|
On May 11 2011 21:12 Zechs wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 21:05 Chahta wrote:On May 11 2011 21:00 Zechs wrote:On May 11 2011 20:48 Chahta wrote:On May 11 2011 20:43 Zechs wrote:On May 11 2011 20:35 AutomatonOmega wrote:On May 11 2011 20:32 XeliN wrote:I'm skeptical when people use things such as "I personally feel" or "I believe" as a justification for the existence of something. That would be my criticism of the above two posts -*apart from the one right above who posted while i was typing like some kind of ninja  *- . Believing in something doesn't make it any more or less likely to be true. Truth doesn't equal facts. In cases of something like morality, what is true is what one believes, there's no line separating the two. Would you argue that there is an absolute morality that is right and wrong and people who express their morality as though it were a belief are somehow incorrect? The bolded part completely defeats your own argument, surely? If an individual's beliefs affect his morals, then they can (and history has proven will) be different to the morals of another individual, ergo, they are subjective. I don't see how any non-religious person can argue for objective morals, and the only way a religious person can make that argument is the same way they make every argument: "God said so." Read my long-winded post, I believe I refute your "God said so" claim, as well as defending the ability of a non-religious person to argue for objective morals. The interpretation of morals does not change what the morals actually are. Your example of the thief doesn't really help. In the thief's moral code, what if he genuinely believes that it's okay to steal? (for what it's worth, i think most thieves know what they're doing is wrong but their selfish need/want outweighs their guilt, but lets assume that isn't the case for this example). Who is to say that his moral is wrong and that the 'stealing is bad' moral that 99% of us hold is correct? Again, even this truth that appears to be absolute is not actually so. The only person who could possibly decide an absolute moral does not exist. Morality does not bend to beliefs. It does not matter how okay the thief believed his own actions to be, they still caused harm and therefore the action of stealing was immoral. Was it the most convenient option for their own survival? Possibly, but that does not mean it was the only option and certainly does not mean it was right. Also realize I used "personal moral code" loosely, because it doesn't exist...it is only a perception. The truth is the greater moral code derived by reason (do "good", whatever "good" is) That's a nice, romantic notion, but where does this absolute moral code come from? Again, if it is 'common sense' or 'reason', that doesn't help the argument either; people reason differently. If an absolute moral code existed, why would anyone break it? Surely we would live in a eutopia where nobody needed to harm anyone else. The thief wouldn't need to steal in the first place. The only immoral people would be ones with birth defects because everyone else has the same in-built morals, no? And yet there are perfectly sane, functional people who perform immoral acts. Actually, that last sentence is a whole other can of worms...
I would define such an absolute moral code like what I'm championing (ie the fabric of sapient existence) to be more of a codified set of laws by which a sapient race must adhere to evolve into a state of universal understanding and would be the stepping off point in whether or not such a race would extinguish itself or go extinct.
Surely, a race that preys on its own children is doomed to ultimate failure. A race that preys on itself, that commits to the 'survival of the fittest' mindset, that gives itself over to its animalistic tendencies, will likely crumble under its own weight. Even with our technological advances cruising along as they have, our growth as a species is stunted by are lack of a capacity to recognize the greater necessities of sapient life extending beyond its animalism for the sake of self preservation as a collective entity. For every two steps we make forward as a race, we're taking one step back.
As it is, we're not going to last another five thousand years, IMO.
|
On May 11 2011 21:12 XeliN wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 21:05 Chahta wrote:On May 11 2011 21:00 Zechs wrote:On May 11 2011 20:48 Chahta wrote:On May 11 2011 20:43 Zechs wrote:On May 11 2011 20:35 AutomatonOmega wrote:On May 11 2011 20:32 XeliN wrote:I'm skeptical when people use things such as "I personally feel" or "I believe" as a justification for the existence of something. That would be my criticism of the above two posts -*apart from the one right above who posted while i was typing like some kind of ninja *- . Believing in something doesn't make it any more or less likely to be true. Truth doesn't equal facts. In cases of something like morality, what is true is what one believes, there's no line separating the two. Would you argue that there is an absolute morality that is right and wrong and people who express their morality as though it were a belief are somehow incorrect? The bolded part completely defeats your own argument, surely? If an individual's beliefs affect his morals, then they can (and history has proven will) be different to the morals of another individual, ergo, they are subjective. I don't see how any non-religious person can argue for objective morals, and the only way a religious person can make that argument is the same way they make every argument: "God said so." Read my long-winded post, I believe I refute your "God said so" claim, as well as defending the ability of a non-religious person to argue for objective morals. The interpretation of morals does not change what the morals actually are. Your example of the thief doesn't really help. In the thief's moral code, what if he genuinely believes that it's okay to steal? (for what it's worth, i think most thieves know what they're doing is wrong but their selfish need/want outweighs their guilt, but lets assume that isn't the case for this example). Who is to say that his moral is wrong and that the 'stealing is bad' moral that 99% of us hold is correct? Again, even this truth that appears to be absolute is not actually so. The only person who could possibly decide an absolute moral does not exist. Morality does not bend to beliefs. It does not matter how okay the thief believed his own actions to be, they still caused harm and therefore the action of stealing was immoral. Was it the most convenient option for their own survival? Possibly, but that does not mean it was the only option and certainly does not mean it was right. Also realize I used "personal moral code" loosely, because it doesn't exist...it is only a perception. The truth is the greater moral code derived by reason (do "good", whatever "good" is) More in reference to your earlier post, but I think you are going about this the wrong way. Instead of assuming there must be an existing moral law that defines good and bad, right and wrong, and, whilst believing this, cannot yet fully explain, argue or understand it. Instead don't ever assume something to be true unless you can prove to a reasonable degree of certainty that it is so.
Ok, it is provable. The ability to measure an action's benefits is possible given a standard which I outlined in my seven points. Sure, that is undergoing refinement but is evidence of a possibility, and is already at a reasonable degree of certainty. No one going through a state of depression following the murder of a loved one will tell you they are better for it, I don't care if that loved one was Osama. It is a measurable factor which at this point just needs refinement. I posted to perhaps get some furtherment in that regard. My biggest mistake in that post is not asserting myself, but that isn't something I like doing, I'm not perfect.
|
Show nested quote +
The earth is demonstrably round - it can and has been proven. Morals are social constructs and cannot be proven in any way. If i say stealing is right, you can't prove that i'm wrong, you can simply say that the majority is on your side.
It doesnt matter if i can be proven or not, there is still an answer. I dont know what the right or wrong answer is, but i know there is one. I get your argument, but you cant prove anything 100%. If i say god exists, you cant prove that i'm wrong, you can simply say the majority is on your side. But this doesnt matter. Either god exists or he doesnt. It is therefore objective. (if this wasnt the case then everything in the world would be subjective, no?) Idk, maybe i'm just being stupid. Always hated philosophy - we can never actually prove anything, which is annoying. Edit: It all depends on how you define morality. And by that i mean the answer depends on it, not whether it is objective or subjective.
By your argument, everything and anything is objective.
|
On May 11 2011 21:08 AutomatonOmega wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 21:00 XeliN wrote:I prefer to critique others without having to commit myself to stating and defending my own beliefs  But as you've asked I think there is no such thing as "inherently good" or vice versa. Say quite a horrific example of a grown man raping torturing and murdering a small child. He does not break some objective moral law or contravene some universally existing standard for our actions. The only form of morality we have is fluid, there is no logical criteria by which we can say, This form of morality is 'better' because to do so presupposes what better is. I think my "belief" - although in the same way atheists often prefer, i would consider it more aptly described as a lack of belief in objective morality - is called Moral Nihilism. Eh, that's kinda what I was getting at. Here, you present a case like that of a serial pedophile rapist/murderer. To you, my view that that person has committed a crime against the fabric of sapience seems subjective. To me, the law of the fabric of the preservation and wellness of sapient life that such a person committed a crime against is absolute regardless of subjective feelings or even capacity for observation. Just like the true nature of black holes is somewhat absolute regardless of our subjective feelings or capacity for observation. Therein lies the weird language or philosophy barrier I mentioned before. In this case, the very subjectivity or objectivity of the subject matter has its own subjectivity applied to it. It's doomed to always be in a state of cyclicle repetition.
Here you are arguing for the existence of some kind of law (I would assume in some kind of physical law governing our universe kind of sense) that dictates universally and objectively how we should act in regards to other sapient life.
Here is my problem with it, there is no means by which you can evidentially show this to be the case. Any other objective law of this universe can be experimentally tested and shown to be true, or proven false. The kind of law you are suggesting requires you to assume it is true in order for it to hold any meaning. You have to belief it is true, on a faith based basis.
What If I came in here now and argued for the Destruction and Desecration of rational beings Law.
Whenever someone does not respect the absolute nature of this law, which dictates we must in every instance cause the maximal suffering possible to any rational being, they commit a crime against this moral law.
Now I have just invented this, it doesn't exist, or I cannot show in any verifiable way that it does, and if I were to suggest now that this doesn't matter for something like morality because I believe in it, and it is binding and absolute. I suspect you would not take me seriously.
To me currently I see what you have suggested in the same way, the only difference is you have argued for something that seems nicer.
|
On May 11 2011 21:19 Fubi wrote:Show nested quote +
The earth is demonstrably round - it can and has been proven. Morals are social constructs and cannot be proven in any way. If i say stealing is right, you can't prove that i'm wrong, you can simply say that the majority is on your side.
It doesnt matter if i can be proven or not, there is still an answer. I dont know what the right or wrong answer is, but i know there is one. I get your argument, but you cant prove anything 100%. If i say god exists, you cant prove that i'm wrong, you can simply say the majority is on your side. But this doesnt matter. Either god exists or he doesnt. It is therefore objective. (if this wasnt the case then everything in the world would be subjective, no?) Idk, maybe i'm just being stupid. Always hated philosophy - we can never actually prove anything, which is annoying. Edit: It all depends on how you define morality. And by that i mean the answer depends on it, not whether it is objective or subjective. By your argument, everything and anything is objective.
Yes, if your definition is clear. And by that i mean like if you say "this is beautiful" and "beautiful" is a clear definition then it is objective. Hope i make at least a little sense :S
|
On May 11 2011 21:21 XeliN wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 21:08 AutomatonOmega wrote:On May 11 2011 21:00 XeliN wrote:I prefer to critique others without having to commit myself to stating and defending my own beliefs But as you've asked I think there is no such thing as "inherently good" or vice versa. Say quite a horrific example of a grown man raping torturing and murdering a small child. He does not break some objective moral law or contravene some universally existing standard for our actions. The only form of morality we have is fluid, there is no logical criteria by which we can say, This form of morality is 'better' because to do so presupposes what better is. I think my "belief" - although in the same way atheists often prefer, i would consider it more aptly described as a lack of belief in objective morality - is called Moral Nihilism. Eh, that's kinda what I was getting at. Here, you present a case like that of a serial pedophile rapist/murderer. To you, my view that that person has committed a crime against the fabric of sapience seems subjective. To me, the law of the fabric of the preservation and wellness of sapient life that such a person committed a crime against is absolute regardless of subjective feelings or even capacity for observation. Just like the true nature of black holes is somewhat absolute regardless of our subjective feelings or capacity for observation. Therein lies the weird language or philosophy barrier I mentioned before. In this case, the very subjectivity or objectivity of the subject matter has its own subjectivity applied to it. It's doomed to always be in a state of cyclicle repetition. Here you are arguing for the existence of some kind of law (I would assume in some kind of physical law governing our universe kind of sense) that dictates universally and objectively how we should act in regards to other sapient life. Here is my problem with it, there is no means by which you can evidentially show this to be the case. Any other objective law of this universe can be experimentally tested and shown to be true, or proven false. The kind of law you are suggesting requires you to assume it is true in order for it to hold any meaning. You have to belief it is true, on a faith based basis. What If I came in here now and argued for the Destruction and Desecration of rational beings Law. Whenever someone does not respect the absolute nature of this law, which dictates we must in every instance cause the maximal suffering possible to any rational being, they commit a crime against this moral law. Now I have just invented this, it doesn't exist, or I cannot show in any verifiable way that it does, and if I were to suggest now that this doesn't matter for something like morality because I believe in it, and it is binding and absolute. I suspect you would not take me seriously. To me currently I see what you have suggested in the same way, the only difference is you have argued for something that seems nicer.
I'm not using 'law' above in a scientific sense, but rather a sort of all encompassing legal one. I know I compared it to a black hole, but that was a flaw in my explanation more than anything.
Here in the USA where I'm from, it's against the law to commit premeditated murder, regardless of whether or not it was the situationally ethical thing to do. Those laws aren't really morals. They're not really ethics, either, they're laws. They were written by the judicial branch of a governing body to explain and enform a way to express and support what we consider basic human rights.
But any law is really just a sort of enforced guideline, and such laws don't really exist outside of the system's capacity for enforcing it.
Going back to my 'law of niceness' or your 'law of dickishness' (not calling you a dick here, but the law you invented :p) these laws don't exist because they weren't emplaced by a governing body of any type, and are incapable of being enforced. But, personally I think my 'law of sapience' is something of a milestone for any society's growth, that once it can enact the law as a way of life without it needing to be written or enforced, a moral evolution will have occurred. Subsequently, I think that evolution would be the necessary ingredient of a society not destroying itself, which I believe many have.
|
On May 11 2011 16:24 jeeneeus wrote:
I'm too lazy to quote the other guy who basically said the same thing, but how about something like rape? As far as I know there's no society that thinks rape is socially acceptable, but in an evolutionary standpoint, it's creating more babies, and is therefore a good thing.
Also, I like how you go on to mention something that I already mentioned. It's nice to know that people don't like to read entire posts, but finds the one thing they disagree with, and then go on to write about it.
Also, how about guilt? Some people won't commit a crime even if they don't get caught, because they would feel guilty about it. Although I guess you could say that guilt is something that is taught by society. I think I remember learning in psychology that empathy is naturally developed in children. Also if guilt was taught by society, does that mean sociopaths/psychopaths were just taught poorly? That there is nothing wrong with these people per se, but that they just weren't raised properly?
First and foremost : what exactly makes it unacceptable in a discussion to talk about something more in depth when someone has mentioned it before? Or even stating the same thing again? I'm not even sure what exactly it is that I "took away" from you. But discussing with people like you...well, reminds me of this one pic in the funny pictures thread. even if I win....
secondly, about rape: It is a valid reproductive strategy yes, but not within a community. The whole community is built on the idea that everyone works together and, to an extent, trusts each other. That is especially true for smaller societies, maybe a village. If you go around and smack people in your village on the head just for the fun of it, you are not a productive or valued member of the community and thats that. Pretty much ditto with rape.
As for interaction between communities, I would very much argue that rape has been absolutely acceptable in the past. You think Roman soldiers cared whether one of them raped a slave now and then? Or a Husband raping his unwillig wife?
Rape is not acceptable in MODERN DAY SOCIETIES. But that is not the result of an objective morality. If you can call it morality at all, it's a morality we have agreed on, and that is by definition subjective.
Guilt, you said it yourself, is a creation of society. You are taught that certain things are wrong, or learn instinctively from your family.
As for the bit about sociopaths, I don't really know what you are making an argument for here, but I believe that yes, some were not raised properly. And some just have an innate disorder. Or a combination thereof.
|
Subject is way too vast, deep, and difficult to be discussed on a forum without saying stupidities. However, here is a couple of books you may be interested by:
Immanuel Kant, Critic of the Practical Reason: An attempt to create an objective and universal moral, disconnected from any cultural / religious contingency. Kantian moral is designed to be applied anywhere, at any time, in any circumstances.
Friedrich Nietzsche, A Genealogy of Moral: A radical critic of moral in general, maybe the most incisive ever written.
I am happier with Nietzsche than with Kant, so if I had to give my opinion, whatever that means, on the subject, I would just recommend people to read it. One of the most important books ever written in my opinion.
|
Im going to suggest that this is a false dichotomy, why can't morality be both?
Morality is clearly subjective, what it is to be good in one culture varies from another, as does what it is to be bad. However, that doesn't mean that there is no objectivity to the matter.
While it is true that what it is to be good or bad varies, we can also see that there are certain concepts and values that are held by everyone to be good, and certain ones that are bad. For example, bravery is always applauded. What people define as cowardice, recklessness and bravery vary, but they all think that bravery is good.
This applies to other traits as well, and is known as Virtue ethics. The central view behind virtue ethics being, that although what counts as virtuous can vary between culture and place, the virtues themselves are always good.
Lets take an example, belching, is it good or bad? Well in some cultures, it is polite to belch at a meal, and in others it is rude. So morality is subjective right? wrong, although belching has an indeterminate moral status, in both cultures it is good to be polite, and bad to be rude. A good person appreciates that what is "polite" "friendly" "generous" varies from place to place, but they appreciate that the concepts themselves are still intrinsically good wherever they are 
Food for thought.
|
On May 11 2011 21:19 Chahta wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 21:12 XeliN wrote:On May 11 2011 21:05 Chahta wrote:On May 11 2011 21:00 Zechs wrote:On May 11 2011 20:48 Chahta wrote:On May 11 2011 20:43 Zechs wrote:On May 11 2011 20:35 AutomatonOmega wrote:On May 11 2011 20:32 XeliN wrote:I'm skeptical when people use things such as "I personally feel" or "I believe" as a justification for the existence of something. That would be my criticism of the above two posts -*apart from the one right above who posted while i was typing like some kind of ninja *- . Believing in something doesn't make it any more or less likely to be true. Truth doesn't equal facts. In cases of something like morality, what is true is what one believes, there's no line separating the two. Would you argue that there is an absolute morality that is right and wrong and people who express their morality as though it were a belief are somehow incorrect? The bolded part completely defeats your own argument, surely? If an individual's beliefs affect his morals, then they can (and history has proven will) be different to the morals of another individual, ergo, they are subjective. I don't see how any non-religious person can argue for objective morals, and the only way a religious person can make that argument is the same way they make every argument: "God said so." Read my long-winded post, I believe I refute your "God said so" claim, as well as defending the ability of a non-religious person to argue for objective morals. The interpretation of morals does not change what the morals actually are. Your example of the thief doesn't really help. In the thief's moral code, what if he genuinely believes that it's okay to steal? (for what it's worth, i think most thieves know what they're doing is wrong but their selfish need/want outweighs their guilt, but lets assume that isn't the case for this example). Who is to say that his moral is wrong and that the 'stealing is bad' moral that 99% of us hold is correct? Again, even this truth that appears to be absolute is not actually so. The only person who could possibly decide an absolute moral does not exist. Morality does not bend to beliefs. It does not matter how okay the thief believed his own actions to be, they still caused harm and therefore the action of stealing was immoral. Was it the most convenient option for their own survival? Possibly, but that does not mean it was the only option and certainly does not mean it was right. Also realize I used "personal moral code" loosely, because it doesn't exist...it is only a perception. The truth is the greater moral code derived by reason (do "good", whatever "good" is) More in reference to your earlier post, but I think you are going about this the wrong way. Instead of assuming there must be an existing moral law that defines good and bad, right and wrong, and, whilst believing this, cannot yet fully explain, argue or understand it. Instead don't ever assume something to be true unless you can prove to a reasonable degree of certainty that it is so. Ok, it is provable. The ability to measure an action's benefits is possible given a standard which I outlined in my seven points. Sure, that is undergoing refinement but is evidence of a possibility, and is already at a reasonable degree of certainty. No one going through a state of depression following the murder of a loved one will tell you they are better for it, I don't care if that loved one was Osama. It is a measurable factor which at this point just needs refinement. I posted to perhaps get some furtherment in that regard. My biggest mistake in that post is not asserting myself, but that isn't something I like doing, I'm not perfect.
I think I understand you better now, it was my fault for not truly understanding your point, but as I see it.
1) Individual: How does it affect me/the individual
2) Social: How does it affect those around me?
3) Local: How does it affect my immediate surroundings?
4) Universal: How does this affect the grand scheme of things?
5) Physical: How does it affect health/possessions/etc
6) Emotional: How does it affect feelings/psychology/etc
7) Spiritual: How does it relate to the morals set forth by my religion (even atheistic views fall under this)
These ^^ are, at least in theory, objectively measureable. For a comparison we may not yet be able to measure with certainty the ammount of birds in flight at one one second on this planet. But, nonetheless, the answer is a theorectically measurable one to a degree of 100% certainty.
From there Objective Morality is based around these 7 aspects of our lives and the Objective Moral Law is based upon this, and once we can measure and compare these differing aspects with greater capacity or acuracy, we will be closer and closer to fully grasping and applying the Objective Morality that they entail.
(I'm taking alot of assumptions with this, you may not be arguing for this at all and if not I apologise)
|
On May 11 2011 21:24 Deadlyfish wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 21:19 Fubi wrote:
The earth is demonstrably round - it can and has been proven. Morals are social constructs and cannot be proven in any way. If i say stealing is right, you can't prove that i'm wrong, you can simply say that the majority is on your side.
It doesnt matter if i can be proven or not, there is still an answer. I dont know what the right or wrong answer is, but i know there is one. I get your argument, but you cant prove anything 100%. If i say god exists, you cant prove that i'm wrong, you can simply say the majority is on your side. But this doesnt matter. Either god exists or he doesnt. It is therefore objective. (if this wasnt the case then everything in the world would be subjective, no?) Idk, maybe i'm just being stupid. Always hated philosophy - we can never actually prove anything, which is annoying. Edit: It all depends on how you define morality. And by that i mean the answer depends on it, not whether it is objective or subjective. By your argument, everything and anything is objective. Yes, if your definition is clear. And by that i mean like if you say "this is beautiful" and "beautiful" is a clear definition then it is objective. Hope i make at least a little sense :S
Which is wrong, simply due to the fact that there are things that you can not define so specifically that everyone would agree. Try it, try to give me a definition of beautiful. I can make the statement that "Brad Pitt is taller than Mr. Beans", and I can easily define "tall" to the point where no one would argue that statement. However, if you make the statement that "Brad Pitt is more handsome than Mr. Beans", I don't believe you can define the word handsome down to the point where no one would argue this statement.
|
On May 11 2011 21:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Subject is way too vast to be discussed on a forum without saying stupidities. Here a couple of books you may be interested by:
Immanuel Kant, Critic of the Practical Reason: A attempt to create an objective and universal moral.
Friedrich Nietzsche, A Genealogy of Moral: A radical critic of moral in general, maybe the most incisive ever written.
I am happier with Nietzsche than with Kant, so if I had to give my opinion, whatever that means, on the subject, I would just recommend people to read it. One of the most important books ever written in my opinion.
Seems a bit biased, although i think utilitarianism is a poor theory, you should probably include something by Mill, and might I also recomend some Aristotle and Macintyre?
People don't need to have read these works, sometimes it fun to just go through the discussion, if you (i presume as a philosopher seeing as you've read Kant and Nietzche) find these discussions intollerable, then just leave people to the conversation and offer subtle suggestions. I thoroughly approve of this thread, and think that people should be having discussions like these more often
Again although im not too keen on him, as Mill says (to paraphrase), we should not let our beliefs become dead dogma's, we should constantly keep them alive through debate
|
On May 11 2011 21:12 Zechs wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 21:05 Chahta wrote:On May 11 2011 21:00 Zechs wrote:On May 11 2011 20:48 Chahta wrote:On May 11 2011 20:43 Zechs wrote:On May 11 2011 20:35 AutomatonOmega wrote:On May 11 2011 20:32 XeliN wrote:I'm skeptical when people use things such as "I personally feel" or "I believe" as a justification for the existence of something. That would be my criticism of the above two posts -*apart from the one right above who posted while i was typing like some kind of ninja *- . Believing in something doesn't make it any more or less likely to be true. Truth doesn't equal facts. In cases of something like morality, what is true is what one believes, there's no line separating the two. Would you argue that there is an absolute morality that is right and wrong and people who express their morality as though it were a belief are somehow incorrect? The bolded part completely defeats your own argument, surely? If an individual's beliefs affect his morals, then they can (and history has proven will) be different to the morals of another individual, ergo, they are subjective. I don't see how any non-religious person can argue for objective morals, and the only way a religious person can make that argument is the same way they make every argument: "God said so." Read my long-winded post, I believe I refute your "God said so" claim, as well as defending the ability of a non-religious person to argue for objective morals. The interpretation of morals does not change what the morals actually are. Your example of the thief doesn't really help. In the thief's moral code, what if he genuinely believes that it's okay to steal? (for what it's worth, i think most thieves know what they're doing is wrong but their selfish need/want outweighs their guilt, but lets assume that isn't the case for this example). Who is to say that his moral is wrong and that the 'stealing is bad' moral that 99% of us hold is correct? Again, even this truth that appears to be absolute is not actually so. The only person who could possibly decide an absolute moral does not exist. Morality does not bend to beliefs. It does not matter how okay the thief believed his own actions to be, they still caused harm and therefore the action of stealing was immoral. Was it the most convenient option for their own survival? Possibly, but that does not mean it was the only option and certainly does not mean it was right. Also realize I used "personal moral code" loosely, because it doesn't exist...it is only a perception. The truth is the greater moral code derived by reason (do "good", whatever "good" is) That's a nice, romantic notion, but where does this absolute moral code come from? Again, if it is 'common sense' or 'reason', that doesn't help the argument either; people reason differently. If an absolute moral code existed, why would anyone break it? Surely we would live in a eutopia where nobody needed to harm anyone else. The thief wouldn't need to steal in the first place. The only immoral people would be ones with birth defects because everyone else has the same in-built morals, no? And yet there are perfectly sane, functional people who perform immoral acts. Actually, that last sentence is a whole other can of worms...
Speaking from the viewpoint I am familiar with, Christianity, there is an entity out there whose sole purpose is to distort mankind's perception of the moral code. His name is Lucifer. Interestingly enough this permitted two things, evil and free will. If we had this "eutopia" we could not have free-will, or if we did ever person would simply choose the moral course of action which defeats the purpose of free will.
I do believe this eutopia can, and does exist however, along with free-will. This is Heaven, but in order to get there and have free-will one must have experienced free-will as we know it on Earth such that upon entering Heaven they will know the consequences of their actions and desire only to make the moral decision. Entrance to Heaven is granted by a simple test, which I won't bother to explain here, but am sure you know what it is, most people in Western Society are aware. Having free-will is what sets humankind apart from the angels. Lucifer is evidence that free-will could not be handled in Heaven without first experiencing it here on Earth. We all take the fall and some of us ask for help back up.
Oh and Lucifer can and does walk through Heaven's gates (see Job for example), it is not a place only for the pure as some consider it. But I am wandering from the OP. Simply put, there is a reason why we don't all follow this perfect morality.
|
On May 11 2011 21:19 AutomatonOmega wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 21:12 Zechs wrote:On May 11 2011 21:05 Chahta wrote:On May 11 2011 21:00 Zechs wrote:On May 11 2011 20:48 Chahta wrote:On May 11 2011 20:43 Zechs wrote:On May 11 2011 20:35 AutomatonOmega wrote:On May 11 2011 20:32 XeliN wrote:I'm skeptical when people use things such as "I personally feel" or "I believe" as a justification for the existence of something. That would be my criticism of the above two posts -*apart from the one right above who posted while i was typing like some kind of ninja *- . Believing in something doesn't make it any more or less likely to be true. Truth doesn't equal facts. In cases of something like morality, what is true is what one believes, there's no line separating the two. Would you argue that there is an absolute morality that is right and wrong and people who express their morality as though it were a belief are somehow incorrect? The bolded part completely defeats your own argument, surely? If an individual's beliefs affect his morals, then they can (and history has proven will) be different to the morals of another individual, ergo, they are subjective. I don't see how any non-religious person can argue for objective morals, and the only way a religious person can make that argument is the same way they make every argument: "God said so." Read my long-winded post, I believe I refute your "God said so" claim, as well as defending the ability of a non-religious person to argue for objective morals. The interpretation of morals does not change what the morals actually are. Your example of the thief doesn't really help. In the thief's moral code, what if he genuinely believes that it's okay to steal? (for what it's worth, i think most thieves know what they're doing is wrong but their selfish need/want outweighs their guilt, but lets assume that isn't the case for this example). Who is to say that his moral is wrong and that the 'stealing is bad' moral that 99% of us hold is correct? Again, even this truth that appears to be absolute is not actually so. The only person who could possibly decide an absolute moral does not exist. Morality does not bend to beliefs. It does not matter how okay the thief believed his own actions to be, they still caused harm and therefore the action of stealing was immoral. Was it the most convenient option for their own survival? Possibly, but that does not mean it was the only option and certainly does not mean it was right. Also realize I used "personal moral code" loosely, because it doesn't exist...it is only a perception. The truth is the greater moral code derived by reason (do "good", whatever "good" is) That's a nice, romantic notion, but where does this absolute moral code come from? Again, if it is 'common sense' or 'reason', that doesn't help the argument either; people reason differently. If an absolute moral code existed, why would anyone break it? Surely we would live in a eutopia where nobody needed to harm anyone else. The thief wouldn't need to steal in the first place. The only immoral people would be ones with birth defects because everyone else has the same in-built morals, no? And yet there are perfectly sane, functional people who perform immoral acts. Actually, that last sentence is a whole other can of worms... I would define such an absolute moral code like what I'm championing (ie the fabric of sapient existence) to be more of a codified set of laws by which a sapient race must adhere to evolve into a state of universal understanding and would be the stepping off point in whether or not such a race would extinguish itself or go extinct. Surely, a race that preys on its own children is doomed to ultimate failure. A race that preys on itself, that commits to the 'survival of the fittest' mindset, that gives itself over to its animalistic tendencies, will likely crumble under its own weight. Even with our technological advances cruising along as they have, our growth as a species is stunted by are lack of a capacity to recognize the greater necessities of sapient life extending beyond its animalism for the sake of self preservation as a collective entity. For every two steps we make forward as a race, we're taking one step back. As it is, we're not going to last another five thousand years, IMO.
I feel like you're just trying to use 'morality' as another word for 'biological imperitive' or 'survival of the fittest' in that case. If that's true, then i agree with you to an extent. That explains why some 'morals' have maintained throughout the ages while others have disappeared or been invented. Killing your own is clearly bad for the species' survival and if this is what you mean by 'moral' then this is just a debate about linguistics and semantics.
|
On May 11 2011 21:31 Fubi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 21:24 Deadlyfish wrote:On May 11 2011 21:19 Fubi wrote:
The earth is demonstrably round - it can and has been proven. Morals are social constructs and cannot be proven in any way. If i say stealing is right, you can't prove that i'm wrong, you can simply say that the majority is on your side.
It doesnt matter if i can be proven or not, there is still an answer. I dont know what the right or wrong answer is, but i know there is one. I get your argument, but you cant prove anything 100%. If i say god exists, you cant prove that i'm wrong, you can simply say the majority is on your side. But this doesnt matter. Either god exists or he doesnt. It is therefore objective. (if this wasnt the case then everything in the world would be subjective, no?) Idk, maybe i'm just being stupid. Always hated philosophy - we can never actually prove anything, which is annoying. Edit: It all depends on how you define morality. And by that i mean the answer depends on it, not whether it is objective or subjective. By your argument, everything and anything is objective. Yes, if your definition is clear. And by that i mean like if you say "this is beautiful" and "beautiful" is a clear definition then it is objective. Hope i make at least a little sense :S Which is wrong, simply due to the fact that there are things that you can not define so specifically that everyone would agree. Try it, try to give me a definition of beautiful. I can make the statement that Brad Pitt is taller than Mr. Beans, and I can easily define tall to the point where no one would argue that statement. However, if you make the statement that Brad Pitt is more handsome than Mr. Beans, I don't believe you can define the word handsome down to the point where no one would argue this statement.
I cant explain myself well enough, not too good at explaining this :S
There is always an answer. The question (or statement, whatever) may differ. If you define beautiful as one thing, but i define it as another then you're changing the question, but there will still be an answer.
If you give a clear definition of morality, which is needed. The most common one be something like "that which is good" or something like that. Then there IS an answer.
Ahhh this is too frustrating to try and explain. Possibly my logic is just terrible ^^
|
+ Show Spoiler +On May 11 2011 21:14 looknohands119 wrote:
C.S. Lewis does an excellent job of explaining the fundamental objective relationship between what we call reality and morality.
These then are the two points that I wanted to make. First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in. (Lewis 1952, p. 21)
Lewis also portrays Universal Morality in his works of fiction. In The Chronicles of Narnia he describes Universal Morality as the "Deep magic" which everyone knew. (Lindskoog 2001b, p. 146)
In the second chapter of Mere Christianity Lewis recognizes that "many people find it difficult to understand what this Law of Human Nature [...] is". And he responds first to the idea "that the Moral Law is simply our herd instinct" and second to the idea "that the Moral Law is simply a social convention". In responding to the second idea Lewis notes that people often complain that one set of moral ideas is better than another, but that this actually argues for there existing some "Real Morality" to which they are comparing other moralities. Finally he notes that sometimes differences in moral codes are exaggerated by people who confuse differences in beliefs about morality with differences in beliefs about facts:
I have met people who exaggerate the differences, because they have not distinguished between differences of morality and differences of belief about facts. For example, one man said to me, "Three hundred years ago people in England were putting witches to death. Was that what you call the Rule of Human Nature or Right Conduct?" But surely the reason we do not execute witches is that we do not believe there are such things. If we did — if we really thought that there were people going about who had sold themselves to the devil and received supernatural powers from him in return and were using these powers to kill their neighbors or drive them mad or bring bad weather, surely we would all agree that if anyone deserved the death penalty, then these filthy quislings did. There is no difference of moral principle here: the difference is simply about matter of fact. It may be a great advance in knowledge not to believe in witches: there is no moral advance in not executing them when you do not think they are there. You would not call a man humane for ceasing to set mousetraps if he did so because he believed there were no mice in the house. (Lewis 1952, p. 26)
To call morality subjective is to misunderstand and misrepresent its nature on a very fundamental level, often with potentially terrible consequences for both the individual and those the individual interacts with, directly or indirectly. Arguing that morality is subjective, then, shows a very fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of objective reality and our subjective view of that objective reality. Although our perceptions of morality are never perfect, its firmly rooted in the former (reality, as opposed to our perception).
It seems there is a lot of misguided discussion going on here which conflates reality with our perception of that reality. These are two separate but intertwined concepts and it is important, if this discussion is to continue, that you either make a distinction between the two or articulate a substantially warranted argument for why they are one in the same. Kant argues specifically that the very fact that we have the ability to perceive reality, regardless of how imperfect our perception might be, logically dictates that there must be some objective reality, which is the same regardless of the point of view the individual sees it from, that everyone is observing.
The conclusions about morality, the existence of god, and the fundamental nature of reality he draws from it are as follows:
The First Formulation
+ Show Spoiler +The first formulation (Formula of Universal Law) of the moral imperative "requires that the maxims be chosen as though they should hold as universal laws of nature" (436). This formulation in principle has as its supreme law the creed "Always act according to that maxim whose universality as a law you can at the same time will" and is the "only condition under which a will can never come into conflict with itself [....]"
The prevailing interpretation of his first formulation is called the "universalizability test." An agent's maxim, according to Kant, is his "subjective principle of human actions": that is, what the agent believes is his reason to act. The universalisability test has five steps:
1. Find the agent's maxim (i.e., an action paired with its motivation). Take for example the declaration "I will lie for personal benefit." Lying is the action; the motivation is to fulfill some sort of desire. Paired together, they form the maxim.
2. Imagine a possible world in which everyone in a similar position to the real-world agent followed that maxim. With no exception of one's self. This is in order for you to hold people to the same principle, that is required of yourself.
3. Decide whether any contradictions or irrationalities arise in the possible world as a result of following the maxim.
4. If a contradiction or irrationality arises, acting on that maxim is not allowed in the real world.
5. If there is no contradiction, then acting on that maxim is permissible, and in some instances required.
(For a modern parallel, see John Rawls' hypothetical situation, the original position.)
The Second Formulation
+ Show Spoiler +The second formulation (or Formula of the End in Itself) holds that "the rational being, as by its nature an end and thus as an end in itself, must serve in every maxim as the condition restricting all merely relative and arbitrary ends." The principle dictates that you "[a]ct with reference to every rational being (whether yourself or another) so that it is an end in itself in your maxim", meaning that the rational being is "the basis of all maxims of action" and "must be treated never as a mere means but as the supreme limiting condition in the use of all means, i.e., as an end at the same time."
The Third Formulation
+ Show Spoiler +The third formulation (Formula of Autonomy) is a synthesis of the first two and is the basis for the "complete determination of all maxims". It says "that all maxims which stem from autonomous legislation ought to harmonize with a possible realm of ends as with a realm of nature." In principle, "So act as if your maxims should serve at the same time as the universal law (of all rational beings)", meaning that we should so act that we may think of ourselves as "a member in the universal realm of ends", legislating universal laws through our maxims (that is, a code of conduct), in a "possible realm of ends." (See also Kingdom of Ends) None may elevate themselves above the universal law, therefore it is one's duty to follow the maxim(s).
Concept of God
+ Show Spoiler +Kant stated the practical necessity for a belief in God in his Critique of Practical Reason. As an idea of pure reason, "we do not have the slightest ground to assume in an absolute manner... the object of this idea...", but adds that the idea of God cannot be separated from the relation of happiness with morality as the "ideal of the supreme good." The foundation of this connection is an intelligible moral world, and "is necessary from the practical point of view;" compare Voltaire: "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."In the Jäsche Logic (1800) he wrote "One cannot provide objective reality for any theoretical idea, or prove it, except for the idea of freedom, because this is the condition of the moral law, whose reality is an axiom. The reality of the idea of God can only be proved by means of this idea, and hence only with a practical purpose, i.e., to act as though (als ob) there is a God, and hence only for this purpose" (9  3, trans. J. Michael Young, Lectures on Logic, p. 590-91). Along with this idea over reason and God, Kant places thought over religion and nature, i.e. the idea of religion being natural or naturalistic. Kant saw reason as natural, and as some part of Christianity is based on reason and morality, as Kant points out this is major in the scriptures, it is inevitable that Christianity is 'natural'. However, it is not 'naturalistic' in the sense that the religion does include supernatural or transcendent belief. Aside from this, a key point is that Kant saw that the Bible should be seen as a source of natural morality no matter whether there is/was any truth behind the supernatural factor, meaning that it is not necessary to know whether the supernatural part of Christianity has any truth to abide by and use the core Christian moral code. Kant articulates in Book Four some of his strongest criticisms of the organization and practices of Christianity that encourage what he sees as a religion of counterfeit service to God. Among the major targets of his criticism are external ritual, superstition and a hierarchical church order. He sees all of these as efforts to make oneself pleasing to God in ways other than conscientious adherence to the principle of moral rightness in the choice of one's actions. The severity of Kant's criticisms on these matters, along with his rejection of the possibility of theoretical proofs for the existence of God and his philosophical re-interpretation of some basic Christian doctrines, have provided the basis for interpretations that see Kant as thoroughly hostile to religion in general and Christianity in particular (e.g., Walsh 1967). Kant had exposure to Islam as well and reflected about the role of reason therein.
|
On May 11 2011 21:30 XeliN wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 21:19 Chahta wrote:On May 11 2011 21:12 XeliN wrote:On May 11 2011 21:05 Chahta wrote:On May 11 2011 21:00 Zechs wrote:On May 11 2011 20:48 Chahta wrote:On May 11 2011 20:43 Zechs wrote:On May 11 2011 20:35 AutomatonOmega wrote:On May 11 2011 20:32 XeliN wrote:I'm skeptical when people use things such as "I personally feel" or "I believe" as a justification for the existence of something. That would be my criticism of the above two posts -*apart from the one right above who posted while i was typing like some kind of ninja *- . Believing in something doesn't make it any more or less likely to be true. Truth doesn't equal facts. In cases of something like morality, what is true is what one believes, there's no line separating the two. Would you argue that there is an absolute morality that is right and wrong and people who express their morality as though it were a belief are somehow incorrect? The bolded part completely defeats your own argument, surely? If an individual's beliefs affect his morals, then they can (and history has proven will) be different to the morals of another individual, ergo, they are subjective. I don't see how any non-religious person can argue for objective morals, and the only way a religious person can make that argument is the same way they make every argument: "God said so." Read my long-winded post, I believe I refute your "God said so" claim, as well as defending the ability of a non-religious person to argue for objective morals. The interpretation of morals does not change what the morals actually are. Your example of the thief doesn't really help. In the thief's moral code, what if he genuinely believes that it's okay to steal? (for what it's worth, i think most thieves know what they're doing is wrong but their selfish need/want outweighs their guilt, but lets assume that isn't the case for this example). Who is to say that his moral is wrong and that the 'stealing is bad' moral that 99% of us hold is correct? Again, even this truth that appears to be absolute is not actually so. The only person who could possibly decide an absolute moral does not exist. Morality does not bend to beliefs. It does not matter how okay the thief believed his own actions to be, they still caused harm and therefore the action of stealing was immoral. Was it the most convenient option for their own survival? Possibly, but that does not mean it was the only option and certainly does not mean it was right. Also realize I used "personal moral code" loosely, because it doesn't exist...it is only a perception. The truth is the greater moral code derived by reason (do "good", whatever "good" is) More in reference to your earlier post, but I think you are going about this the wrong way. Instead of assuming there must be an existing moral law that defines good and bad, right and wrong, and, whilst believing this, cannot yet fully explain, argue or understand it. Instead don't ever assume something to be true unless you can prove to a reasonable degree of certainty that it is so. Ok, it is provable. The ability to measure an action's benefits is possible given a standard which I outlined in my seven points. Sure, that is undergoing refinement but is evidence of a possibility, and is already at a reasonable degree of certainty. No one going through a state of depression following the murder of a loved one will tell you they are better for it, I don't care if that loved one was Osama. It is a measurable factor which at this point just needs refinement. I posted to perhaps get some furtherment in that regard. My biggest mistake in that post is not asserting myself, but that isn't something I like doing, I'm not perfect. I think I understand you better now, it was my fault for not truly understanding your point, but as I see it. 1) Individual: How does it affect me/the individual 2) Social: How does it affect those around me? 3) Local: How does it affect my immediate surroundings? 4) Universal: How does this affect the grand scheme of things? 5) Physical: How does it affect health/possessions/etc 6) Emotional: How does it affect feelings/psychology/etc 7) Spiritual: How does it relate to the morals set forth by my religion (even atheistic views fall under this) These ^^ are, at least in theory, objectively measureable. For a comparison we may not yet be able to measure with certainty the ammount of birds in flight at one one second on this planet. But, nonetheless, the answer is a theorectically measurable one to a degree of 100% certainty. From there Objective Morality is based around these 7 aspects of our lives and the Objective Moral Law is based upon this, and once we can measure and compare these differing aspects with greater capacity or acuracy, we will be closer and closer to fully grasping and applying the Objective Morality that they entail. (I'm taking alot of assumptions with this, you may not be arguing for this at all and if not I apologise)
You have caught on precisely to my point. I'm just a 22 year old biochemistry major, I don't have the answers exactly but they are there, we only need to explore the topic further. The more and more I look at it, though, the more I feel like Spiritual falls under Emotional for the purposes of my point, simply because in context it is a person's response to keeping or breaking with their religion's moral code. Thoughts?
|
On May 11 2011 21:39 looknohands119 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On May 11 2011 21:14 looknohands119 wrote:
C.S. Lewis does an excellent job of explaining the fundamental objective relationship between what we call reality and morality.
These then are the two points that I wanted to make. First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in. (Lewis 1952, p. 21)
Lewis also portrays Universal Morality in his works of fiction. In The Chronicles of Narnia he describes Universal Morality as the "Deep magic" which everyone knew. (Lindskoog 2001b, p. 146)
In the second chapter of Mere Christianity Lewis recognizes that "many people find it difficult to understand what this Law of Human Nature [...] is". And he responds first to the idea "that the Moral Law is simply our herd instinct" and second to the idea "that the Moral Law is simply a social convention". In responding to the second idea Lewis notes that people often complain that one set of moral ideas is better than another, but that this actually argues for there existing some "Real Morality" to which they are comparing other moralities. Finally he notes that sometimes differences in moral codes are exaggerated by people who confuse differences in beliefs about morality with differences in beliefs about facts:
I have met people who exaggerate the differences, because they have not distinguished between differences of morality and differences of belief about facts. For example, one man said to me, "Three hundred years ago people in England were putting witches to death. Was that what you call the Rule of Human Nature or Right Conduct?" But surely the reason we do not execute witches is that we do not believe there are such things. If we did — if we really thought that there were people going about who had sold themselves to the devil and received supernatural powers from him in return and were using these powers to kill their neighbors or drive them mad or bring bad weather, surely we would all agree that if anyone deserved the death penalty, then these filthy quislings did. There is no difference of moral principle here: the difference is simply about matter of fact. It may be a great advance in knowledge not to believe in witches: there is no moral advance in not executing them when you do not think they are there. You would not call a man humane for ceasing to set mousetraps if he did so because he believed there were no mice in the house. (Lewis 1952, p. 26)
To call morality subjective is to misunderstand and misrepresent its nature on a very fundamental level, often with potentially terrible consequences for both the individual and those the individual interacts with, directly or indirectly. Arguing that morality is subjective, then, shows a very fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of objective reality and our subjective view of that objective reality. Although our perceptions of morality are never perfect, its firmly rooted in the former (reality, as opposed to our perception). It seems there is a lot of misguided discussion going on here which conflates reality with our perception of that reality. These are two separate but intertwined concepts and it is important, if this discussion is to continue, that you either make a distinction between the two or articulate a substantially warranted argument for why they are one in the same. Kant argues specifically that the very fact that we have the ability to perceive reality, regardless of how imperfect our perception might be, logically dictates that there must be some objective reality, which is the same regardless of the point of view the individual sees it from, that everyone is observing. The conclusions about morality, the existence of god, and the fundamental nature of reality he draws from it are as follows: The First Formulation+ Show Spoiler +The first formulation (Formula of Universal Law) of the moral imperative "requires that the maxims be chosen as though they should hold as universal laws of nature" (436). This formulation in principle has as its supreme law the creed "Always act according to that maxim whose universality as a law you can at the same time will" and is the "only condition under which a will can never come into conflict with itself [....]"
The prevailing interpretation of his first formulation is called the "universalizability test." An agent's maxim, according to Kant, is his "subjective principle of human actions": that is, what the agent believes is his reason to act. The universalisability test has five steps:
1. Find the agent's maxim (i.e., an action paired with its motivation). Take for example the declaration "I will lie for personal benefit." Lying is the action; the motivation is to fulfill some sort of desire. Paired together, they form the maxim.
2. Imagine a possible world in which everyone in a similar position to the real-world agent followed that maxim. With no exception of one's self. This is in order for you to hold people to the same principle, that is required of yourself.
3. Decide whether any contradictions or irrationalities arise in the possible world as a result of following the maxim.
4. If a contradiction or irrationality arises, acting on that maxim is not allowed in the real world.
5. If there is no contradiction, then acting on that maxim is permissible, and in some instances required.
(For a modern parallel, see John Rawls' hypothetical situation, the original position.)
The second formulation (or Formula of the End in Itself) holds that "the rational being, as by its nature an end and thus as an end in itself, must serve in every maxim as the condition restricting all merely relative and arbitrary ends." The principle dictates that you "[a]ct with reference to every rational being (whether yourself or another) so that it is an end in itself in your maxim", meaning that the rational being is "the basis of all maxims of action" and "must be treated never as a mere means but as the supreme limiting condition in the use of all means, i.e., as an end at the same time." The third formulation (Formula of Autonomy) is a synthesis of the first two and is the basis for the "complete determination of all maxims". It says "that all maxims which stem from autonomous legislation ought to harmonize with a possible realm of ends as with a realm of nature." In principle, "So act as if your maxims should serve at the same time as the universal law (of all rational beings)", meaning that we should so act that we may think of ourselves as "a member in the universal realm of ends", legislating universal laws through our maxims (that is, a code of conduct), in a "possible realm of ends." (See also Kingdom of Ends) None may elevate themselves above the universal law, therefore it is one's duty to follow the maxim(s). Kant stated the practical necessity for a belief in God in his Critique of Practical Reason. As an idea of pure reason, "we do not have the slightest ground to assume in an absolute manner... the object of this idea...", but adds that the idea of God cannot be separated from the relation of happiness with morality as the "ideal of the supreme good." The foundation of this connection is an intelligible moral world, and "is necessary from the practical point of view;" compare Voltaire: "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."In the Jäsche Logic (1800) he wrote "One cannot provide objective reality for any theoretical idea, or prove it, except for the idea of freedom, because this is the condition of the moral law, whose reality is an axiom. The reality of the idea of God can only be proved by means of this idea, and hence only with a practical purpose, i.e., to act as though (als ob) there is a God, and hence only for this purpose" (9 3, trans. J. Michael Young, Lectures on Logic, p. 590-91). Along with this idea over reason and God, Kant places thought over religion and nature, i.e. the idea of religion being natural or naturalistic. Kant saw reason as natural, and as some part of Christianity is based on reason and morality, as Kant points out this is major in the scriptures, it is inevitable that Christianity is 'natural'. However, it is not 'naturalistic' in the sense that the religion does include supernatural or transcendent belief. Aside from this, a key point is that Kant saw that the Bible should be seen as a source of natural morality no matter whether there is/was any truth behind the supernatural factor, meaning that it is not necessary to know whether the supernatural part of Christianity has any truth to abide by and use the core Christian moral code. Kant articulates in Book Four some of his strongest criticisms of the organization and practices of Christianity that encourage what he sees as a religion of counterfeit service to God. Among the major targets of his criticism are external ritual, superstition and a hierarchical church order. He sees all of these as efforts to make oneself pleasing to God in ways other than conscientious adherence to the principle of moral rightness in the choice of one's actions. The severity of Kant's criticisms on these matters, along with his rejection of the possibility of theoretical proofs for the existence of God and his philosophical re-interpretation of some basic Christian doctrines, have provided the basis for interpretations that see Kant as thoroughly hostile to religion in general and Christianity in particular (e.g., Walsh 1967). Kant had exposure to Islam as well and reflected about the role of reason therein.
Lol, it turned some of my citations into smileys......
|
On May 11 2011 21:34 Chahta wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 21:12 Zechs wrote:On May 11 2011 21:05 Chahta wrote:On May 11 2011 21:00 Zechs wrote:On May 11 2011 20:48 Chahta wrote:On May 11 2011 20:43 Zechs wrote:On May 11 2011 20:35 AutomatonOmega wrote:On May 11 2011 20:32 XeliN wrote:I'm skeptical when people use things such as "I personally feel" or "I believe" as a justification for the existence of something. That would be my criticism of the above two posts -*apart from the one right above who posted while i was typing like some kind of ninja *- . Believing in something doesn't make it any more or less likely to be true. Truth doesn't equal facts. In cases of something like morality, what is true is what one believes, there's no line separating the two. Would you argue that there is an absolute morality that is right and wrong and people who express their morality as though it were a belief are somehow incorrect? The bolded part completely defeats your own argument, surely? If an individual's beliefs affect his morals, then they can (and history has proven will) be different to the morals of another individual, ergo, they are subjective. I don't see how any non-religious person can argue for objective morals, and the only way a religious person can make that argument is the same way they make every argument: "God said so." Read my long-winded post, I believe I refute your "God said so" claim, as well as defending the ability of a non-religious person to argue for objective morals. The interpretation of morals does not change what the morals actually are. Your example of the thief doesn't really help. In the thief's moral code, what if he genuinely believes that it's okay to steal? (for what it's worth, i think most thieves know what they're doing is wrong but their selfish need/want outweighs their guilt, but lets assume that isn't the case for this example). Who is to say that his moral is wrong and that the 'stealing is bad' moral that 99% of us hold is correct? Again, even this truth that appears to be absolute is not actually so. The only person who could possibly decide an absolute moral does not exist. Morality does not bend to beliefs. It does not matter how okay the thief believed his own actions to be, they still caused harm and therefore the action of stealing was immoral. Was it the most convenient option for their own survival? Possibly, but that does not mean it was the only option and certainly does not mean it was right. Also realize I used "personal moral code" loosely, because it doesn't exist...it is only a perception. The truth is the greater moral code derived by reason (do "good", whatever "good" is) That's a nice, romantic notion, but where does this absolute moral code come from? Again, if it is 'common sense' or 'reason', that doesn't help the argument either; people reason differently. If an absolute moral code existed, why would anyone break it? Surely we would live in a eutopia where nobody needed to harm anyone else. The thief wouldn't need to steal in the first place. The only immoral people would be ones with birth defects because everyone else has the same in-built morals, no? And yet there are perfectly sane, functional people who perform immoral acts. Actually, that last sentence is a whole other can of worms... Speaking from the viewpoint I am familiar with, Christianity, there is an entity out there whose sole purpose is to distort mankind's perception of the moral code. His name is Lucifer. Interestingly enough this permitted two things, evil and free will. If we had this "eutopia" we could not have free-will, or if we did ever person would simply choose the moral course of action which defeats the purpose of free will. I do believe this eutopia can, and does exist however, along with free-will. This is Heaven, but in order to get there and have free-will one must have experienced free-will as we know it on Earth such that upon entering Heaven they will know the consequences of their actions and desire only to make the moral decision. Entrance to Heaven is granted by a simple test, which I won't bother to explain here, but am sure you know what it is, most people in Western Society are aware. Having free-will is what sets humankind apart from the angels. Lucifer is evidence that free-will could not be handled in Heaven without first experiencing it here on Earth. We all take the fall and some of us ask for help back up. Oh and Lucifer can and does walk through Heaven's gates (see Job for example), it is not a place only for the pure as some consider it. But I am wandering from the OP. Simply put, there is a reason why we don't all follow this perfect morality.
Yeah this is pretty off topic. It's interesting, however, that your idea that getting into heaven basically means giving up free will is contradictory to my understanding of "American values." But yes, very off topic now.
|
On May 11 2011 21:37 Zechs wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 21:19 AutomatonOmega wrote:On May 11 2011 21:12 Zechs wrote:On May 11 2011 21:05 Chahta wrote:On May 11 2011 21:00 Zechs wrote:On May 11 2011 20:48 Chahta wrote:On May 11 2011 20:43 Zechs wrote:On May 11 2011 20:35 AutomatonOmega wrote:On May 11 2011 20:32 XeliN wrote:I'm skeptical when people use things such as "I personally feel" or "I believe" as a justification for the existence of something. That would be my criticism of the above two posts -*apart from the one right above who posted while i was typing like some kind of ninja *- . Believing in something doesn't make it any more or less likely to be true. Truth doesn't equal facts. In cases of something like morality, what is true is what one believes, there's no line separating the two. Would you argue that there is an absolute morality that is right and wrong and people who express their morality as though it were a belief are somehow incorrect? The bolded part completely defeats your own argument, surely? If an individual's beliefs affect his morals, then they can (and history has proven will) be different to the morals of another individual, ergo, they are subjective. I don't see how any non-religious person can argue for objective morals, and the only way a religious person can make that argument is the same way they make every argument: "God said so." Read my long-winded post, I believe I refute your "God said so" claim, as well as defending the ability of a non-religious person to argue for objective morals. The interpretation of morals does not change what the morals actually are. Your example of the thief doesn't really help. In the thief's moral code, what if he genuinely believes that it's okay to steal? (for what it's worth, i think most thieves know what they're doing is wrong but their selfish need/want outweighs their guilt, but lets assume that isn't the case for this example). Who is to say that his moral is wrong and that the 'stealing is bad' moral that 99% of us hold is correct? Again, even this truth that appears to be absolute is not actually so. The only person who could possibly decide an absolute moral does not exist. Morality does not bend to beliefs. It does not matter how okay the thief believed his own actions to be, they still caused harm and therefore the action of stealing was immoral. Was it the most convenient option for their own survival? Possibly, but that does not mean it was the only option and certainly does not mean it was right. Also realize I used "personal moral code" loosely, because it doesn't exist...it is only a perception. The truth is the greater moral code derived by reason (do "good", whatever "good" is) That's a nice, romantic notion, but where does this absolute moral code come from? Again, if it is 'common sense' or 'reason', that doesn't help the argument either; people reason differently. If an absolute moral code existed, why would anyone break it? Surely we would live in a eutopia where nobody needed to harm anyone else. The thief wouldn't need to steal in the first place. The only immoral people would be ones with birth defects because everyone else has the same in-built morals, no? And yet there are perfectly sane, functional people who perform immoral acts. Actually, that last sentence is a whole other can of worms... I would define such an absolute moral code like what I'm championing (ie the fabric of sapient existence) to be more of a codified set of laws by which a sapient race must adhere to evolve into a state of universal understanding and would be the stepping off point in whether or not such a race would extinguish itself or go extinct. Surely, a race that preys on its own children is doomed to ultimate failure. A race that preys on itself, that commits to the 'survival of the fittest' mindset, that gives itself over to its animalistic tendencies, will likely crumble under its own weight. Even with our technological advances cruising along as they have, our growth as a species is stunted by are lack of a capacity to recognize the greater necessities of sapient life extending beyond its animalism for the sake of self preservation as a collective entity. For every two steps we make forward as a race, we're taking one step back. As it is, we're not going to last another five thousand years, IMO. I feel like you're just trying to use 'morality' as another word for 'biological imperitive' or 'survival of the fittest' in that case. If that's true, then i agree with you to an extent. That explains why some 'morals' have maintained throughout the ages while others have disappeared or been invented. Killing your own is clearly bad for the species' survival and if this is what you mean by 'moral' then this is just a debate about linguistics and semantics.
Fack, I can't believe I said 'are' instead of 'our'. My phonics took a hysterically loose dump just then. Early morning is early.
Ahem. I do think a lot of branches of morality are kind of tied not so much to biological imperative or survival of the fittest, but rather are arguments against defying them. That said, I view mistreatment of sentient and sapient life to be a kind of psychological imperative. A race can only grow biologically so much before it hits a sort of zenith. We're already at the top of the food chain, how do we grow from here? We're still a race of apex predators that still keeps putting itself in a situation where it has to survive itself.
Maybe its our nature that's fucking us, I dunno. :p
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
