|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A personal morality | |||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: I don't get it. If you know that your belief is "illusionary", then you don't really believe it, do you? I think that you have to be very clear. What do you believe. Not what do you want to believe, but what is it that you do believe. Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Hey, Ignatius, you might want to actually read the opening post and some of the responses before you blunder in. I just checked each page, and no one has been speaking about whether or not there are "absolutes" (whatever that means). It would be very helpful if you were to address the points that people are actually raising, not make up some argument that no one is trying to establish.
Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Ignatius, you might want to add some substance to your posts. Actually address the points being raised with counter points instead of irrelevant asides and humorous one-liners. Otherwise, you are going to end up being banned by one of our moderators with a low level of patience.
Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
I imagine they would have to be pretty poor souls indeed.
Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: One does not need to defend "moral relativism". All one has to do is point out that an absolute standard for morality does not exist. In fact, an absolute standard is impossible to determine. -
quote: Well, you certainly haven't shown any ability in this regard. Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Ugh. I suspect that you will be
I hope that I am wrong, and that you will be posting arguments in your own words. Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: I think I was civil enough when I replied to Ignatius' post. Certainly more civil than his tone deserved. And it is true, there was no discussion of "absolutes" in this thread until Ignatius brought it up. If you look at the "Edit" menu on your browser, there is a feature called "Find in this page". I used it to search for the word "absolute". It is true, no one on this thread was claiming that there are no absolutes, in fact, no one was saying anything about "absolutes" at all. So Ignatius' comment was irrelevant to the discussion. Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
No, "absolutes" were never part of the conversation. Thinking otherwise is, I guess, consistent with your general tendency to avoid discussing the topic that everyone else is discussing and going off on your own tangents. This is from Neutralmind's OP:
-
Okay, just recently I realised that with evolution comes a presumption of relative morality... Okay, right off, this is incorrect. -
...and I've always thought about morality being objective. Neutralmind's previous assumption was incorrect as well, so he is on the verge of coming to a correct conclusion but for the wrong reason. -
...the proof can be seen around the world with different cultures ascribing different things as moral and immoral. And even individuals in the same culture. Now this part is correct, but it has nothing to do with evolution. -
I've never really believed in a god, but I've always believed in an objective morality. Again, we are talking about whether or not there is an objective standard for morality. -
I have a fear, no... I know that if I KNEW for sure, that there was absolutely no doubt that relative morality is correct I'd become one of the most immoral guys in this planet.... I KNOW I would become like that and I have no idea why I wouldn't want to be like that, now that I know (not KNOW) that relative morality is in fact correct. Now Neutralmind is claiming that if there is no objective standard for morality, he would do things that he would not want to do. As crashfrog points out, this makes no sense. What would he do things that he doesn't want to do depending on whether there is or is not an objective standard? -
So, should I hold onto my illusionary belief of absolute morality or will someone here help me find ways to deal with knowing the truth and still not turning "immoral"? Again, this makes no sense. Neutralmind is asking whether he should continue "believing" in something that he knows is not true, just to avoid doing stuff he doesn't want to do. Hell, the question here isn't even whether or not there is an objective standard for morality. The question here concerns some sloppy thinking on Neutralmind's part. (Not that this is meant to be a criticism -- when one begins to think about a deep topic for the first time, the initial thought processes are bound to be "sloppy" -- it takes time and effort (and further discussion) to clarify what one believes about it. Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: But how does an objective standard help you? You still have to try and figure out just what it is, and so you end up "making it up" as you go along anyway. So you're still in the same boat.
quote: Oops...you already figured this out. - But there is a more serious error in logic here. To wit:
quote: Why aren't you certain?
quote: But this has nothing to do with whether there is or is not an objective standard. What you seem to be saying is (in syllogistic form): If there are objective standards of morality, then there will be consequences for not obeying them.If there are objective standards and I disobey them, then I will suffer consequences. Therefore, there might be objective standards of morality. If this is what you are saying, then I hope that you see where it fails. Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: As you have already asked yourself, how would you know whether this would be against some alleged "absolute moral code" to begin with? Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
It also avoids the point that with no god, there are no actions that affect a god, and so these actions are no longer immoral.
Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: crashfrog asked such a great question that I really think that it cannot be overemphasized. If morality is subjective and you wouldn't be any worse of a human for behaving in some manner, then what is the problem with behaving in that manner? Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Now this is getting confusing.
I thought your problem in accepting that morality is subjective is that you would then behave immorally. Your answer in this posts assumes that there is an objective morality. We already know what the problem would be if you behaved immorally while there were an objective morality. I thought your original question was that you were on the verge of accepting that morality is not objective, and you were distressed about the implications if morality was subjective. Edited by Chiroptera, : possibility -> implication Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given. Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: Sure. Then what does it matter whether there is or is not an absolute standard for morality? In fact, as far as I can see, you would be in a bigger quandry if there were an absolute standard since this absolute standard might compel you to do something that your inner voice is trying to tell you is wrong. -
quote: Well, that is what you are claiming, isn't it? That if there were no absolute standard, then you would quit listening to this inner voice of yours? At least, that is how I have been intepreting the quandry you have been presenting since the OP. Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: Ugh. I really don't want to play semantic games. If I did, I would have invited Rob to join in. Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024