I tend to agree with you OutOfBreath, at least with the 'relative' part. My first impression is the fact that morality is different from one culture to another and varies within a given culture over time. Wouldn't this fact extinguish the notion that morals are absolute? It comes down to the absolutists claiming a hypothesis contrary to direct observation and experience which imposes a rather high burden.
You always have such a balanced perspective
Baraka,
Do you believe the existence of God is also relative?
Do you believe the existence of God is also relative?
This is a tough one for me, ffg and I know where you are going with this, as my husband as already tried to 'corner' me with this argument (we had a 'spirited debate about this not too long ago). I imagine that you feel morals are absolute, is this the case? As far as your question, I honestly do not know the answer, although I tend to lean towards the notion that the concept of God is relative.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
This is a tough one for me, ffg and I know where you are going with this, as my husband as already tried to 'corner' me with this argument (we had a 'spirited debate about this not too long ago). I imagine that you feel morals are absolute, is this the case? As far as your question, I honestly do not know the answer, although I tend to lean towards the notion that the concept of God is relative.
I believe that morals are absolute, yes. However, I believe morals extend from human purpose which is not entirely consistent across all cultures. Because of this, I can certainly get on board with cultural differences in moralities to a certain extent. But the core moral vaules of life and happiness are very much absolutes, IMO.
What I don't understand about moral relativism is why it's valued externally but not internally. Why have I never heard someone discuss the relativity of morality in the context of pro-lifers, or racists, for instance? As a concept, moral relativism seems a bit cart-before-the-horse for my tastes.
If you lean "towards the notion that the concept of God is relative", then you're definitely consistent there, since those beliefs also vary by culture. Personally, I think God exists or it doesn't. I can't logically justify God's existence as being dependent on beliefs.
I believe that morals are absolute, yes. However, I believe morals extend from human purpose which is not entirely consistent across all cultures. Because of this, I can certainly get on board with cultural differences in moralities to a certain extent. But the core moral vaules of life and happiness are very much absolutes, IMO.
So you believe morals are absolute, except in some cases? Not sure I follow you. It seems to me that the arguments for absolute morality comes down to the idea that morality has always existed or it has been created by a supernatural "creator."
What I don't understand about moral relativism is why it's valued externally but not internally. Why have I never heard someone discuss the relativity of morality in the context of pro-lifers, or racists, for instance? As a concept, moral relativism seems a bit cart-before-the-horse for my tastes.
How is it NOT valued internally? Do you mean there are folks that except the fact that others have a different moral code, but do not 'believe' their moral code internally? Perhaps you can expound.
If you lean "towards the notion that the concept of God is relative", then you're definitely consistent there, since those beliefs also very by culture. Personally, I think God exists or it doesn't. I can't logically justify God's existence as being dependent on beliefs.
I can dig this. I will say, imo, the sets of moral values cultures possess today have evolved largely by trial and error - more or less keeping what works and rejecting that which does not work. However, such process does not distinguish between absolute and relative morals though the fact that the evolution occurs would seem to support relativism.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
So you believe morals are absolute, except in some cases? Not sure I follow you. It seems to me that the arguments for absolute morality comes down to the idea that morality has always existed or it has been created by a supernatural "creator."
Not really, no. I don't believe morals are absolute, "except in some cases". Rather, I believe morals are directly related to human values. There are values consistent across all humanity (life, happiness, esteem, etc). Then there are other values unique to certain parts of humanity, dictated by unique circumstances.
I certainly don't believe that morality has always existed or was created by a supernatural "creator". I believe morality is created by each man who lives, relative to his or her own values. This actually may sound like a "moral relativism" argument, but it's really not. Men do not exist in vacuums and their values and methods for achieving those values are inextricably linked to the objective world. That is how morality stands as an absolute.
Morality is similar to mathematics. My usage of math may be different than your own, depending on cultural differences. However, the underlying laws of identity and operation are exactly the same. And if either of us violates those laws in our usage, we are acting "immorally".
How is it NOT valued internally? Do you mean there are folks that except the fact that others have a different moral code, but do not 'believe' their moral code internally? Perhaps you can expound.
I certainly believe that most people don't believe their own BS, so to speak, on morality. I see evidence of this everyday. Many people will go on and on about "moral relativism" and the validity of all moral stances. Then they will turn around and condemn the racist or the bigot or the holder of certain moralities different than their own. And not that I'm trying to defend racists or bigots. They are immoral. However, I can't understand how violent cannibals on far away coasts can be moral while bigots are immoral.
I can dig this. I will say, imo, the sets of moral values cultures possess today have evolved largely by trial and error - more or less keeping what works and rejecting that which does not work. However, such process does not distinguish between absolute and relative morals though the fact that the evolution occurs would seem to support relativism.
Why would it support "relativism"? Things evolving largely by "trial and error" would seem to imply an absolute standard against which actions are measured and deemed either successful or unsuccessful.
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Not really, no. I don't believe morals are absolute, "except in some cases". Rather, I believe morals are directly related to human values. There are values consistent across all humanity (life, happiness, esteem, etc). Then there are other values unique to certain parts of humanity, dictated by unique circumstances.
I certainly don't believe that morality has always existed or was created by a supernatural "creator". I believe morality is created by each man who lives, relative to his or her own values. This actually may sound like a "moral relativism" argument, but it's really not. Men do not exist in vacuums and their values and methods for achieving those values are inextricably linked to the objective world. That is how morality stands as an absolute.
Morality is similar to mathematics. My usage of math may be different than your own, depending on cultural differences. However, the underlying laws of identity and operation are exactly the same. And if either of us violates those laws in our usage, we are acting "immorally".
I certainly believe that most people don't believe their own BS, so to speak, on morality. I see evidence of this everyday. Many people will go on and on about "moral relativism" and the validity of all moral stances. Then they will turn around and condemn the racist or the bigot or the holder of certain moralities different than their own. And not that I'm trying to defend racists or bigots. They are immoral. However, I can't understand how violent cannibals on far away coasts can be moral while bigots are immoral.
Why would it support "relativism"? Things evolving largely by "trial and error" would seem to imply an absolute standard against which actions are measured and deemed either successful or unsuccessful.
Your argument sounds suspiciously like objectivism. I have to get to work so I will be brief.
There is no question that morality can be "discovered" by rational thought but using the word "discovery" does not to imply existence independent of mind. In fact, I suggested the adoption of a particular set of morals may have survival value for the species. Others claim that morality is "discovered" by authority or the supernatural.
If you claim that morals exist independent of mind and are absolute then you must provide evidence that they do in fact exist outside the mind and independent of mind. I have neither seen nor heard evidence to support that notion. Your arguments look more like rationalizatons than an appeal to rational (i.e., objective in your parlance) thought (with regard to moral absolutes).
Interesting debate. I'll be back later, perhaps
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Your argument sounds suspiciously like objectivism. I have to get to work so I will be brief.
Hehe..."suspiciously"?? It is objectivism.
There is no question that morality can be "discovered" by rational thought but using the word "discovery" does not to imply existence independent of mind. In fact, I suggested the adoption of a particular set of morals may have survival value for the species. Others claim that morality is "discovered" by authority or the supernatural.
Certainly it is possible that "morality" is nothing more than an invention of the mind. It is also entirely possible that "genocide" and "sufferring" and "unhappiness" are nothing more than inventions of the mind as well.
If you claim that morals exist independent of mind and are absolute then you must provide evidence that they do in fact exist outside the mind and independent of mind. I have neither seen nor heard evidence to support that notion. Your arguments look more like rationalizatons than an appeal to rational (i.e., objective in your parlance) thought (with regard to moral absolutes).
Interesting debate. I'll be back later, perhaps
If you want evidence that morality exists independent of the mind, try this:
STEP 1: Value life.
STEP 2: Burn down your house.
STEP 3: Poison your food.
STEP 4: Give away all your water.
STEP 5: Continue living.
Certainly it is possible that "morality" is nothing more than an invention of the mind. It is also entirely possible that "genocide" and "sufferring" and "unhappiness" are nothing more than inventions of the mind as well.
If you want evidence that morality exists independent of the mind, try this:
STEP 1: Value life.
STEP 2: Burn down your house.
STEP 3: Poison your food.
STEP 4: Give away all your water.
STEP 5: Continue living.
Ah, I got 'sucked' back in to this debate. Let me just ask you this: Is abortion murder or not? Is gay marriage an offense or not? Are illegal immigrants just criminals or not? We can't even agree what a plain piece of text means (Second Amendment to the US Constitution). So, if there are absolute morals nobody knows what they are and there is no lack of self important preachers to give you conflicting opinions about them.
I don't feel like your example above proved your case. In my view you can't prove anything except from some assumed premises, not in mathematics, philosophy or anywhere else. That's all proof means, to derive something logically from something else. So if you have a "proof" that absolute morals exist then I ask what are the premises which you assume in order to reach that conclusion. And your premises seem to be more like wishful thinking.
OK, I'm really off to work now!
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Ah, I got 'sucked' back in to this debate. Let me just ask you this: Is abortion murder or not?
No. Abortion is not murder. Murder is the willful destruction of one human life by another. A fetus is not another human life. It is a life entirely part of and dependent on the life of its "murderer".
However, that is my opinion. Abortion is a moral tightrope. I believe it is morally ok, but I'd never actually want to be party to an abortion since it is far closer to murder than I'd ever want to get.
Is gay marriage an offense or not?
Gay marriage cannot be "immoral". Homosexuality could be made out to be immoral, I suppose, but that would make heterosexuality immoral as well.
Homosexuality is not a moral issue. It is an issue of disgust for some people. Disgust and morals are two very different things.
Are illegal immigrants just criminals or not?
Yes, in the sense they are breaking the law. Immigration as a whole is not really a moral issue either. The individual motivations for immigration are moral issues.
We can't even agree what a plain piece of text means (Second Amendment to the US Constitution). So, if there are absolute morals nobody knows what they are and there is no lack of self important preachers to give you conflicting opinions about them.
And this is entirely valid. Accessing an objective morality is as difficult as accessing esoteric objective mathematical principles. But human failures of discernment do not imply non-existence.
I don't feel like your example above proved your case. In my view you can't prove anything except from some assumed premises, not in mathematics, philosophy or anywhere else. That's all proof means, to derive something logically from something else. So if you have a "proof" that absolute morals exist then I ask what are the premises which you assume in order to reach that conclusion. And your premises seem to be more like wishful thinking.
OK, I'm really off to work now!
Certainly there are assumed premises in the view that morality exists objectively. There are assumed premises required in any view that anything exists objectively, including the mind from which subjectivity would stem. The fundamental assumption of objectivism is the law of identity. We can sit around all day and discuss whether or not that assumption is correct, but we already assume it is by a) communicating with each other and b) assuming that we have distinct identifiable minds in the first place.
And how are my premises "wishful thinking"? What am I wishing for?
Beneath our superior exterior and complex behaviors, we are the sum of billions of parts, gears and what-not moving in tandem to create our selves. In this regard we are no more morally valuable than a grain of sand. No more morally valuable than a fish. However, to us and our self-servant megalomaniacal nature, we are the most important species 'alive'. So much so, that we idolize mythical deities who's sole purpose is us.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Beneath our superior exterior and complex behaviors, we are the sum of billions of parts, gears and what-not moving in tandem to create our selves. In this regard we are no more morally valuable than a grain of sand. No more morally valuable than a fish. However, to us and our self-servant megalomaniacal nature, we are the most important species 'alive'. So much so, that we idolize mythical deities who's sole purpose is us.
So how does your desire to change the world fit into this??????
So how does your desire to change the world fit into this??????
I'm not sure what your question is.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Numerous times you've proclaimed a desire to see this world change, specifically the behavior of people. Those proclamations imply that such changes would be good, as opposed to bad.
Yet here you proclaim that humans are "no more morally valuable than a grain of sand".
I'm having trouble reconciling these things. Hence, my question.
Numerous times you've proclaimed a desire to see this world change, specifically the behavior of people. Those proclamations imply that such changes would be good, as opposed to bad.
Yet here you proclaim that humans are "no more morally valuable than a grain of sand".
I'm having trouble reconciling these things. Hence, my question.
That's if your seeking out cosmological ends to explain human morality. Consider it a cosmological constant that "life" as it's called is not valuable to the whole of the universe. Then our existence is only of value to us. If we look at it from a 3rd perspective, what if we were ants, does one ant hold more value than the next, not really. On the other hand, if you are an ant, you may disagree.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
That's if your seeking out cosmological ends to explain human morality. Consider it a cosmological constant that "life" as it's called is not valuable to the whole of the universe.
"Value" is irrelevant to the "whole of the universe". To say that the universe does or does not "value" something is ridiculous. The universe has no capacity to accept or reject values. "Value" is only applicable to living things.
Then our existence is only of value to us.
Basically, yes. But what does this demonstrate? Just because we value our existence and the universe does not, how does this mean that morality isn't "cosmological"? It's like suggesting that gravity can't be "cosmological" since the universe doesn't give two shits whether or not the atoms that comprise our bodies are held together.
If we look at it from a 3rd perspective, what if we were ants, does one ant hold more value than the next, not really. On the other hand, if you are an ant, you may disagree.
We aren't ants. You cannot prove something by saying "if we were ants, then we would be like ants, and maybe this or maybe that". It's childish hyperbole.
An ant cannot "disagree". That implies all sorts of functions alien to ants. Humans, however can. Humans can hold and assess values. Humans can then act to achieve those values, or act to reject other values. They make choices guided by morality, a code of ethics by which men act in the process of achieving their goals. The validity of that morality will dictate their success or their failure at achieving their values.
"Value" is irrelevant to the "whole of the universe". To say that the universe does or does not "value" something is ridiculous. The universe has no capacity to accept or reject values. "Value" is only applicable to living things.
if it were in my power to save the human then i would do it. if it came down to an equal chance of saving the dog or the human, again i would pick the human. why? cause i am human. it's as simple as that. i place a higher value on a human life than i do any other animal.
...
That's all things being equal... regarding the physical attributes (distance to each life, dog or human, etc...). But, toss in a few variables and it may affect the outcome, depending upon the person.
Example: The Human in trouble is a perfect stranger... the dog is your pet. Does the outcome change?
or... the dog is your neighbor's dog... the human is the ex-convicted sex offender that moved into the house on the corner. Does the outcome change or remain?
The value of life and our morality changes as the situation changes. The same way I argue to people who claimn that it is wrong for Amnericans to value the lives of americans over the lives of people of other nations. It is relative... the same way my life has less value to you than yours. If given the choice of sparing your life.. the life of your spouse, your child, family member or friend or mine... I'm a goner in every case. Right or wrong? Moral or immoral? Who's to say?
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
"Value" is irrelevant to the "whole of the universe". To say that the universe does or does not "value" something is ridiculous. The universe has no capacity to accept or reject values. "Value" is only applicable to living things.
More specifically, value is only applicable to humans.
Basically, yes. But what does this demonstrate? Just because we value our existence and the universe does not, how does this mean that morality isn't "cosmological"? It's like suggesting that gravity can't be "cosmological" since the universe doesn't give two shits whether or not the atoms that comprise our bodies are held together.
It's two different perspectives of looking at it. From inside the species each one of our moral value systems is different and we all believe our's is the correct one. From a 3rd person perspective, moral value is non-existent, meaning none of these individual value systems matters. Just as the worker ant is different than the others, within his community he has different values, but to us, they are all just ants.
We aren't ants. You cannot prove something by saying "if we were ants, then we would be like ants, and maybe this or maybe that". It's childish hyperbole.
An ant cannot "disagree". That implies all sorts of functions alien to ants. Humans, however can. Humans can hold and assess values. Humans can then act to achieve those values, or act to reject other values. They make choices guided by morality, a code of ethics by which men act in the process of achieving their goals. The validity of that morality will dictate their success or their failure at achieving their values.
Hey, I detect some condescension in your text, thought that was banned from the MT?
Men or ants, there is no difference. We are all driven by universal mathematical laws. Our movements, thoughts, and vital systems are all a result of atoms behaving in particular ways, which occured due to prior causes. Our choice is limited, just as the ants.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
More specifically, value is only applicable to humans.
Not really, no. Value is only applicable to life. Value implies three things: a subject that holds and recognizes a value, an object that is valued, and a purposeful condition that relates the two things.
My dogs value food, just as I do and for the same reasons, albeit in different ways.
It's two different perspectives of looking at it. From inside the species each one of our moral value systems is different and we all believe our's is the correct one. From a 3rd person perspective, moral value is non-existent, meaning none of these individual value systems matters. Just as the worker ant is different than the others, within his community he has different values, but to us, they are all just ants.
So the murderer's morality is no better or worse than your own? It has no more or less validity?
Hey, I detect some condescension in your text, thought that was banned from the MT?
I don't believe condescension was banned from the MT.
Men or ants, there is no difference. We are all driven by universal mathematical laws. Our movements, thoughts, and vital systems are all a result of atoms behaving in particular ways, which occured due to prior causes. Our choice is limited, just as the ants.
Hehe...ok. I'll eagerly await your posts lamenting the abuses and sufferings of ants, just like the ones you make about people.
Not really, no. Value is only applicable to life. Value implies three things: a subject that holds and recognizes a value, an object that is valued, and a purposeful condition that relates the two things.
My dogs value food, just as I do and for the same reasons, albeit in different ways.
Aha, so the cosmos value gravity, because without it there would be no cosmos? See, what separates life from non-life? Organic matter, but it is still matter, it just has some unique properties.
So the murderer's morality is no better or worse than your own? It has no more or less validity?
Not particularly. However, the murderer may not be a fully functioning agent.
I don't believe condescension was banned from the MT.
Aha, so it's just me that gets shit on for it.
Hehe...ok. I'll eagerly await your posts lamenting the abuses and sufferings of ants, just like the ones you make about people.
But, I am not an ant.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Aha, so the cosmos value gravity, because without it there would be no cosmos? See, what separates life from non-life?
No. The cosmos can't value anything because it has no means to recognize and hold values.
Organic matter, but it is still matter, it just has some unique properties.
One of those unique properties is the absolute-ism of life. Life is unique because it has a purpose and can act to achieve that purpose. You can break life down all you want into matter and particles, but the division will lose the attribute of living.
Not particularly. However, the murderer may not be a fully functioning agent.
Huh? If there is no difference between man and ant, how can there be "fully functioning" agents?
Aha, so it's just me that gets shit on for it.
No. You get shit on for lots of reasons.
But, I am not an ant.
Are you sure? You just said this:
"Men or ants, there is no difference. We are all driven by universal mathematical laws. Our movements, thoughts, and vital systems are all a result of atoms behaving in particular ways, which occured due to prior causes. Our choice is limited, just as the ants."
Comments
Baraka,
Do you believe the existence of God is also relative?
This is a tough one for me, ffg and I know where you are going with this, as my husband as already tried to 'corner' me with this argument (we had a 'spirited debate about this not too long ago). I imagine that you feel morals are absolute, is this the case? As far as your question, I honestly do not know the answer, although I tend to lean towards the notion that the concept of God is relative.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I believe that morals are absolute, yes. However, I believe morals extend from human purpose which is not entirely consistent across all cultures. Because of this, I can certainly get on board with cultural differences in moralities to a certain extent. But the core moral vaules of life and happiness are very much absolutes, IMO.
What I don't understand about moral relativism is why it's valued externally but not internally. Why have I never heard someone discuss the relativity of morality in the context of pro-lifers, or racists, for instance? As a concept, moral relativism seems a bit cart-before-the-horse for my tastes.
If you lean "towards the notion that the concept of God is relative", then you're definitely consistent there, since those beliefs also vary by culture. Personally, I think God exists or it doesn't. I can't logically justify God's existence as being dependent on beliefs.
So you believe morals are absolute, except in some cases? Not sure I follow you. It seems to me that the arguments for absolute morality comes down to the idea that morality has always existed or it has been created by a supernatural "creator."
How is it NOT valued internally? Do you mean there are folks that except the fact that others have a different moral code, but do not 'believe' their moral code internally? Perhaps you can expound.
I can dig this. I will say, imo, the sets of moral values cultures possess today have evolved largely by trial and error - more or less keeping what works and rejecting that which does not work. However, such process does not distinguish between absolute and relative morals though the fact that the evolution occurs would seem to support relativism.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
That doesn't mean your statement is false.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Of course it does. Why else would you have said "or"?
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Not really, no. I don't believe morals are absolute, "except in some cases". Rather, I believe morals are directly related to human values. There are values consistent across all humanity (life, happiness, esteem, etc). Then there are other values unique to certain parts of humanity, dictated by unique circumstances.
I certainly don't believe that morality has always existed or was created by a supernatural "creator". I believe morality is created by each man who lives, relative to his or her own values. This actually may sound like a "moral relativism" argument, but it's really not. Men do not exist in vacuums and their values and methods for achieving those values are inextricably linked to the objective world. That is how morality stands as an absolute.
Morality is similar to mathematics. My usage of math may be different than your own, depending on cultural differences. However, the underlying laws of identity and operation are exactly the same. And if either of us violates those laws in our usage, we are acting "immorally".
I certainly believe that most people don't believe their own BS, so to speak, on morality. I see evidence of this everyday. Many people will go on and on about "moral relativism" and the validity of all moral stances. Then they will turn around and condemn the racist or the bigot or the holder of certain moralities different than their own. And not that I'm trying to defend racists or bigots. They are immoral. However, I can't understand how violent cannibals on far away coasts can be moral while bigots are immoral.
Why would it support "relativism"? Things evolving largely by "trial and error" would seem to imply an absolute standard against which actions are measured and deemed either successful or unsuccessful.
So in other words you meant that my statement was true, as was the original statement I took issue with?
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Your argument sounds suspiciously like objectivism. I have to get to work so I will be brief.
There is no question that morality can be "discovered" by rational thought but using the word "discovery" does not to imply existence independent of mind. In fact, I suggested the adoption of a particular set of morals may have survival value for the species. Others claim that morality is "discovered" by authority or the supernatural.
If you claim that morals exist independent of mind and are absolute then you must provide evidence that they do in fact exist outside the mind and independent of mind. I have neither seen nor heard evidence to support that notion. Your arguments look more like rationalizatons than an appeal to rational (i.e., objective in your parlance) thought (with regard to moral absolutes).
Interesting debate. I'll be back later, perhaps
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Hehe..."suspiciously"?? It is objectivism.
Certainly it is possible that "morality" is nothing more than an invention of the mind. It is also entirely possible that "genocide" and "sufferring" and "unhappiness" are nothing more than inventions of the mind as well.
If you want evidence that morality exists independent of the mind, try this:
STEP 1: Value life.
STEP 2: Burn down your house.
STEP 3: Poison your food.
STEP 4: Give away all your water.
STEP 5: Continue living.
Ah, I got 'sucked' back in to this debate. Let me just ask you this: Is abortion murder or not? Is gay marriage an offense or not? Are illegal immigrants just criminals or not? We can't even agree what a plain piece of text means (Second Amendment to the US Constitution). So, if there are absolute morals nobody knows what they are and there is no lack of self important preachers to give you conflicting opinions about them.
I don't feel like your example above proved your case. In my view you can't prove anything except from some assumed premises, not in mathematics, philosophy or anywhere else. That's all proof means, to derive something logically from something else. So if you have a "proof" that absolute morals exist then I ask what are the premises which you assume in order to reach that conclusion. And your premises seem to be more like wishful thinking.
OK, I'm really off to work now!
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
No. Abortion is not murder. Murder is the willful destruction of one human life by another. A fetus is not another human life. It is a life entirely part of and dependent on the life of its "murderer".
However, that is my opinion. Abortion is a moral tightrope. I believe it is morally ok, but I'd never actually want to be party to an abortion since it is far closer to murder than I'd ever want to get.
Gay marriage cannot be "immoral". Homosexuality could be made out to be immoral, I suppose, but that would make heterosexuality immoral as well.
Homosexuality is not a moral issue. It is an issue of disgust for some people. Disgust and morals are two very different things.
Yes, in the sense they are breaking the law. Immigration as a whole is not really a moral issue either. The individual motivations for immigration are moral issues.
And this is entirely valid. Accessing an objective morality is as difficult as accessing esoteric objective mathematical principles. But human failures of discernment do not imply non-existence.
Certainly there are assumed premises in the view that morality exists objectively. There are assumed premises required in any view that anything exists objectively, including the mind from which subjectivity would stem. The fundamental assumption of objectivism is the law of identity. We can sit around all day and discuss whether or not that assumption is correct, but we already assume it is by a) communicating with each other and b) assuming that we have distinct identifiable minds in the first place.
And how are my premises "wishful thinking"? What am I wishing for?
Beneath our superior exterior and complex behaviors, we are the sum of billions of parts, gears and what-not moving in tandem to create our selves. In this regard we are no more morally valuable than a grain of sand. No more morally valuable than a fish. However, to us and our self-servant megalomaniacal nature, we are the most important species 'alive'. So much so, that we idolize mythical deities who's sole purpose is us.
So how does your desire to change the world fit into this??????
I'm not sure what your question is.
Numerous times you've proclaimed a desire to see this world change, specifically the behavior of people. Those proclamations imply that such changes would be good, as opposed to bad.
Yet here you proclaim that humans are "no more morally valuable than a grain of sand".
I'm having trouble reconciling these things. Hence, my question.
No. If you want to call it true, that's your prerogative.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
What would you call it then?
That's if your seeking out cosmological ends to explain human morality. Consider it a cosmological constant that "life" as it's called is not valuable to the whole of the universe. Then our existence is only of value to us. If we look at it from a 3rd perspective, what if we were ants, does one ant hold more value than the next, not really. On the other hand, if you are an ant, you may disagree.
"Value" is irrelevant to the "whole of the universe". To say that the universe does or does not "value" something is ridiculous. The universe has no capacity to accept or reject values. "Value" is only applicable to living things.
Basically, yes. But what does this demonstrate? Just because we value our existence and the universe does not, how does this mean that morality isn't "cosmological"? It's like suggesting that gravity can't be "cosmological" since the universe doesn't give two shits whether or not the atoms that comprise our bodies are held together.
We aren't ants. You cannot prove something by saying "if we were ants, then we would be like ants, and maybe this or maybe that". It's childish hyperbole.
An ant cannot "disagree". That implies all sorts of functions alien to ants. Humans, however can. Humans can hold and assess values. Humans can then act to achieve those values, or act to reject other values. They make choices guided by morality, a code of ethics by which men act in the process of achieving their goals. The validity of that morality will dictate their success or their failure at achieving their values.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
How so?
Are you serious?
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
That's all things being equal... regarding the physical attributes (distance to each life, dog or human, etc...). But, toss in a few variables and it may affect the outcome, depending upon the person.
Example: The Human in trouble is a perfect stranger... the dog is your pet. Does the outcome change?
or... the dog is your neighbor's dog... the human is the ex-convicted sex offender that moved into the house on the corner. Does the outcome change or remain?
The value of life and our morality changes as the situation changes. The same way I argue to people who claimn that it is wrong for Amnericans to value the lives of americans over the lives of people of other nations. It is relative... the same way my life has less value to you than yours. If given the choice of sparing your life.. the life of your spouse, your child, family member or friend or mine... I'm a goner in every case. Right or wrong? Moral or immoral? Who's to say?
Hail, Hail!!!
More specifically, value is only applicable to humans.
It's two different perspectives of looking at it. From inside the species each one of our moral value systems is different and we all believe our's is the correct one. From a 3rd person perspective, moral value is non-existent, meaning none of these individual value systems matters. Just as the worker ant is different than the others, within his community he has different values, but to us, they are all just ants.
Hey, I detect some condescension in your text, thought that was banned from the MT?
Men or ants, there is no difference. We are all driven by universal mathematical laws. Our movements, thoughts, and vital systems are all a result of atoms behaving in particular ways, which occured due to prior causes. Our choice is limited, just as the ants.
Not really, no. Value is only applicable to life. Value implies three things: a subject that holds and recognizes a value, an object that is valued, and a purposeful condition that relates the two things.
My dogs value food, just as I do and for the same reasons, albeit in different ways.
So the murderer's morality is no better or worse than your own? It has no more or less validity?
I don't believe condescension was banned from the MT.
Hehe...ok. I'll eagerly await your posts lamenting the abuses and sufferings of ants, just like the ones you make about people.
Aha, so the cosmos value gravity, because without it there would be no cosmos? See, what separates life from non-life? Organic matter, but it is still matter, it just has some unique properties.
Not particularly. However, the murderer may not be a fully functioning agent.
Aha, so it's just me that gets shit on for it.
But, I am not an ant.
No. The cosmos can't value anything because it has no means to recognize and hold values.
One of those unique properties is the absolute-ism of life. Life is unique because it has a purpose and can act to achieve that purpose. You can break life down all you want into matter and particles, but the division will lose the attribute of living.
Huh? If there is no difference between man and ant, how can there be "fully functioning" agents?
No. You get shit on for lots of reasons.
Are you sure? You just said this:
"Men or ants, there is no difference. We are all driven by universal mathematical laws. Our movements, thoughts, and vital systems are all a result of atoms behaving in particular ways, which occured due to prior causes. Our choice is limited, just as the ants."