If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Baroque]

That's MADDIPPER you blasphemous cunt.

(I was just on a Forumplanet nostalgia binge last night, actually.)

Get BenT

like through the waybackmachine?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Yeah and trying to e-stalk old users to see if anyone had surfaced elsewhere recently and just general reminiscence.

 

[Einherjar86]

Stealing, rape and murder are objectively immoral. Any society where they are not considered immoral are either gone, changed or looked down upon by societies that do consider them to be immoral.

Consider this--just because everyone believes something is wrong doesn't mean it's objectively immoral. And as soon as a particular situation subverts our moral expectations, then have to acknowledge this fact more explicitly.

When it comes to objectivity, you tend to lapse into common sense. I have nothing wrong with common sense per se, but when confronted with possible exceptions to what you said, your only retort was to simply repeat your claim, and then offer (gasp) historical evidence! None of that goes to support any notion of objective morality; all it does is begin to suggest a historical tendency.

You're framing history as progress: that we're discovering "true" or objective morality, implementing it, and moving in a positive direction. While I agree that civilization has made significant leaps, I hesitate to sanction anything with the absolutist idea of "objective morality."

 

[CiG]

Fair enough. You are after all very far left on concepts such as morality, perhaps you're wrong though? Sometimes, and I don't mean this as an insult, but sometimes it does seem like you think these concepts are so beneath you and you've reached conclusions that you're so invested in that you are beyond ever agreeing with me on these concepts.

Often times talking with you about these things feels like being wrong and speaking to someone who is right and has all the evidence to support that. It feels like being a high school kid again and talking to a teacher.

There is no and has never been any society I know of where the victim of theft or rape doesn't feel or know they've been immorally treated. Murder is different of course as the victim is dead.

But in the end I'm the one that probably won't budge. You'll never convince me that raping an infant isn't objectively immoral.

 

[rms]

i mean its pretty simple on stealing or killing (you keep using murder which already implies illegal connotations). if you're starving to death and you can steal a loaf of bread, would you do it? of course you would and no one would be like "omg I cant believe he stole that bread as he died"

just like when battered housewives kill their abusive husbands, courts/juries are lenient and decide that it is 'fine' to do so

 

[CiG]

Doing or not doing something is the deciding factor for whether that something is moral or immoral? Stealing to feed yourself or a starving family member is called a moral dilemma because you know it's immoral but you need to do it.

I'm specifically using murder because its never been claimed by any theory I know of that killing in and of itself is immoral, the caveat is killing the innocent or killing the helpless.

 

[rms]

Doing or not doing something is the deciding factor for whether that something is moral or immoral?

principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

I mean, yeah. If it's right to you to steal when youre starving or kill when you're 'oppressed' then that is obviously moral.

I'm specifically using murder because its never been claimed by any theory I know of that killing in and of itself is immoral, the caveat is killing the innocent or killing the helpless.

so who is saying murder can be moral? are you referring to euthanasia? you're doing one of those lame internet things where you create an argument and interject your position

 

[Einherjar86]

Fair enough. You are after all very far left on concepts such as morality, perhaps you're wrong though? Sometimes, and I don't mean this as an insult, but sometimes it does seem like you think these concepts are so beneath you and you've reached conclusions that you're so invested in that you are beyond ever agreeing with me on these concepts.

Often times talking with you about these things feels like being wrong and speaking to someone who is right and has all the evidence to support that. It feels like being a high school kid again and talking to a teacher.

I am a teacher.

I mean, I'm not sure what evidence you have, as you aren't providing any. You're making appeals to pathos and occupying a rhetorical stance; i.e. "It's obvious that raping infants is immoral." I'm not going to argue for moral relativism when it comes to raping infants; I'm simply saying that we cannot prove moral objectivity--but the good thing is, we don't need moral objectivity in order to live in a civilized and humane way. We have ethics, which are very different.

As far as evidence goes, I'm not a moral philosopher by any means; but I've read Kant's Groundwork on the Metaphysics of Morals and Nietzsche's On the Genealogy of Morality, as well as a lot of postmodern theory on morality (much of which is critical of Kantian morality). I realize that this might seem like me claiming authority, but all I mean to say is that I've spent time reading about morality; and I would encourage my students too also (if I haven't assigned the reading already). Extreme singular examples don't convince me of any sweeping, objective morality because singular examples always reduce down to how someone feels. Morality reduces to a subjective experience of something, which moral philosophers then try and extend to an objective account of right and wrong. I've never seen a compelling argument for objective morality. Dak might not approve of this appropriation of his lingo, but your argument basically boils down to "because muh feelings."

Now, ethics are an entirely different matter. I believe that ethics exist, because ethics are socially/institutionally constructed and can be elaborated and improved upon by complex societies. I absolutely believe it is ethically unacceptable to rape a baby (to use your example). I also believe it's ethically wrong to murder, steal, etc.; but ethics is an ever-shifting set of parameters, which is why we have legal processes. The ethics of a situation never reduce to a single act, but to a network of conditions. To put this another way, morality always begins from personal experience or feeling, and extends outward from there in an attempt to impose personal beliefs as universal laws. Ethics, on the other hand, derives from social discourse. It may correspond to what people feel, perhaps even to what every single living person feels--but that isn't its source.

There is no and has never been any society I know of where the victim of theft or rape doesn't feel or know they've been immorally treated. Murder is different of course as the victim is dead.

This is an enormous generalization, and can be disproven purely by one single person who says: "I was robbed, but I don't feel morally mistreated. I feel ethically mistreated."

 

[CiG]

I mean, yeah. If it's right to you to steal when youre starving or kill when you're 'oppressed' then that is obviously moral.

I don't think it's right personally. Necessity and what's right often are separate.

so who is saying murder can be moral? are you referring to euthanasia? you're doing one of those lame internet things where you create an argument and interject your position

ISIS certainly believe their actions are moral.

I am a teacher.

Yes it's painfully obvious.

I mean, I'm not sure what evidence you have, as you aren't providing any. You're making appeals to pathos and occupying a rhetorical stance; i.e. "It's obvious that raping infants is immoral." I'm not going to argue for moral relativism when it comes to raping infants; I'm simply saying that we cannot prove moral objectivity--but the good thing is, we don't need moral objectivity in order to live in a civilized and humane way. We have ethics, which are very different.

I've never quite understood how ethics are different to morals, maybe you could explain that to me if you can be bothred? I hear people make that distinction often. Is it just the secular equivalent to morals? Even its official definition mentions it as a set of moral principles.

As far as evidence goes, I'm not a moral philosopher by any means; but I've read Kant's Groundwork on the Metaphysics of Morals and Nietzsche's On the Genealogy of Morality, as well as a lot of postmodern theory on morality (much of which is critical of Kantian morality). I realize that this might seem like me claiming authority, but all I mean to say is that I've spent time reading about morality; and I would encourage my students too also (if I haven't assigned the reading already). Extreme singular examples don't convince me of any sweeping, objective morality because singular examples always reduce down to how someone feels. Morality reduces to a subjective experience of something, which moral philosophers then try and extend to an objective account of right and wrong. I've never seen a compelling argument for objective morality. Dak might not approve of this appropriation of his lingo, but your argument basically boils down to "because muh feelings."

I'm not dismissive of feelings, just to clear the air. I'm not Dak.
Morals are entirely entwined with emotions, in fact one might define morality as a set of emotions shared by vast swathes of people, often rising above cultural differences. Which I now realise why you are so opposed to it as a concept because in many ways it's similar to common sense.

Now, ethics are an entirely different matter. I believe that ethics exist, because ethics are socially/institutionally constructed and can be elaborated and improved upon by complex societies. I absolutely believe it is ethically unacceptable to rape a baby (to use your example). I also believe it's ethically wrong to murder, steal, etc.; but ethics is an ever-shifting set of parameters, which is why we have legal processes. The ethics of a situation never reduce to a single act, but to a network of conditions. To put this another way, morality always begins from personal experience or feeling, and extends outward from there in an attempt to impose personal beliefs as universal laws. Ethics, on the other hand, derives from social discourse. It may correspond to what people feel, perhaps even to what every single living person feels--but that isn't its source.

As I understand it, ethics do not exist without morality but I'll await your explanation on this, because admittedly I don't quite understand the difference.

This is an enormous generalization, and can be disproven purely by one single person who says: "I was robbed, but I don't feel morally mistreated. I feel ethically mistreated."

Again, I'll await an explanation. I think that if there is no government (and therefore no system of enforced ethics etc) it would still be wrong to steal and I can't just ignore that innate feeling I have.

 

[Einherjar86]

Morality is an individual sense of right and wrong. You can share a set of morals with another person, but morality doesn't derive from shared sets of values. It's subjective, which is why you cannot determine any objective morality.

Ethics are rules or laws established by an external source. It's discursive and social, not personal.

In order for stealing to be objectively immoral, you'd have to believe that stealing would be wrong even in a context removed entirely from any given set of social norms. In other words, you'd have to claim that it's morally wrong for a hyena to steal a lion's kill.

 

[Dak]

Morality is an individual sense of right and wrong. You can share a set of morals with another person, but morality doesn't derive from shared sets of values. It's subjective, which is why you cannot determine any objective morality.

Ethics are rules or laws established by an external source. It's discursive and social, not personal.

In order for stealing to be objectively immoral, you'd have to believe that stealing would be wrong even in a context removed entirely from any given set of social norms. In other words, you'd have to claim that it's morally wrong for a hyena to steal a lion's kill.

Why would it have to apply interspecies? Stretching it that far would imply all eating is murder.

 

[Einherjar86]

Which is why objective morality is bogus.

Saying that morality exists outside of social organization would mean that it would apply to non-social animals. Which is why I made that point.

 

[CiG]

That explanation is very unconvincing to me. Morality has never been a concept (as I understand it) that puts animals and humans on an equal platform. I don't know of any moralist that extends morality to animals (except perhaps vegans who are in their own way moralists).

Similarly, if a toddler steals from an adult, it's not a moral or immoral action. It's fundamentally amoral.

 

[Einherjar86]

You just made it that way by saying that morality exceeds social organization and convention.

If you say that it exceeds social organization but doesn't apply to animals, then you've made an arbitrary distinction by which morality somehow only applies to humans.

You claim to be an atheist, but when it comes to morality you sound religious.

 

[CiG]

Are you therefore claiming the difference between humans and all other animals is an arbitrary one?

You claim to be an atheist, but when it comes to morality you sound religious.

Atheism is amoral.

My atheism encompasses not believing there is any evidence for any religious claims about deities and that's it. For example I'm against abortion which is a moralist position.

 

[Einherjar86]

"The" difference? No, I'm not saying that.

There are many differences between humans and all other animals, the concept of "society" being one major difference. You specified sociality (or more accurately governmentality, but governance applies in any social organization, albeit in different forms) in your comment, saying that it isn't necessary in order for morality to be objective; or in other words, that objective morality subsists beyond the purview of social organization. Social organization is one difference between humans and animals; but since morality exists beyond social organization, then logic dictates that it would apply to non-social animals. Which is, again, why I brought it up.

My atheism encompasses not believing there is any evidence for any religious claims about deities and that's it. For example I'm against abortion which is a moralist position.

You're elevating morality to a spiritual level. That is, you say that it exists beyond material conditions. That's basically the same thing as religious morality.

 

[arg]

Even if an evil person killed a toddler for fun, and 100% of the planet's population agreed that it was immoral such that it might as well be objective, it would still be subjective, because morality is an imaginary human construct.

But ultimately it does not even fucking matter if it's subjective or objective, what matters is how you use morality to react to situations, whether you formulate laws to enforce it even upon those who don't have the same moral compass, or leave it up to free will, etc

 

[CiG]

I would say the fundamental difference between humans and animals is intellectual agency, consciousness, sentience etc.

There are no tortoise philosophers.

This is why I would say animals or infants and mentally disabled people are amoral because though human (the latter two) they lack the capacity for those traits.

But ultimately it does not even fucking matter if it's subjective or objective, what matters is how you use morality to react to situations, whether you formulate laws to enforce it even upon those who don't have the same moral compass, or leave it up to free will, etc

I would say the objectivity comes in when you have no system to punish the crime, this immoral act would instead be dealt with even by ungoverned people.

 

[Einherjar86]

I would say the fundamental difference between humans and animals is intellectual agency, consciousness, sentience etc.

There are no tortoise philosophers.

This is why I would say animals or infants and mentally disabled people are amoral because though human they lack the capacity for those traits.

I realize you think these concepts are stable and identifiable, but you're not providing anything practiceable here.

For instance, a six-year-old possesses consciousness; but we don't typically hold six-year-olds responsible for killing someone (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Kayla_Rolland). Furthermore, the definition of "mentally disabled" has changed over the course of history. If mental disability isn't a stable category, then there's no possible way for morality (in relation to the behavior of the mentally disabled) to also be stable--hence no way for it to be objective.

Once we begin trying to implement objective morality, we begin making absolute distinctions that lead to horrors like genocide and systematic oppression. Ultimately, moral programmatics don't reduce to reason, or rationality, or intellect. They boil down to whichever party can more effectively enforce their brand of morality.

I'm not trying to be brash, but these are serious inconsistencies when arguing for objective morality. And relinquishing objective morality doesn't mean society plummets into chaos. We can have justice and order without appealing to a spiritual and vague sense of objective morality.

I would say the objectivity comes in when you have no system to punish the crime, this immoral act would instead dealt with even by ungoverned people.

This is a nonsensical statement. For ungoverned people to deal with "immoral acts" would necessitate a system being in place, even if it's some form of implicit social consent.

 

[CiG]

This is a nonsensical statement. For ungoverned people to deal with "immoral acts" would necessitate a system being in place, even if it's some form of implicit social consent.

I was talking about systems as in, governing bodies enforcing ethics-based laws. Essentially I'm saying that shared morality would still live on in anarchistic societies, because I personally believe morality is innate.

I think (because I am absolutely terrible with language and dismal at expressing myself) what I am actually saying is that morality is innate in the vast majority of humans and I'm incorrectly calling it objective.



(TL;DR I'm wrong, you guys are right. Fucking teachers...)