Morals
- Thread starter Dak
- Start date
Cythraul
Active Member
- Dec 10, 2003
- 6,755
- 134
- 63
Alright, but is this concept playing a role in your justification for why you think moral discourse is objective?
no country for old wainds
Active Member
- Nov 23, 2002
- 26,626
- 9,627
- 113
morality is just a way of investing your preferences with the illusion of grandiose significance.
take dakryn for example, desperately trying to cling to the idea of objective morality so that all his YOU CANT DO THIS YOU MUSTNT DO THAT IT ISN'T PROPER bullshit seems like it's rooted in fact
take dakryn for example, desperately trying to cling to the idea of objective morality so that all his YOU CANT DO THIS YOU MUSTNT DO THAT IT ISN'T PROPER bullshit seems like it's rooted in fact
Ones morals are a lot to do with their upbringing and what they're exposed to.
I think it's a lot to do with intelligence also. I see the advanced mind as having greater sensitivity and greater integrated morals.
Simple minded animals for example would have no moral centre whatsoever.
I think it's a lot to do with intelligence also. I see the advanced mind as having greater sensitivity and greater integrated morals.
Simple minded animals for example would have no moral centre whatsoever.
zabu of nΩd
Free Insultation
- Feb 9, 2007
- 14,620
- 805
- 113
So it's just a preference that we not kill or torture each other? A matter of opinion?
I'm not sure if I can argue convincingly that there are any "objective" moral values, but those of you who claim that all morals are entirely relative sure don't sound convincing. How do you know that basic moral beliefs regarding harm to others aren't universal among all possible rational human beings?
I pretty much chose to ignore that comment by wainds because it was obviously completely flawed. Made it sound like murdering someone was on the same level as putting your elbows on the table.
zabu of nΩd
Free Insultation
- Feb 9, 2007
- 14,620
- 805
- 113
^ Yeah, that's a good example of the problem with a completely relativistic view of morality. It just makes no sense on an intuitive level.
A belief being universal does not make it obectively correct. People arguing otherwise clearly need to understand the definition of "morals" better. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me where in the definition of the word it says that your beliefs have to be popular or that they have to be productive or promote good social relations.
Morals are personal views of what values are good or bad. Rationality does not apply or make someone's morals more correct, since morality is the product of human opinions on what is acceptable and what is not. It varies from person to person, and popularity of certain views does not make them correct.
Explain how this is wrong (objectively, and not just in your opinion because it contradicts with your morals) if you think that it is, because I'd like to read it. Show me where it says anything about this in the definition of the word while you're at it, since the definition would have to not call morals personal views in order for this to be correct.
It's only completely flawed in your opinion because your moral values place more weight on murder than bad table etiquette. I agree with you on that particular moral view, but you have yet to explain how it is objectively and concretely wrong and not just an opinion.
Einherjar86
Active Member
I don't think no country even has a relativistic sense of morality. His sense of "values" approaches a nihilistic level.
After all, his hero is The Judge.
After all, his hero is The Judge.
We can argue about this in an abstract vacuum forever, but when acted out it is quite easy to see.
It is quite easy to prove there is some distinct difference between manners and morals. Manners are subjective and usually status/socially created.
Would you rather I kill you or put my elbows on your table? What are the lasting implications of either action? If I kill you, you are dead "every time" and someone is missing their mother/father/brother etc etc.
If I put my elbows on the table or cut you off in conversations, what's the worse that could happen? You could kill me?
I am having a hard time trying to explain my thought processes on this one, especially since I look at most things in a very literal, practical sense and everyone here wants to remove reality from the picture and debate the idea in it's own vacuum. That can cause your conclusion to be flawed when it is removed from the vacuum of abstractivity and applied to reality.
Yes, but the impact of what you view as acceptable on others has nothing to do with morals. You're not understanding this despite it being exceedingly obvious. I'm waiting for you to explain how this is incorrect, but you still seem to be unable to do so. Morals are personal views of what is and is not socially acceptable.
The fact that what some people consider acceptable is unacceptable according to the moral views of others does not make their opinions wrong, since there can never be an objective moral code due to the fact that morals are based solely upon opinions.
As I said earlier, you have yet to explain how this is not correct, while your argument has been thoroughly dissected numerous times here and you have been proven to be incorrect on this matter due to the fact that morals are defined as views and opinions, and not an objective code of conduct that is measured by the impact of your views upon others.
Unless you can explain how this is false, you're wrong. I'm waiting.
The fact that what some people consider acceptable is unacceptable according to the moral views of others does not make their opinions wrong, since there can never be an objective moral code due to the fact that morals are based solely upon opinions.
As I said earlier, you have yet to explain how this is not correct, while your argument has been thoroughly dissected numerous times here and you have been proven to be incorrect on this matter due to the fact that morals are defined as views and opinions, and not an objective code of conduct that is measured by the impact of your views upon others.
Unless you can explain how this is false, you're wrong. I'm waiting.
zabu of nΩd
Free Insultation
- Feb 9, 2007
- 14,620
- 805
- 113
I don't think popularity is the main issue here, but let me make one thing clear: I have not been talking about all morals, only some. I am not, and have not been, arguing that morals regarding trivial lifestyle choices such as sexuality or drug use are in any sense objective. I'm only talking about basic things like senseless harm to others. There is clearly a difference between these types of morals, and you're missing the point if you think this is about a fundamental definition that should apply to all moral beliefs.
How do you know that rationality does not play a part in morality? What are you even basing that on? If you base the justification for morality on humans' innate desire to survive and be free from harm (which I am doing), you would clearly see that this innate desire causes us to have a specific set of near-universal moral views regarding harm to others. These views are not a matter of opinion - they come from our basic motivational apparatus as humans. You might as well be arguing that our views on all mental conditions - depression, schizophrenia, insomnia, etc - are also "the product of human opinions".
I've already addressed the problem with invoking "the definition of morality" in this argument. As for your demand for an explanation, see my previous paragraph - the fact that our basic psychology causes us to desire life, freedom, and safety explains how some moral views can have objectivity. If you think it's just a matter of popular opinion, then I think you will have to concede that other psychological theories of ours are the same way.
The definition of the word.
I suggest that you look it up and tell me where rationality of popularity of moral opinions become more relevant and objective based on their standing in terms of modern society.
zabu of nΩd
Free Insultation
- Feb 9, 2007
- 14,620
- 805
- 113
You didn't actually explain away anything that I said, regardless of your attempts to do so.
How are morals not personal views and opinions? What humans desire or strive towards in general does not make their actions objectively more correct than the actions of any other type of creature, or any inanimate object. What you're failing to understand is that there is no set way that we must act, and nothing that we do is objectively wrong or right because there is no objective scientific law that makes our actions correct or incorrect, even if society works better when we behave in certain ways. Morality isn't related to the functioning of society anyway, by definition. Laws are, and are often aligned with popular moral views, but are not synonymous with objective or correct moral views. Opinions on what is acceptable and what is not can never be objective, even if every human being agrees that they are good from a moral perspective.
How are morals not personal views and opinions? What humans desire or strive towards in general does not make their actions objectively more correct than the actions of any other type of creature, or any inanimate object. What you're failing to understand is that there is no set way that we must act, and nothing that we do is objectively wrong or right because there is no objective scientific law that makes our actions correct or incorrect, even if society works better when we behave in certain ways. Morality isn't related to the functioning of society anyway, by definition. Laws are, and are often aligned with popular moral views, but are not synonymous with objective or correct moral views. Opinions on what is acceptable and what is not can never be objective, even if every human being agrees that they are good from a moral perspective.
zabu of nΩd
Free Insultation
- Feb 9, 2007
- 14,620
- 805
- 113
I think you're just ignoring my argument at this point. I pointed out in very plain terms that our psychological makeup is a basis for a specific set of universal moral views, and you've said nothing to address that in your above post. Instead of getting hung up on the "opinons" and "desire" aspect of our psychology, why don't you take a deeper look at what's behind it before you once again dismiss my argument?
Human psychology does not make the ways that we act right or wrong. Certain moral views are more in line with how we have evolved mentally and psychologically, but there is nothing about them that makes them objectively or concretely right or wrong on any scale, scientific or otherwise.
zabu of nΩd
Free Insultation
- Feb 9, 2007
- 14,620
- 805
- 113
Right and wrong comes from what we place value on. If we have evolved psychologically (or are even inevitably disposed) to place unanimous value on a specific thing (i.e. freedom from harm), then I think that's a pretty satisfactory basis for an objective view on right and wrong regarding that thing.
Zephyrus
Tyrants and Slaves
Psychological and sociological studies only determine trends of opinion, which vary according to the nature of the problem. Like religion, the number of believers in certain types of morals does not shift the burden of evidence toward an objective validity. Morals are ideals that are immediately falsified when any number of people do not subscribe to them 100% of the time.
