|
|
|||||||
| View Poll Results: My life right now is a... | |||
| Brag |
   
|
48 | 21.82% |
| Beat |
  
|
36 | 16.36% |
| Variance |
  
|
60 | 27.27% |
| Fuck OOT |
  
|
23 | 10.45% |
| Gildwulf for mod |
  
|
14 | 6.36% |
| BASTARD!!! |
  
|
39 | 17.73% |
| Voters: 220. You may not vote on this poll | |||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#81
11-14-2007, 01:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Moral relativity
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] If you chose no could you please post the objective external standard you use to tell if a system of morality is valid or not. [/ QUOTE ] Consistency. [/ QUOTE ] This only applies if all parties to which that system applies are equal. [/ QUOTE ] Not just equal -- the same. 
|
|
#82
11-14-2007, 01:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Moral relativity
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] If you chose no could you please post the objective external standard you use to tell if a system of morality is valid or not. [/ QUOTE ] Consistency. [/ QUOTE ] This only applies if all parties to which that system applies are equal. [/ QUOTE ] Not just equal -- the same. [/ QUOTE ] Poor word choice on my part, but what you said was my intent, thanks for cleaning it up. Cody
|
|
#83
11-14-2007, 01:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Moral relativity
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] This is why we need to figure out a consistant and empirically true moral theory, so that people cannot be controlled by false moral theories. [/ QUOTE ] That's impossible. First of all, unless you're a theist, I'm not sure where the idea comes from that there is one set of moral principles that are objectively right and every other set is objectively wrong where they disagree. [/ QUOTE ] Whoa, slow down. If one consistent and "empirically true" moral theory is discovered, this doesn't necessarily require that all others be false. I don't see any reason to say that if one is consistent, all others must be inconsistent. I think we can all agree that consistent is better than inconsistent. My personal preference on top of consistency is that I favor systems that put all people in the same moral class over systems that have multiple classes for people. Given those constraints, I have so far only seen one theory that "works". But if someone can come up with another, I'm interested.
|
|
#84
11-14-2007, 02:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Moral relativity
[ QUOTE ]
Whoa, slow down. If one consistent and "empirically true" moral theory is discovered, this doesn't necessarily require that all others be false. I don't see any reason to say that if one is consistent, all others must be inconsistent. [/ QUOTE ] Ok, I got the impression that ian meant something different than that, but I could be wrong. Question: What, precisely, do you mean by "consistency."
|
|
#85
11-14-2007, 02:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Moral relativity
[ QUOTE ]
Question: What, precisely, do you mean by "consistency." [/ QUOTE ] Basically what pvn said. I could have a theory state that murder is moral and immoral. But this is logically inconsistant so we can throw it out immediately. I could have a theory that states is ok for me to kill you but not ok for you to kill me but this moral theory isnt universal to all humans. For this to be true I would have to be in a different moral category than you. This is false and so this moral theory can also be falsified. I could say its ok for me to murder you because its say its ok in my religious text but its not ok for you to murder me because it says so in your religious text. This again is an inconsistant moral theory and can be discarded. I think you can see where I'm going with this. IMO The most destructive moral theories are those that falsly differentiate between human actors. Its this destruction of morality that lets bad people to get good people to do bad things. Once we accept that internal consistancy is the first test a moral theory must pass, a lot of these destructive theories will be revealed for what they are.
|
|
#86
11-14-2007, 02:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Moral relativity
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Question: What, precisely, do you mean by "consistency." [/ QUOTE ] Basically what pvn said. I could have a theory state that murder is moral and immoral. But this is logically inconsistant so we can throw it out immediately. I could have a theory that states is ok for me to kill you but not ok for you to kill me but this moral theory isnt universal to all humans. For this to be true I would have to be in a different moral category than you. This is false and so this moral theory can also be falsified. I could say its ok for me to murder you because its say its ok in my religious text but its not ok for you to murder me because it says so in your religious text. This again is an inconsistant moral theory and can be discarded. I think you can see where I'm going with this. IMO The most destructive moral theories are those that falsly differentiate between human actors. Its this destruction of morality that lets bad people to get good people to do bad things. Once we accept that internal consistancy is the first test a moral theory must pass, a lot of these destructive theories will be revealed for what they are. [/ QUOTE ] So I'll ask the same question PVN never answers. Do you believe all people are not only equal but indentical? Cody
|
|
#87
11-14-2007, 02:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Moral relativity
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] If you chose no could you please post the objective external standard you use to tell if a system of morality is valid or not. [/ QUOTE ] Consistency. [/ QUOTE ] This only applies if all parties to which that system applies are equal. [/ QUOTE ] Not just equal -- the same. [/ QUOTE ] Poor word choice on my part, but what you said was my intent, thanks for cleaning it up. Cody [/ QUOTE ] Elaborate please.
|
|
#88
11-14-2007, 02:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Moral relativity
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Question: What, precisely, do you mean by "consistency." [/ QUOTE ] Basically what pvn said. I could have a theory state that murder is moral and immoral. But this is logically inconsistant so we can throw it out immediately. I could have a theory that states is ok for me to kill you but not ok for you to kill me but this moral theory isnt universal to all humans. For this to be true I would have to be in a different moral category than you. This is false and so this moral theory can also be falsified. I could say its ok for me to murder you because its say its ok in my religious text but its not ok for you to murder me because it says so in your religious text. This again is an inconsistant moral theory and can be discarded. I think you can see where I'm going with this. IMO The most destructive moral theories are those that falsly differentiate between human actors. Its this destruction of morality that lets bad people to get good people to do bad things. Once we accept that internal consistancy is the first test a moral theory must pass, a lot of these destructive theories will be revealed for what they are. [/ QUOTE ] So I'll ask the same question PVN never answers. Do you believe all people are not only equal but indentical? Cody [/ QUOTE ] Identical in what regards? A moral system can certainly be consistent even without equality. DUCY? As I've said, my personal preference is against such multi-class systems, though.
|
|
#89
11-14-2007, 02:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Moral relativity
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] If you chose no could you please post the objective external standard you use to tell if a system of morality is valid or not. [/ QUOTE ] Consistency. [/ QUOTE ] This only applies if all parties to which that system applies are equal. [/ QUOTE ] Not just equal -- the same. [/ QUOTE ] Poor word choice on my part, but what you said was my intent, thanks for cleaning it up. Cody [/ QUOTE ] Elaborate please. [/ QUOTE ] Consistancy in a moral system is only useful or desirable if all people to whom that system is applied are equal (or as Var clarified further, the same). Meaning, only if we're all capable of making the same choices and capable of understanding the consequences of our actions can we be subject to the same moral systems. So, to over-simplify, are we all born with the same capabilities or, to put it a different way, are we products of nature (the "gods and clods" theory) or nurture (the "blank-slate" theory) or both? Cody
|
|
#90
11-14-2007, 03:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Moral relativity
[ QUOTE ]
Consistancy in a moral system is only useful or desirable if all people to whom that system is applied are equal (or as Var clarified further, the same). Meaning, only if we're all capable of making the same choices and capable of understanding the consequences of our actions can we be subject to the same moral systems. [/ QUOTE ] Obviously there is going to be some grey area on what constitutes a moral actor. Children, mentally disabled, etc cannot be held to the same moral criteria as the majority of adults. I dont believe however there is some class of philosopher kings who should be able to be exempt from moral rules because they can determine whats best for society and when those rules need to be broken. If thats what you guys were getting at.
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
