Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Emotions and Consciousness Seperate from the Brain ??
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 71 of 127 (172129)
12-29-2004 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by dshortt
12-29-2004 3:06 PM


Re: Absolute Morality
But then it cuts back the other way in that you have no basis to truly condemn the Islamic conservative. This would imply there is no basis for being appalled, or horrified by anything.
This is not true at all. Absolute (meaning external and objective) moral rules are not necessary as a basis to truly condemn anything, nor for one to be appalled.
One can truly criticize activities based on their inconsistency, hypocrisy, or negative effects on others. One can, and will, be appalled based on strong subjective feelings towards whatever activity. Indeed, I am sort of wondering how anyone requires objective rules to actually be horrified or appalled.
And what we may find in the future is that Islam (it is multiplying faster than any other religion in the world) has become the norm and your offspring are suffering exactly what was appalling to you. So why don't we acknowledge what we all know in our "hearts", that there are moral absolutes, and then return to the quest to find them.
This is highly ironic. You believe that your morality is the absolute moral set then? That is what the above suggests.
Otherwise what does moral absoluteness have to do with whether Islam conservatism is appalling or not? Why can it not be said (especially if it is the fastest growing religion) that conservative Islam represents the true moral absolutes?
And then you say, after thrusting out the bogeyman of Islamic conservatism, that we should all admit what we have in our heart... that there really are moral absolutes... and then suggest we go on a quest to find them.
There would not be a debate in the first place if people all felt in there hearts that there were moral absolutes, and more importantly that these absolutes were absolute.
Really, if they are absolute, then why must we quest for them? How did we lose them?
Why is it not more realistic to say there are no such thing as moral absolutes? That would explain why some don't feel there are absolutes, and the overwhelming evidence that there is no one set that the entire world is drawn to.
If moral absolutes existed the points above seem a pretty hard hurdle to jump.
Once we understand that morals are not absolute we may then address how we can best live within a moral diversity, which is a much more practical pursuit.
Moral relativism does not require us to abandon or berate ethics as meaningless. What it says is that they are individually derived and so will differ, it does not make them less important. I consider them quite important.
This message has been edited by holmes, 12-29-2004 16:16 AM

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by dshortt, posted 12-29-2004 3:06 PM dshortt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by robinrohan, posted 12-29-2004 4:25 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 77 by dshortt, posted 12-29-2004 7:17 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 72 of 127 (172132)
12-29-2004 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by dshortt
12-29-2004 3:53 PM


Re: Absolute Morality
But I will throw what I consider to be a moral absolute out there: Love your neighbor as you love yourself.
Militant Islamic extremists and Xian fundies certainly love their neighbors as they love themselves. All of their actions have religious qualifiers to explain why the expression of that love differs vastly between them.
That is of course why their positions, while starting from a similar point, are relative.
Or perhaps you have an explanation why if the above is a real moral absolute, there seems to be so much hate towards one's neighbors?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by dshortt, posted 12-29-2004 3:53 PM dshortt has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 75 of 127 (172145)
12-29-2004 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by robinrohan
12-29-2004 4:25 PM


Re: Absolute Morality
Objective morality IS necessary if we are going to "truly" condemn anything.
That's funny, but I could have sworn I gave other criteria it could be condemned. Your skipping over that part, and reasserting a premise does not make your argument valid.
The ONLY condemnation that an absolute morality would allow, in other words be necessary for, is the condemnation that something is absolutely immoral.
That form of condemnation is not the only condemnation available, and I would argue is almost useless in practice.
I don't like the actions of Islamic conservatives toward women, but what basis do I have to condemn them?
Inconsistency with actual teachings within the Koran, appeals to feelings of empathy they might have which would put into question (contradict) the rules they are currently following. One of the toppers would be an argument that the moral rules certain imams express are not absolute.
But let me turn that around on you. Moral absolutes exist. Okay, so how do you condemn them? Why are their morals not the absolute?
I have my moral system, he has his. What makes mine better than his? He will do his thing while I do mine.
Perhaps I am not understanding something. Why do you need to feel that yours is better than theirs, and what is wrong if you do your thing and they do theirs? That would not stop you from being able to criticize. And your being able to criticize their system will not make yours better.
"It's my culture," he would say. "Mind your own business." And he would be right.
Again, how would this change with a belief in moral absolutes? About the only thing that could happen is that he says, this is my culture and it is the absolute truth.
How would you be able to say he is wrong?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by robinrohan, posted 12-29-2004 4:25 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by robinrohan, posted 12-29-2004 6:32 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 79 of 127 (172217)
12-30-2004 4:44 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by robinrohan
12-29-2004 6:32 PM


Re: Absolute Morality
The issue is whether in fact there is a moral absolute. If there is, we could decide the difference between me and the Islamic conservative lickety-split.
Really? I would like to see that. What exactly are you going to use to decide which of your moral positions is the moral absolute one?
Remember you said that if there is a moral absolute, this can be done lickety split. Since it is your contention that there is a moral absolute this should be easy.
Of course I am assuming that by "difference" you mean that one is right and one is wrong. If you are meaning just that they are different, any subjective or relative moral philosophy can do the same thing.
Yes, I can criticize but I have no reason to other than the "feeling in my heart"--which presumably is culture-specific and therefore meaningless outside of my culture.
And what is the difference between that and how you will determined what moral absolutes exist?
Of course I actually listed more ways to criticize another ethic and for the second time you have avoided mentioning them, in order to reassert your premise that there are no other ways. This is strike two for you. Either honestly refute the other methods of criticism I mentioned, or stop replying to my posts.
I don't think you would appreciate it if I kept half answering your arguments, leaving out key portions in order to reassert my premise. Indeed, deep in my heart I feel that is wrong. I wonder if intellectual honesty is a moral absolute?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by robinrohan, posted 12-29-2004 6:32 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by robinrohan, posted 12-30-2004 7:40 AM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 80 of 127 (172219)
12-30-2004 5:32 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by dshortt
12-29-2004 7:17 PM


Re: Ultimate Moral Guidlines
The person living next to you could just as easily be appalled that you buy into such an immoral society.
I didn't say society creates anything. I think society itself is a construct, though it has ways of maintaining its general norms through socialization. Of course they are not always effective which is why subcultures exist.
Here's the deal... I am more than just a relativist, I am a moral subjectivist. Indeed, if you want to get down to facts I don't even believe in right and wrong as you know it which is only one way of thinking of morality.
But let's make this easy. Lets say morality is a set of rules of right and wrong.
In the end, individuals acquire a set of rules for themselves based on experience (some of which are the effects of socialization within cultures), and introspection. As much as the rules reflect societal norms the actors will help reinforce those norms while interacting with others. As far as those rules defy societal norms, the actors will try and change the opinions of those around them and change thus societal norms.
It is an ebb and flow carried out locally, regionally, and globally.
Being horrified or appalled is something separate from morality. While morality may help push one's emotional buttons, this is not necessarily so. One can think something is right and yet be sickened. One can think something is wrong and yet find it quite seductive.
Putting together a cohesive worldview it would seem to me would entail a quest for morality. I think we, (Americans in this case) began to lose sight of Ultimate Moral Guidlines early in this century when naturalistic philosophy began to ooze out of academia and permeate society at large.
This is the most profound and terrible mistake that this generation is making. It is not just the religious conservatives making it either. For some reason, actual moral diversity has become a hated thing. Actual tolerance has become a hated thing. It is creating the very wars we are in now, both military and civil.
A cohesive worldview can be an understanding that many different moralities do coexist and so should find ways to smooth frictions, rather than stamping one "right" morality one everyone. It is not only more practical, it allows for greater flexibility for the human race.
Indeed I do not find your "worldview" cohesive at all. It is divisive, until there is only the victor and the conquered... the right and the wrong.
I am curious. You used loaded langauge to describe naturalist understanding of how the world works. Did something happen from this that is objectively "bad"?
Also, how will you determine what the one uniform everyone must wear will look like?
This really should be another thread, don't you agree?
I don't know but I am willing to move to a new thread.
You are obviously young enough to believe this has a prayer of working in the real world.
I suspect I am older than you think.
The fact is that there have been plenty of examples of morally diverse societies living together peacefully for long periods of time. The greatest conflicts have not emerged from societies recognizing diversity, but rather from individual groups damning diversity and demanding a singular worldview stamped on everybody else.
Other than your statement people cannot live together with diverse moralities (ironically disputing the rationale of our founding fathers), what examples do you have that it can't work?
Or do you simply have faith in the utopian vision that once everyone looks and acts alike, there will be no reason for conflict?
Consider my scenarios in two previous posts in which future societies could quite easily be led to some truly appalling outcomes with moral relativism in place.
Please restate them. If you want to, use them as a beginning example in a new thread. Before you do, I think you should look at them yourself and ask if they could not equally happen, in fact will more likely occur, in a quest for moral absolutes.
I think at least one of your examples is highly ironic. It has moral relativists acting to maintain relativism by killing absolutists, which of course is exactly what the moral absolutists would actually do, rather that relativists.
Again, relativism and subjectivism does not mean that morals have no value nor function in the world. It merely defines what is the source of moral knowledge for people in the world.
Let me use an analogy. We can state that each person's blood supply is pumped by a heart and circulatory system. While each may be similar, no two are really the same. Just because each person has a different heart, does not mean hearts are devalued.
For some reason, which has no basis in logic, you feel everyone must collectively use one giant heart, or hearts have no value nor basis for evaluation.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by dshortt, posted 12-29-2004 7:17 PM dshortt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by dshortt, posted 12-30-2004 8:27 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 84 by Phat, posted 12-30-2004 12:08 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 89 of 127 (172363)
12-30-2004 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by robinrohan
12-30-2004 7:40 AM


Re: Alternatives for judgment
is there any particular reason why they ought to be consistent?
Yes, its called consistency. That's what allows sets of rules to make sense. It is possible for someone to follow a set of rules which are inconsistent, or inconsistently follow their rules, but it doesn't make for a very coherent position.
How are we to decide between these rules?:
1. Thou shalt be consistent within thy own moral system.
2. Thou shalt not commit gender apartheid.
I honestly have no clue what the above was trying to get at. If you feel that they are inconsistently applying rules in order to create what you call "gender apartheid" then you can bring this to their attention. Or if such a practice is consistent with the moral rules they subscribe to, then you will have to appeal to other reasons for them not to use those rules, more than likely emotional appeals.
I am curious how you believe absolute morals would change this... you get to say what I feel is right and you are wrong (objectively)?
Any reason why we should select one over the other?
Yes. There are plenty of reasons. But they will depend on your initial tastes and experiences. In other words they will be personal reasons. For example you may hate to see violence against women in any form. Thus such restrictions may violate this taboo and so you agree that women should not be forced to live separate lives from men (with fewer freedoms).
Now, how does an absolute morality allow us to select one over the other? You have yet to explain how you know the islamic conservative morality is not that absolute morality.
"Imam, your rules are not absolute."
Imam: "Neither are yours. Ours are just as good."
"Imam, your rules are not the absolute ones."
Imam: "Neither are yours. Ours are just as likely to be the absolute ones as yours."
You are projecting that is all.
I don't see why you have the relativist saying what you have him saying. What was the point of that comment?
While it is true that there are no objective standards to say I am right and you are wrong, there are always practical and personal reasons one may use to criticize another's moral system. There certainly is no problem in admitting, another person's system just doesn't work for you.
Or is there a problem?
It seemed to me obvious that any alternatives beg the question.
You have yet to address my points. Where did you examine appealing to the consistency of a person's beliefs? Where did you examine appealing to a person to change based on practical or emotional criteria?
There is no begging the question, they were a direct rebuttal of your position that without absolute morality one is incapable of criticizing moral systems.
I will still continue to judge the gender apartheid of Islamic conservatives. In practice, we feel and act AS THOUGH there were an absolute, and that we know what it is.
Yes, we feel very strongly about our personal moral systems, so much that they feel absolute. Now open your eyes and look around. Despite how much you feel your personal rules are correct, there are people who do not hold those beliefs, and may hold diametrically opposed beliefs with as much conviction as you.
That is why moral absolutism is a fiction and subjectivism is reality.
But let's say you are right for just a second... why have you still not shown how we know that Islamic conservative morals are not the moral absolutes? Because you don't feel they are?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by robinrohan, posted 12-30-2004 7:40 AM robinrohan has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 90 of 127 (172375)
12-30-2004 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by dshortt
12-30-2004 8:27 AM


The problem for me is that at some point (at least in America) the Ultimate Moral Guidlines have gotten sidelined or even thrown out altogether in favor of this more pragmatic approach.
No, my description is how it has always been. Please describe what evidence you have of an ultimate moral guideline within America at any time in this nation's history.
This "off the rails" approach is what could (very possibly in my mind) lead us to my scenarios. As long as the UMG's were in place, those scenarios, in spite of what you believe, are impossible.
Ad hominem and blank assertions. This will not get you far.
Jar ask me to put forth an UMG, and I chose "Love your neighbor as you love yourself". With a UMG like that, how could my scenarios ever happen?
Pick a specific scenario and explain exactly why the above rule eliminates its possibility. Also explain why everyone has that rule (since it is an absolute). And are there no other rules? My guess is as you begin listing rules you will find some that allow the scenario to occur and create a conflict with the first stated rule.
One cannot live by love thy neighbor alone. Indeed if everyone is going to start dying due to overcrowding, one might say that killing others is an inherent result of loving others.
The terrorists of 911 were at a minimum evildoers, if not flat out evil men. Dealing with evil is a whole lot different than dealing with a people who just don't happen to share some of your moral derivatives...
What on earth is evil? Why were they evil? As far as I understand they believed they were doing absolute good and there are many people that feel that way. Indeed there are many people that feel our invasion of Iraq was evil and commited by wholly evil people.
As far as I can tell you are all pointing at each other and calling each other names. Please prove me wrong.
From my position the terrorists involved in 9-11 were religious zealots, throwing their lives away on mistaken principles, and in the process causing immense damage and death, with nothing to show for it except creating a large spectacle.
Why do I need to call them evil?
Moral diversity under a naturalistic philosophy will lead to a totalitarian regime imposing it's morality by force. There is no logical alternative.
Blank assertion is not impressive. Please explain why totalitarianism is the inherent result of moral diversity. As far as I can tell this is the pot calling the ivory black.
A people trying to live together that don't recognize, at least, some set of UMG's will continue to have conflicts that are not solvable at the local or even regional level ultimately. Somebody will have to come in with some big guns to stop the madness, especially when and if our economy begins to be, shall we say less robust.
It appears you have not read anything by the people that founded the United States of America. The only thing necessary is an agreed method of dealing with conflicts. At most this will be based on some shared practical civic values, not moral absolutes.
trying to live side by side with a Muslim who wants you and I dead.
That's interesting. In my life as an atheist I have had more threats from Xians than muslims for my beliefs and life practices. In fact I have had many Islamic friends with no problems.
Militant Islamic fundamentalism is a problem. So is militant jewish, Xian, and any other religious/philosophical fundamentalism. In the US you are more likely to be killed by a Xian fundamentalist.
Moral absolutism is behind all of this. Despite your claims to the contrary you say we must find a singular UMG's for everyone and that will require wiping out opposition.
Consider this: Mother Teresa is the Ultimate Example of a Christian, Osama Bin Laden is the Ultimate Muslim, and Madeline Murray O'Hara or Woody Allen are the Ultimate Atheists.
Given that evangelicals dislike Catholics, and have supported Bush and Co's most outlandish policies, I am unsure how Theresa becomes the ultimate example of a Xian.
Why on earth is Bin Laden the ultimate Muslim? Given that the vast numbers of Muslims are his sworn enemy, this is absurd on its face.
As an atheist I can say I don't have anything against O'Hara or Allen, but neither are they "ultimate". What makes you feel they are ultimate examples? What criteria are you using?
And most importantly, how does any of this prove anything regarding how relativists would react in your scenarios as compared to absolutists?
"You shouldn't kill", oh yeah, sez who, "You shouldn't challenge my authority to tell you not to kill", oh yeah, sez who, etc, etc.
How many atheists kill on the word of God? Hmmmmmmm. So you tell a religious zealot "you shouldn't kill". Oh yeah, sex who? You? "You shouldn't challenge my authority to tell you not to kill", oh yeah sez who etc etc... and in the end there is a moral absolute which comes from God and he says kill you.
Bang, you and your theory are dead.
I have yet to see a moral absolutist stop a bullet with words, despite claims to the contrary. However I have seen plenty of absolutists firing bullets in order to make their morality the UMG, because they say if they don't create a totalitarian dictatorship founded on their morality, society will become a totalitarian dictatorship based on moral diversity.
Please explain how you know Islamic militants do not have the moral absolute?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by dshortt, posted 12-30-2004 8:27 AM dshortt has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Hangdawg13, posted 12-31-2004 1:33 AM Silent H has not replied
 Message 92 by AdminDawg, posted 12-31-2004 1:34 AM Silent H has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024