "I am free to live."

Now, then I might name or guess for the time being that this "I am free to live" is what is a "greater good" in this case.

So, we cannot then sacrifice a life in the sense of murder to defend this "greater good" because that contradicts the initial assumption (the premise is the "greater good"), that I am free to live which means that others are free to live and I shall not murder them so it cannot be the case in this system that it be licit to sacrifice a life for the greater good though we can, if the situation calls for it, defend our "god" and some may die in the process, that is licit in this system.

[Dragar]

Now, in my own ethical system I assume and would not seek to prove:

I am free to live.

Out of interest, how would you respond to someone who disagreed with this assumption? I'm wondering how you reached it in the first place...

[Sweetie]

Well, for one, the alternative I think, is unreasonable.

Well, the alternatives as I stated above, if I am not free to live, who is? Who is to determine I am not free to live? If there is a "who" that says I am not free to live, is that "who" free to live and if he is not, who is to determine that? If I am not free to live, then no one else is necessarily either which is a useless train of thought. Can we assume at the same time that "I am free to live" and "I am not free to live"? No, so either I am free to live or I am not free to live and since "I am not free to live" cannot be established, not by other men at least, not in a rational way, then "I am free to live" should be assumed.

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.

[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.

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.

The word 'free' is a very slippery one too. Free with regards to what?

Who is to determine I am not free to live?

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.

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.

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'?

[seebs]

Care to elaborate? Last time I checked, many perceived social ideological standards (as opposed to the reality of those standards) heavily relied upon or were deeply connected in some way to the morality of the society.

Sure. So what? The claim that there exists an objective standard by which social moral standards can be judged is a claim which is often incorrectly conflated with "our moral standards are the best ones".

And since when were the words "purely subjective" said like they leave a bad taste in your mouth?

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.

[Dragar]

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.

seebs, how are prefereces 'changes on a whim'? My preferences about beauty, or food, for instance, do not 'change on a whim'. And they are as subjective as you can ask for!

I don't even understand your last comment. They mean as much as any preference does. They mean I will act in accordance with my preferences.

[Adora]

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.

[Sweetie]

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Dragar]

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?

[Sweetie]

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?

[Dragar]

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


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.

[Sweetie]

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.

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.

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.

[Dragar]

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?

[Sweetie]

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.

[Dragar]

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?

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...

[Sweetie]

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.

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.....?

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.

[Dragar]

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.

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.

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.

[viscousmemories]

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.

[Sweetie]

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.

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.

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:

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?

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?

[Sweetie]

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?

[Dragar]

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.

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.

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.

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.


What if you prefer not to live?

I prefer 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?

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. :)

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?

[Dragar]

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.

[viscousmemories]

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.

[Sweetie]

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.)

[viscousmemories]

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.

[Sweetie]

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?

[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 (http://www.alternet.org/story/17696) might be of interest to you.

[Sweetie]

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.

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?

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 prefer to live.

And if you do not?

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.

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?"

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?

[Dragar]

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?

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?

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?!"

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. :)

[Sweetie]

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 (http://www.alternet.org/story/17696) 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.

www.arts.yorku.ca/econ/lagerloef/HP/SlaveryPerm.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.

[livius drusus]

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.

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.

[Sweetie]

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.

The reason why I say "Protestant" specifically is that this one article says it was revived when or after or because of Protestantism spreading. Now, the reason why I would ask that is to wonder whether or not it was because of an appeal to the Bible.

The problem is, I'm not clear of the Church's stance then or later and honestly, the South was mostly Catholic. The thought is that the Church did not outlaw it specifically, but advocated what St. Paul advocated, "slaves, serve your masters, masters love your slaves," type of thing and eventually, slavery died out on it's own in Europe. These people "slaves" became family members, much like in the Jewish families.

Too, the question of personhood. Under this teaching, it seems that slaves were still considered persons and eventually that would win the day.

But, from the religious end of that subject, it's rather involved. It is often thought that Quakers did everything to end slavery and everybody else was doing nothing and I don't think that's true. I think there is this foundation that needs to be explored more fully.

[livius drusus]

The reason why I say "Protestant" specifically is that this one article says it was revived when or after or because of Protestantism spreading. Now, the reason why I would ask that is to wonder whether or not it was because of an appeal to the Bible.

Which article? I've started reading the pdf you linked to before (very interesting, btw, thank you), but like most articles about the rise and fall slavery, it's talking about economics and political structures, not Protestantism. Do you have a link to this article? How does it explain Spain's enslavement of native peoples in Latin America after Columbus? Doesn't "an appeal to the Bible" by definition imply a cover for far more intricate dynamics?

The thought is that the Church did not outlaw it specifically, but advocated what St. Paul advocated, "slaves, serve your masters, masters love your slaves," type of thing and eventually, slavery died out on it's own in Europe.

I'm actually doing a study on this very issue right now and I'll do a thread about it later. Suffice it to say, manumission of slaves was high on the agenda for early Christians, both noble Romans and church leaders, Paul's recommendations notwithstanding.

These people "slaves" became family members, much like in the Jewish families.

Are you referring to Roman freedmen taking the name of their former masters? They certainly didn't bunk down with them as a matter of course, if that's what you mean. One landowner could have literally thousands of slaves working his estate. Emancipated or no, I seriously doubt they became family members.

As for the Jewish families, I honestly don't know what you're talking about.

But, from the religious end of that subject, it's rather involved. It is often thought that Quakers did everything to end slavery and everybody else was doing nothing and I don't think that's true.

Who thinks that?

I think there is this foundation that needs to be explored more fully.

As I said above, I'll be starting a thread on it once I've done some more reading on the subject.

[Sweetie]

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?

Because nice and "should" can often contradict. What if you consider it an act of "niceness" to cause the death of someone that is suffering? It's nice, it's painless but "should" you do it? What if, as I suggested prior, doing that would question whether or not they should have had the right to live in the first place?

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?

Well yes, that's my point. Rational creatures do not follow instinct but have moral codes. Why would you? Why wouldn't you if you had no moral code? That is what instinct would dictate that you do. You wouldn't want babies at that age, but why not? "Because____", correct?

I don't understand what you're saying. 'It hurts because it is allowed to hurt'? What does 'allowed' mean?

"Allowed" in this case means, given the right to. You cannot question whether or not you may or may not do something that might cause pleasure or suffering in another unless their right to live in the first place is secured.

What is yours grounded on? You told me earlier you had to make assumptions. What are they grounded on?

The assumption that I may live, just like yours. :wink:

The problem is if I could get you to say so then it is possible to determine that your present moral code is not adequate and perhaps inconsistent with the premise.

But I don't eat chocolate to live. I eat it because I enjoy the pleasure it gives me.

Right, but? That's neither here nor there. :chin:

Why 'should' I live? I'd prefer to, certainly. But can you tell me why? What's that 'grounded on'?

I may live. See I think, my fourth post in this thread.

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.

I don't see that you have demonstrated such. I think you perhaps have suggested that there are things by their very nature that can only be subjective, but I don't agree that applies accross the board. In fact, if you assume objective things a priori your subjective opinion, ie: a person to live, a sense of beauty and a picture to look upon, to me that suggests that there need be something objective to ground even a possible subjective morality on, and then if a possible subjective morality can even be built upon it, it is only if it is consistent with the premise and also rational but in that case, it would probably take on an objective nature.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

I'm saying that because you think a picture beautiful and I do not, and a poem wonderful and I do not, that it has no bearing on whether or not it is true that I 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.

What if you did not prefer that they continue living? What if you can cause their death painlessly? Should you? Your whole arguement is dependent upon that the things you actually end up doing are seemingly good in themselves, but that's assuming that others agree. You should because you prefer it? What about the question, "they should" because you prefer it? What if, quite simply, they do not prefer it?

Some of these things are so distressing to me because they do not put any real provisions against taking the life of a fellow human being and they also assume an inherent goodness in the average man. Well first of all, define "good", I think it's definition is presupposed and yet at the same time, those who presuppose it try to attack the concept of "good" itself. Much of this belief system to me is naive.

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.

Dude, what is it to murder? And secondly, might makes right or the majority decides, that is what you are saying here.

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.

Might makes right. Policemen have guns. Now however, what if the sacrificers have bombs? You are, unfortunately though, appealing to the majority assuming that the majority agrees with you. You are also appealing to the mighty, assuming the mighty agree with you. They are only mighty here, not over there. On what basis do you claim the right to try and stop them, to take their lives to stop them, etc., etc?

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

Why should we not sacrifice children again? Because you do not prefer it and if you have the use of force, you should then kill me if I disagree?

It seems to work so far.

I disagree. :wink:

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.

But that changes the nature of the case why?

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. :)

Right, you have a place where your moral code is at conflict because it questions your ability to exist. In that case, like my own moral code, that I may live trumps any other consideration.

[Dragar]

Sweetie, I'm gonna call a time out, and explain a few things, because I'm fairly sure we're not making any progress.

First of all, I don't understand the following phrases in your posts:

"I may live."

I don't get the 'may' part.

"X has the right to do Y."

I don't understand the 'has the right' part. What's a 'right'?

Second of all, I've noticed you're not understanding why I'm using examples of beauty and taste in music, and so on, in my posts. The reason is that I'm trying to show how your criticisms of a subjective morality are precisely the same criticisms that can be levelled at a subjective beauty, and that the same rebuttals apply. I was hoping it might aid you in thinking about how it works, but it doesn't seem to have helped.

If you want, I'll start a new thread about subjective/relative morality, and how it works, but I think it's probably best if we try to keep to one theory of morality at a time - talking about both at once it going to lead to confusion, almost inevitably.

So, I'll stick with the parts about objective morality in this thread, and from posts onward. It was my fault for bringing up the subject, regardless.


We originally started this on the topic of 'I may live' - the assumption you make and base everything on top of that. You also told me that it was possible to reason our way to the correct starting assumptions.

So. Show me how.

If someone didn't make this assumption - and instead said, 'Sweetie may not live' as his starting assumption, how would you persuade him that his assumption was at fault? How does your argument go?

[Sweetie]

Sweetie, I'm gonna call a time out, and explain a few things, because I'm fairly sure we're not making any progress.

First of all, I don't understand the following phrases in your posts:

"I may live."

I am free to live, I am alive and therefore I am able to continue living. Something like that. Could be a place where language is deficit.

"X has the right to do Y."

I don't understand the 'has the right' part. What's a 'right'?

The right to is just code for should, one step beyond should though basically the same thing.

Second of all, I've noticed you're not understanding why I'm using examples of beauty and taste in music, and so on, in my posts.

I think the problem is that you put both of these things in the same category and I don't see that the shoe fits.

The reason is that I'm trying to show how your criticisms of a subjective morality are precisely the same criticisms that can be levelled at a subjective beauty, and that the same rebuttals apply. I was hoping it might aid you in thinking about how it works, but it doesn't seem to have helped.

That's not necessarily it. I think you think that such a thing that a subjective opinion exists that that changes the nature of the case of morality and I don't agree.

We originally started this on the topic of 'I may live' - the assumption you make and base everything on top of that. You also told me that it was possible to reason our way to the correct starting assumptions.

So. Show me how.

If someone didn't make this assumption - and instead said, 'Sweetie may not live' as his starting assumption, how would you persuade him that his assumption was at fault? How does your argument go?

I must go for now, see you later though I don't know that I necessarily want to start from the beginning, but I'll see.

[Dragar]

I am free to live, I am alive and therefore I am able to continue living. Something like that. Could be a place where language is deficit.

Isn't this purely descriptive? Terrorists are free to blow up train stations, but that doesn't mean that's something we should endorse...

The right to is just code for should, one step beyond should though basically the same thing.

Thank you.

I think the problem is that you put both of these things in the same category and I don't see that the shoe fits.

I'll probably make another thread on this.

That's not necessarily it. I think you think that such a thing that a subjective opinion exists that that changes the nature of the case of morality and I don't agree

No, Sweetie. I think that subjective opinion is the nature of morality.

I must go for now, see you later though I don't know that I necessarily want to start from the beginning, but I'll see.

That's fair enough. I just don't know how you're getting from A to B, and I'd like to see how.

[Sweetie]

Isn't this purely descriptive? Terrorists are free to blow up train stations, but that doesn't mean that's something we should endorse...

Nature is free to take my life and we cannot question. Terrorists may take my life, that is descriptive, they can. I can live. I am alive. Terrorists can take my life, someone else can take theirs. What does that say? There is nothing to say that they should not. They can and they may. I can live and I may defend that. In the end, the mighty shall prevail. The problem is the mighty might not prevail because they are the strongest, not as in nature, dominant physcially, they might prevail because they are the smartest. Now, if that is the case brain function is required however, if brain function is required, then brain function has use. Unfortunately, the brain's most useful tool especially to outwit and outsmart is reason, yet reason might dictate that this is not all there is to the case.

No, Sweetie. I think that subjective opinion is the nature of morality.

I have a problem with that assertion however. You claim knowledge to assert that. You may also claim that all knowledge is subjective however that means that the knowledge that all knowledge is subjective is itself subjective and hence, not necessarily true.

" Most subjectivism is intellectually dishonest because it claims for itself a privilege which it denies to other viewpoints, namely the privilege of being inconsistent. Either statements can be true or untrue, which implies some truth can be formulated in language, or truth and self-expression are one and the same, which implies all statements are equally valid. It has to be one or the other. Dishonest subjectivists insist on having it both ways. They will attack things which are untrue or illogical when taking objectivity for granted, and then, when it suits them, defend anything they please, however untrue or illogical, by suddenly insisting on the subjectivity of all experience."

[Sweetie]

All science, all art, even human reason itself must serve the will of nature. And nature is fundamentally aristocratic.

Adolf Hitler

The great majority of men have no right to existence, but are a misfortune to higher men.

Friedrich Nietzsche


Sorry, just looking through these quotes, is interesting.

http://www.basicincome.com/bp/#logic

[viscousmemories]

http://www.basicincome.com/bp/#logic
That site consists of an apparently almost completely random assortment of quotations from famous people combined with unattributed quotations (maybe written by the site developer?) packaged as "Basic Philosophy". I would consider anything you read about philosophy on that site highly suspect.

Like this part which you quoted in your earlier post:
" Most subjectivism is intellectually dishonest because it claims for itself a privilege which it denies to other viewpoints, namely the privilege of being inconsistent. Either statements can be true or untrue, which implies some truth can be formulated in language, or truth and self-expression are one and the same, which implies all statements are equally valid. It has to be one or the other. Dishonest subjectivists insist on having it both ways. They will attack things which are untrue or illogical when taking objectivity for granted, and then, when it suits them, defend anything they please, however untrue or illogical, by suddenly insisting on the subjectivity of all experience."
What is that supposed to mean? As far as I can tell it's just an attempt to paint all subjectivism as inherently dishonest and all subjectivists as liars. The quote is unattributed on his site, so I assume it's an original of his. Not very convincing for me, though.

[Dragar]

Nature is free to take my life and we cannot question. Terrorists may take my life, that is descriptive, they can. I can live. I am alive. Terrorists can take my life, someone else can take theirs. What does that say? There is nothing to say that they should not. They can and they may. I can live and I may defend that. In the end, the mighty shall prevail. The problem is the mighty might not prevail because they are the strongest, not as in nature, dominant physcially, they might prevail because they are the smartest. Now, if that is the case brain function is required however, if brain function is required, then brain function has use. Unfortunately, the brain's most useful tool especially to outwit and outsmart is reason, yet reason might dictate that this is not all there is to the case.


So, in light all of you've agreed with me above, perhaps your 'I may live' needs to be replaced by 'I may live, unless for some reason I may not.' Which is true, but ultimately unhelpful in deciding what we should do.

No, Sweetie. I think that subjective opinion is the nature of morality.

I have a problem with that assertion however. You claim knowledge to assert that. You may also claim that all knowledge is subjective however that means that the knowledge that all knowledge is subjective is itself subjective and hence, not necessarily true.

Not really. I just note that there are a lot of different people in the world, all claiming different things are 'good'. Now, I have a choice. I either decide that all but one of these people are mistaken about what is 'good' and what is not, and worse, there is no way to determine which of them is right!

Or, I note that similar conflict arises with 'beauty'. Lots of people are disagreeing about what is beautiful and what isn't. Well, how was that resolved? By noting that the statement 'X is beautiful' isn't referring to X. It's referring to the person speaking. In short, when someone says 'X is beautiful' they mean 'X is beautiful-to-me'.

I strongly suggest you make note of the '-'. They're important.

Well, what about morality? Perhaps all these people, when they say 'X is good' actually mean 'X is good-to-me'.

"Most subjectivism is intellectually dishonest because it claims for itself a privilege which it denies to other viewpoints, namely the privilege of being inconsistent. Either statements can be true or untrue, which implies some truth can be formulated in language, or truth and self-expression are one and the same, which implies all statements are equally valid. It has to be one or the other. Dishonest subjectivists insist on having it both ways. They will attack things which are untrue or illogical when taking objectivity for granted, and then, when it suits them, defend anything they please, however untrue or illogical, by suddenly insisting on the subjectivity of all experience."

Gosh, yes, you're right. Subjective beauty? What was I thinking! :doh:

[Sweetie]

http://www.basicincome.com/bp/#logic
That site consists of an apparently almost completely random assortment of quotations from famous people combined with unattributed quotations (maybe written by the site developer?) packaged as "Basic Philosophy". I would consider anything you read about philosophy on that site highly suspect.

Hm, there's a problem. Even if they are not exacting quotes that does not mean that there is no point to any of the formations or that they aren't valid. Another problem, the quotes I am familiar with are exactingly represented as the author exactingly stated in the books I have read.

Besides, I said it's interesting and some things stated there apply whether direct quotations or not. The reasoning applies with or without the author is what I'm meaning.

Adolf Hitler quote is expressed here as well:

"The state is only a means to an end, and its end it sees as the preservation of the racial existence of men. It feels the obligation, in accordance with the Eternal Will that dominates this Universe, to promote the victory of the better and stronger, and to demand the submission of the worse and weaker. All science, all art, even human reason itself, must serve the Will of Nature, and Nature is fundamentally aristocratic."--Adolf Hitler--

http://www.utopia-politics.com/forums/index.php?act=Profile&MID=379

Which supposedly come from:

Hitler, A., 1927 (1943). Mein Kampf. Trans. R. Manheim. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. http://www.stormfront.org/books/mein_kampf/ or http://www.crusader.net/texts/mk/


What is that supposed to mean? As far as I can tell it's just an attempt to paint all subjectivism as inherently dishonest and all subjectivists as liars. The quote is unattributed on his site, so I assume it's an original of his. Not very convincing for me, though.

Some might have read that and had a knee-jerk reaction to the question of honesty or dishonesty which is completely besides the point, my point at least. Hmm, how could I explain? I'll see what I can do but forget the honesty/dishonesty part. The point was that the position is inherently, from my viewpoint, inconsistent.

[Sweetie]

"Nietzsche was perceptive enough to realize that anyone who tries to create his own morality will be impeded in two ways: by the riot of impulses within him, each desiring to be master, and by the riot of men around him, each desiring to prevent him from being master. To succeed, he would have to be “hard,” first to himself, then to those others. They would have to be “suppressed and reduced to imperfect men, to slaves and instruments,” or his effort of creation would be stillborn. This is why Nietzsche wrote, “The great majority of men have no right to existence, but are a misfortune to higher men. I do not yet grant the failures the right. There are also peoples that are failures.” Granted his mad starting point, his conclusions are perfectly logical. How such a philosophy can provide bulwarks against the abominations of the twentieth century is difficult to explain. The Nazis, after all, found this sort of thinking quite invigorating.

Glover admits all of this, but insists that “the Nietzschean nightmare does not follow from Nietzschean premises.” He explains that “Nietzsche’s self–creation pushes aside people who get in the way, but self–creation can be seen as one value among others. . . . My caring about the sort of person I am motivates the project of self–creation. Why should not my caring about other people set limits to it?”

One good answer to the question is that it misses Nietzsche’s point. It is in the nature, not only of the authentic morality, but of the new “moralities,” to make claims on people. Sometimes the demands of different moralities come into conflict, and when this happens, either one must give way to the other, or both must give way to a third. If a creative and provident God has already impressed His law upon creation, then one can afford to do the right thing without regard for consequences. But if one is trying to impress one’s own law upon the world, then one must either break down all resistance, or fail. To put the paradox another way, a law of compassionate restraint is coherent only if it is not my own creation; any law that is my own creation must be merciless.

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0106/reviews/budziszewski.html

I just posted the above because it came up in my search and it looks like an interesting essay, I'll read through it later. It quoted Nietzsche as well in that instance.

This other hit attributes the quote to come from the book "The Will to Power":

"The rights a man arrogates to himself are related to the duties he imposes upon himself, to the tasks to which he feels equal. The great majority of men have no right to existence, but are a misfortune to higher men."

*Nietzsche, Will to Power

http://www.bundesinnenministerium.us/nazi-news-commentary.htm

So, at this point to me, the quotes attributed to authors in any search I have done are accurate, so that is no question. The question is whether or not the site has anything valid to say, and that's up to you to decide. The site just came up for me two days ago, I found the set-up interesting. Some of the things said, as pertains the quote about subjectivism, I already agree with and see that, in some cases, they are able to articulate what I have difficulty articulating.

[Sweetie]

Subjective beauty?

Objective truth?

[Dragar]

Objective truth?

Sweetie, do you consider 'I find the Mona Lisa beautiful' to be a statement about the painting, or me?

[viscousmemories]

Hm, there's a problem. Even if they are not exacting quotes that does not mean that there is no point to any of the formations or that they aren't valid. Another problem, the quotes I am familiar with are exactingly represented as the author exactingly stated in the books I have read.
I never said there was no point to the formations, that the arguments are invalid, or that the few quotes that are actually attributed to their author were inaccurate. I said:

That site consists of an apparently almost completely random assortment of quotations from famous people combined with unattributed quotations (maybe written by the site developer?) packaged as "Basic Philosophy". I would consider anything you read about philosophy on that site highly suspect.

Some might have read that and had a knee-jerk reaction to the question of honesty or dishonesty which is completely besides the point, my point at least. Hmm, how could I explain? I'll see what I can do but forget the honesty/dishonesty part. The point was that the position is inherently, from my viewpoint, inconsistent.
So you pasted someone elses argument because it supports your conclusion, but now you're saying the actual argument is completely beside your point? I'm not following your reasoning here. I suppose I'll just sit this one out.

[Sweetie]

What if you did not prefer that they continue living? What if you can cause their death painlessly? Should you? Your whole arguement is dependent upon that the things you actually end up doing are seemingly good in themselves, but that's assuming that others agree. You should because you prefer it? What about the question, "they should" because you prefer it? What if, quite simply, they do not prefer it?

Some of these things are so distressing to me because they do not put any real provisions against taking the life of a fellow human being and they also assume an inherent goodness in the average man. Well first of all, define "good", I think it's definition is presupposed and yet at the same time, those who presuppose it try to attack the concept of "good" itself. Much of this belief system to me is naive.

When I said the above, I meant something very similar to this, just to clarify:

"As to the second, if “I am not the sort of person who tortures others” has no firmer foundation than “I would not have a haircut like that,” we are in trouble; decent self–images draw strength from the moral law, yet the author wants to depend on them instead of moral law. " cont'd below

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0106/reviews/budziszewski.html

Dragar, what is it to be nice?



"...The other problem is that the impulses to sympathy and respect have powerful competitors. For as Glover’s own sources tell him, destruction can be lovable, mass murder can be a door to ecstasy, and for some men communal killing is “the closest thing to what childbirth is for women: the initiation into the power of life and death....”

[Sweetie]

So you pasted someone elses argument because it supports your conclusion, but now you're saying the actual argument is completely beside your point? I'm not following your reasoning here. I suppose I'll just sit this one out.

LOL, sorry for confusion.

No, the quote states the inconsistency that I am only hinting at or trying to highlight in the way such a thing appears to me to be.

The arguement that subjectivists are dishonest has nothing to do with my point, maybe the author's I don't know, but yes, it is besides my point. So in that case he may be making two arguements, one to highlight the inconsistency, another to show subjectivists as dishonest. My point was one of the two arguements, not both or none.

[Dragar]

Dragar, what is it to be nice?

"...The other problem is that the impulses to sympathy and respect have powerful competitors. For as Glover’s own sources tell him, destruction can be lovable, mass murder can be a door to ecstasy, and for some men communal killing is “the closest thing to what childbirth is for women: the initiation into the power of life and death....”

That's right. If I am correct, then moral relativism predicts sometimes people don't always want to be nice. And then they start hurting people. I agree this is a sad state of affairs. I disagree these predictions differ from observations.

[Dragar]

The arguement that subjectivists are dishonest has nothing to do with my point, maybe the author's I don't know, but yes, it is besides my point. So in that case he may be making two arguements, one to highlight the inconsistency, another to show subjectivists as dishonest. My point was one of the two arguements, not both or none.

Sweetie, you realise that the objections you're levelling, if valid, rule out subjective beauty? Are you are a believer in objective beauty?

[Sweetie]

Objective truth?

Sweetie, do you consider 'I find the Mona Lisa beautiful' to be a statement about the painting, or me?

I already agree that your finding a painting beautiful must necessarily be subjective. The painting has no properties of beauty, I agree.

Now, you would like to prove that morality is like a painting, that is your point. You will end up trying to show that morality has no properties of "good"ness or "bad"ness either. Part of the problem is that at present, I am not saying that they do, my question focuses on existence. To me it's like real numbers or abstract numbers, the real numbers being existence, the laws of nature, reason, and the abstract numbers are beauty, tastes, feelings, passions.

Part of my point is that you won't be able to prove that morality is like a painting without outright contradicting yourself.

The first thing I will have to do is assume that it is true that a sentence exists.

Perhaps let's put it this way. You might say to me that it is illogical not to think morality is the same as a painting, and then you will try and show me why. Why? Because everything is subjective? How will you prove that? By assuming the objective truth of the original premise or statement.

[Sweetie]

Sweetie, you realise that the objections you're levelling, if valid, rule out subjective beauty? Are you are a believer in objective beauty?

I have said a few times already that I think the nature of the cases are different.

[David Gould]

I have said a few times already that I think the nature of the cases are different.

In what way are they different?

Isn't a moral statement such as 'Killing is bad' exactly the same as an ascetic statement such as 'The Mona Lisa is beautiful'?

In other words, both statements are opinions. Put the words 'I think' in front of them. Then take it away again. Can the statements be anything but opinions?

[Sweetie]

In what way are they different?

Isn't a moral statement such as 'Killing is bad' exactly the same as an ascetic statement such as 'The Mona Lisa is beautiful'?

In other words, both statements are opinions. Put the words 'I think' in front of them. Then take it away again. Can the statements be anything but opinions?

I first have to restate my previous meaning as regards the quote I had quoted. I got distracted and I'm still distracted, lol, but I have a minute.

Dragar thinks that his moral code is adequate, that he shall not do what causes another suffering. My question was how can you determine you should or should not cause another person suffering if it's not first established that they may or may not live, should or should not live, be given the right or not given the right to live in the first place?

In that case the quote goes that the subjectivist will question the logic of another viewpoint when objectivity is assumed, ie: that this or that statement can be true, ie: it is true that I think a painting is beautiful. But then, when this code is questioned, they will backpeddle and appeal to the subjectivity of all experience.

Does that make more sense? If not, I'll try again tomorrow when I have time.

As to this specific reply, to David Gould, I have not said that I think another person killing another person is bad, I have said that a person murdering another person (check my definition of murder) is unreasonable.

[David Gould]

I first have to restate my previous meaning as regards the quote I had quoted. I got distracted and I'm still distracted, lol, but I have a minute.

Dragar thinks that his moral code is adequate, that he shall not do what causes another suffering. My question was how can you determine you should or should not cause another person suffering if it's not first established that they may or may not live, should or should not live, be given the right or not given the right to live in the first place?



We only have opinions. That is it. You have the opinion that someone may live (I, like Dragar, am unclear what you mean by that exactly but that is not the issue here). Others may hold the same opinion or differing opinions. But all they have are opinions.



In that case the quote goes that the subjectivist will question the logic of another viewpoint when objectivity is assumed, ie: that this or that statement can be true, ie: it is true that I think a painting is beautiful. But then, when this code is questioned, they will backpeddle and appeal to the subjectivity of all experience.



Some subjectivists might do that. But when I or Dragar say, 'Murder is wrong,' what we mean is 'I think murder is wrong.' Now, this does not mean, as Dragar has pointed out, that we would stand by and accept murder. Just because the notion that murder is wrong is an opinion does not mean that we will not try to get our opinions agreed with. :)

There is also the point that subjectivists do not deny that truth can be determined within particular contexts. For example, within the context of the Lord of the Rings Frodo is indeed a hobbit. 'Frodo is a hobbit' is a factual statement; it is true. Subjectivists have no problem with that. We also have no problem with falsification, which is in general the scientific approach.

But it should be noted that where no context can be discovered - which is definitely the case with moral statements - then truth or falsity is indeterminate.



Does that make more sense? If not, I'll try again tomorrow when I have time.

As to this specific reply, to David Gould, I have not said that I think another person killing another person is bad, I have said that a person murdering another person (check my definition of murder) is unreasonable.

Putting in the word 'unreasonable' changes nothing:


Isn't a moral statement such as 'Killing is unreasonable' exactly the same as an ascetic statement such as 'The Mona Lisa is beautiful'?

In other words, both statements are opinions. Put the words 'I think' in front of them. Then take it away again. Can the statements be anything but opinions?


Talk to you later. :)

[Sweetie]

We only have opinions. That is it. You have the opinion that someone may live (I, like Dragar, am unclear what you mean by that exactly but that is not the issue here). Others may hold the same opinion or differing opinions. But all they have are opinions.

I agree, however, that does not say that any of those opinions are not actually true.

This is what I see when I