|
Post by trubble on Sept 11, 2011 18:53:12 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. 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 This is why Synonym's question is so awkward. I voted for Synonym to be member of the month because Syn pleaded against such a vote and I wanted revenge for this thread! ;D
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Sept 11, 2011 19:37:31 GMT
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. probably, but, it is still your choice to succumb. it seems that, in your case, it was more going along with the crowd. you CHOSE to agree, because everyone else did. you agreed, but didn't really accept and believe it. that is not the same thing. i had to do that in an economics class in college. everything the professor said was wrong, but in order to pass the class, i had to mark the answers that he wanted, rather than the correct answers. when i got out of the class, i still knew what was right though
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Sept 11, 2011 19:42:06 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? no, the death penalty is NOT such a case, not even remotely. the witch trials are not either. people were killed as witches by those who chose to not adhere to the absolute morality, but form their own. since none of the accused witches actually had harmed a cow, or anyone else, there was NO moral basis for killing them to begin with. once again, what society considers moral is not, unless it is the universal, objective, immutable reality set down at the beginning of time.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Sept 11, 2011 19:48:21 GMT
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 This is why Synonym's question is so awkward. I voted for Synonym to be member of the month because Syn pleaded against such a vote and I wanted revenge for this thread! ;D it's conceivable that wanting revenge would be wrong, but, it's not likely that a case could be made for voting synonym for member of the month would be wrong. doing it because syn didn't want you to would be revenge, but not wrong, since it was solely your choice of whom to vote for
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Sept 11, 2011 20:02:31 GMT
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? no, the death penalty is NOT such a case, not even remotely. the witch trials are not either. people were killed as witches by those who chose to not adhere to the absolute morality, but form their own. since none of the accused witches actually had harmed a cow, or anyone else, there was NO moral basis for killing them to begin with. once again, what society considers moral is not, unless it is the universal, objective, immutable reality set down at the beginning of time. If they killed someone unjustly because they BELIEVED they were acting according to correct morals, then they killed, as the man says, "not in spite of morality but because of it''.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Sept 11, 2011 20:07:10 GMT
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. probably, but, it is still your choice to succumb. it seems that, in your case, it was more going along with the crowd. you CHOSE to agree, because everyone else did. you agreed, but didn't really accept and believe it. that is not the same thing. i had to do that in an economics class in college. everything the professor said was wrong, but in order to pass the class, i had to mark the answers that he wanted, rather than the correct answers. when i got out of the class, i still knew what was right though That's it really. I don't know what would have happened if the experiment had lasted longer than a class period. As it was, I shut up but planned to ask another teacher and/or my family so that I could return fully armed with proof that I was right and everyone else was wrong. (I wonder what I would have done had my family and other teachers also prolonged the experiment.)
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Sept 11, 2011 20:29:06 GMT
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 If only the other seven billion people on the Earth had your direct line to objective morality and what it says For example you know that it is objectively wrong to kill someone unless it is the death penalty for a crime. And this is not your subjective opinion you are just being the mouthpiece for objective morality. Can't a subjective morality exist if it coincides with objective morality? For example, you and I may look at a piece of wood and you may judge it to be Xcm and I may judge it to be Ycm long. Now one of our judgments may coincide with the objective length that it is, but that doesn't mean that we were judging objectively. So even if an objective morality exists a subjective morality can exist alongside it. And on occasions it may even be correct.
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Sept 11, 2011 20:38:04 GMT
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. We had something similar. A teacher decided that people with blue eyes were superior to people of other eye colours, and of course the point was to demonstrate how silly it is to differentiate between people on such trivial grounds, but the thing is it ended up with a mini punchup between boys of the respective eye colours afterwards. No I am not exaggerating this for effect. There was a German film on a while back on this theme, called The Wave. And of course there is that famous experiment by a chap whose name I forget (Stanley Milgram?) where ordinary people were, as they believed, delivering dangerous-level electrical shocks to someone in another room, just because a scientist in a white coat told them to (IIRC). P.S.Thank you very much
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Sept 12, 2011 9:07:29 GMT
You are welcome, bwahaha.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Sept 12, 2011 20:52:09 GMT
no, the death penalty is NOT such a case, not even remotely. the witch trials are not either. people were killed as witches by those who chose to not adhere to the absolute morality, but form their own. since none of the accused witches actually had harmed a cow, or anyone else, there was NO moral basis for killing them to begin with. once again, what society considers moral is not, unless it is the universal, objective, immutable reality set down at the beginning of time. If they killed someone unjustly because they BELIEVED they were acting according to correct morals, then they killed, as the man says, "not in spite of morality but because of it''. no. their beliefs were wrong, and not according to correct morality. they were killing in spite of morality. what they believed was irrelevant
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Sept 12, 2011 21:04:18 GMT
probably, but, it is still your choice to succumb. it seems that, in your case, it was more going along with the crowd. you CHOSE to agree, because everyone else did. you agreed, but didn't really accept and believe it. that is not the same thing. i had to do that in an economics class in college. everything the professor said was wrong, but in order to pass the class, i had to mark the answers that he wanted, rather than the correct answers. when i got out of the class, i still knew what was right though That's it really. I don't know what would have happened if the experiment had lasted longer than a class period. As it was, I shut up but planned to ask another teacher and/or my family so that I could return fully armed with proof that I was right and everyone else was wrong. (I wonder what I would have done had my family and other teachers also prolonged the experiment.) that's what i mean. in your heart, you still knew you were right, even after the brainwashing. that's the point. all the brainwashing in the world can't change you unless you choose to allow it
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Sept 12, 2011 21:08:14 GMT
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 If only the other seven billion people on the Earth had your direct line to objective morality and what it says For example you know that it is objectively wrong to kill someone unless it is the death penalty for a crime. And this is not your subjective opinion you are just being the mouthpiece for objective morality. Can't a subjective morality exist if it coincides with objective morality? For example, you and I may look at a piece of wood and you may judge it to be Xcm and I may judge it to be Ycm long. Now one of our judgments may coincide with the objective length that it is, but that doesn't mean that we were judging objectively. So even if an objective morality exists a subjective morality can exist alongside it. And on occasions it may even be correct. no, i am not a mouthpiece at all. i do have the moral obligation to teach you the truth, but, i can not, and wouldn't if i could, force you to accept the truth. that is strictly on you. there are many folks who know, and adhere to, what is right. i am not the only one. your illustration doesn't work. my x and your y would be merely guesses, albeit perhaps educated ones, and would be subjective. only the ruler, or tape measure, would provide the objective. correct, answer
|
|