|
Post by iamjumbo on Sept 7, 2011 12:25:39 GMT
you have the right to disagree. it is not prudent to disagree with an absolute, but that doesn't diminish your right to do so. there have been many who believed that murder is okay, but that never changed the FACT that it is not
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Sept 7, 2011 12:29:57 GMT
no. as i've said, my opinion has nothing to do with anything. these things are part of the natural law that you refer to. did your great grandfather's morality say that it is okay to punch an old person? i seriously doubt that it did. as i said, if everyone in the world suddenly decided that it is okay to punch and old person, it would still be wrong My forefathers may have believed things to be right that I believe to be wrong such as slavery or marital-rape; and people in different cultures around the world may also disagree with you and I on matters such as cannibalism or FGM. What you are saying is that there exists an objective morality that exists independently of human opinion, and in addition to this you are also confident that your morality is the same as this objective morality down to the last tee. I'd like to know how you ascertain this because to another observer it can appear as if it is just one person's opinion as to what is right or wrong, versus another's. that is true, AND proves the point. the fact that a majority of any society has believed that slavery is okay, has NEVER changed the FACT that it is wrong. that most of a society believed that killing folks and eating them was okay, never changed the fact that it was not right. anyone who tries to claim that societal acceptance or rejection of any absolute moral tenet is saying nothing more than that the germans did nothing wrong in murdering six million jews. after all, that society accepted it as being okay. that is in no way, shape or form, any different than any other moral tenet
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Sept 7, 2011 14:26:47 GMT
that is true, AND proves the point. the fact that a majority of any society has believed that slavery is okay, has NEVER changed the FACT that it is wrong. that most of a society believed that killing folks and eating them was okay, never changed the fact that it was not right. So why did you ask whether my grandad thought that punching old people was OK? His opinion on the matter is an irrelevance in moral terms, as is mine. You still haven't explained how we ascertain what objective morality says, and so we can determine whether cannibalism/homosexuality/punching old people are objectively wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Sept 7, 2011 14:32:19 GMT
you have the right to disagree. it is not prudent to disagree with an absolute, but that doesn't diminish your right to do so. there have been many who believed that murder is okay, but that never changed the FACT that it is not At the risk of muddying the waters this debate has been about objective (ie factual) morality, rather than absolute morality (which can be either objective or subjective). Plus while I agree that there is little point in disagreeing with a fact, we are talking here of putative facts rather than proven ones.
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Sept 7, 2011 16:18:05 GMT
there have been many who believed that murder is okay, but that never changed the FACT that it is not P.S. As an aside I think that only a tiny minority have ever thought murder to be OK. Virtually everyone thinks that it isn't right. However the devil is in the detail and people have disagreed with whether or not killing in a particular instance is 'murder' or not. Instances include soldiers in war, the death penalty, abortion and euthanasia. If a person thinks any of these to be morally justifiable then they don't call them 'murder'.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Sept 7, 2011 18:27:14 GMT
that is true, AND proves the point. the fact that a majority of any society has believed that slavery is okay, has NEVER changed the FACT that it is wrong. that most of a society believed that killing folks and eating them was okay, never changed the fact that it was not right. So why did you ask whether my grandad thought that punching old people was OK? His opinion on the matter is an irrelevance in moral terms, as is mine. You still haven't explained how we ascertain what objective morality says, and so we can determine whether cannibalism/homosexuality/punching old people are objectively wrong. in reality, what your granddad believed was irrelevant. bad example on my part. there isn't much ascertaining to be done. most morality in inborn. obviously, some can be learned, but, you instinctively know that it is wrong to kill someone else if he hasn't done anything wrong. you know that it is wrong to steal the possessions of someone else. you know that it is wrong to stick your you know what into an orifice that wasn't designed specifically for that purpose. you know that it is wrong to hurt someone else for no reason. these things don't really have to be taught.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Sept 7, 2011 18:28:00 GMT
that is true, AND proves the point. the fact that a majority of any society has believed that slavery is okay, has NEVER changed the FACT that it is wrong. that most of a society believed that killing folks and eating them was okay, never changed the fact that it was not right. So why did you ask whether my grandad thought that punching old people was OK? His opinion on the matter is an irrelevance in moral terms, as is mine. You still haven't explained how we ascertain what objective morality says, and so we can determine whether cannibalism/homosexuality/punching old people are objectively wrong. in reality, what your granddad believed was irrelevant. bad example on my part. there isn't much ascertaining to be done. most morality in inborn. obviously, some can be learned, but, you instinctively know that it is wrong to kill someone else if he hasn't done anything wrong. you know that it is wrong to steal the possessions of someone else. you know that it is wrong to stick your you know what into an orifice that wasn't designed specifically for that purpose. you know that it is wrong to hurt someone else for no reason. these things don't really have to be taught.
|
|
|
Post by june on Sept 7, 2011 20:26:33 GMT
Getting back to the origional question.
I would hope that I would stand by my own convictions.
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Sept 7, 2011 20:55:14 GMT
Yes Jumbo there are a few core beliefs that do not vary. However apart from those, most of these 'inborn' morals seem to have only surfaced relatively recently, in some Western cultures. For the majority of human history and still in a large chunk of people today, these 'inborn' morals seem to be missing.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2011 6:47:55 GMT
I don't believe that any morality is inborn. Jumbo's example of cannibalism is one example. Children are often cruel until taught not to be.
Incest is probably the one taboo that just about every society seems to share, even primitive ones - but by the time that matters, the abhorrence of incest will have been inplanted, so it is hard to say whether it is instinctive. And I dare say there are places where incest is still practised as the norm.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Sept 9, 2011 17:55:26 GMT
As a side-order to this thread, I'm leaving a link to two opinion pieces by Joel Marks, philosopher, from the New York Times. In the first one, Confessions of an Ex-Moralist, he talks about the idea that there are no absolute right and wrongs; all morality, ethics and God-given-conscience is utterly subjective. One interesting discovery has been that there are fewer practical differences between moralism and amoralism than might have been expected. It seems to me that what could broadly be called desire has been the moving force of humanity, no matter how we might have window-dressed it with moral talk. By desire I do not mean sexual craving, or even only selfish wanting. I use the term generally to refer to whatever motivates us, which ranges from selfishness to altruism and everything in between and at right angles. Mother Theresa was acting as much from desire as was the Marquis de Sade. But the sort of desire that now concerns me most is what we would want if we were absolutely convinced that there is no such thing as moral right and wrong. I think the most likely answer is: pretty much the same as what we want now....and in the second piece, he replies to the many debating points he got in response to the first! Atheism, Amorality and Animals: A Response ...invoking the god of morality, like invoking the God of religion, serves to add a hefty dose of imprimatur, authority and self-assurance to the pre-existing strength of our desires, thereby bumping up the level of damage that is likely to ensue from trying to get our way in the face of opposition. The most horrific acts of humanity have been done not in spite of morality but because of it. (Here I pay homage to Ian Hinckfuss’s “The Moral Society.”) The great actors on the human stage — villains to some and heroes to others — have always believed they were doing the right thing.Just thought they might be of interest... They're worth a read sometime. In fact, The Opinionator is a damned good read altogether.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Sept 9, 2011 18:16:42 GMT
Getting back to the origional question. I would hope that I would stand by my own convictions. I think you would. And I can say that even though I don't know you (although from anything I've seen of you on this messageboard I would bet money on you standing by your own convictions) because I think that's what we would all do -- or attempt to do. Some may manage it better than others. I'm grading myself as a C, for example. C 1 for effort. I think that when we imagine we are following the moral authority of a greater power, be it God or Conscience or Absolute Right, what we are really doing is attaching ourselves to an ethos which rings true for us. Ultimately it is our own conviction that has allowed this greater authority to have any say in our actions. Of course, we don't always manage to do the right thing by our own conscience; this we call sin if we are religious, if we are not religious I guess we find other ways to interpret it. I just call it a SNAFU. The greatest commandment/advice on this earth didn't come from God, or Jesus, although they gave us some pretty amazingly fantastic stuff. It came from Shakespeare via Polonius in Hamlet. To thine own self be true. It's the true bit that's so good.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Sept 9, 2011 18:58:45 GMT
In cases where we good people do bad things (let's say the Nazi regime where there must have been so many good people who got caught up in bad actions), outside influences can warp your ability to listen to your own convictions; they can make you feel so unsure of yourself and so out of step and so harassed that you end up going along with the prevailing ethos if only to stop the madness.
When I was about 12, my teacher did an experiment in class to prove this; effectively he set out to make people agree vehemently that black was white. I was the guinea pig so I know first hand what it feels like to lose your ability to judge something correctly. It's quite easy to get confused, and quite unpleasant.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Sept 9, 2011 19:35:47 GMT
...satisfying a personal value-judgment. Let's say for the sake of argument that an objective morality exists and we can know what it says. Would you rather be morally good or would you rather be morally bad but satisfy a personal value-judgment? Let's say that it is an objective fact that punching old people is morally good, and to see an old person and not punch them is evil. Would you rather do the morally right thing and know that you are acting good, or would you prefer to be evil but satisfy your own subjective (and wrong) value-judgment which says that it is evil to punch and good not to? Or let's say that you make a value-judgment that homosexual behaviour is wrong, but as it turns out it is objectively not wrong. Would you rather do the objectively right thing and not censure it in anyway, or would you prefer to satisfy your own (and objectively wrong) preference of censuring it because of your subjective value-judgment that it is wrong? So, be a bad person and behave immorally (but in accordance with your own incorrect value-judgments) or behave morally (but possibly in opposition to your own incorrect value-judgments)? It has taken the guts of a week to work this one out for myself. It's an awkward bugger of a question because it requires imagining an unquestionable factual morality as well as imagining that I am doing wrong but unquestionably believe it to be right. I would rather find that I have no personal contradictions with the alleged factual morality but, if I did find one, I would rather be the bad person than have to punch the old lady. I think. I would rather help a loved one to die than stick by a factual morality that says that is wrong, for example.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2011 15:07:12 GMT
"It has taken the guts of a week to work this one out for myself. It's an awkward bugger of a question because it requires imagining an unquestionable factual morality as well as imagining that I am doing wrong but unquestionably believe it to be right." Read more: biglinmarshall.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=ethics&action=display&thread=2800&page=3#ixzz1XYvATG9tYes, I had the same problem, because if there is an absolute morality, I'd be kidding myself to believe my view is superior. Of course people do it all the time; we justify an act we did as being the "right" thing even though at the time we gave it little moral consideration.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Sept 11, 2011 15:11:09 GMT
As a side-order to this thread, I'm leaving a link to two opinion pieces by Joel Marks, philosopher, from the New York Times. In the first one, Confessions of an Ex-Moralist, he talks about the idea that there are no absolute right and wrongs; all morality, ethics and God-given-conscience is utterly subjective. One interesting discovery has been that there are fewer practical differences between moralism and amoralism than might have been expected. It seems to me that what could broadly be called desire has been the moving force of humanity, no matter how we might have window-dressed it with moral talk. By desire I do not mean sexual craving, or even only selfish wanting. I use the term generally to refer to whatever motivates us, which ranges from selfishness to altruism and everything in between and at right angles. Mother Theresa was acting as much from desire as was the Marquis de Sade. But the sort of desire that now concerns me most is what we would want if we were absolutely convinced that there is no such thing as moral right and wrong. I think the most likely answer is: pretty much the same as what we want now....and in the second piece, he replies to the many debating points he got in response to the first! Atheism, Amorality and Animals: A Response ...invoking the god of morality, like invoking the God of religion, serves to add a hefty dose of imprimatur, authority and self-assurance to the pre-existing strength of our desires, thereby bumping up the level of damage that is likely to ensue from trying to get our way in the face of opposition. The most horrific acts of humanity have been done not in spite of morality but because of it. (Here I pay homage to Ian Hinckfuss’s “The Moral Society.”) The great actors on the human stage — villains to some and heroes to others — have always believed they were doing the right thing.Just thought they might be of interest... They're worth a read sometime. In fact, The Opinionator is a damned good read altogether. The most horrific acts of humanity have been done not in spite of morality but because of it. that bit of idiocy totally discredits the chap. not only does he come from the absolute fallacy that any morality is subjective, but he tries to claim that ANY patently evil act can be committed because of morality, which is imbecilic on its face
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Sept 11, 2011 15:15:58 GMT
In cases where we good people do bad things (let's say the Nazi regime where there must have been so many good people who got caught up in bad actions), outside influences can warp your ability to listen to your own convictions; they can make you feel so unsure of yourself and so out of step and so harassed that you end up going along with the prevailing ethos if only to stop the madness. When I was about 12, my teacher did an experiment in class to prove this; effectively he set out to make people agree vehemently that black was white. I was the guinea pig so I know first hand what it feels like to lose your ability to judge something correctly. It's quite easy to get confused, and quite unpleasant. huh uh. if you are truly firm in your convictions, there is NOTHING that anyone, or anything, can do to change them. they can ONLY be change by your consent
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Sept 11, 2011 15:19:44 GMT
"It has taken the guts of a week to work this one out for myself. It's an awkward bugger of a question because it requires imagining an unquestionable factual morality as well as imagining that I am doing wrong but unquestionably believe it to be right." Read more: biglinmarshall.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=ethics&action=display&thread=2800&page=3#ixzz1XYvATG9tYes, I had the same problem, because if there is an absolute morality, I'd be kidding myself to believe my view is superior. Of course people do it all the time; we justify an act we did as being the "right" thing even though at the time we gave it little moral consideration. and that is bad. if you know that something is wrong, there is NEVER a circumstance wherein you should do it. that is never making a mistake. when you do something that you know is wrong, it is NEVER making a mistake. it is a wilful, deliberate act, and you have no right saying that you're sorry. if you were sorry, you wouldn't have done it in the first place
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Sept 11, 2011 18:39:32 GMT
In cases where we good people do bad things (let's say the Nazi regime where there must have been so many good people who got caught up in bad actions), outside influences can warp your ability to listen to your own convictions; they can make you feel so unsure of yourself and so out of step and so harassed that you end up going along with the prevailing ethos if only to stop the madness. When I was about 12, my teacher did an experiment in class to prove this; effectively he set out to make people agree vehemently that black was white. I was the guinea pig so I know first hand what it feels like to lose your ability to judge something correctly. It's quite easy to get confused, and quite unpleasant. huh uh. if you are truly firm in your convictions, there is NOTHING that anyone, or anything, can do to change them. they can ONLY be change by your consent Hmm. Rather than changing someone's convictions, the experiment made dissenting voices quiet and made me doubt my own understanding/belief. In my case, I shut up and went along with the prevailing thought because peers and authority both pressurised me and made me feel disorientated. I can't speak for why the other guinea pigs went along with groupthink even though they knew it was wrong but they did! It was a psychological trick. With dissenting voices silenced, the power of being able to then teach falsehoods as truths is quite immense.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Sept 11, 2011 18:51:16 GMT
come from the absolute fallacy that any morality is subjective It's hardly an ''absolute fallacy'' if an objective nature of morality is unproven. Has there been absolute proof of an objective morality? Ever? Anywhere? One could argue that the death penalty is such a case. Not just the US version but any or all of the versions of capital punishment across the world and over the eras. Witch trials, for example?
|
|