Absolute Morality

[vhawk01]

On another forum I post on, we are having a debate about absolute morality. I'm pretty much the only atheist there, so I'm a little outnumbered. But the question I seem to keep asking is, why do we care about an absolute morality? I mean, they are saying that morality, in order to be absolute, must be compared to some absolute standard, i.e. God. Ok...and then? Why is this a beneficial approach to morality? It seems to me they are terrified that someone might come along and say 'Rape isn't wrong.' By holding on to absolute morality with their fingernails.

Whats the big deal? We wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a universe WITH an absolute morality and one without anyway.

[mbillie1]

There is no difference, people just like to claim to have absolute grounding for their opinions so they can moralize at others... it's not worth discussing it with them anyway. Anyone in 2007 who knows anything about philosophy and accepts absolute morality is obviously impervious to any argument you're going to make to them.

[SitNHit]

I think with Morality comes sacrafice, which is for a ultimate good which is believed by most to be rewarded with happiness , which if you want happiness and if indeed this is how you get it, then absoulte morality is important. Or im just crazy /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[samsonite2100]

[ QUOTE ]
Whats the big deal? We wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a universe WITH an absolute morality and one without anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because without the backing of a (preferably Christian) deity, moral standards obviously cease to have any meaning, and you'll have folks raping and murdering each other willy-nilly. You know, the way atheists do. I mean, go to any supermax prison and it's like, all atheist-types in there, just about.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Whats the big deal? We wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a universe WITH an absolute morality and one without anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because without the backing of a (preferably Christian) deity, moral standards obviously cease to have any meaning, and you'll have folks raping and murdering each other willy-nilly. You know, the way atheists do. I mean, go to any supermax prison and it's like, all atheist-types in there, just about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I think thats part of it, its used as a weapon to denigrate atheists. But the people I associate with concede that obviously most atheists are at least average, morally.

Is it an attempt at increasing the Might in their Might Makes Right?

[Prodigy54321]

lets say that a god exists.

this god thinks that having gay sex is wrong
I think that having gay sex is not wrong

is "absolute morality" that having gay sex is wrong?

the problem is that "absolute morality" is a meaningless phrase.

it does not change the fact that there are differing moralities here.

the only possible difference here is that this being can force us to go along with his morality or face the punishment.

if god believes that playing bingo after 10pm is wrong, but every other being doesn't believe that it is wrong...is it "absolutely" wrong?

call it what you will, but calling it something different does not change anything.

you are correct that it makes no difference...there is only what is true and what is not.

I know we've been over this subject many times before..and I think you are correct that people are generally terrified that something can't be considered as "absolutely" wrong...curiously enough, every person seems to posess the information on what is "absolutely" right and wrong..I think it's just a way of reinforcing their own beliefs...there's nothing more powerful than believing that the greatest possible being agrees with you.

[SitNHit]

[ QUOTE ]
lets say that a god exists.

this god thinks that having gay sex is wrong
I think that having gay sex is not wrong

is "absolute morality" that having gay sex is wrong?

the problem is that "absolute morality" is a meaningless phrase.

it does not change the fact that there are differing moralities here.

the only possible difference here is that this being can force us to go along with his morality or face the punishment.

if god believes that playing bingo after 10pm is wrong, but every other being doesn't believe that it is wrong...is it "absolutely" wrong?

call it what you will, but calling it something different does not change anything.

you are correct that it makes no difference...there is only what is true and what is not.

I know we've been over this subject many times before..and I think you are correct that people are generally terrified that something can't be considered as "absolutely" wrong...curiously enough, every person seems to posess the information on what is "absolutely" right and wrong..I think it's just a way of reinforcing their own beliefs...there's nothing more powerful than believing that the greatest possible being agrees with you.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you think that Gay Sex and playing Bingo are the same thing morally then you will think like you do. Which if you can't see how thats so insanely stupid that thinking is, then, well, God Bless Ya.

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
On another forum I post on, we are having a debate about absolute morality. I'm pretty much the only atheist there, so I'm a little outnumbered.

[/ QUOTE ]

Masochist.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
On another forum I post on, we are having a debate about absolute morality. I'm pretty much the only atheist there, so I'm a little outnumbered.

[/ QUOTE ]

Masochist.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/grin.gif Its a medical student forum. As shocked as I was by the ridiculously high level of intelligence, humor, and insightfulness when I started posting on 2p2, I am just as amazed by the low levels of these attributes found on the website for doctors and doctors to be.

Either way, it serves as a better test of my ideas and beliefs when I don't have all these intelligent, likeminded individuals to back me up when I say something stupid.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
lets say that a god exists.

this god thinks that having gay sex is wrong
I think that having gay sex is not wrong

is "absolute morality" that having gay sex is wrong?

the problem is that "absolute morality" is a meaningless phrase.

it does not change the fact that there are differing moralities here.

the only possible difference here is that this being can force us to go along with his morality or face the punishment.

if god believes that playing bingo after 10pm is wrong, but every other being doesn't believe that it is wrong...is it "absolutely" wrong?

call it what you will, but calling it something different does not change anything.

you are correct that it makes no difference...there is only what is true and what is not.

I know we've been over this subject many times before..and I think you are correct that people are generally terrified that something can't be considered as "absolutely" wrong...curiously enough, every person seems to posess the information on what is "absolutely" right and wrong..I think it's just a way of reinforcing their own beliefs...there's nothing more powerful than believing that the greatest possible being agrees with you.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you think that Gay Sex and playing Bingo are the same thing morally then you will think like you do. Which if you can't see how thats so insanely stupid that thinking is, then, well, God Bless Ya.

[/ QUOTE ]

SitNHit, I've been very patient with you, but you're testing me...

your complaint is irrelevent to the point of my post..the specifics are arbitrary.

I'm going to say this one time.

the people in this forum are some of the most reasonable people I have ever come into contact with..they attempt to make arguments with the utmost respect for logic and understand the need for logical discourse. The simple fact is that you are not as smart as the people in this forum..probably not even as smart as I am (and I'm no genius).

Since you have come into this forum, you have sent me a very rude PM (No matter how much we disagree with eachother in here, I doubt anyone has ever sent such a bizarre PM to another poster.)

you have also managed not make a single decent argument..I understand that your english is not very good, but it goes much deeper than that.

Make no mistake about it, you are not up to the level of intellect that most of the posters in this forum are. Your posts thus far have contributed nothing to the forum. But I don't mind either of these things..the same could be said about me when I first started posting here..but I was rarely arrogant and never rude.

judging by the fact that your posts have largely stopped getting responses, people are basically through with you.

I suggest that you apologize to the forum for insulting several members when unprovoked other than that they hold a different view than you..and make a resolution to get some logic and reason into your posts.

otherwise, I'm done responging to you and I'm done attempting to be nice as well.

Chris

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
On another forum I post on, we are having a debate about absolute morality. I'm pretty much the only atheist there, so I'm a little outnumbered. But the question I seem to keep asking is, why do we care about an absolute morality? I mean, they are saying that morality, in order to be absolute, must be compared to some absolute standard, i.e. God. Ok...and then? Why is this a beneficial approach to morality? It seems to me they are terrified that someone might come along and say 'Rape isn't wrong.' By holding on to absolute morality with their fingernails.

Whats the big deal? We wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a universe WITH an absolute morality and one without anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ask them which version of the Ten Commandments is the absolutely right one, and what are all the other versions of the Ten Commandments for.

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
Absolute Morality Whats the big deal?

[/ QUOTE ]

Some people seem to find it a comforting concept.

[ QUOTE ]
We wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a universe WITH an absolute morality and one without anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever. You can build a fantasy any way you want.

[ChrisV]

I would point out to them that their own morality is not derived from any absolute source. One good example is slavery. The Bible doesn't contain a single verse condemning slavery. It does contain many verses outlining rules for slavery and even outright approving of it. You can read some of these verses here (http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm). I particularly like the Exodus verse dealing with sex slavery, and the first of the New Testament verses. Note: I would not post this link on the forum, anything titled "Evil Bible" is unlikely to get read.

Further, Christians in earlier days believed that slavery was just. You can see quotes from these Christians here (http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl.htm).

Given all this, ask them if they think slavery is immoral, and if so, why?

[Gugel]

freud had a lot to say on morality. his work is often poorly translated and taken way to literally so people tend to dismiss his thoughts as some kind of historical mumbo jumbo.

to understand freud's view on morality, you first have to understand what he meant by sexuality. interpreted correctly, freud is referring to the physical enjoyment of our bodies. yes, that could mean having sex, but it could also mean having a good steak or taking an afternoon nap. he frames morality as developing from society's need to control sexuality (the enjoyment of our bodies). let's take eating for example. everyone recognizes the biological fact that we have to eat to survive. but every society instills some dietary restrictions on what we can and cannot eat. you can eat to survive, but it is "immoral" to be glutonous(christianity), eat pork(jews/muslims), eat cattle(hindus), eat dog(westerners), etc. lets take a more intersting subject: sex. no society/religion in the world would be stupid enough to completely ban sex (they wouldn't last very long). the species needs to reproduce in order to survive. sex for sexuality's (the enjoyment of our bodies) sake, however, is strictly regulated and it is once again "immoral" to be promiscuous, adulterous, etc. Homosexuality is most "immoral" of all since by definition it is sex for pleasure and not reproduction. in short, our biological needs are constrained by our cultural morality such that we do not step over the line to 'sexual' enjoyment.

the cross cultural moral themes derive not from some higher entity or an absolute morality, but are just a very complex system developed to facilitate cooperation in human groups where no one takes more than he/she deserves in the form of 'sexual' enjoyment.

[SitNHit]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
lets say that a god exists.

this god thinks that having gay sex is wrong
I think that having gay sex is not wrong

is "absolute morality" that having gay sex is wrong?

the problem is that "absolute morality" is a meaningless phrase.

it does not change the fact that there are differing moralities here.

the only possible difference here is that this being can force us to go along with his morality or face the punishment.

if god believes that playing bingo after 10pm is wrong, but every other being doesn't believe that it is wrong...is it "absolutely" wrong?

call it what you will, but calling it something different does not change anything.

you are correct that it makes no difference...there is only what is true and what is not.

I know we've been over this subject many times before..and I think you are correct that people are generally terrified that something can't be considered as "absolutely" wrong...curiously enough, every person seems to posess the information on what is "absolutely" right and wrong..I think it's just a way of reinforcing their own beliefs...there's nothing more powerful than believing that the greatest possible being agrees with you.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you think that Gay Sex and playing Bingo are the same thing morally then you will think like you do. Which if you can't see how thats so insanely stupid that thinking is, then, well, God Bless Ya.

[/ QUOTE ]

SitNHit, I've been very patient with you, but you're testing me...

your complaint is irrelevent to the point of my post..the specifics are arbitrary.

I'm going to say this one time.

the people in this forum are some of the most reasonable people I have ever come into contact with..they attempt to make arguments with the utmost respect for logic and understand the need for logical discourse. The simple fact is that you are not as smart as the people in this forum..probably not even as smart as I am (and I'm no genius).

Since you have come into this forum, you have sent me a very rude PM (No matter how much we disagree with eachother in here, I doubt anyone has ever sent such a bizarre PM to another poster.)

you have also managed not make a single decent argument..I understand that your english is not very good, but it goes much deeper than that.

Make no mistake about it, you are not up to the level of intellect that most of the posters in this forum are. Your posts thus far have contributed nothing to the forum. But I don't mind either of these things..the same could be said about me when I first started posting here..but I was rarely arrogant and never rude.

judging by the fact that your posts have largely stopped getting responses, people are basically through with you.

I suggest that you apologize to the forum for insulting several members when unprovoked other than that they hold a different view than you..and make a resolution to get some logic and reason into your posts.

otherwise, I'm done responging to you and I'm done attempting to be nice as well.

Chris

[/ QUOTE ]


I think you put too much stock in intelligence, you think cause you know a bigger quantity of random facts your more qualified to speak on those subjects,
that's not neccessary true. I'm happy you take yourself so seriously but to me that's not a good quality.

My mother has a 155 IQ and my dad a 136, I tested a couple times and got 133 and 137, so I have a similar
IQ number to my parents, big deal. Do I hold any stock in that number, no. Ok, maybe I can solve problems better then a person with 112 IQ and a person who is a 155 IQ can better them me, who cares.

Most of my posts have been sarcastic and exaggerated and were meant to piss you off and get you frustrated
because I was expressing my distaste for the seriousness in which you all take yourselves and your so called intelligence.

I bet that some of you here who think you are such mental big shots have a lower IQ then me. In my opinion,
a persons IQ doesn't matter unless it is below the 90s, but it seems it matters to most of you.

I apologize if my obviously ignorant, close minded posts have offended anybody. Honestly,
if anybody would literally represent themselves like that and represent there way of belief in that manner in my opinion needs a lot of work on how to discuss something without telling other people what is true and what isn't. The goal of any discussion should be to make the other person think about your beliefs in an unbiased manner.

I think many posters on this forum state things as facts that arent factual, so I see a lot
of hypocracy going on, which didn't sit with me the right way when reading some of the threads.

The only true posts I made which were me and not some character were the story about my trip
to SLC and experience and that I really think what I believe is true but I cannot prove it and make it factual.

Random Thought: It's not good to be fanatical about anything, including religion, science,
math, celebrity, etc.

So I think for now on I will be serious about the posts and responses hear instead of just
sparking reactions and playing a character to cause frustration.

Anyways, take it for what it's worth and you may see me in a couple threads in the future.

Mike

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
lets say that a god exists.

this god thinks that having gay sex is wrong
I think that having gay sex is not wrong

is "absolute morality" that having gay sex is wrong?

the problem is that "absolute morality" is a meaningless phrase.

it does not change the fact that there are differing moralities here.

the only possible difference here is that this being can force us to go along with his morality or face the punishment.

if god believes that playing bingo after 10pm is wrong, but every other being doesn't believe that it is wrong...is it "absolutely" wrong?

call it what you will, but calling it something different does not change anything.

you are correct that it makes no difference...there is only what is true and what is not.

I know we've been over this subject many times before..and I think you are correct that people are generally terrified that something can't be considered as "absolutely" wrong...curiously enough, every person seems to posess the information on what is "absolutely" right and wrong..I think it's just a way of reinforcing their own beliefs...there's nothing more powerful than believing that the greatest possible being agrees with you.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you think that Gay Sex and playing Bingo are the same thing morally then you will think like you do. Which if you can't see how thats so insanely stupid that thinking is, then, well, God Bless Ya.

[/ QUOTE ]

SitNHit, I've been very patient with you, but you're testing me...

your complaint is irrelevent to the point of my post..the specifics are arbitrary.

I'm going to say this one time.

the people in this forum are some of the most reasonable people I have ever come into contact with..they attempt to make arguments with the utmost respect for logic and understand the need for logical discourse. The simple fact is that you are not as smart as the people in this forum..probably not even as smart as I am (and I'm no genius).

Since you have come into this forum, you have sent me a very rude PM (No matter how much we disagree with eachother in here, I doubt anyone has ever sent such a bizarre PM to another poster.)

you have also managed not make a single decent argument..I understand that your english is not very good, but it goes much deeper than that.

Make no mistake about it, you are not up to the level of intellect that most of the posters in this forum are. Your posts thus far have contributed nothing to the forum. But I don't mind either of these things..the same could be said about me when I first started posting here..but I was rarely arrogant and never rude.

judging by the fact that your posts have largely stopped getting responses, people are basically through with you.

I suggest that you apologize to the forum for insulting several members when unprovoked other than that they hold a different view than you..and make a resolution to get some logic and reason into your posts.

otherwise, I'm done responging to you and I'm done attempting to be nice as well.

Chris

[/ QUOTE ]


I think you put too much stock in intelligence, you think cause you know a bigger quantity of random facts your more qualified to speak on those subjects,
that's not neccessary true. I'm happy you take yourself so seriously but to me that's not a good quality.

My mother has a 155 IQ and my dad a 136, I tested a couple times and got 133 and 137, so I have a similar
IQ number to my parents, big deal. Do I hold any stock in that number, no. Ok, maybe I can solve problems better then a person with 112 IQ and a person who is a 155 IQ can better them me, who cares.

Most of my posts have been sarcastic and exaggerated and were meant to piss you off and get you frustrated
because I was expressing my distaste for the seriousness in which you all take yourselves and your so called intelligence.

I bet that some of you here who think you are such mental big shots have a lower IQ then me. In my opinion,
a persons IQ doesn't matter unless it is below the 90s, but it seems it matters to most of you.

I apologize if my obviously ignorant, close minded posts have offended anybody. Honestly,
if anybody would literally represent themselves like that and represent there way of belief in that manner in my opinion needs a lot of work on how to discuss something without telling other people what is true and what isn't. The goal of any discussion should be to make the other person think about your beliefs in an unbiased manner.

I think many posters on this forum state things as facts that arent factual, so I see a lot
of hypocracy going on, which didn't sit with me the right way when reading some of the threads.

The only true posts I made which were me and not some character were the story about my trip
to SLC and experience and that I really think what I believe is true but I cannot prove it and make it factual.

Random Thought: It's not good to be fanatical about anything, including religion, science,
math, celebrity, etc.

So I think for now on I will be serious about the posts and responses hear instead of just
sparking reactions and playing a character to cause frustration.

Anyways, take it for what it's worth and you may see me in a couple threads in the future.

Mike

[/ QUOTE ]

This post is an absolute train-wreck. I am looking forward to these 'new and improved' SitNHit posts which demonstrate his near-genius IQ. Especially considering he equates intelligence with memorizing a bunch of useless facts.

[flipdeadshot22]

"Ok, maybe I can solve problems better then a person with 112 IQ"

Lol. Richard Feynman, nobel prize winner and founder of quantum electrodynamics had an IQ of 124 (lower than your supposed IQ) and I assure you, he solves problems WAY BETTER than you, and better than you will ever do.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
"Ok, maybe I can solve problems better then a person with 112 IQ"

Lol. Richard Feynman, nobel prize winner and founder of quantum electrodynamics had an IQ of 124 (lower than your supposed IQ) and I assure you, he solves problems WAY BETTER than you, and better than you will ever do.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've said before that I am not aware of any IQ test I've ever taken, although I almost certainly have taken at least one in my life. So I definitely do not know much about them, or their structure. But my impression is that the fundamental components of an IQ test are basically 'analogous reasoning' and 'spatial reasoning.' Is that true? If so, and knowing SitNHit's atrocious track record with analogies....well, call me a skeptic.

[Gugel]

your IQ is off the chart. good job sir.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:IQ_curve.svg

[SitNHit]

[ QUOTE ]
"Ok, maybe I can solve problems better then a person with 112 IQ"

Lol. Richard Feynman, nobel prize winner and founder of quantum electrodynamics had an IQ of 124 (lower than your supposed IQ) and I assure you, he solves problems WAY BETTER than you, and better than you will ever do.

[/ QUOTE ]

I said maybe as in I don't know , even if I can who cares.

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
My mother has a 155 IQ

[/ QUOTE ]

No she doesn't.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My mother has a 155 IQ

[/ QUOTE ]

No she doesn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

If only there was some way for you to express your disbelief of his claim in some sort of monetary form, and for him to similarly express the strength of his claim in a similar way. Oh if only there were some sort of website to facilitate such things!

[SitNHit]

[ QUOTE ]
"Ok, maybe I can solve problems better then a person with 112 IQ"

Lol. Richard Feynman, nobel prize winner and founder of quantum electrodynamics had an IQ of 124 (lower than your supposed IQ) and I assure you, he solves problems WAY BETTER than you, and better than you will ever do.

[/ QUOTE ]



I said maybe so if it sounded like I said I definatley can, I apologize. May(those who think it does) Be(Those who think it doesn't). Conclustion may or may "not be"

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Ok, maybe I can solve problems better then a person with 112 IQ"

Lol. Richard Feynman, nobel prize winner and founder of quantum electrodynamics had an IQ of 124 (lower than your supposed IQ) and I assure you, he solves problems WAY BETTER than you, and better than you will ever do.

[/ QUOTE ]



I said maybe so if it sounded like I said I definatley can, I apologize. May(those who think it does) Be(Those who think it doesn't). Conclustion may or may "not be"

[/ QUOTE ]

Would a 130 IQ have posted this?



It's close.

[MaxWeiss]

As creatures that are much more aware of how we affect other beings, we can create a standard of morality which other animals cannot. It may be an arbitrary standard of happiness and suffering of individuals and groups, but it is some kind of standard. They are right in saying that morals have to be based on something, because we cannot judge good and bad without stating why, but that doesn't mean that an atheist's standard is inherently better or worse than anybody else's standard. That being said, I think atheists have a much higher moral standard and authority than do most religious people, since atheists generally get their morals from a humanist point of view, whereas religious folk get theirs from all kinds of wacky stupid places, and in many cases do a lot of harm. (To be fair, religion does do plenty of good for a lot of people--but the problem is that we cannot simply call good "good" or bad "bad" because their definition is often in conflict with ours, when God's word opposes what a humanist thinks is beneficial to humanity--e.g. gay rights, abortion, stem cells, etc.)

[MaxWeiss]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
lets say that a god exists.

this god thinks that having gay sex is wrong
I think that having gay sex is not wrong

is "absolute morality" that having gay sex is wrong?

the problem is that "absolute morality" is a meaningless phrase.

it does not change the fact that there are differing moralities here.

the only possible difference here is that this being can force us to go along with his morality or face the punishment.

if god believes that playing bingo after 10pm is wrong, but every other being doesn't believe that it is wrong...is it "absolutely" wrong?

call it what you will, but calling it something different does not change anything.

you are correct that it makes no difference...there is only what is true and what is not.

I know we've been over this subject many times before..and I think you are correct that people are generally terrified that something can't be considered as "absolutely" wrong...curiously enough, every person seems to posess the information on what is "absolutely" right and wrong..I think it's just a way of reinforcing their own beliefs...there's nothing more powerful than believing that the greatest possible being agrees with you.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you think that Gay Sex and playing Bingo are the same thing morally then you will think like you do. Which if you can't see how thats so insanely stupid that thinking is, then, well, God Bless Ya.

[/ QUOTE ]

SitNHit, I've been very patient with you, but you're testing me...

your complaint is irrelevent to the point of my post..the specifics are arbitrary.

I'm going to say this one time.

the people in this forum are some of the most reasonable people I have ever come into contact with..they attempt to make arguments with the utmost respect for logic and understand the need for logical discourse. The simple fact is that you are not as smart as the people in this forum..probably not even as smart as I am (and I'm no genius).

Since you have come into this forum, you have sent me a very rude PM (No matter how much we disagree with eachother in here, I doubt anyone has ever sent such a bizarre PM to another poster.)

you have also managed not make a single decent argument..I understand that your english is not very good, but it goes much deeper than that.

Make no mistake about it, you are not up to the level of intellect that most of the posters in this forum are. Your posts thus far have contributed nothing to the forum. But I don't mind either of these things..the same could be said about me when I first started posting here..but I was rarely arrogant and never rude.

judging by the fact that your posts have largely stopped getting responses, people are basically through with you.

I suggest that you apologize to the forum for insulting several members when unprovoked other than that they hold a different view than you..and make a resolution to get some logic and reason into your posts.

otherwise, I'm done responging to you and I'm done attempting to be nice as well.

Chris

[/ QUOTE ]


I think you put too much stock in intelligence, you think cause you know a bigger quantity of random facts your more qualified to speak on those subjects,
that's not neccessary true. I'm happy you take yourself so seriously but to me that's not a good quality.

My mother has a 155 IQ and my dad a 136, I tested a couple times and got 133 and 137, so I have a similar
IQ number to my parents, big deal. Do I hold any stock in that number, no. Ok, maybe I can solve problems better then a person with 112 IQ and a person who is a 155 IQ can better them me, who cares.

Most of my posts have been sarcastic and exaggerated and were meant to piss you off and get you frustrated
because I was expressing my distaste for the seriousness in which you all take yourselves and your so called intelligence.

I bet that some of you here who think you are such mental big shots have a lower IQ then me. In my opinion,
a persons IQ doesn't matter unless it is below the 90s, but it seems it matters to most of you.

I apologize if my obviously ignorant, close minded posts have offended anybody. Honestly,
if anybody would literally represent themselves like that and represent there way of belief in that manner in my opinion needs a lot of work on how to discuss something without telling other people what is true and what isn't. The goal of any discussion should be to make the other person think about your beliefs in an unbiased manner.

I think many posters on this forum state things as facts that arent factual, so I see a lot
of hypocracy going on, which didn't sit with me the right way when reading some of the threads.

The only true posts I made which were me and not some character were the story about my trip
to SLC and experience and that I really think what I believe is true but I cannot prove it and make it factual.

Random Thought: It's not good to be fanatical about anything, including religion, science,
math, celebrity, etc.

So I think for now on I will be serious about the posts and responses hear instead of just
sparking reactions and playing a character to cause frustration.

Anyways, take it for what it's worth and you may see me in a couple threads in the future.

Mike

[/ QUOTE ]

Alright, I call BS.

Also, even if I'm wrong, I'm getting fed up with this guy too. Lord knows I've said some stupid things lately, but this guy is getting ridiculous.

[Guyute]

at the risk of bringing the discussion back to the original topic...

Vhawk, it seems that the term 'absolute morality' is ambiguous and I was just wondering which sense you have in mind. It could mean that morality is a black and white issue, that something is either absolutely correct or absolutely wrong. To deny this would be to accept a grey area in morality, or partial rights and wrongs.

On the other hand, it could mean that what is right and wrong is right and wrong at all places and all times for all people. To deny this is to accept some form of moral relativism, whereby morality is determined entirely or in part by some community.

When this issue comes up, it is normally in regards to this second reading, but many of the posts thus far have seemingly been taking the first reading. If the discussion on the other site is regarding an absolute morality insofar as morality is not relative, I am inclined to agree, though almost certainly not for the same reasons as those you have been discussing this with. Thanks.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
at the risk of bringing the discussion back to the original topic...

Vhawk, it seems that the term 'absolute morality' is ambiguous and I was just wondering which sense you have in mind. It could mean that morality is a black and white issue, that something is either absolutely correct or absolutely wrong. To deny this would be to accept a grey area in morality, or partial rights and wrongs.

On the other hand, it could mean that what is right and wrong is right and wrong at all places and all times for all people. To deny this is to accept some form of moral relativism, whereby morality is determined entirely or in part by some community.

When this issue comes up, it is normally in regards to this second reading, but many of the posts thus far have seemingly been taking the first reading. If the discussion on the other site is regarding an absolute morality insofar as morality is not relative, I am inclined to agree, though almost certainly not for the same reasons as those you have been discussing this with. Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

The discussion is primarily about the 'universal' meaning of absolute, although I don't think the two usages are really as different as you make them out to be. The idea is that God is eternal, so any morality derived from God is absolute, unchanging, and everlasting. I don't see much extra value in this, especially when we have no way to figure out a)whether this absolute morality actually exists (this would be identical to proving God exists) or b) that we actually know what it is even if it does exist.

There may very well be some absolute morality somewhere. But we have no way of figuring out what it is. So, we are left with an attempt at morality that is based on human reason and experience, which is really just a relative morality. In practice, absolute morality is meaningless, except as a bludgeon for getting your way. Even in theory, there seems to be little benefit. Is it important for me to be able to say the rapist is ABSOLUTELY wrong? I really just don't want her to rape me.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Whats the big deal? We wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a universe WITH an absolute morality and one without anyway


[/ QUOTE ]

Start with C.S. Lewis. I suggest Mere Christianity and Abolition of Man. Not real deep philosophically but a good basic outline of the issues.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
It could mean that morality is a black and white issue, that something is either absolutely correct or absolutely wrong. To deny this would be to accept a grey area in morality, or partial rights and wrongs.

On the other hand, it could mean that what is right and wrong is right and wrong at all places and all times for all people.

[/ QUOTE ]

There can never be a set of Absolute Morals, even granting a God to state them ( and skipping over whether we could understand them). Our multi-variable universe will put any such linear approach to morality dysfunctional.

luckyme

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
There can never be a set of Absolute Morals, even granting a God to state them ( and skipping over whether we could understand them). Our multi-variable universe will put any such linear approach to morality dysfunctional.



[/ QUOTE ]
Even if there were a God to state them, it wouldn’t matter. Absolute morals if they exist, exist independently of what anyone thinks, including God. A set of rules dictated by a God will be beneficial to some but detrimental to others. Following such rules as “absolute” seems rather an example of relative morality.

[sards]

vhawk01, I don't think that the distinction between absolute and non-absolute morality is pointless. In fact, I would suggest that there can only really be one type of morality: absolute morality. Anything else is just personal preference.

Humans are moral beings by nature. People like to make moral judgments and proclamations, e.g.: "Hitler was evil," "murder is wrong," "theft is wrong," etc. The problem is that if there is not an absolute, universal standard of morality that explicitly rules on such issues, then it is absurd to make such judgments and proclamations. Why? Because it makes no sense to apply a subjective and essentially arbitrary "morality" to anyone else.

I think the religious people that you are conversing with have a valid point. If their God exists, it makes sense that he would be the world's moral arbiter. On the other hand, I have found that most atheists rightly reject absolute morality (because without any metaphysical moral authority, it has no basis) in favor of relative morality, but then go on to act as though their personal morals are absolute (presumably because relative morality makes no sense and doesn't jive with human conscience).

Again, relative or non-absolute morality is really no morality. And that doesn't sit well with people because they have a conscience.

Disclaimer: These are just my brief thoughts on the subject; I have no knowledge of philosophical thought in this area, and someone smart might have refuted my points in the past. If so, I would like to see it.

[samsonite2100]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Whats the big deal? We wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a universe WITH an absolute morality and one without anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because without the backing of a (preferably Christian) deity, moral standards obviously cease to have any meaning, and you'll have folks raping and murdering each other willy-nilly. You know, the way atheists do. I mean, go to any supermax prison and it's like, all atheist-types in there, just about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I think thats part of it, its used as a weapon to denigrate atheists. But the people I associate with concede that obviously most atheists are at least average, morally.

Is it an attempt at increasing the Might in their Might Makes Right?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think so. Here's my take on absolute morality--it's basically utilitarianism dressed up in an evening gown.

The golden rule, which you could credibly boil most absolute morality down to, turns out to be a very useful way to live one's life. Millions of years of human evolution have selected, genetically and culturally, for a race of beings that generally prizes avoiding gratuitous violence, rape, theft, etc. (Yes, I know these things occur, but when you look at all human activity, they're statistical outliers).

Despite religious folks' insistence on the existence of absolute morality, it's not the existence of "morality" that prevents people from murdering each other. We learn at a very young age that playing nice is better than playing mean, that taking other kids' lunches causes us to to be ostracized, etc.

The thought that, as adults, we need to have some big floating objective set of behavioral guidelines backed up by God in order to play nice is positively ridiculous--a fact to which the extremely minimal per capita presence of atheists in prison testifies.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
vhawk01, I don't think that the distinction between absolute and non-absolute morality is pointless. In fact, I would suggest that there can only really be one type of morality: absolute morality. Anything else is just personal preference.

Humans are moral beings by nature. People like to make moral judgments and proclamations, e.g.: "Hitler was evil," "murder is wrong," "theft is wrong," etc. The problem is that if there is not an absolute, universal standard of morality that explicitly rules on such issues, then it is absurd to make such judgments and proclamations. Why? Because it makes no sense to apply a subjective and essentially arbitrary "morality" to anyone else.

I think the religious people that you are conversing with have a valid point. If their God exists, it makes sense that he would be the world's moral arbiter. On the other hand, I have found that most atheists rightly reject absolute morality (because without any metaphysical moral authority, it has no basis) in favor of relative morality, but then go on to act as though their personal morals are absolute (presumably because relative morality makes no sense and doesn't jive with human conscience).

Again, relative or non-absolute morality is really no morality. And that doesn't sit well with people because they have a conscience.

Disclaimer: These are just my brief thoughts on the subject; I have no knowledge of philosophical thought in this area, and someone smart might have refuted my points in the past. If so, I would like to see it.

[/ QUOTE ]

But, like many so-called 'answers' provided by the theists, this one is really just a pushing back of the question. Theists don't have a better grasp on absolute morality than anyone else, they just claim its primacy. Do you know what the absolute morality is? Or do you just know what the morality that you read in a book, written through the moral filter of human beings thousands of years ago, and read through your own moral filter, is? And what about Muslims, do they have a different, equally valid 'absolute' morality? We end up in the same spot. Theists might LIKE absolute morality more than atheists, but they certainly don't know what it consists of in any meaningful way.

So, in practice, no difference.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
But, like many so-called 'answers' provided by the theists, this one is really just a pushing back of the question. Theists don't have a better grasp on absolute morality than anyone else, they just claim its primacy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I'm missing your point, but accepting absolute morality is really all you do. So if someone accepted the Ten Commandments primacy, that would be accepting absolute morality, just like a physician accepting the primacy of the Hippocratic Oath as an absolute.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But, like many so-called 'answers' provided by the theists, this one is really just a pushing back of the question. Theists don't have a better grasp on absolute morality than anyone else, they just claim its primacy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I'm missing your point, but accepting absolute morality is really all you do. So if someone accepted the Ten Commandments primacy, that would be accepting absolute morality, just like a physician accepting the primacy of the Hippocratic Oath as an absolute.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think thats it, or else why can't I say "The Golden Rule is my absolute morality." This wasn't derived from any God or anything like that, its based on reciprocal altruism and was selected for. Most people would call a morality based on the Golden Rule to be moral relativism, wouldn't they?

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think thats it, or else why can't I say "The Golden Rule is my absolute morality." This wasn't derived from any God or anything like that, its based on reciprocal altruism and was selected for. Most people would call a morality based on the Golden Rule to be moral relativism, wouldn't they?

[/ QUOTE ]

As to my understanding, it doesn't really matter where or how the standard was derived. We could declare, "thou shall not kill," as a moral absolute, regardless of how we came up with it. I think it has more to do with how we judge our actions that determines if we're operating from absolute or relative morality.

So faced with the situation of killing someone, if you operated with absolute morality, you would conclude it is wrong. If you looked at it from a relative perspective, you would make your moral judgement in context and say, it depends on the situation.

I'd call the Golden Rule relative, because you're not judging your actions by an absolute standard. To me it's relative to the extent that it's based on your personal context. We could still adopt, "do unto others…" as an absolute but for obvious reasons, things wouldn't work out too well. You might feel it's okay to kill someone for cheating at cards, because you would be okay with being killed if you cheated, but the absolute standards (laws) in society take precedence in this case.

[SitNHit]

[ QUOTE ]
vhawk01, I don't think that the distinction between absolute and non-absolute morality is pointless. In fact, I would suggest that there can only really be one type of morality: absolute morality. Anything else is just personal preference.

Humans are moral beings by nature. People like to make moral judgments and proclamations, e.g.: "Hitler was evil," "murder is wrong," "theft is wrong," etc. The problem is that if there is not an absolute, universal standard of morality that explicitly rules on such issues, then it is absurd to make such judgments and proclamations. Why? Because it makes no sense to apply a subjective and essentially arbitrary "morality" to anyone else.

I think the religious people that you are conversing with have a valid point. If their God exists, it makes sense that he would be the world's moral arbiter. On the other hand, I have found that most atheists rightly reject absolute morality (because without any metaphysical moral authority, it has no basis) in favor of relative morality, but then go on to act as though their personal morals are absolute (presumably because relative morality makes no sense and doesn't jive with human conscience).

Again, relative or non-absolute morality is really no morality. And that doesn't sit well with people because they have a conscience.

Disclaimer: These are just my brief thoughts on the subject; I have no knowledge of philosophical thought in this area, and someone smart might have refuted my points in the past. If so, I would like to see it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would love to hear your extended version of thoughts on this cause I think this is my favorite post that Ive read so far /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is that if there is not an absolute, universal standard of morality that explicitly rules on such issues, then it is absurd to make such judgments and proclamations. Why? Because it makes no sense to apply a subjective and essentially arbitrary "morality" to anyone else.


[/ QUOTE ]

but why does placing a god in there with an opinion on it change this at all?

in order for a being's morality to be considered "absolute morality," does this being only have to be the most powerful being in existence...or does it have to be the most powerful possible being?

[ QUOTE ]
On the other hand, I have found that most atheists rightly reject absolute morality (because without any metaphysical moral authority, it has no basis) in favor of relative morality, but then go on to act as though their personal morals are absolute (presumably because relative morality makes no sense and doesn't jive with human conscience).

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what atheists you are referring to...I don't think that many act as though their own morals are absolute.

I tend to act as though my morals are what I believe them to be, one opinion of many...back this up by sound reasoning and logic as to whether or not the act is question actually does more good than harm or more harm than good, and we will usually get a general concensus on what is right and wrong.

throwing a god in there only allows people to take their own personal morals, and throw everyone else's out, believing that this god holds the same morals that they you..and that being absolute morality...gives them the rationale behind forcing their own morals on others.

believing that other peoples' opinions don't matter keeps us from acting according to true morality..that is..relative morality.

[Guyute]

A couple thoughts. First, sards' comments are on the right track. Most people who think about morality for a living tend to dismiss relativism as an inconsistent theory that leads to dangerous consequences. Some people here seem to be concerned that an absolute morality runs contrary to the virtue of tolerance, and is rife with religious overtones, and is therefore problematic. Here I disagree.

However, being an absolutist about morality does not commit one to infallibilism, the belief that one's own morals are completely correct and beyond reproach. If one is an absolutist, one is committed only to there being a right answer when it comes to moral questions, that there can be genuine disagreement among moral communities, and that we must not tolerate communities that are immoral (one problem with being a relativist is that you lose the grounds to claim that a community or person is acting immorally). This is not the same as claiming that the morals we hold are the right ones to hold. On the contrary, being an absolutist permits rational discussion on what is right and what is wrong.

Moreover, being an absolutist about morality is an entirely different issue than whether morals come from God. In fact, accepting a divine command theory about morals - the theory that God makes right things right - runs straight into Plato's Euthyphro dilemma. Basically, if one wants to claim that morality comes from God, they mean one of two things: Either (1) God says right actions are right because they are right, or (2) Right actions are right because God said so. One (1), God is in fact not the source of morality, and on (2) morality becomes arbitrary, since it is possible that God could deem cat killing moral and it would be moral (the idea is that this is counter intuitive). In the end, most philosophers who are ethicists are absolutists who are atheists. Once one sees the benefits of absolutism, a discussion can proceed as to what makes something right or wrong - perhaps some sort of consequentialist or deontological theory.

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think so. Here's my take on absolute morality--it's basically utilitarianism dressed up in an evening gown.

The golden rule, which you could credibly boil most absolute morality down to, turns out to be a very useful way to live one's life.

[/ QUOTE ]

I couldn't disagree more with this. If absolute morality could be boiled down to the Golden Rule, I wouldn't have a problem with it. How do you boil down "homosexual sex is evil" to the Golden Rule?

[Aver-aging]

Oh Joy! This is just the idea I've been coming up with.

Thank god (I'm an atheist) that people here know a little game theory. If you don't know much about the Prisoner's Dilemma, or PD tournaments, and you haven't heard of Evolutionary Prisoner's Dilemma tournaments please see this http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/prisoner-dilemma/ if you want to understand what I'm going to be talking about. Read the introduction and skip to the 'Evolution' part of the page.

Anyways, my own personal way of understanding ethics and morality is this: I see ethics as a mechanism to sustain co-operative behavior amongst individuals who have their own best interest as their primary focus. I wrote a theoretical history paper that attempted to establish a connection between effective co-operative strategies in the Prisoner's Dilemma and real life forms of ethical practices. Surprise, surprise, what do I find? Cultures that were under more ecological pressure (like small hunter/gatherer groups that live off of low-subsistence) took on more efficient forms of co-operation and defection than larger societies that were under less ecological/environmental pressure. Small societies relentlessly employed ethical strategies that were similar to the Evolutionary Prisoner's Dilemma's top effective strategies: Tit for Tat - they co-operate by default and they reciprocated both positive and negative behavior; Generous Tit for Tat - they acted the same as Tit for Tat, but eventually tried to make reparations when a negative cycle of reciprocation began in order to create new co-operative bonds; GRIM - they co-operate initially but never co-operate with a group again after negative behavior is seen; and PAVLOV - they do not co-operate initially, and only start to co-operate when the other person retaliates (the least efficient of the top strategies, and coincidentally practiced by societies with large amounts of resources to spare).

So, if you want to figure out for yourself if something is morally/ethically wrong, ask yourself "Is doing -insert action- going to be strategically conducive in sustaining co-operation amongst all human beings or will it be strategically harmful?" Once you get the answer, you discovered an aspect of absolute ethics (well, as long as your rationale is flawless both in its underlying information and in its logical cohesiveness).

Here is an example: Is it wrong to murder a good person for no reason?

Yes. Because if you murder someone, there is a high likelihood that you will commence a cycle of negative reciprocation. His loved one's might try to kill you, and then one of your loved one's might try to kill the person who killed you, and so on - a cycle of actions that does not serve to sustain co-operation among people. Even if he has no loved ones, it is still wrong because bringing a good person into your co-operative network by co-operating with them will eventually bring yourself and your group a larger benefit then if you had just killed that person.

I also forgot to mention 'Downing' a very successful strategy in some forms of EPD that co-operates initially, then defects, and repeats that cycle over and over. It's actually attributed to being essential in keeping selfish strategies from having success. So be grateful the next time someone you know stabs you in the back and begs for your forgiveness, just remember, its for the good of co-operation. You know what the most interesting part about these EPD tournaments? That the only way to successfully sustain co-operation in an environment that is subject to randomization (think of changes in economy, the environment, ideology, social leadership and social awareness as the 'elements of randomization' in the real world) is through the intricate balance of many different ethical strategies. So, the most ethically incorrect thing to do would be to make everyone's ethical behavior uniform. Cool, no?

If anyone is interested I can e-mail them my paper that I wrote on the subject.

[samsonite2100]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think so. Here's my take on absolute morality--it's basically utilitarianism dressed up in an evening gown.

The golden rule, which you could credibly boil most absolute morality down to, turns out to be a very useful way to live one's life.

[/ QUOTE ]

I couldn't disagree more with this. If absolute morality could be boiled down to the Golden Rule, I wouldn't have a problem with it. How do you boil down "homosexual sex is evil" to the Golden Rule?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I wasn't talking about all the weird little snippets from the Bible and Koran, etc. I thought we were basically discussing ten commandments-type general morality--which can mostly be expressed in terms of the golden rule.

I'm frankly so disinterested in silly stuff like "don't eat oysters," "don't lay down with men," "grow weird sideburns," that I didn't even think to include it in my post. What I (and OP, I believe) am interested in is why religious people think their rational, useful behavioral norms must be codified as objective truths.

[Aver-aging]

Seriously, someone better read/reply to my post at the top.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

the theory that God makes right things right - runs straight into Plato's Euthyphro dilemma


[/ QUOTE ]

Getting rid of God doesn't solve Euthyprho. If you posit an impersonal absolute standard you have the same problem.

Most theists say Euthyprho is a false dilemma because God says what is right, not because of a standard above Him, nor is something right by arbitrary fiat - the solution is that God's nature is the standard, He says what is right because He is righteous.

Another problem with your position is it's difficult to see how an impersonal standard can obligate. We are obligated to an Absolute Person, not some absolute, impersonal standard.

[DonkBluffer]

Haven't read whole thread, but I don't believe in absolute morality or inherent value or meaning of things or events.

Question: If I
1) do not believe some thing or action to be wrong and
2) when I do it, am not in any way affected, and do not experience it as wrong
3) will not experience any (negative) consequences of the thing/action in the future
then how can it be 'wrong' or 'bad'? Basically you're assuming there are unknowable, absolute standards. But if they can't be known, how do they have meaning? (I'd say they don't exist, and we just made them up, but w/e) The only way these absolute standards can have meaning is if an afterlife exists, and then you will experience the consequences of your actions (hell).

[DonkBluffer]

IMO, saying some things are absolutely immoral is like saying some things are absolutey scary, or absolutely embarassing, or absolutely tasty.

[SitNHit]

[ QUOTE ]
Haven't read whole thread, but I don't believe in absolute morality or inherent value or meaning of things or events.

Question: If I
1) do not believe some thing or action to be wrong and
2) when I do it, am not in any way affected, and do not experience it as wrong
3) will not experience any (negative) consequences of the thing/action in the future
then how can it be 'wrong' or 'bad'? Basically you're assuming there are unknowable, absolute standards. But if they can't be known, how do they have meaning? (I'd say they don't exist, and we just made them up, but w/e) The only way these absolute standards can have meaning is if an afterlife exists, and then you will experience the consequences of your actions (hell).

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets say your Fat and are only around fat people and also assume being fat doesn't change ur health. Since being born you eat a lot, everyone else does and it's normal, it doesn't effect them cause nothing is telling them it's different or that there is better way to live. Now someone comes into where they live and is in great shape, not fat, he looks different and everybody is fascinated.

They ask him wow, how do you feel being that small , he says it's great. They ask how he got like that, he says by changing the way you eat and look at food, by moving your body around a lot and by being more active.

Lets say they start doing this and feel great and keep doing it, now that's how they are living their lifestyle cause they feel the benefits. They woulnd't know unless they tried, so once exposed to this particular something that was different, those who did what the person taught them, who were willing to explore a possiblity of a lifestyle that was working for him and try something knew, did it and saw the benefits and a whole new way to live life.

They are happier cause of it where as they wouldn't be if they just looked at this small person as weird or crazy and went on living their own lifestyle they are used to.

I think some things come in our lives for positive reasons and negative reasons and we choose which ones to explore. How can know the effects on us of different beliefs and ways of life if you don't explore some possiblities.

What makes sense to me may not to you so I apologize if it looks like I just wrote jibbrish.

[DonkBluffer]

The formerly fat people now felt better because their health was better and they looked better. I don't see how this is ontopic. They could experience the benefit of their actions.
My whole point with absolute morality was that it assumes something can be bad, even though there's no way to tell it's bad.

[SitNHit]

Yeh, I was just sharing first thing that came to mind by the chance that it could be meaningful to the discussion.

[Aver-aging]

Alright, are one of you guys gonna stop this pointless argument and read my post at the top or not?

Honestly, just tell me if you will or not and I'll quit asking.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Honestly, just tell me if you will or not and I'll quit asking.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you're talking about the prisoner's dilemma then it doesn't apply here. That's just an issue of pragmatism. Even the deist, near-atheist, Hume said you can't get an "ought" from an "is".

[Aver-aging]

Yeah, you obviously didn't read it. Whatever, keep the pointless argument going.

sigh...

Oh my god, is this wrong? But blah blah blah, [censored], none of us know what we're talking about. Nobody breaks anything down to its components, and bam! At the end of the day nobody understands anything. Wow, isn't philosophy so amazing.

And yes, i am bitter that I spent 500 dollars on a Morality and Ethics class and my prof's lecture on the last day of classes was that "Nobody has any good theory on ethics, and pretty much nobody knows what they're talking about. Now if you'll excuse, I'm going to wipe my ass with the money I made teaching you absolutely nothing."

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, you obviously didn't read it. Whatever, keep the pointless argument going.

sigh...

Oh my god, is this wrong? But blah blah blah, [censored], none of us know what we're talking about. Nobody breaks anything down to its components, and bam! At the end of the day nobody understands anything. Wow, isn't philosophy so amazing.

[/ QUOTE ]
We've been through it all before. Humans are moral because we've evolved to take advantage of cooperative behavior, understanding PD help explains why its an advantage.

Everything else has been sorted out on SMP many times which would be impressive if Plato hadn't pipped us to the post.

As to why folk like the idea of absolute morality, its mainly a matter of them being able to tell others what to do whilst maintaining a facade of superiority. Sometimes its just fear of responsibility.

chez

[ChrisV]

aver-aging, what kind of response were you looking for? Something like "Wow, your post not about absolute morality in a thread about absolute morality has really opened our eyes. Clearly you have solved moral philosophy and there's no point discussing it anymore"?

[Aver-aging]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, you obviously didn't read it. Whatever, keep the pointless argument going.

sigh...

Oh my god, is this wrong? But blah blah blah, [censored], none of us know what we're talking about. Nobody breaks anything down to its components, and bam! At the end of the day nobody understands anything. Wow, isn't philosophy so amazing.

[/ QUOTE ]
We've been through it all before. Humans are moral because we've evolved to take advantage of cooperative behavior, understanding PD help explains why its an advantage.

Everything else has been sorted out on SMP many times which would be impressive if Plato hadn't pipped us to the post.

As to why folk like the idea of absolute morality, its mainly a matter of them being able to tell others what to do whilst maintaining a facade of superiority. Sometimes its just fear of responsibility.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, alright.. but if you read my post you'd see that I did establish that absolute morality can exist as long as a person has enough foresight. I don't just use PD and EDP tournaments to show that it's beneficial - any idiot can figure that out. My contention is that ethics as a semantic definition are the mechanism that facilitate co-operative behavior, and because of that you can create ethics that are maximally efficient in facilitating co-operative behavior, therefore making them 'right' so long as you care about the outcome of society. Not only that, but I make an argument for ethical relativism, practiced to an extent (but within confines) as actually being necessary to sustain co-operation.

But whatever, don't read it.

[Aver-aging]

Or an actual discussion of my ideas. Either one would be fine.

Just to let people know, don't expect a reply for a while.. I am gone for the evening. But feel free to discuss!

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, you obviously didn't read it. Whatever, keep the pointless argument going.

sigh...

Oh my god, is this wrong? But blah blah blah, [censored], none of us know what we're talking about. Nobody breaks anything down to its components, and bam! At the end of the day nobody understands anything. Wow, isn't philosophy so amazing.

[/ QUOTE ]
We've been through it all before. Humans are moral because we've evolved to take advantage of cooperative behavior, understanding PD help explains why its an advantage.

Everything else has been sorted out on SMP many times which would be impressive if Plato hadn't pipped us to the post.

As to why folk like the idea of absolute morality, its mainly a matter of them being able to tell others what to do whilst maintaining a facade of superiority. Sometimes its just fear of responsibility.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, alright.. but if you read my post you'd see that I did establish that absolute morality can exist as long as a person has enough foresight. I don't just use PD and EDP tournaments to show that it's beneficial - any idiot can figure that out. My contention is that ethics as a semantic definition are the mechanism that facilitate co-operative behavior, and because of that you can create ethics that are maximally efficient in facilitating co-operative behavior, therefore making them 'right' so long as you care about the outcome of society. Not only that, but I make an argument for ethical relativism, practiced to an extent (but within confines) as actually being necessary to sustain co-operation.

But whatever, don't read it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its not a question of reading it and it took pretty impressive idiots to realise that you have to apply the cooperative behavior to genes not people.

However once the pretty clever people worked out that its taking advantage of PD at the genes level its obvious even to us stupid folk that foresight has nothing to do with it.

Even at the poeple level foresight has nothing to do with it. Morality is one factor in deciding what we want, only once we know what we want does foresight come in at all.

chez

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
My contention is that ethics as a semantic definition are the mechanism that facilitate co-operative behavior, and because of that you can create ethics that are maximally efficient in facilitating co-operative behavior, therefore making them 'right' so long as you care about the outcome of society. Not only that, but I make an argument for ethical relativism, practiced to an extent (but within confines) as actually being necessary to sustain co-operation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Haven't you just created a different absolute standard to measure what's right and wrong? The "outcome of society," the greater good, etc…

Is the purpose of morality to serve and protect the individual or the group?

[m_the0ry]

Absolute morality stems from the human desire to gossip. Absolute morality establishes an unnatural common ground where people all agree what is wrong and what is right, which leads to exclusion and gossip about those who disagree with the absolute morality.

In other words; it is gang mentality.

[SitNHit]

[ QUOTE ]
Absolute morality stems from the human desire to gossip. Absolute morality establishes an unnatural common ground where people all agree what is wrong and what is right, which leads to exclusion and gossip about those who disagree with the absolute morality.

In other words; it is gang mentality.

[/ QUOTE ]

In my opinion Absolute Morality is believed by those who believe in a Supreme Being or something that has the power to determine what is right and what is wrong, a usual qualification is that they are the creator of everything and/or the host of heavenly eternity, etc.

If you are an Athiest you will never have Absolute Morality cause there is no Athiestic God that claims to have that authority and you by default won't take any fellow humans opinion/spiritual revelations on what is right or wrong so good luck trying to solve this one. 2,000,000 pages of posts won't get you any closer to a reasonable answer.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Absolute morality stems from the human desire to gossip. Absolute morality establishes an unnatural common ground where people all agree what is wrong and what is right, which leads to exclusion and gossip about those who disagree with the absolute morality.

In other words; it is gang mentality.

[/ QUOTE ]

In my opinion Absolute Morality is believed by those who believe in a Supreme Being or something that has the power to determine what is right and what is wrong, a usual qualification is that they are the creator of everything and/or the host of heavenly eternity, etc.

If you are an Athiest you will never have Absolute Morality cause there is no Athiestic God that claims to have that authority and you by default won't take any fellow humans opinion/spiritual revelations on what is right or wrong so good luck trying to solve this one. 2,000,000 pages of posts won't get you any closer to a reasonable answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

the OP is not about whether or not god exists..it is about whether or not absolute morality is beneficial or whether or not thinking morality as absolute is beneficial..and then we went on to whether or not there can be an absolute morality even if a god exists...

I came to the conclusion that the term is meaningless and it doesn't "exist" even if there is a god with a specific morality.

[jogsxyz]

What about absolute morality on rape? Are all rapes created equal? What about statutory rape? Should that be lumped together with other forced rapes? Should the punishment be the same?

[Aver-aging]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My contention is that ethics as a semantic definition are the mechanism that facilitate co-operative behavior, and because of that you can create ethics that are maximally efficient in facilitating co-operative behavior, therefore making them 'right' so long as you care about the outcome of society. Not only that, but I make an argument for ethical relativism, practiced to an extent (but within confines) as actually being necessary to sustain co-operation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Haven't you just created a different absolute standard to measure what's right and wrong? The "outcome of society," the greater good, etc…

Is the purpose of morality to serve and protect the individual or the group?

[/ QUOTE ]

I realize that, but anyone who is discussing ethics obviously cares about the outcome of society, or at least what's best for themselves (in which case, its been proven by Annatole Rappaport [I might have the spelling wrong] that co-operative behavior in even one shot circumstances is beneficial to the individual).

A sadist or a masochist has no place in discussing ethics, mainly because they don't give a damn. I'm not defining ethics as an absolute standard of making decisions based on the outcome of society or themselves, I'm just saying that anyone who makes decisions usually bases them on those criteria. Once a person uses that as their base for judgment, I can manipulate their standpoint through my argument to make them agree that different ethical strategies are necessary in maintaining what they want (either self-success or the success of all) and to take certain courses of actions in circumstances barring there's enough information to make a good decision.

And I can undoubtedly say that morals and ethics were developed to sustain co-operative behavior, therefore serving to protect the individual or the group using them. I've researched that enough to know.

[Aver-aging]

[ QUOTE ]

Its not a question of reading it and it took pretty impressive idiots to realize that you have to apply the cooperative behavior to genes not people.

However once the pretty clever people worked out that its taking advantage of PD at the genes level its obvious even to us stupid folk that foresight has nothing to do with it.

Even at the people level foresight has nothing to do with it. Morality is one factor in deciding what we want, only once we know what we want does foresight come in at all.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

The development of co-operative behavior is attributed to genes, but the specialization of co-operative behavior can't be. The fact is that ideology influences the way people act in a very very profound way. Ideology, possibly influenced by a genetic tendency, goes much further than an innate feeling. It creates real life guidelines that are too complex (and not to mention, created by the neocortex, which has a uniform structure at birth, meaning there are no innate ideas that exist within it) and specialized for genes to handle.

Not to mention, ideologies change at a more rapid rate than genes can keep up with, often undergoing drastic changes through the course of a single generation. Do you really think it was genetically hardwired in the population of South Africa to accept Nelson Mandela's idea of forgiveness, when they were engaging in terrorist-like attacks on infrastructure only a couple years prior? Genes can't be attributed for that shift in perspective and behavior. (If you want a real life example of a person in that circumstance who underwent a drastic change in his moral approach because of Mandela's ideology watch the movie Catch A Fire).

Foresight has everything to do with the usage of moral ideology. We act on the basis of an expected outcome. Not to mention, with the advances in understanding ethical strategies through game theory, we should be basing the development of our new ethical and moral concepts on foresight, because we finally developed the capability to do so. If there's one thing about the Neocortex that is so interesting, it's that it usurps the duties of innate faculties (like taking away the cerebellum's control over motor actions) and develops more specific and efficient forms of behavior through experience. Henceforth, you get 'wisdom'. The neocortex can easily take away and change someone's innate reaction to circumstances, and in the case of morality it does this through the development of ideology and practice.

I remember hearing a line from an old philosopher one time, it went something like this:

"At age 5 I acted on the basis of what I felt, at age 70 I acted on the basis of what I knew".

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

"At age 5 I acted on the basis of what I felt, at age 70 I acted on the basis of what I knew".


[/ QUOTE ]

1 Corinthians 13:11

When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

"At age 5 I acted on the basis of what I felt, at age 70 I acted on the basis of what I knew".


[/ QUOTE ]

1 Corinthians 13:11

When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.

[/ QUOTE ]
oh the irony!

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Foresight has everything to do with the usage of moral ideology. We act on the basis of an expected outcome.

[/ QUOTE ]
but that's only of any use once we know which outcomes we prefer. Wact in the way that maximises our preferences - that's not being moral its just being rational. Yes it often involves cooperation but so what?

Those robots from the other thread are cooperating but they're not moral.

I think you're ignoring everything about morality and simply talking about how to best get what we want. that's applied selfishness theory but not about morality.

chez

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There can never be a set of Absolute Morals, even granting a God to state them ( and skipping over whether we could understand them). Our multi-variable universe will put any such linear approach to morality dysfunctional.



[/ QUOTE ]
Even if there were a God to state them, it wouldn’t matter. Absolute morals if they exist, exist independently of what anyone thinks, including God. A set of rules dictated by a God will be beneficial to some but detrimental to others. Following such rules as “absolute” seems rather an example of relative morality.

[/ QUOTE ]

There seems to be two concepts that get treated as one in these AM discussions.
1) We can anoint/agree that some entity, GBush/God/whatever is the final judge of the moral action of an action. In that sense their opinion is Absolute.
2) That does not mean that there is a way of stating what the moral status of a situation is prior to the conditions being set up.

If I 'strangle a large cat' because it woke me up in the morning is not the same 'strangle a large cat' act as when I strangle it because it's gnawing on my kids throat.

So there is no AM status for "strangling a large cat" because there are no standalone actions in the universe, every situation is totally unique and hasn't occurred before and won't occur again. To extract one eensy-teensy aspect of a holistic picture and claim that it has some measurable moral status in it's extracted state is ludicrous.

It's like discussing the respiratory role of a nose that has been cut off and is on a plate on the table.

luckyme

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
A couple thoughts. First, sards' comments are on the right track. Most people who think about morality for a living tend to dismiss relativism as an inconsistent theory that leads to dangerous consequences. Some people here seem to be concerned that an absolute morality runs contrary to the virtue of tolerance, and is rife with religious overtones, and is therefore problematic. Here I disagree.

However, being an absolutist about morality does not commit one to infallibilism, the belief that one's own morals are completely correct and beyond reproach. If one is an absolutist, one is committed only to there being a right answer when it comes to moral questions, that there can be genuine disagreement among moral communities, and that we must not tolerate communities that are immoral (one problem with being a relativist is that you lose the grounds to claim that a community or person is acting immorally). This is not the same as claiming that the morals we hold are the right ones to hold. On the contrary, being an absolutist permits rational discussion on what is right and what is wrong.

Moreover, being an absolutist about morality is an entirely different issue than whether morals come from God. In fact, accepting a divine command theory about morals - the theory that God makes right things right - runs straight into Plato's Euthyphro dilemma. Basically, if one wants to claim that morality comes from God, they mean one of two things: Either (1) God says right actions are right because they are right, or (2) Right actions are right because God said so. One (1), God is in fact not the source of morality, and on (2) morality becomes arbitrary, since it is possible that God could deem cat killing moral and it would be moral (the idea is that this is counter intuitive). In the end, most philosophers who are ethicists are absolutists who are atheists. Once one sees the benefits of absolutism, a discussion can proceed as to what makes something right or wrong - perhaps some sort of consequentialist or deontological theory.

[/ QUOTE ]


This seems like a grossly inconsistent explanation of absolutism, and an unfair dismissal of relativism. If we have no idea what the absolutes ARE, then what benefit do we get by pretending (or believing) that they exist? If we do know what they are, we ARE infallible...thats what absolute means.

Also, why do I need to be able to dismiss the actions of another culture as being 'absolutely immoral?' There are more than enough reasons for me to dismiss (or condemn) the actions of other cultures, groups, and individuals...I don't think I'd miss not being able to use that one.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Absolute morality stems from the human desire to gossip. Absolute morality establishes an unnatural common ground where people all agree what is wrong and what is right, which leads to exclusion and gossip about those who disagree with the absolute morality.

In other words; it is gang mentality.

[/ QUOTE ]

In my opinion Absolute Morality is believed by those who believe in a Supreme Being or something that has the power to determine what is right and what is wrong, a usual qualification is that they are the creator of everything and/or the host of heavenly eternity, etc.

If you are an Athiest you will never have Absolute Morality cause there is no Athiestic God that claims to have that authority and you by default won't take any fellow humans opinion/spiritual revelations on what is right or wrong so good luck trying to solve this one. 2,000,000 pages of posts won't get you any closer to a reasonable answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lots of people believe in God and would not believe in the same absolute morality as you.

[bkholdem]

www.freedomainradio.com (http://www.freedomainradio.com)

imo the guy is a moralizing nutjob but you might like him.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
I mean, they are saying that morality, in order to be absolute, must be compared to some absolute standard, i.e. God.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true - basically because it is a tautology.

[ QUOTE ]
Why is this a beneficial approach to morality?

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn’t beneficial per se. There either is or is not absolute morality. If it exists then it would be nice to discover or prove it. No?

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me they are terrified that someone might come along and say 'Rape isn't wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not so much terrified of saying such, rather simply they (we) do not like the fact that it is true. If there is no absolute morality then rape isn’t wrong for some folk. It is only wrong for people who agree that it is wrong and choose to live their lives with the notion that it is wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
We wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a universe WITH an absolute morality and one without anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. Until one is discovered or proven. So, why are you studying medicine instead of working on real problems like the search for AM? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
If only there was some way for you to express your disbelief of his claim in some sort of monetary form, and for him to similarly express the strength of his claim in a similar way. Oh if only there were some sort of website to facilitate such things!

[/ QUOTE ]


We already have a Sklansky, vhawk.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I mean, they are saying that morality, in order to be absolute, must be compared to some absolute standard, i.e. God.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true - basically because it is a tautology.

[ QUOTE ]
Why is this a beneficial approach to morality?

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn’t beneficial per se. There either is or is not absolute morality. If it exists then it would be nice to discover or prove it. No?

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me they are terrified that someone might come along and say 'Rape isn't wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not so much terrified of saying such, rather simply they (we) do not like the fact that it is true. If there is no absolute morality then rape isn’t wrong for some folk. It is only wrong for people who agree that it is wrong and choose to live their lives with the notion that it is wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
We wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a universe WITH an absolute morality and one without anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. Until one is discovered or proven. So, why are you studying medicine instead of working on real problems like the search for AM? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, thats pretty much how I understand it. The question is, what reason do we have to think we CAN discover or prove that this AM actually is? And, if we can answer that, what methods are recommended?

[SitNHit]

[ QUOTE ]
What about absolute morality on rape? Are all rapes created equal? What about statutory rape? Should that be lumped together with other forced rapes? Should the punishment be the same?

[/ QUOTE ]

If rape is NOT(EDIT) absolute in the bad sense to you then your more likely to rape which means your more likely to believe it's not a bad thing.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
My contention is that ethics as a semantic definition are the mechanism that facilitate co-operative behavior, and because of that you can create ethics that are maximally efficient in facilitating co-operative behavior, therefore making them 'right' so long as you care about the outcome of society…

[/ QUOTE ]

And if one doesn’t care about the outcome of society then all is moot. Do I still have to read your post?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What about absolute morality on rape? Are all rapes created equal? What about statutory rape? Should that be lumped together with other forced rapes? Should the punishment be the same?

[/ QUOTE ]

If rape is absolute in the bad sense to you then your more likely to rape which means your more likely to believe it's not a bad thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
My contention is that ethics as a semantic definition are the mechanism that facilitate co-operative behavior, and because of that you can create ethics that are maximally efficient in facilitating co-operative behavior, therefore making them 'right' so long as you care about the outcome of society…

[/ QUOTE ]

And if one doesn’t care about the outcome of society then all is moot. Do I still have to read your post?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but most people DO care. Selection has seen to that.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It seems to me they are terrified that someone might come along and say 'Rape isn't wrong.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Not so much terrified of saying such, rather simply they (we) do not like the fact that it is true. If there is no absolute morality then rape isn’t wrong for some folk. It is only wrong for people who agree that it is wrong and choose to live their lives with the notion that it is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think this is largly true but people have no reason to have that fear. I'm the reverse and think its far better that we don't accept rape because we don't want to rather than because of it being wrong in any absolute sense.

It would be nice if rapist didn't exist but given that they do, I've no issue with them saying that its not wrong for them. Its not wrong for me to lock them up.

chez

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
The question is, what reason do we have to think we CAN discover or prove that this AM actually is?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because man thinks he can become God. Or at least wants to be God. (Whether God exists or not is beside the point).

[ QUOTE ]
And, if we can answer that, what methods are recommended?

[/ QUOTE ]

Those of us who are believers are going with the Faith idea. You guys have to come up with your own method.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I mean, they are saying that morality, in order to be absolute, must be compared to some absolute standard, i.e. God.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true - basically because it is a tautology.

[ QUOTE ]
Why is this a beneficial approach to morality?

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn’t beneficial per se. There either is or is not absolute morality. If it exists then it would be nice to discover or prove it. No?

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me they are terrified that someone might come along and say 'Rape isn't wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not so much terrified of saying such, rather simply they (we) do not like the fact that it is true. If there is no absolute morality then rape isn’t wrong for some folk. It is only wrong for people who agree that it is wrong and choose to live their lives with the notion that it is wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
We wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a universe WITH an absolute morality and one without anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. Until one is discovered or proven. So, why are you studying medicine instead of working on real problems like the search for AM? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, thats pretty much how I understand it. The question is, what reason do we have to think we CAN discover or prove that this AM actually is? And, if we can answer that, what methods are recommended?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that we can prove that there is an AM...

suppose that we prove that there is a god that created everything, somehow exists outside of physical realm..didn't need to be created, etc..just like what most people believe...and this god has an opinion on every subject...

we call his opinions "absolute morality?"..that's fine, but it is essentially meaningless..it doesn't change the fact that people have different opinions.

my conscience would not allow me say that something is absolutely wrong and advise against it just because this being believes it to be wrong..

a case could even be made for acting with NO respect to this being's so called "absolute morality" since he is immutable..whereas other beings are not.

if we are punished for acting outside this god's morality, then my conscience would dictate that I disaprove and advise against such wrong acts..but it is not because I believe them to be inherently wrong, only because of the actual effects of such acts.

IMO, as soon a this god creates other sentient beings, he does away with any absolute morality.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
Because man thinks he can become God. Or at least wants to be God. (Whether God exists or not is beside the point).


[/ QUOTE ]

why can't a person want to know this absolute morality so that he can act accordingly?..why does he have to want to be a god?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The question is, what reason do we have to think we CAN discover or prove that this AM actually is?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because man thinks he can become God. Or at least wants to be God. (Whether God exists or not is beside the point).

[ QUOTE ]
And, if we can answer that, what methods are recommended?

[/ QUOTE ]

Those of us who are believers are going with the Faith idea. You guys have to come up with your own method.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does faith lead you to AM? Doesn't faith just lead you to contingent morality? You can decide what its contingent on, I suppose, depending on how MUCH faith you have, but your choices are basically God, God as he has revealed himself, God as I understand him, The Bible, The Bible as written by human beings, a bunch of guys 3000 years ago....and it degenerates from there.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It seems to me they are terrified that someone might come along and say 'Rape isn't wrong.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Not so much terrified of saying such, rather simply they (we) do not like the fact that it is true. If there is no absolute morality then rape isn’t wrong for some folk. It is only wrong for people who agree that it is wrong and choose to live their lives with the notion that it is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think this is largly true but people have no reason to have that fear. I'm the reverse and think its far better that we don't accept rape because we don't want to rather than because of it being wrong in any absolute sense.

It would be nice if rapist didn't exist but given that they do, I've no issue with them saying that its not wrong for them. Its not wrong for me to lock them up.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

This is how I feel exactly.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
My contention is that ethics as a semantic definition are the mechanism that facilitate co-operative behavior, and because of that you can create ethics that are maximally efficient in facilitating co-operative behavior, therefore making them 'right' so long as you care about the outcome of society…

[/ QUOTE ]

And if one doesn’t care about the outcome of society then all is moot. Do I still have to read your post?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but most people DO care. Selection has seen to that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was mostly just busting his stones,v. He wanted so badly for us to read his post.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
My contention is that ethics as a semantic definition are the mechanism that facilitate co-operative behavior, and because of that you can create ethics that are maximally efficient in facilitating co-operative behavior, therefore making them 'right' so long as you care about the outcome of society…

[/ QUOTE ]

And if one doesn’t care about the outcome of society then all is moot. Do I still have to read your post?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but most people DO care. Selection has seen to that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was mostly just busting his stones,v. He wanted so badly for us to read his post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I know. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[RJT]

Btw, chez - when you are old like you and me (and Not Ready among a few others) things are going to get re-discussed. Yeah, we’ve been down this road. Such is the cost of aging.

(Fortunately, along with age comes patience. You are a bit younger than I am - it’ll come.)

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because man thinks he can become God. Or at least wants to be God. (Whether God exists or not is beside the point).


[/ QUOTE ]

why can't a person want to know this absolute morality so that he can act accordingly?..why does he have to want to be a god?

[/ QUOTE ]


I was making a general statement. Obviously, not all men have such motives. I am basically saying, those who don’t believe in God and set on a search for…well, most things - a cure for cancer, climb Everest, whatever - do it out of ego. And I don’t (necessarily) mean this in the pejorative sense. I mean it in the same sense that most folk want children (ultimately speaking) - for posterity. When I ask people why they are so worried about the longevity of the human race, for example, they usually answer with something to do with their kids and their own legacy - that type of thinking. What else is that but ego?


And what is ego, but wanting to be God or like God?

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
How does faith lead you to AM?

[/ QUOTE ]

Theoretically, it leads to knowing what God wants.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think that we can prove that there is an AM..

[/ QUOTE ]

That’s probably true.

[ QUOTE ]
suppose that we prove that there is a god that created everything, somehow exists outside of physical realm..didn't need to be created, etc..just like what most people believe...and this god has an opinion on every subject...

we call his opinions "absolute morality?"..that's fine, but it is essentially meaningless..it doesn't change the fact that people have different opinions.

my conscience would not allow me say that something is absolutely wrong and advise against it just because this being believes it to be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing is this - you probably would not disagree with His Absolute Morality. I lean towards AM being all good.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because man thinks he can become God. Or at least wants to be God. (Whether God exists or not is beside the point).


[/ QUOTE ]

why can't a person want to know this absolute morality so that he can act accordingly?..why does he have to want to be a god?

[/ QUOTE ]


I was making a general statement. Obviously, not all men have such motives. I am basically saying, those who don’t believe in God and set on a search for…well, most things - a cure for cancer, climb Everest, whatever - do it out of ego. And I don’t (necessarily) mean this in the pejorative sense. I mean it in the same sense that most folk want children (ultimately speaking) - for posterity. When I ask people why they are so worried about the longevity of the human race, for example, they usually answer with something to do with their kids and their own legacy - that type of thinking. What else is that but ego?


And what is ego, but wanting to be God or like God?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that all people have what are essentially selfish motives due to the nature of evolution..whether you believe in a god or not..to me, it's not a stretch to define true altruism as an act that is intended to improve the life of another being....where the only benefit for the person committing the act is the happiness created by knowing that the recipient's life is made better.

[ QUOTE ]
And what is ego, but wanting to be God or like God?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a far stretch..for isntance, I would rather have no person to have godlike dominance over others...even myself...

but the reason why I believe this may show that your generalization in this regard is accurate.

I would rather have no person have a godlike dominance over others because I don't believe an "abolute morality" is possible...

if I could be a god and whatever I believed would be AM..then I would take the job..there can be no better or worse AM can there? it simply is what it is..and since being a god would be pretty entertaining, I might take the job over letting someone else have all the fun..

but I don't believe that AM can exist in the way we think of it..see a few posts above for some reasons why..

my conscience does not allow me to desire such a position considering such relative morality....I could of course take the power but never use it to make others go along with my morality..but I don't even trust myself with that /images/graemlins/wink.gif

people who believe that there are absolutes with that regard would probably be tempted to take such a position and believe that their morality is good for the world..but I don't think that it would be.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think that we can prove that there is an AM..

[/ QUOTE ]

That’s probably true.

[ QUOTE ]
suppose that we prove that there is a god that created everything, somehow exists outside of physical realm..didn't need to be created, etc..just like what most people believe...and this god has an opinion on every subject...

we call his opinions "absolute morality?"..that's fine, but it is essentially meaningless..it doesn't change the fact that people have different opinions.

my conscience would not allow me say that something is absolutely wrong and advise against it just because this being believes it to be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing is this - you probably would not disagree with His Absolute Morality. I lean towards AM being all good.

[/ QUOTE ]

are you saying that NO ONE would disagree with his morality? or just me?..either way, it seems bizarre to me..of course people would disagree..what am I missing here?

if you consider that if this god exists, his opinion counts entirely and all other entities opinions do not matter at all, then I can see how you can see his AM as "good"..but I simply can't believe that..do you see how my conscience cannot allow me to believe something like that?

[Aver-aging]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Foresight has everything to do with the usage of moral ideology. We act on the basis of an expected outcome.

[/ QUOTE ]
but that's only of any use once we know which outcomes we prefer. Wact in the way that maximises our preferences - that's not being moral its just being rational. Yes it often involves cooperation but so what?

Those robots from the other thread are cooperating but they're not moral.

I think you're ignoring everything about morality and simply talking about how to best get what we want. that's applied selfishness theory but not about morality.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

My argument relies on the idea that morality is the product of selfishness. Yes, I am creating a semantic restriction for the definition of morality, someone needs to do it.

Is homosexuality immoral? From this perspective, its not actually even an issue of morality, it's just mislabeled that. It's neither conducive to the spread of beneficial ethics, nor damaging to it, therefore it is neither a moral or immoral action. Have you ever noticed how topics like homosexuality are impossible to argue for or against in a moral sense? That is, other than the times when people apply absolutist/biased/irrational standards. I can argue that prejudice against homosexuals is wrong, because that is damaging to the spread of maximally beneficial (or 'equalizing') ethics.

By the way, those robots aren't moral because they don't have the complex neural circuitry that allows them the ability to be creative, or to generate complex representational concepts. Morality is a conceptual representation, created through the influence of genes and developed by experience interpreted in the neocortex (much like the concepts of love, kinship, friendship, etc. - all dimensions of social construct).

I think people apply the term morality to liberally, and that they don't think about what may or may not qualify as a moral dilemma. It's no wonder though, morality has been greatly influenced by religious absolutist ethics. Anything deemed as an issue of morality in those circles immediately becomes so without question. Its my contention that there are actually a limited number of circumstances that can be defined as moral dilemmas, the rest is just misapplied hooey. Just look at the development of moral theory throughout history - we're slowly weeding out what's a moral dilemma and what isn't. It used to be popular to think it was immoral to eat meat on certain holy days - now next to no one abides by that (including devout religious people like Priests). On the other side of the spectrum, it use to be considered moral to disregard people of a 'lower class' if you were in a 'higher class', now in modern society we've moved past that, created more of an equality (egalitarian and co-operative behavior being the most effective and resourceful strategies in EPD tournaments) and we now consider anyone who acts under that principle is a prick (not to say that people don't still behave like that - some definitely do). I can tell you with certainty, that as long as religious absolutism keeps dwindling (and it will for this very argument), that things like homosexuality and harmless casual drug use will no longer be deemed immoral by the general public (or a large portion of the public).

[Aver-aging]

[ QUOTE ]

And if one doesn’t care about the outcome of society then all is moot. Do I still have to read your post?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you think sadists and masochists don't behave 'ethically'? It's because if anyone is a true sadist and masochist combined (and believe me, this is a difficult form of behavior to demonstrate, it is incredibly rare, as it is self destructive) they don't have ethical requirements, and therefore have no ethics. It's something you either have, or you don't. The fact is it relies on the foundational concept that caring about yourself or others is the most important thing to you. You can show that anyone who either cares about him/herself or cares about other people should employ ethical strategies in order to maximize their success in either of those attempts.

Your argument is pointless because you're saying that if someone doesn't have any ethics or morality, it's proof that ethics and morality can't be deduced. That's only proof that not everyone has to have morals or ethics. Wow, what a surprise in an environment that's subject to vast amounts of genetic and conceptual variation. What are you trying to prove by that statement?

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think that we can prove that there is an AM..

[/ QUOTE ]

That’s probably true.

[ QUOTE ]
suppose that we prove that there is a god that created everything, somehow exists outside of physical realm..didn't need to be created, etc..just like what most people believe...and this god has an opinion on every subject...

we call his opinions "absolute morality?"..that's fine, but it is essentially meaningless..it doesn't change the fact that people have different opinions.

my conscience would not allow me say that something is absolutely wrong and advise against it just because this being believes it to be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing is this - you probably would not disagree with His Absolute Morality. I lean towards AM being all good.

[/ QUOTE ]

are you saying that NO ONE would disagree with his morality? or just me?..either way, it seems bizarre to me..of course people would disagree..what am I missing here?

if you consider that if this god exists, his opinion counts entirely and all other entities opinions do not matter at all, then I can see how you can see his AM as "good"..but I simply can't believe that..do you see how my conscience cannot allow me to believe something like that?

[/ QUOTE ]


I am saying that God is all good. His Absolute Morality therefore must be all good. If it really is all good, why would you (any sane person) disagree with it? You can disagree with it, but why would you want to? Why would you say no to good?

Isn’t that akin to saying good is bad? You wouldn’t disagree with God’s AM because it would be illogical to do so. (Of course, too, because you would probably agree with his AM.)

[RJT]

I was not trying to prove anything. It was my understanding you were trying to prove AM. And this proof starts with the premise that one cares about the outcome of society. I was merely pointing out that your premise is if not faulty, then certainly not universal. If it isn’t universal then how can it be absolute?


If I missed your point, then I guess I’ll have to read your post.

[Aver-aging]

[ QUOTE ]
I was mostly just busting his stones,v. He wanted so badly for us to read his post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't try to patronize me, I want feedback on this idea because I'm going to be dedicating a lot of time researching and developing it. I'm trying to create a solid argument to convince people that effective moral strategies need to be discovered, and then taught broadly in the public education system. This means narrowing the semantic definition of morality and ethics, differentiating what is an ethical/moral dilemma and what isn't, researching and discovering effective ethical strategies, and then teaching them to people so society can effectively maintain itself. This is one of my life ambitions, and I don't think it deserves to be belittled. Judgment should never come before comprehension, capiche?

Please get off your high horse, you are not impressing anyone with immature behavior like that.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
My argument relies on the idea that morality is the product of selfishness. Yes, I am creating a semantic restriction for the definition of morality, someone needs to do it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutely, nothing else makes sense but its the selfishness of our genes.

[ QUOTE ]
Is homosexuality immoral? From this perspective, its not actually even an issue of morality, it's just mislabeled that. It's neither conducive to the spread of beneficial ethics, nor damaging to it, therefore it is neither a moral or immoral action. Have you ever noticed how topics like homosexuality are impossible to argue for or against in a moral sense?

[/ QUOTE ]
Agree with the first bit but beneficial ethics is just ignoring the issue, beneficiality is not morality, though we may seek to bring about that wehich we deem moral.

[ QUOTE ]
By the way, those robots aren't moral because they don't have the complex neural circuitry that allows them the ability to be creative, or to generate complex representational concepts. Morality is a conceptual representation, created through the influence of genes and developed by experience interpreted in the neocortex (much like the concepts of love, kinship, friendship, etc. - all dimensions of social construct).

[/ QUOTE ]
Morality is about our sense of right and wrong and caring about others, these robots have no such sense.

[ QUOTE ]
I think people apply the term morality to liberally, and that they don't think about what may or may not qualify as a moral dilemma. It's no wonder though, morality has been greatly influenced by religious absolutist ethics. Anything deemed as an issue of morality in those circles immediately becomes so without question. Its my contention that there are actually a limited number of circumstances that can be defined as moral dilemmas, the rest is just misapplied hooey.

[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutely, but I think you're making a similar mistake. Moral dilemmas are just cases where we're very much against all the options. Rationally the right thing to do is not to worry about solving them but to attempt to avoid them occuring in the first place.

Morality is so simple, sorry if I get impatient, but the only difficult bit is if we have a desire to do something but also the feeling that its wrong then how much should that moral feeling influence what we do. Further, once we realise that we have the feeling because its in the interests of our genes not ourselves then should that make any difference.

The rest is just adding up.

chez

[Aver-aging]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

"At age 5 I acted on the basis of what I felt, at age 70 I acted on the basis of what I knew".


[/ QUOTE ]

1 Corinthians 13:11

When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its my contention that bits of wisdom like this that exist within the bible is the single reason why it's so widespread and followed. Atheists don't often consider it, but many aspects of Catholicism/Christianity/Judaism are actually strategically effective in sustaining co-operation.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think that we can prove that there is an AM..

[/ QUOTE ]

That’s probably true.

[ QUOTE ]
suppose that we prove that there is a god that created everything, somehow exists outside of physical realm..didn't need to be created, etc..just like what most people believe...and this god has an opinion on every subject...

we call his opinions "absolute morality?"..that's fine, but it is essentially meaningless..it doesn't change the fact that people have different opinions.

my conscience would not allow me say that something is absolutely wrong and advise against it just because this being believes it to be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing is this - you probably would not disagree with His Absolute Morality. I lean towards AM being all good.

[/ QUOTE ]

are you saying that NO ONE would disagree with his morality? or just me?..either way, it seems bizarre to me..of course people would disagree..what am I missing here?

if you consider that if this god exists, his opinion counts entirely and all other entities opinions do not matter at all, then I can see how you can see his AM as "good"..but I simply can't believe that..do you see how my conscience cannot allow me to believe something like that?

[/ QUOTE ]


I am saying that God is all good. His Absolute Morality therefore must be all good. If it really is all good, why would you (any sane person) disagree with it? You can disagree with it, but why would you want to? Why would you say no to good?

Isn’t that akin to saying good is bad? You wouldn’t disagree with God’s AM because it would be illogical to do so. (Of course, too, because you would probably agree with his AM.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose that my argument about relative morality is actually also and argument that there is no such thing as one being which can be "all good"..

if we define this god as "all good" that's fine, but I obviously don't believe that this god can exist.

[RJT]

Lighten up. You are the one who came across as immature. Ask anyone. That is why I was busting your stones.

Ok, I’ll give your post a read - tomorrow. I am dead tired now. You would be better off starting a new thread though. It sounds here like your thoughts deserve it. And because they are important to you and you are spending a good amount of time on them. You have come to the right place to bounce off your ideas.

[Aver-aging]

[ QUOTE ]
Lighten up. You are the one who came across as immature. Ask anyone. That is why I was busting your stones.

Ok, I’ll give your post a read - tomorrow. I am dead tired now. You would be better off starting a new thread though. It sounds here like your thoughts deserve it. And because they are important to you and you are spending a good amount of time on them. You have come to the right place to bounce off your ideas.

[/ QUOTE ]

You'll have to excuse me, I get a lot of people who ignore my opinions simply because they don't feel like thinking about it in my everyday life (I am not really surrounded by intellectuals). When I come to a place like this, a place to discuss philosophy and science, and no one pays any attention, a boundary in my mind has been overstepped.

[RJT]

A-a,

[ QUOTE ]
I realize that, but anyone who is discussing ethics obviously cares about the outcome of society, or at least what's best for themselves (in which case, its been proven by Annatole Rappaport [I might have the spelling wrong] that co-operative behavior in even one shot circumstances is beneficial to the individual).

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to disagree. I think we can discuss ethics without necessarily caring about anything. It is interesting solely for theoretical curiosity. It is like trying to prove the existence of God (or non existence). Just because it is probably an impossible task, who doesn’t want to give it a go?

Pretty much all of philosophy is this way, imo. It is mostly just fun stuff - to see where we can go with it.

I am not saying I don’t care about the outcome of society. I could not be Christian and feel that way. But, I am saying that the outcome of society is not the be all and end all for me.

So, if I, as a Christian, can be somewhat apathetic towards society - in the theoretical realm that is - in reality I do care because I love my neighbor - then others certainly can be ethically apathetic and not necessarily be sociopaths.

Perhaps one can discover a perfect set of ethics for society. That is what you seem to be suggesting - if I understand you correctly. That is a valiant goal, imo. But, that is different than absolute ethics or AM, no?

RJT

p.s. Btw, your OP was interesting, albeit a bit above my head. Why not try to start some new threads for discussion?

[kevin017]

i am an athiest, but i can't understand relative morality, even a little bit.

Let's say I kill your wife/spouse/significant other, because I felt like it. That's cool with you?

and where does a relativist get off condeming religions for believing whatever they want to believe regarding morals and relativism? who cares if catholics hate gays or condemn you by their standards, they're right for believing what they believe at the time, right?

[Aver-aging]

[ QUOTE ]
A-a,

[ QUOTE ]
I realize that, but anyone who is discussing ethics obviously cares about the outcome of society, or at least what's best for themselves (in which case, its been proven by Annatole Rappaport [I might have the spelling wrong] that co-operative behavior in even one shot circumstances is beneficial to the individual).

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to disagree. I think we can discuss ethics without necessarily caring about anything. It is interesting solely for theoretical curiosity. It is like trying to prove the existence of God (or non existence). Just because it is probably an impossible task, who doesn’t want to give it a go?

Pretty much all of philosophy is this way, imo. It is mostly just fun stuff - to see where we can go with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you think wasting your time constitutes as a valid excuse? That's my problem with philosophy and those who say they practice it. It translates into the pursuit of wisdom, but how wise is it to argue over something you believe you'll never reach a conclusion for? It's the philosophical myth that just debating things makes you wiser. The fact is that it doesn't, it just makes you better at rhetoric. So, in essence it just makes you better at defending arguments that probably have little to no evidence for support.

To say that you think you'll never understand ethics is simply ignorant. What makes ethics different than anything else? How is it different that a badger has big claws to dig holes and that humans have big brains to think up ethics? Why are you putting ethics and morality on a high horse? If you believe that science can lead to answers, why are you ignoring taking a scientific approach in understanding morality and ethics? (If you believe that, that is).

This is why I hate the practice of philosophy so much. It is such a waste of time because everyone who practices it thinks the big philosophical questions are unanswerable. Philosophy could be such a respectable field of study, but instead people waste their time debating pointless questions over and over again until their too exhausted to continue. How was wise is that? Seriously. Philosophers wonder why people don't give them any respect in society, its because they so often squander time being useless to society.

Even if you want to discuss ethics for intellectual curiosity, you should still be doing it correctly. Ask yourself the important questions and go from there. What can ethics be used for? How can it be defined? What's the difference between ethics in separate or similar cultures? Take an investigative approach into these questions before delving into the rhetoric of it. You're supposed to argue things that have evidence supporting both sides, not things that have no evidence, no semantic definition and no practical research involved. Its time we told the ancient Greeks to screw off, their method of rhetoric was created before scientific investigation was the standard practice to discovering anything. It's time to evolve out of that.

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps one can discover a perfect set of ethics for society. That is what you seem to be suggesting - if I understand you correctly. That is a valiant goal, imo. But, that is different than absolute ethics or AM, no?

RJT

p.s. Btw, your OP was interesting, albeit a bit above my head. Why not try to start some new threads for discussion?

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a potential that you can institute maximally efficient ethics for any type of society. Egalitarianism, for example, constitutes raising the net amount of resources accumulated (however, at that point, managing those resources properly becomes another dilemma). For any type of society you can specialize ethics in order to increase the likelihood of that society's survival, its ability to work with other societies, and the ability for a society's population to sustain itself. It is different than absolute morality, because absolute morality technically does not make any sense.

I'll probably open up a new thread to get some more feedback on my initial idea though, eventually.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
So you think wasting your time constitutes as a valid excuse?

[/ QUOTE ]

Valid excuse for what? I am not following you. And I am not saying it is wasting time – I am saying it is passing time.

[ QUOTE ]
That's my problem with philosophy and those who say they practice it. It translates into the pursuit of wisdom, but how wise is it to argue over something you believe you'll never reach a conclusion for?

[/ QUOTE ]

Look at it like studying literature. How many times can we go over Hamlet’s soliloquy? Yet, folk do and make careers of such things. Are they fools? I think not. It is their passion is all.

[ QUOTE ]
It's the philosophical myth that just debating things makes you wiser. The fact is that it doesn't, it just makes you better at rhetoric. So, in essence it just makes you better at defending arguments that probably have little to no evidence for support.

[/ QUOTE ]
Right, it makes one think quicker/easier perhaps better – not necessarily smarter. Again, it is just mind exercise. Nothing wrong with that. Just like physical exercise – makes one more agile, stronger, etc. So long as one doesn’t take the whole ting seriously, no harm. Kind of like sports – people take such things so seriously (you are not exempt here, chez). Sports are big business. But, sports don’t mean anything.

[ QUOTE ]
To say that you think you'll never understand ethics is simply ignorant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did I say that?

[ QUOTE ]
Even if you want to discuss ethics for intellectual curiosity, you should still be doing it correctly. Ask yourself the important questions and go from there. What can ethics be used for? How can it be defined? What's the difference between ethics in separate or similar cultures? Take an investigative approach into these questions before delving into the rhetoric of it. You're supposed to argue things that have evidence supporting both sides, not things that have no evidence, no semantic definition and no practical research involved. Its time we told the ancient Greeks to screw off, their method of rhetoric was created before scientific investigation was the standard practice to discovering anything. It's time to evolve out of that.

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps, you misunderstood me. I really don’t discuss ethics much – if at all. I have chosen my set of ethics. It is my Christianity. I work towards always trying to become a better Christian. Not an easy task by any means.

[ QUOTE ]
There's a potential that you can institute maximally efficient ethics for any type of society. Egalitarianism, for example, constitutes raising the net amount of resources accumulated (however, at that point, managing those resources properly becomes another dilemma). For any type of society you can specialize ethics in order to increase the likelihood of that society's survival, its ability to work with other societies, and the ability for a society's population to sustain itself. It is different than absolute morality, because absolute morality technically does not make any sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to be taking an approach that I think is very analogous to Economics. Your study of ethics relative towards making society work better is similar to how economists try to make society work perfectly. (I can explain what I am trying to say here more, if it unclear.) Seems like a good approach.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
i am an athiest, but i can't understand relative morality, even a little bit.

Let's say I kill your wife/spouse/significant other, because I felt like it. That's cool with you?

and where does a relativist get off condeming religions for believing whatever they want to believe regarding morals and relativism? who cares if catholics hate gays or condemn you by their standards, they're right for believing what they believe at the time, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not cool at all. Its immoral, according to me and the society I live in. Yer ass is getting thrown in prison. At your trial, I will be unable to say what you did was absolutely immoral. I won't miss it.

[Aver-aging]

Okay, I'm going to try taking this away from a dissection style.. I hate making arguments that way.

I knew you never said philosophy is wasting time, I am saying that it is wasting time. I'm saying that philosophy needs to be restructured in a way to make it a productive field of study. Pursuing wisdom is a valiant cause, but what most people who study philosophy practice is not the pursuit of wisdom, but the pursuit of mental agility. Yes, I am resorting to a semantic argument here.

Also, my contention is that people who study literature that has been looked over by countless individuals (like Shakespeare) are wasting their time. I hate literature, and I hate the typical approach that it takes. I consider wastes of mental energy like that to immoral, if you care about society. There are better and more productive things to think about than literature and pointless philosophical arguments.

Philosophy is not analogous to sports. Sports is a way to keep your body in shape, philosophy, however, does not keep your mind in shape. Most people who study philosophy waste their time on frivolous questions that can't be answered because the questions were asked without direction or intent in mind. Does it make me better at rhetoric? Yes. But does it make me wiser? Hell no, just more capable of avoiding wisdom. And also, the fact is, some people do take philosophy quite seriously and waste too much time on really bad questions with really bad approaches (see how many posts that Cobert [sp?] guy has made in the past few days? That's a huge waste of time and energy).

Most of the things I said don't directly apply to you, and I was speaking in generalities most of the time. You may not spend a lot of time discussing ethics, but many people who study philosophy do.

As for your comment is about how my ethics approach is similar to an economists approach, you are quite correct. Ethics can be perfected, just like the economy can. It just takes a rigorously detailed understanding of it to come to the correct methodologies.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
As for your comment is about how my ethics approach is similar to an economists approach, you are quite correct. Ethics can be perfected, just like the economy can. It just takes a rigorously detailed understanding of it to come to the correct methodologies.

[/ QUOTE ]
Whilst this is probably untrue in that perfect methodologies probably don't exist any more than perfectly combed balls do, it's also missing the point.

Methodologies can only begin to be applied once you have decided what you're trying to do, so a simplistic utilitarinan might try to maximise happiness for all and work out methodologies for doing so, but whether or not we want to maximise happiness for all in this way is the moral question we need to answer in the first place.

There's also the necessary theoretical bit which is where economists proves stuff like increasing the money supply is inflationary or Jill will tumble down the hill with Jack. Philosophy is often concerned with similar matters, I think that's the bit RJT is interested in.

chez

[Aver-aging]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As for your comment is about how my ethics approach is similar to an economists approach, you are quite correct. Ethics can be perfected, just like the economy can. It just takes a rigorously detailed understanding of it to come to the correct methodologies.

[/ QUOTE ]
Whilst this is probably untrue in that perfect methodologies probably don't exist any more than perfectly combed balls do, it's also missing the point.

Methodologies can only begin to be applied once you have decided what you're trying to do, so a simplistic utilitarinan might try to maximise happiness for all and work out methodologies for doing so, but whether or not we want to maximise happiness for all in this way is the moral question we need to answer in the first place.

There's also the necessary theoretical bit which is where economists proves stuff like increasing the money supply is inflationary or Jill will tumble down the hill with Jack. Philosophy is often concerned with similar matters, I think that's the bit RJT is interested in.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

My contention is that the purpose and aim of ethics has already been decided by nature, and we just have to take the courage to semantically define our goal with ethics and align it with nature's. I can make the argument (and have, several times) that ethics are specific to a culture's need to maximize resources and increase the likelihood of survival for everyone in that society (and without sacrificing individual welfare) while sustaining co-operation amongst all separate bodies, whether it be between societies or individuals. Low-resource aboriginal groups exemplify the aspects of a society with 'perfect ethics' (albeit lacking in the modern world, slightly) because of the extreme ecological pressure imposed on them from their low-subsistence lifestyle. The answer to the question of deciding what you're trying to do has already been answered by nature, and all it takes is the ability to just look back at history and make the connection.

And perfect methodologies do exist, but its the combination of different ethical methodologies that sustains co-operative behavior. The ultimate ethical methodology is to influence people to behave using slightly different ethical strategies (genes that direct people in certain ethical directions have already taken care of half the battle). My contention is that society should sustain a mixture of ethical strategies similar to the most effective strategies in EPD tournaments (GRIM, TFT, GTFT, PAVLOV and DOWNING) in order to maximize resources (afterwards the issue becomes managing those resources), increase the likelihood of individual survival, and doing this while sustaining co-operative behavior as best as possible (and this gets extremely tricky, because sometimes it means being uncooperative). I'm not advocating a Golden Rule, I'm advocating Golden Rules. Flexibility and variation are the most important aspects of sustaining co-operative behavior, it's just that it needs to be narrowed down to the proper combination of a few strategies.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
My contention is that the purpose and aim of ethics has already been decided by nature, and we just have to take the courage to semantically define our goal with ethics and align it with nature's

[/ QUOTE ]
Others will disagree with your view, I agree that its been decided by nature but almost certainly disagree with you about what has been decided.

This is the subject of morality. Just insisting you're right will get you nowhere and your methodologies (even assuming they exist in principle) will fail in practice because of the need to coerce those who profoundly disagree with you.

chez

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, my contention is that people who study literature that has been looked over by countless individuals (like Shakespeare) are wasting their time. I hate literature, and I hate the typical approach that it takes. I consider wastes of mental energy like that to immoral, if you care about society. There are better and more productive things to think about than literature and pointless philosophical arguments.

[/ QUOTE ]

No there aren’t more important things. Love, beauty, passion, art, theater, music - that is life. Man cannot live by bread alone. Perhaps, I should say I don’t want to live by bread alone. I don’t want to live in an ivory tower even if everyone on earth lived in the same ivory tower. I want color and drama - I want Caravaggio and Delacroix and Scorcese.

Your stoicism and your goals relative to it are admirable. But, it is only one way to approach life and society. Your goal seems to be to form a perfect society. To what end? It seems to me for the longevity of the human race - for survival.

I have on a number of occasions asked here on SMP why folk are so concerned with man’s survival. If I am understanding you correctly - and this is THE question you are concerned with, then let’s start a new thread and talk about it. I have been wanting to discuss this idea for some time - you sound like the perfect apologists for such a position.

Basically, what we are talking about is this: What is/should be man’s ultimate goal(s) in life?

Sample answers - survival, procreation, help others, make money, sex/drugs and rock and roll, cure diseases, get into Heaven.

p.s. Regarding ethics already being decided by nature - even if this is the case, we are thinking animals. We are not bound but what nature has decided. We have the ability to say NO to anything that we have been “programmed” to be.

[Guyute]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i am an athiest, but i can't understand relative morality, even a little bit.

Let's say I kill your wife/spouse/significant other, because I felt like it. That's cool with you?

and where does a relativist get off condeming religions for believing whatever they want to believe regarding morals and relativism? who cares if catholics hate gays or condemn you by their standards, they're right for believing what they believe at the time, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not cool at all. Its immoral, according to me and the society I live in. Yer ass is getting thrown in prison. At your trial, I will be unable to say what you did was absolutely immoral. I won't miss it.

[/ QUOTE ]


But Kevin's point still goes through, though on a wider level. If your entire society deems random killings acceptable (or systematic mass killings of an arbitrary class of people), then the relativist is committed to saying that the what is actually morally right is to follow the society. Only an absolutist about morality has the ability to say that an entire society is acting immorally.

I don't doubt that in this fictional society where random killings are permissible that people will not think of the actions as wrong, but from an outsider's perspective, I think we can be fairly certain that the society has immoral practices in place.

The point can be made with reference to our own countries ethical practices over time. It used to be that women did not have equal rights and African-Americans were considered 3/5ths of a person. Fortunately, this is no longer the case. But the relativists who thinks morals are dictated by the standards of the community is committed to the claim that there has been no progress in our ethical practices over time, since morality just is whatever the community says it is. It is only if there is a extra-community standard for morality that we can have genuine moral progress as well as genuine moral disagreement.

[Guyute]

"to our own country's ethical practices". sorry.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
The point can be made with reference to our own countries ethical practices over time. It used to be that women did not have equal rights and African-Americans were considered 3/5ths of a person. Fortunately, this is no longer the case. But the relativists who thinks morals are dictated by the standards of the community is committed to the claim that there has been no progress in our ethical practices over time, since morality just is whatever the community says it is. It is only if there is a extra-community standard for morality that we can have genuine moral progress as well as genuine moral disagreement.

[/ QUOTE ]
Doesn't it just mean there is no objective progress?.

We can still have moral disagreements, e.g guantamalo bay causes much moral disagrement but doesn't imply objective morality.

chez

[Guyute]

Could you clarify what the alternatives are to objective moral progress? When I think of moral progress, I think of a community whose moral practices are getting closer in line with the correct moral practices (whatever those might be, I don't know). I'm open to other notions of progress, just not sure what they are.

And the problem of moral disagreement is that I just don't see how we can be having a disagreement about morals unless there is a standard outside of community. The relativist, it seems to me, is left saying that the disagreement about the morality of the acts Gitmo are just disagreements about what our own society thinks about those acts, since it is the opinions of the society that in the end determine what is and is not moral. This seems to mischaracterize the nature of the debate; it seems to me that the disagreements are over whether those actions are permissible given the circumstances.

(disclaimer: I am not making any claims on what actions are moral, only on the status of moral properties and moral claims.)

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Could you clarify what the alternatives are to objective moral progress? When I think of moral progress, I think of a community whose moral practices are getting closer in line with the correct moral practices (whatever those might be, I don't know). I'm open to other notions of progress, just not sure what they are.

[/ QUOTE ]
The alternative is people prefering one thing to another. considered slavery - considered freedom - prefer freedom hence believe it was progress to abolish it.

[ QUOTE ]
And the problem of moral disagreement is that I just don't see how we can be having a disagreement about morals unless there is a standard outside of community.

[/ QUOTE ]
Call it agreement if you like. We can agree that some 2+2ers think its wrong not to nuke N.Korea and other think its would be wrong to nuke N.Korea.

[ QUOTE ]
it seems to me, is left saying that the disagreement about the morality of the acts Gitmo are just disagreements about what our own society thinks about those acts, since it is the opinions of the society that in the end determine what is and is not moral.

[/ QUOTE ]
Society doesn't determine anything about morals though many are influence by the society in which they live. Rape isn't immoral because its illegal, its illegal because the overwhelming opinion is that its wrong.

chez

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i am an athiest, but i can't understand relative morality, even a little bit.

Let's say I kill your wife/spouse/significant other, because I felt like it. That's cool with you?

and where does a relativist get off condeming religions for believing whatever they want to believe regarding morals and relativism? who cares if catholics hate gays or condemn you by their standards, they're right for believing what they believe at the time, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not cool at all. Its immoral, according to me and the society I live in. Yer ass is getting thrown in prison. At your trial, I will be unable to say what you did was absolutely immoral. I won't miss it.

[/ QUOTE ]


But Kevin's point still goes through, though on a wider level. If your entire society deems random killings acceptable (or systematic mass killings of an arbitrary class of people), then the relativist is committed to saying that the what is actually morally right is to follow the society. Only an absolutist about morality has the ability to say that an entire society is acting immorally.

I don't doubt that in this fictional society where random killings are permissible that people will not think of the actions as wrong, but from an outsider's perspective, I think we can be fairly certain that the society has immoral practices in place.

The point can be made with reference to our own countries ethical practices over time. It used to be that women did not have equal rights and African-Americans were considered 3/5ths of a person. Fortunately, this is no longer the case. But the relativists who thinks morals are dictated by the standards of the community is committed to the claim that there has been no progress in our ethical practices over time, since morality just is whatever the community says it is. It is only if there is a extra-community standard for morality that we can have genuine moral progress as well as genuine moral disagreement.

[/ QUOTE ]

His point doesn't 'still stand.' He is right, I cannot say that those actions are absolutely wrong. Nor can you, of course. You might think that you can, but you are almost certainly wrong. You just make the CLAIM that you can. I don't. And we both agree that it doesn't matter a lick in practice.

If everyone agreed that random killings were ok, they would be ok, for all intents and purposes. Heck...they might actually BE ok. I don't think they are, but I don't know what the absolute morality is. What is random killing and rape really IS absolutely moral? Would that matter to you? What if we found out that God and an absolute morality DO exist, and that rape is absolutely moral. What does that do for us as a society? Do we legalize rape? I doubt it.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
His point doesn't 'still stand.' He is right, I cannot say that those actions are absolutely wrong. Nor can you, of course. You might think that you can, but you are almost certainly wrong. You just make the CLAIM that you can. I don't. And we both agree that it doesn't matter a lick in practice.

If everyone agreed that random killings were ok, they would be ok, for all intents and purposes. Heck...they might actually BE ok. I don't think they are, but I don't know what the absolute morality is. What is random killing and rape really IS absolutely moral? Would that matter to you? What if we found out that God and an absolute morality DO exist, and that rape is absolutely moral. What does that do for us as a society? Do we legalize rape? I doubt it.

Post Extras



[/ QUOTE ]

This is deja vu. When I recently got my dui, my mother’s bishop descended on me and gave me a lecture on absolute morality ( after I told him I was agnostic ). He brought up the exact scenario, of what happens if everyone in a particular society deems it ok to randomly kill fellow members? His point was that only God can be the final arbiter, in such a situation, of absolute morals.

My response was similar to a response long ago on these posts, by Maurile. I told him that his God could make rules. Those rules may be good for some, but bad for others and I gave him some examples of bad Mormon rules, apparently dictated by God. I acquiesced that it is possible that certain situations may have absolute morals attached to them, but if so, those morals would hold true regardless of what anyone in the universe thought, including God. If absolute morals exist, which I doubt, then certainly they exist independently of the Mormon God or the orthodox Christian God, or any other God that man has created.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
His point doesn't 'still stand.' He is right, I cannot say that those actions are absolutely wrong. Nor can you, of course. You might think that you can, but you are almost certainly wrong. You just make the CLAIM that you can. I don't. And we both agree that it doesn't matter a lick in practice.

If everyone agreed that random killings were ok, they would be ok, for all intents and purposes. Heck...they might actually BE ok. I don't think they are, but I don't know what the absolute morality is. What is random killing and rape really IS absolutely moral? Would that matter to you? What if we found out that God and an absolute morality DO exist, and that rape is absolutely moral. What does that do for us as a society? Do we legalize rape? I doubt it.

Post Extras



[/ QUOTE ]

This is deja vu. When I recently got my dui, my mother’s bishop descended on me and gave me a lecture on absolute morality ( after I told him I was agnostic ). He brought up the exact scenario, of what happens if everyone in a particular society deems it ok to randomly kill fellow members? His point was that only God can be the final arbiter, in such a situation, of absolute morals.

My response was similar to a response long ago on these posts, by Maurile. I told him that his God could make rules. Those rules may be good for some, but bad for others and I gave him some examples of bad Mormon rules, apparently dictated by God. I acquiesced that it is possible that certain situations may have absolute morals attached to them, but if so, those morals would hold true regardless of what anyone in the universe thought, including God. If absolute morals exist, which I doubt, then certainly they exist independently of the Mormon God or the orthodox Christian God, or any other God that man has created.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly, which is why these examples of "What happens if everyone decides rape is ok" are silly. The better counter to that example is, "Ok, well, what if rape IS absolutely moral?"

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
Exactly, which is why these examples of "What happens if everyone decides rape is ok" are silly. The better counter to that example is, "Ok, well, what if rape IS absolutely moral?"

Post Extras


[/ QUOTE ]

Well then a great deal of seemingly good, seemingly rational human beings would be immoral. Would this be a bad thing from strictly our human perspective? After my mother’s bishop listened to my rebuttal, he smiled at me and pleasantly told me that I was hurting his head. I can certainly share his sentiment in regards to this type of discussion. My whole point is if I did something bad, then discuss it with me. Driving while drunk is a horrible thing. But don’t point a finger at me and try to invoke your will on me by pretending to understand absolute morality. It is something that can’t be understood, if it exists at all.

[kevin017]

[ QUOTE ]
Exactly, which is why these examples of "What happens if everyone decides rape is ok" are silly. The better counter to that example is, "Ok, well, what if rape IS absolutely moral?"

[/ QUOTE ]

This is silly. morality is based on logic. the reason your example makes sense is because we cannot fathom how rape could possibly be moral. If we were provided with a logical explanation for why rape was moral, i bet society would change its position.

ok, let me go back to my original question. I kill your wife. You lock me up. What gives you the authority to lock me up, and why is that ok? What makes you correct for doing anything at all to me? It seems to me as though your original answer is saying "I am deciding that your morality is not suitable to me so I will judge it wrong and lock you up." or did i get that wrong?

[mvdgaag]

It seems most religious people tend to think concepts like morality cannot exist without it's creator (a lot of morality is claimed by religion). Therefore they believe that atheist people lack all the morality that originated (or is claimed to originate) from that religion and are beasts. Sometimes I think what they really mean to say is: "If I'm not bound to my religious morals I am a beast."

Most strongly religious people cannot see that they can have moral opinions if they were not religiously obligated ones. Therefore they cannot understand that morality is not absolute (because the truth of their religion is absolute for them) and therefore they choose to battle against any other morality. This goes as far as waging war.

Morality in a religious sense leads to war.

[Guyute]

There are ethical issues at two levels of abstraction here.

At one level are questions of normative ethics - what is right and what is wrong. I have made no claims about normative ethics, and no claims that I know what is right and what is wrong.

One level up, however, are questions of meta-ethics - is there right and is there wrong. It is here that I am making my claim that there is in fact a right answer when it comes to moral questions. I make these claims not based on the belief or hope that my moral beliefs are absolutely true, but rather because it seems to me that the arguments are much stronger for a non-relativistic morality. It is only a non-relativistic morality that captures much of what it seems needs to be captured by a meta-ethical theory: tolerance of some communities, no tolerance of others, the capacity for genuine moral disagreement, the capacity for moral progress.

It seems to me that the only position other than absolutism about morality is the one chezlaw seems to be advocating, one of no moral truths at all, sometimes called emotivism. I personally find this theory untenable, but there are decent arguments supporting it that are quite difficult to respond to. However, if it turns out that the arguments are stronger for emotivism, I would be forced to change my views.

[Aver-aging]

[ QUOTE ]

No there aren’t more important things. Love, beauty, passion, art, theater, music - that is life. Man cannot live by bread alone. Perhaps, I should say I don’t want to live by bread alone. I don’t want to live in an ivory tower even if everyone on earth lived in the same ivory tower. I want color and drama - I want Caravaggio and Delacroix and Scorcese.

Your stoicism and your goals relative to it are admirable. But, it is only one way to approach life and society. Your goal seems to be to form a perfect society. To what end? It seems to me for the longevity of the human race - for survival.

I have on a number of occasions asked here on SMP why folk are so concerned with man’s survival. If I am understanding you correctly - and this is THE question you are concerned with, then let’s start a new thread and talk about it. I have been wanting to discuss this idea for some time - you sound like the perfect apologists for such a position.

Basically, what we are talking about is this: What is/should be man’s ultimate goal(s) in life?

Sample answers - survival, procreation, help others, make money, sex/drugs and rock and roll, cure diseases, get into Heaven.

p.s. Regarding ethics already being decided by nature - even if this is the case, we are thinking animals. We are not bound but what nature has decided. We have the ability to say NO to anything that we have been “programmed” to be.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just want to go along with nature, and the process of life. I realize that we have the potential to say 'No' to nature, but really, can we? Do most people? Do most people NOT have sex? Do most people NOT care about survival?

I want to make a theory of living that is accessible to EVERYONE. The fact is, everyone possesses (well, aside from those incredibly different genetic anomalies that eventually don't have success in reproducing) the innate things that drive a human being, or any living organism - genetic survival.

Why create a lifestyle based on anything else? This one aspect of life that pervades every single society, and every single individual. Constructing an ethics system around anything but genetic survival would be the equivalent of ramming your head into a brick wall. Your reasoning, and many others is this "I mean, I know a sledgehammer works, but why not use your head to break it down?" I prefer choosing the path of least friction when attempting to build anything. Building a system of ethics is no different. Society requires a code of ethics to live by, it's ingrained in the dynamics of group behavior, so there's no avoiding it. If you build an ethics system on anything but genetic survival/procreation, you are literally fighting against the force that drives life. The desire to survive is universal throughout time, and no other belief or desire is. No matter what, nature will ensure that people who survive will be the people who want to survive.

By the way, my comment about literature is to be applied to it's acceptance as academic study. I don't mind people doing whatever they want to do in their leisure time, I have a many leisure hobbies that are... well, futile to my goals, but I enjoy them. But, I mean, how many hours have I wasted away in an English class throughout my entire life pouring over mundane, recycled arguments over what Hamlet felt? I didn't have a choice of whether or not I had to go, my education required it. I don't mind being introduced to English (or any leisure subject) as a topic of study, but eventually I get to age where it seems kind of futile if I don't want to put time into it. I am a very experimental person, I enjoy variety in life. I enjoy Love, Art, Poetry, Music, what have you, I just don't enjoy it when they are the focus of my education when many more important things should be (like staying happy, staying creative, staying knowledgeable, and having a desire to learn, understand and reason).

[Aver-aging]

[ QUOTE ]

Others will disagree with your view, I agree that its been decided by nature but almost certainly disagree with you about what has been decided.

This is the subject of morality. Just insisting you're right will get you nowhere and your methodologies (even assuming they exist in principle) will fail in practice because of the need to coerce those who profoundly disagree with you.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

If you haven't read my reply to RJT, I suggest you do so. My argument is to choose the path of least friction - which is designing an ethics system around the innate need for survival and genetic proliferation.

It is a form of absolute morality, mainly because this is the only form of ethics that can survive indefinitely. Nature assures that people who want to survive and pass on their genes are the ones who do so (want might not be the right word, because sometimes the knowledge doesn't have to be self-known for the strategy to be successful. In a sense though, the genes still 'want' to be passed on by adopting a covert strategy like that). A person may not 'want' to survive, reproduce, etc. (like a priest) but isn't that why they remain the minority? The success of this strategy if applied, understood and consistently revised is absolute.

If you can create the argument that there is another ethical strategy that is more pervasive, more simple to sustain and more efficient, I would like to hear it. In fact, I would probably abide by it.

You have to realize, that the form I am presenting you is incredibly basic. The real balance of strategies is incredibly difficult to understand, because its interrelated to so many other aspects of life. The ethics that you apply to a certain society might be different than the ethics you apply to a another type of society, it would be an issue of demographics, economy, genetic tendencies of the population, existing ethical systems, geography, social institutions, etc. The ethics to ensure the maximum likelihood of survival would look different when applied to different groups of people. Maximum efficiency through ethics is possible though, as the low-resource aboriginal tribes throughout the world can show us. The trick is just coming up with an ethics system in such a diverse and changing world. It would obviously, as demographics, economy, etc. change, be subject to constant revision and change.

I realize that this is what's already going on in the world, the selection of ethical ideologies, I just want to speed up the process by bringing it to everyone's attention. The moral revolution needs to catch up the technological revolution... it is waaaaayyyy behind. It's time we start understanding ourselves, and apply a goal that suits everyone unilaterally.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Others will disagree with your view, I agree that its been decided by nature but almost certainly disagree with you about what has been decided.

This is the subject of morality. Just insisting you're right will get you nowhere and your methodologies (even assuming they exist in principle) will fail in practice because of the need to coerce those who profoundly disagree with you.

chez


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



If you haven't read my reply to RJT, I suggest you do so. My argument is to choose the path of least friction - which is designing an ethics system around the innate need for survival and genetic proliferation.

[/ QUOTE ]
I can't disagree with your choice, that's up to you but its of no particular relevence to me or most others. Survival is low down the list and I couldn't give a monkies about genetic proliferation - but that's just me. Truth, justice, tolerance etc would be on my list.

[ QUOTE ]
If you can create the argument that there is another ethical strategy that is more pervasive, more simple to sustain and more efficient, I would like to hear it. In fact, I would probably abide by it.

[/ QUOTE ]
more pervasive - people maximising their happiness.
simple - don't care much.
max efficiency - I'm against it's usually bad.

So even if your stratagies could achieve what you want, how do they handle those who want something completely different?

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
There are ethical issues at two levels of abstraction here.

At one level are questions of normative ethics - what is right and what is wrong. I have made no claims about normative ethics, and no claims that I know what is right and what is wrong.

One level up, however, are questions of meta-ethics - is there right and is there wrong. It is here that I am making my claim that there is in fact a right answer when it comes to moral questions. I make these claims not based on the belief or hope that my moral beliefs are absolutely true, but rather because it seems to me that the arguments are much stronger for a non-relativistic morality. It is only a non-relativistic morality that captures much of what it seems needs to be captured by a meta-ethical theory: tolerance of some communities, no tolerance of others, the capacity for genuine moral disagreement, the capacity for moral progress.

It seems to me that the only position other than absolutism about morality is the one chezlaw seems to be advocating, one of no moral truths at all, sometimes called emotivism. I personally find this theory untenable, but there are decent arguments supporting it that are quite difficult to respond to. However, if it turns out that the arguments are stronger for emotivism, I would be forced to change my views.

[/ QUOTE ]
but all those things you say are evidence of an absolute morality are at least as easily explained without one - they just aren't absolute.

and there's no source for this mythical absolutism whereas the emotivism is completely explained.

and, as has ben pointed out many times, even if an absolute morality exists there's no method of deciding which side of any disagreement is the absolutely correct one so we're stuck with whatver we believe is the absolutely correct morality which is, of course, exactly the same as the emotive belief.

btw: I think emotivism is misleading, there's good reasons why we have these emotions but its because they are a good solution not because of any absolute right or wrong.

chez

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Exactly, which is why these examples of "What happens if everyone decides rape is ok" are silly. The better counter to that example is, "Ok, well, what if rape IS absolutely moral?"

[/ QUOTE ]

This is silly. morality is based on logic. the reason your example makes sense is because we cannot fathom how rape could possibly be moral. If we were provided with a logical explanation for why rape was moral, i bet society would change its position.

ok, let me go back to my original question. I kill your wife. You lock me up. What gives you the authority to lock me up, and why is that ok? What makes you correct for doing anything at all to me? It seems to me as though your original answer is saying "I am deciding that your morality is not suitable to me so I will judge it wrong and lock you up." or did i get that wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, you've got it exactly right.

EDIT: Except that of course, morality cannot be based on logic. Logic is a tool, and its application must be based on something. If morality is contingent on some logical conclusion from pre-existing premises, its not absolute. Why is homosexuality logically immoral?

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
On another forum I post on, we are having a debate about absolute morality. I'm pretty much the only atheist there, so I'm a little outnumbered. But the question I seem to keep asking is, why do we care about an absolute morality? I mean, they are saying that morality, in order to be absolute, must be compared to some absolute standard, i.e. God. Ok...and then? Why is this a beneficial approach to morality? It seems to me they are terrified that someone might come along and say 'Rape isn't wrong.' By holding on to absolute morality with their fingernails.

Whats the big deal? We wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a universe WITH an absolute morality and one without anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]


Do you think rape isn't wrong? And if you do think it's wrong. Why?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
On another forum I post on, we are having a debate about absolute morality. I'm pretty much the only atheist there, so I'm a little outnumbered. But the question I seem to keep asking is, why do we care about an absolute morality? I mean, they are saying that morality, in order to be absolute, must be compared to some absolute standard, i.e. God. Ok...and then? Why is this a beneficial approach to morality? It seems to me they are terrified that someone might come along and say 'Rape isn't wrong.' By holding on to absolute morality with their fingernails.

Whats the big deal? We wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a universe WITH an absolute morality and one without anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]


Do you think rape isn't wrong? And if you do think it's wrong. Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because how else can we have a functioning society? Its only wrong in that allowing people to randomly infringe upon the rights of others, specifically by attacking them, is not conducive to a functioning society. If you want a functioning society, rape has gotta go.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
On another forum I post on, we are having a debate about absolute morality. I'm pretty much the only atheist there, so I'm a little outnumbered. But the question I seem to keep asking is, why do we care about an absolute morality? I mean, they are saying that morality, in order to be absolute, must be compared to some absolute standard, i.e. God. Ok...and then? Why is this a beneficial approach to morality? It seems to me they are terrified that someone might come along and say 'Rape isn't wrong.' By holding on to absolute morality with their fingernails.

Whats the big deal? We wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a universe WITH an absolute morality and one without anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]


Do you think rape isn't wrong? And if you do think it's wrong. Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because how else can we have a functioning society? Its only wrong in that allowing people to randomly infringe upon the rights of others, specifically by attacking them, is not conducive to a functioning society. If you want a functioning society, rape has gotta go.

[/ QUOTE ]

What does that mean 'functioning society'? And why should it matter?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
On another forum I post on, we are having a debate about absolute morality. I'm pretty much the only atheist there, so I'm a little outnumbered. But the question I seem to keep asking is, why do we care about an absolute morality? I mean, they are saying that morality, in order to be absolute, must be compared to some absolute standard, i.e. God. Ok...and then? Why is this a beneficial approach to morality? It seems to me they are terrified that someone might come along and say 'Rape isn't wrong.' By holding on to absolute morality with their fingernails.

Whats the big deal? We wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a universe WITH an absolute morality and one without anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]


Do you think rape isn't wrong? And if you do think it's wrong. Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because how else can we have a functioning society? Its only wrong in that allowing people to randomly infringe upon the rights of others, specifically by attacking them, is not conducive to a functioning society. If you want a functioning society, rape has gotta go.

[/ QUOTE ]

What does that mean 'functioning society'? And why should it matter?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, this is where I depart from vhawk. I dont give didly-squat whether or not rape is wrong, I'm just against it because of empathy with the victims and lack of empathy with the rapists.

even if society functioned better with rapists I would be against it.

chez

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you think rape isn't wrong? And if you do think it's wrong. Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because how else can we have a functioning society? Its only wrong in that allowing people to randomly infringe upon the rights of others, specifically by attacking them, is not conducive to a functioning society. If you want a functioning society, rape has gotta go.

[/ QUOTE ]

What does that mean 'functioning society'? And why should it matter?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, this is where I depart from vhawk. I dont give didly-squat whether or not rape is wrong, I'm just against it because of empathy with the victims and lack of empathy with the rapists.

even if society functioned better with rapists I would be against it.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]


Do you think this is a biological belief in morality?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
On another forum I post on, we are having a debate about absolute morality. I'm pretty much the only atheist there, so I'm a little outnumbered. But the question I seem to keep asking is, why do we care about an absolute morality? I mean, they are saying that morality, in order to be absolute, must be compared to some absolute standard, i.e. God. Ok...and then? Why is this a beneficial approach to morality? It seems to me they are terrified that someone might come along and say 'Rape isn't wrong.' By holding on to absolute morality with their fingernails.

Whats the big deal? We wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a universe WITH an absolute morality and one without anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]


Do you think rape isn't wrong? And if you do think it's wrong. Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because how else can we have a functioning society? Its only wrong in that allowing people to randomly infringe upon the rights of others, specifically by attacking them, is not conducive to a functioning society. If you want a functioning society, rape has gotta go.

[/ QUOTE ]

What does that mean 'functioning society'? And why should it matter?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, this is where I depart from vhawk. I dont give didly-squat whether or not rape is wrong, I'm just against it because of empathy with the victims and lack of empathy with the rapists.

even if society functioned better with rapists I would be against it.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]


Actually, this is right, and this really is more the reason that I think rape is wrong.

[Nielsio]

And if this is a biological belief. What does that say about the people who do act in such behaviour?

[kevin017]

[ QUOTE ]


Nope, you've got it exactly right.

EDIT: Except that of course, morality cannot be based on logic. Logic is a tool, and its application must be based on something. If morality is contingent on some logical conclusion from pre-existing premises, its not absolute. Why is homosexuality logically immoral?

[/ QUOTE ]

lol. maybe i'm just tired, but i've totally lost your point. I'm having trouble identifying what your belief in relativism actually practically changes. it seems to me as though you believe the same thing as an absolutist except instead of saying your judgements are "absolute" you tack a * on the end and say "not absolute but 99.99%", as though that's actually a substantial change.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you think rape isn't wrong? And if you do think it's wrong. Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because how else can we have a functioning society? Its only wrong in that allowing people to randomly infringe upon the rights of others, specifically by attacking them, is not conducive to a functioning society. If you want a functioning society, rape has gotta go.

[/ QUOTE ]

What does that mean 'functioning society'? And why should it matter?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, this is where I depart from vhawk. I dont give didly-squat whether or not rape is wrong, I'm just against it because of empathy with the victims and lack of empathy with the rapists.

even if society functioned better with rapists I would be against it.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]


Do you think this is a biological belief in morality?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure what you're asking but cooperation is clearly a very important trait and genes that get their carriers to cooperate with carriers of similar genes are very fit.

Making us moral is how they get us to do it and empathy seems the key building block. Simply, it gets us to feel a degree of (dis)satisfaction at the (dis)satisfaction of others and therefore maximising our own satisfaction means caring about the (dis)satisfaction of those we empathise with.

For those so inclined, evolution can be replaced with designer. It makes no difference.

chez

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Nope, you've got it exactly right.

EDIT: Except that of course, morality cannot be based on logic. Logic is a tool, and its application must be based on something. If morality is contingent on some logical conclusion from pre-existing premises, its not absolute. Why is homosexuality logically immoral?

[/ QUOTE ]

lol. maybe i'm just tired, but i've totally lost your point. I'm having trouble identifying what your belief in relativism actually practically changes. it seems to me as though you believe the same thing as an absolutist except instead of saying your judgements are "absolute" you tack a * on the end and say "not absolute but 99.99%", as though that's actually a substantial change.

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha, thats my argument exactly. My relativism isn't different from absolutism in any practical way...but thats a knock against absolutism, not relativsim. The advantage is I don't have to postulate some unknowable absolute morality, yet I get to reap the same benefits.

[Aver-aging]

Chez,

You are missing my point. I am saying that there is a perspective that you can take on ethics that encompasses all other approaches to moral theory. Genetic proliferation and survival are simply it's basis - because they are so pervasive. The fact is, you can still believe in truth, justice, empathy, and live your life by those standards, but your actions can also be explained through a method of genetic proliferation.

My contention is that no matter what form of ethics is behind it, it can be deduced beyond your immediate desires. What you want is only the skin covering the skeleton. It can be broken down (and believe me, if you explained your life story to me and your perspective of those events, I could deduce all the components of your moral framework, without hearing your opinions on any moral issue).

In a sense, I am claiming that people's morality is a predictable aspect of nature, just like everything else. You shouldn't believe that you have choice in the matter of deciding your morality, because ultimately you do not, regardless of your opinion, because the circumstances of your life determine how you interpret every following circumstance that you encounter.

We all assume the position (not the action) that is ultimately best for ourselves, and our actions fall from there, even if that means doing things that aren't good for ourselves. There's an inherent structure to moral decision making, and that's what I'm preaching we should teach people about.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
In a sense, I am claiming that people's morality is a predictable aspect of nature, just like everything else. You shouldn't believe that you have choice in the matter of deciding your morality, because ultimately you do not, regardless of your opinion, because the circumstances of your life determine how you interpret every following circumstance that you encounter.

[/ QUOTE ]
Very hard to predict, I doubt you can even if its deterministic. Yes, I have no more choice over my morality then any other aspect of my nature but knowing that doesn't help you with anything.

What has any of this to do with morality. Yes I will behave the way I'm evolved to behave given the life I have led -that's just a truism but so what?

This doesn't seem to be about morality at all. Why not tackle one of DS's problems with your methodology and let's see the meat. I haven't answered the cat in the microwave - you predict what I believe is right and why.

chez

[Aver-aging]

[ QUOTE ]

Very hard to predict, I doubt you can even if its deterministic. Yes, I have no more choice over my morality then any other aspect of my nature but knowing that doesn't help you with anything.

What has any of this to do with morality. Yes I will behave the way I'm evolved to behave given the life I have led -that's just a truism but so what?

This doesn't seem to be about morality at all. Why not tackle one of DS's problems with your methodology and let's see the meat. I haven't answered the cat in the microwave - you predict what I believe is right and why.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I am saying that there is a predictable framework behind moral behavior, and teaching people this predictable framework will allow them to more knowledgeable moral choices regardless of their moral perspective. When people are equally informed they make similar moral choices - which is what creating an absolute form of morality is all about (something everyone can agree on). I am preaching that people need as much information as possible so that morality can have a shot at being standardized. This also involves understanding the inherent structure of ethical and moral decision making - because there is one, I've written papers showing that structure to moral and ethical dilemma's does exist, I can make a very solid argument for it. My contention is that choice is based on knowledge, and once you give people equal amounts of knowledge, and as much as possible, you see standards of behavior that develop. The more knowledge that these standards are based on, the more uniform they eventually become (consider this process to be a natural selection of ideas, and the human mechanism that weeds out the weak ideas is curiosity).

What is one of DS's problems anyway? And you know I can't predict your opinion on a moral subject, because I don't really know you. Don't try and shove that point in my face, because both you and I know it's invalid. You're better than using a cheap tactic like that.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
What is one of DS's problems anyway? And you know I can't predict your opinion on a moral subject, because I don't really know you. Don't try and shove that point in my face, because both you and I know it's invalid. You're better than using a cheap tactic like that.

[/ QUOTE ]
I meant give an example of how he methodology would work. What would you need to know about me to predict my answer?, make us some stuff if you like and show us how this methodology works. Pick any example you like.

[ QUOTE ]
I am saying that there is a predictable framework behind moral behavior, and teaching people this predictable framework will allow them to more knowledgeable moral choices regardless of their moral perspective.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's true but again its just about what causes morality (which is nature+nuture we agree on that, doesn't everyone). facts are great, knowledge is great but its not morality as you seem to acknowledge when you talk of peoples individual moral perspective.

You just seem to be arguing for education, well I agree with that, most do except a few weirdos who seem to rejoice in ignorance.

I don't have any idea if we actually disagree about anything except what morality is about.

chez