Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Moral Absolutism v Relativism (and laws)
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 4 of 44 (362325)
11-07-2006 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
11-06-2006 1:27 PM


diablo advocati
Laws can be made based on morality,
for point of argument, i contend that law in general must be based on morality. consideration of the other is the fundamental precept of what we tend to define as morality in modern western culture. many cultures have this so-called "golden rule:" do unto others, etc. western morality is, by definition, relative because it considers the other.
in a legal perspective, our (modern, western) laws are based on the idea that everyone has certain rights, and that our rights only extend as far as the next persons: we do not have the right to violate another's rights. this notion is fundamentally rooted in the consideration of others, and is in effect legislating consideration of others.
for instance, it is illegal to murder not because god says so, but because it deprives another person of their natural right to live. this is not the traditional "god said so" christian concept of morality, but the idea that we should not deprive people of their rights is a moral nonetheless. our laws are based on our morals.
That is aside from any moral imperative based on an external system.
morality is not an external system; it is an internal one. law is the external system. you are confusing morality with religious dogma and rules such as found in the books of exodus and leviticus. this is a common mistake, even among christians. but these books are found in a volumne called ha-torah, or "the law." this is not a coincidence.
My only argument is that they need not be, including the usual biggies such as murder, theft, rape, etc.
no, they need not be, and often aren't. for instance, bans on gay marriage are highly immoral, because they fail to consider the other, and enforce one particular view point. such a limiting of personal rights due to bias of one group is not moral.
In another post I raised the point that there were laws in support of slavery, against rights of various minorities, and now I will add against Xianity. What moral absolute were these driven by?
these are often driven by the notion that such people "do not count" rather than morality. law itself is rooted in morality, but there are often very bad laws, and immoral legislators. i believe i mentioned another example above -- just because our notion of law is neccessarily rooted in our notion of morality does not mean that every individual law must be moral.
In feudal Japan some classes could kill at will. The idea of a specific killing being wrong at all would be wholly based on the situation and whether it defied/interfered with a specific command from above.
what about other cultures, outside of our western or modern concept of morality? another culture's morality may be different, and their laws tend to be different as a result.
and, as i stated, there are always exceptions, and changes in our notions of morality specifically regarding who "counts." for instance, most people in this country are ok with the death penality (one party has abdicated their right to live by violating the rights of another), and so murders no longer "count" as people we should consider. this may indeed be immoral as well, but reasoning is still based on a moral foundation.
Let us use the situation you encountered with the guy being shot then robbed.
According to my system of beliefs nothing within that was morally wrong. Such labels would be meaningless, beyond telling me what you personally like or dislike.
should such an action (armed robbery, potentially lethal violence) be legal, or illegal? why?
In all cases I would find the actions criminal and generally act on them (or at least hope I would) based on their being criminal and the fact that I am part of that legal system which I want upheld so it would (I would hope) protect me when I am in that situation.
why is such an action criminal? assuming, using your below rationalizations, that both actions are entirely morally justified for the offenders. the shooter had a good moral reason, and the robbers had good moral reasons. why is the person behind the gun punished? however,
With all of these caveats the same actions would flit from moral to immoral.
you are attempting to justify moral relativity with moral relativity. poor form. and while these are certainly complicating factors, they do not change the fundamental immorality of the situation, nor the fundamental illegality of the situation. theft is illegal because it deprives another person of property -- that this is "wrong" is a moral notion. murder (or in this case, manslaughter?) is illegal because it deprives another person of life -- that this is "wrong" is a moral notion. they are illegal simply because of these moral notions.
In fact the descriptions of why they did it... "unjust" and "greedy"... would be the proper labels.
"unjust" is a moral notion. "greed," at the expense of another, is a moral notion. that you are calling these actions either of these two things is a demonstration of morality. without morality, neither of these two things are applicable or descernable in any manner. and we certainly would have no need for laws against them, because they would not even be recognized as unusual, or "distasteful" or "different than [our own] nature[s]" in any degree.
if our morality did not dictate that depriving others of rights, property, or life is wrong, we wouldn't even notice, object to, or legislate this sort of thing. it would just be an acceptable fact of reality that these things happen. further, such a position may eventually invent a moralistic position, as the victim/victim's family would have no recourse for damages, leading to retaliation. we would be forced to consider others on the societal level, to prevent total anarchy in retribution wars. the general "out" to this seems to be when the party at loss accepts that the loss was acceptable, or understandable. also arguably a position dependent on the culture's morals.
Even in a "justified" setting, where some would claim it morally right, I would still find such things more unjust and greedy than is my nature.
you say you would not feel "wrong" but this part of the statement is still a moral position.
It seems to me that the Bible is rather relativist, or perhaps nonabsolutist in nature in many places. At the very least it argues for people not holding knowledge or claims of absolute morality.
no, the bible claims that people do not have absolute authority becuase god has absolute authority. the torah specifically lays out several hundred laws as supposedly given straight from the mouth of god.
even still, as a human document, i think you will find that by and large these laws dictate human interaction, and how to handle disagreements and greivances. the law is the external structure, but the need to consider the other is the moral construct upon which it is based. which is why when jesus is asked to sum up the law, everything besides the first commandment falls under "love your neighbor." it is the basis of nearly every other law found in the old testament, with a few exceptions of course.
It is quite clear in Genesis that Adam and Eve had no moral understanding. The tree of knowledge was moral knowledge.
arguable.
Once eaten from the first thing that they did was judge God's Eden as wrong. Remember, they judged themselves to be naked and so in need of clothes, which is NOT as God had made them. Since they did judge this are you claiming they did recognize some universal morality?
that god would neccessarily be breaking. more likely, the tree was symbolic of self-awareness, concious thought. adam just does what god tells him, eve just does what the serpent tells her. it's not until they eat of the tree that they're even aware of who they are. their shame is a curious reaction, but it's more likely driven by the shame of disobedience than the shame of nudity. it's not that they through being naked was wrong (god HAD made them that way), but that they felt vulnerable for the first time and knew god would be angry.
Interesting to note is that God's response was not to say that they now knew of good and evil as He did, they did not become like Him. What he said is that they became LIKE gods, and so judge good and evil.
i'm not sure the point you're trying to make.
Ecclesiastes (in the OT) and Jesus (in the NT) repeat these same sentiments. Both claim that God and absolute truth, including moral position, is not accessible to man and so should not be dabbled in. Both argue to remain simple and nonjudgemental on such topics. Whatever there might be is for god to sort out... not humans.
jesus's teaching is usually described as "moralistic." where the torah talks abotu laws, jesus talks about the reasoning -- the morals -- behind the laws. he spends a good deal of time railing against people who follow the law but miss the moral. jesus is also normally associated with the position that god makes the law, and it is not our moral right to condemn other for breaking it, because we break it ourselves. only god has that right.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 11-06-2006 1:27 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-07-2006 1:25 PM arachnophilia has not replied
 Message 16 by Silent H, posted 11-07-2006 4:43 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 18 of 44 (362553)
11-08-2006 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Silent H
11-07-2006 4:43 PM


Re: diablo advocati
I probably should have been more clear in what I meant by external. By that I meant that it is a system with some meaning/justification/existence beyond the individual. When one says X is morally wrong, it is not to say "because I think so". Even if that is really what is at heart the person in summoning "morality" is attempting to appeal to something grander, something besides themself.
generally, but that's not actually morality. it may be a gross, seemingly external, and even undefined system for the person expressing the belief, but morality is a quality that (nearly) everyone holds, and is an innate (and in reality, internal) part of the human psyche. it may differ wildly from person to person, but i think you will find my definition more closely related to pack animal behaviour and instinct than a book.
I agree that law is an inherently external system.
law is, yes. but the fact that we have law, or have need for laws is evidence itself of morality. what's wrong with total anarchy? generally, it's bad for the species. our consideration for others, in whatever degree it exists, exists to help ensure the continuation of our species. it is an evolutionary adaptation.
it's not universal, or external, or objective.
I see why you would say that, but it is not necessarily so. The morality we are discussing, the one most people think of with that term, involves a judgement of right/wrong. You are correct that through that filter things like "greed" are "wrong". Greed then is a moral term with a loaded judgement attached.
labelling them at all is a moral call. who's to stay that taking possessions, rights, or even life from another is at all out of the ordinary, noticeable, or cause for any sort of concern? certainly, i think you will find a lot of animals do not opperate with these precepts. primates (like us) tend to.
"right" and "wrong" are often justified with an external source, but the decisions usually have little to do with that source itself, and more to do with the subconcious. you might argue that this is partly cultural -- it certainly is -- and that such a source might even have something to do with the cultural background. but i think you fill find, more often than not, "right" and "wrong" are the justifactions themselves, masking much deeper emotional responses that are simply hard to describe.
ask a person why something is wrong, and chances are they can't tell you. unless they're a fundamentalist. but fundies are a "special" case.
To that system good/bad or right/wrong simply don't exist and so cannot be attached to the terms seen above. They are not seen as connoting something positive or negative by themselves. Greed can actually be quite a positive characteristic, and it is only because of biases that it is thought inherently negative.
yes, that bias is morality. and yes, it is a cultural thing. morality cannot be objective.
In the above example the terms are simply definitional, as the system is. Greed is the opposite quality from Generous, but neither are superior to each other. After all in some situations, or for some people, greed can be quite useful and lead to respect. On the flipside generosity can be useless and even debilitating.
on a biological level, it's a question niches and selection. it's similar on a cultural level. we accept greed as "bad" because in most situations it fails to benefit the society, and generosity as "good" because it does. it's not easily defineable as "always bad" or "always good" and we often run into moral conflicts. does the end justify the means? but the question of which greed is "good" is also an issue of morality. we, for instance, totally accept private property in almost every culture. but this is really a form of greed, isn't it?
"At the expense of another" is something else. Greed does not become "worse" when it involves an action which deprives another, though it may help delineate the degree of greed a person might have from me (if I would not).
the simplest statement of morality is in terms of inter-personal relationships. it's not that greed becomes worse when it deprives another person, it's that greed connected with action always deprives another person, by definition. by taking for ourselves, there is less to go around. it becomes "worse" when the degree of deprivation becomes increasingly petty, or increasingly direct, or increasingly obvious -- outright theft.
Actually this is somewhat simplified as any action often involves tradeoffs between values. For example I might be just as greedy as the people who robbed the dying man, but feel that taking something from someone who cannot fight back is cowardly. Thus my greed is not so great to overcome my sense of bravery, where there's would.
that is a moral call. really, if the man is lying there dead, he clearly does not need physical possessions any longer. it's arguable that he does when he's alive. considering outright theft as cowardly is the same as saying "wrong" with a more ambiguous justification. what's wrong with being cowardly?
1) Consideration of the other is not relative, or a "relativist" moral code. "Do unto others" produces effects which are not of a uniform nature, flexible according to differences between individuals,
flexible, not uniform, but not relative? i believe you'll find that the primary motivation behind cultural and moral relativism is consideration of the other culture or moral system. after all, what is wrong with forcing our values on other cultures?
but unless one accepts that others will not follow that concept, it is not relativist.
yes, this objection is equally as valid for the moral relativist types (see postmodern feminism). our moral relativism is a moral position, and part of our bias -- bias that other cultures and moral systems should be considered. why should we? it sounds like "screw muslims" fundie argument, i know, but if we are arguing for moral relativism, and that nothing is inherently wrong, what keeps us from obliterating any group we dislike from the face of the earth? why would doing so be wrong?
the problem is that "there are no absolutes" is an absolute statement. there is no logical defense of this position.
2) Western law does is not based on "consider others". It is based on protecting one's own rights from the interference of others. Outside of behaviors that directly inhibit someone from doing what they want, one is free to do many things that others may not want.
nasty brutish and short? the issue is that in creating a system for govern and protect ourselves and our property/rights from others, we are also extending that same protection to others as well. contrast this to earlier western legal systems that were designed to protect the rights of only one person. these systems tend to fail, and that is because others simply must be considered in some degree. if they are not, they tend to revolt.
hobbes -> locke.
3) Even if western law is based primarily on morals, that would not argue that law must inherently be based on morals. I have not said that they cannot or all laws in the US have not been, just that a system of laws can be created based on nonmoral principles.
see above. systems that are not fail, and inherently must be replaced with systems that better protect the rights of larger portions of the population.
That first sentence supports my position and is contradictory to the position that in general laws must be based on morality.
i am speaking of the foundation and rule of law, not individual laws. and similar to what i stated above, individual laws that fail to consider others to a large enough degree are bound for disaster. the question of degree varies.
I'd point out that for some, gay marriage bans would be considered quite moral. Gays in that case not considering the effect they will have on others.
it may actually turn out that homosexuality is bad for the species -- many people who object to it are voicing disgust they cannot explain, or rationalize, just feeblely support with religious dogma. we've had members here attempt to explain such positions before. the issue of "good for humanity" is indeed a moral one, and these laws are based on the underlying morality of the culture.
Okay, how does one determine whether a system is rooted in morality, with some immoral laws, or simply not rooted in morality? I mean I see your point how it could happen, but it could just as easily be viewed the other way.
i don't believe a system can be anything but rooted in morality.
I might add none of this argues that a system of laws could not be created without appeal to morals.
describe such a system or culture that has laws, but no morals. make this one a separate post, and we'll continue that there.
It should be noted that I was arguing against NJ who was maintaining that legal systems were not only based on morality but revealed a consistent moral belief. The above supports my point that foreign systems do not reveal such consistency.
consistent? no, especially not between cultures. there are lots of commonalities in most every culture, but that does not demonstrate objectivity. but i do not hold that morality can be objective. law is objective, morality is subjective. as far as consistent within the culture, no, but it does demonstrate a certain level of commonly shared values of the culture, which is often subject to change in time, region, etc.
That said, you have an interesting point in an argument that laws are related to morals, but not necessarily conclusive. These different countries also have different languages, clothes, food, and ways of interacting (outside of moral expectations). Asserting that the different laws are based on their differing morals is simply an assumption. They may just be different like everything else.
i tried to restrict my initial point to modern western law, for a reason. there is a tendency to develop legal and governing systems based on the kind of morality i meant in specific (consideration of others), because it is the natural progression from systems that do not work as well, based on property, or divine right.
but really, in a broader sense, those other systems are simply based on that culture's morality. who says that needing to consider another is moral? perhaps the morality dictates something else.
For example people could choose a benign philosopher King to follow, with all decisions related to laws routed through him, while morals left up to priests with no similarity to laws of the King.
that people choose this is evidence of social contract theory. social contracts are enacted to protect rights, which is inextricably linked to consideration of others. people choose the benign king because he protects the rights and property of the individuals doing the choosing, and thus the majority of others as well. and supposing the king was not benign, it might just be that "evils" he commits are culturally acceptable, not greivances -- dictated by local cultural morality as not wrong, or at least not wrong enough to matter. if they are, the king will undoubtedly be overthrown.
you are still confusing morality with legal codes of conduct, as drafted by religious officials.
You are right that the legality would not change, except as laws themselves change. This is one reason why laws =/= morals. There are certainly situations that people would find morally right yet know are illegal, and wrong but legal.
yes, but in the general sense legality and morality tend not to be unrelated. things we make illegal are often things we find morally wrong, in the broad sensen, even if not every specific case lines up. i'm not arguing for a simplistic view point, just a generalized one. exceptions are a fact of reality.
Murder is illegal regardless of its moral justification in our system, based on rights.
our government regularly terminates people as punishment, and is currently engaged in a war where hundreds of thousands of people have been killed. these actions are legal. they are legal because we generally do not find them morally objectionable -- people trying to deprive us of our right to live abdicate theirs.
and "based on rights" should be a hint. rights in this country are based on natural rights -- a moral concept.
Well that is a plausible interpretation. I don't see how it invalidates the one I put forward. I would have to say yours doesn't seem consistent with verbiage in genesis.
Perhaps a hebrew scholar (maybe you do know) what was said of the tree of knowledge. In all Bibles I have seen it was called the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
generally, it tends to be described in jewish circles as pertaining to awareness, not judgement. the emphasis is not on "good and evil" (and certainly not "good FROM evil") but on "knowledge." many jewish interpretations i've read say that adam and eve did not have free will before this point, so it's actually more of a tree of concious thought than judgement.
similarly, "knowledge" is a common biblical euphemism for sexual intercourse. that explains the shame as much anything else.
Further Adam was not simply a robot, and was allowed to name the animals as he pleased.
not simply a robot, no, but not self-aware in the same sense human beings are today. the story, fundamentally, is about the coming of age of mankind. it explains agriculture, patriarchal society, fear of snakes, clothing, suffering, etc -- all as a result of (stolen) awareness.
Note: I accidentally attributed that line to God. In any case once they do...
god has a similar line at the end of the chapter. i've never understood how fundies say the serpent lied when god uses the same exact phrases the serpent does to confirm the serpent's prediction.
That seems pretty suggestive that the tree was about judgement of good and evil and they suddenly judged their state of dress... not simply fear that they disobeyed god. And it goes on.
clearly, adam and eve are not good judges of good and evil. the story has eve eat of the tree first, at the serpent's suggestion. that she doesn't know better is execusable -- afterall, she can't judge good and evil, can she? but she then gives adam some too, afterwards. if she can judge good and evil, she hasn't done a good job of it. similarly, when god questions adam about his reasoning, he blames god for placing the woman there for him. also, not good judgement.
either they judge correctly, and god is evil (and they are not like god in their judgement, but better), or they judge incorrectly (and are not like god in their judgement, but inferior). either way, their judgement does not seem compatible with god's, as they come to very different conclusions about what is right and what is wrong. in that respect, they take more cues from the serpent.
i think it's safe to say the author meant "knowledge" and not "judgement" as man's judgement is continually shown to be faulty throughout the rest of the text.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Silent H, posted 11-07-2006 4:43 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Silent H, posted 11-09-2006 10:48 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 35 of 44 (363488)
11-12-2006 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Silent H
11-09-2006 10:48 AM


part 1 of 6
i'm going to split this up.
While there seems to be a few points of actual dispute, much of this appears to be an argument over differing definitions. Tomayto, Tomahto. Let me start again so we can pan out the nuggets of debate, from the debris of different terminology.
1) Morality...
Defining this concept may end most of our argument.
indeed.
Much of your discussion appears to be redefining morality in a practical sense, that is involving a meta-ethical position perhaps quite similar to my own, and then adopting language people normally use for moral discussion to cover something else.
i am using "morality" in two senses, and i apologize for not being more clear. in one sense, i am using it to mean the basic principles of our western system of morality -- the second broader sense, what a society as a whole considers ethical, or fails to even consider.
These are internal, subjective feelings, boiled down to essentially "i like", and "i don't like". They are not cognitive concepts, though such concepts may be made to validate them. If you are referring to the above subjective feelings as "morality", and agree that means morals come down to personal statements of a subjective nature with a variety of influences, then I agree with many of your arguments, including the relation of morals to laws.
ok. i do feel this is basic biological origin of what we consider morality, though for many people morality is a more cognitive process. i feel this is an attempt to externalize or justify internal, irrational, or even instinctual feelings which we have no control over.
However, philosophical discussions of morality (ethics) generally do NOT let the term "morality" apply to such feelings. That is because "right" and "wrong" are supposed to be something greater than mere personal preference.
even supposing for a second that we take this backwards, and start with an objective rule, such as "thou shalt not kill," look at how many different subjective calls we must make about what is and what is not moral according to that law. is it moral to kill those who have killed? is it moral to kill our enemies at war? is it moral to kill our cows so we can enjoy hamburgers? is it moral to kill soy plants so we can have veggie burgers instead? is it moral to let society starve to death because it's immoral to kill anything alive? where we place our priorities -- what we consider to be moral -- is entirely subjective, even when often agreed upon.
but i would like to suggest that morality is greater than personal preference, if not by much. simple because it's not personal. these things are often decided on an abstract cultural level, not a personal one.
Discussions involve whether they have truth values beyond the framework of an individual's fleeting interests. After all people generally are not going to change their preference because you say "i don't like it", nor are they going to adopt your prefs because you say "i like it". When one moves to discuss moral action it is argued "because it is right!"
the only difference is that one sounds better than the other. one wins arguments by rhetoric, not merit. and "it is right!" isn't a better reason than "god said so!" or "i like it!" all three questions have the same response: "why?"
we learn quickly in the art depart to find better ways of phrasing "i like it" or "i think it sucks" more eloquently, so it sounds like we have a reason, and we can pretend our decisions in critiques are objective (and sometimes convince people) but really it's all subjective and anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves.
I am sticking with general convention by separating the two (feelings v cognition) and denouncing the truth value of moral statements, arguing they are merely attempts to validate the former using some cognitive rationale.
yes i agree, and i add that human beings are fundamentally irrational beings. but then, you've been here long enough to know that.
Your apparent system, when definitions are used instead of terms, would be moral relativism, or perhaps emotivism... unless you mean to suggest that the sources of our desires indicate some level of truth regarding what is "good" or "bad"?
well, yes but also no. not in the "god said so" way, but in the "what works and doesn't work" kind of way. we develop cultural morality out of subjective personal feelings or biological responses because they work for the bettering of society (or at least fail to significantly undermine it). the reasonable approximation of objectivity inside the culture itself is an artifact, a result, not the basis.
Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Silent H, posted 11-09-2006 10:48 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Silent H, posted 11-13-2006 7:19 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 36 of 44 (363496)
11-12-2006 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Silent H
11-09-2006 10:48 AM


part 2 of 6
You appear to have equivocated in your use of the term "consider". One can consider something in a factual (existential) way, or in an emotional way.
When one says one should "consider" the other, do you mean that they exist and what they might do based on one's own actions, or that they have feelings which might be hurt and that is something one would not want to do (ie "do unto others")?
yes, sorry. i am too lazy to be precise with my words. in this part, i mean consideration in an emotional aspect, not a factual way.
On the flipside, one does not always have to consider others in an emotional sense. The laws could be "Do as the king says peasant", or even "Do as the community wishes, comrade".
what drives these two things, though? why should one do as the king says? and really doing as the community wishes is consideration of the other, just on a plural level.
It is of course possible that the person may really care about the King or the community and so want to "consider" the emotions of those entities, but it is irrelevant and action may just as well be to "consider" the factual element of those entities and what will happen if one does not obey.
that's not the issue; the issue is what drives the creation of these (external) systems.
Even democracies of the social contract sense
all governments are by social contract. and not in the same way that the rape victim is really asking for it -- the people far out-number the government, by definition, and if push comes to shove, it's all about who can kill more of whom.
As a practical matter of course if two people live nearby they will generally interact. If they choose to interact regularly, especially toward a common practical goal, they only need to assess what is likely to occur between them and set up routines so that their own interests are not hampered. If both do this then by logical imperative they will recreate "rights", without considering the other as an emotional being and what impact their actions will have on the other (beyond retribution).
i think there's a jump in the logic there, but you may be right. still, on the societal level, the fact that rights are forced to exist says something. even in strict terms of retribution and personal interest, part of our individual personal interest is not pissing off the other guy so much that he kills us. that is, neccessarily, consideration of the other's emotional status, even if it's solely to protect our own interests.
I realize Locke arguably viewed natural rights as a moral issue.
i'm (ironically) not well enough read in locke's work to really say, but i'm not entirely sure he did. he may have viewed them in the strictly practical sense, as above. i'll get back to you once i read two treatises.
In summary, if you mean in the vaguest sense that laws involve consideration of the other (factually) and that this involves morals (personal feelings), then I would agree. If you mean that laws are made by taking into consideration how our actions are going to be felt by another because of our concern (beyond retribution) for the other, then I would disagree.
i mean on a strictly fundamental, subconcious, order-for-society level, closer to the first position you describe.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Silent H, posted 11-09-2006 10:48 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Silent H, posted 11-13-2006 7:39 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 37 of 44 (363503)
11-12-2006 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Silent H
11-09-2006 10:48 AM


part 3 of 6
These are complex discussions/distinctions. I am not sure how much you know of them ...
not much, please feel free to elaborate.
...and how much you are throwing off to play the role of diablo advocati.
i'm not entirely sure i am anymore, actually. lol.
In any case, the labels that I was discussing did not involve negative or positive connotations, they really are neutral,
no such thing. all terms have connotations, and shades of meaning.
and taking something away from a person when they are absolutely helpless involves no risk at all and so exhibits "cowardice".
why? i would define cowardice as running or hiding in the face of danger. in this case, they faced mild potential danger. it was not as great a danger as it would have been when the other person was alive, yes. but so? many animals are scavengers, and that's a perfectly acceptable biological niche.
in fact, we can even see human moral calls applied on animals in the wild. the lion is brave and majestic for hunting prey, but the hyena that simply finds a carcass and exploits it is cowardly? why? in reality, of course, the situation is often reversed; both animals do both things. neither especially cares, it's just a meal.
clearly, this is an artificial construct.
The thieves were not wrong or lesser for what they did, but exhibiting a relationally greater level of cowardice than I would. It may be so great a difference that I dislike what they are doing on a gut level. Yet others might find that perfectly tasteful. What everyone chooses defines them in a factual definitional sense and not a morally "right/wrong" sense.
but what is wrong with cowardice? why does cowardice affect you on a gut level? it's a perfectly acceptable response, and often VERY successful on an evolutionary level. there is no reason why cowardice should provoke a negative reaction.
you can say it was not neccessarily wrong or lesser, but your gut reaction betrays your moral sense.
I gave another example (maybe that was to NJ) of the brilliant assassin. In killing a hard to reach opponent, who he may have not wanted to kill but was ordered to do so, with a poison he made that was totally undetectable, that person would exhibit: knowledge, loyalty, and cowardice. If the victim was someone that had or was likely to kill others without cause, then the person could be acting "justly". But even if unjust, that would simply be another characteristic. The person could be hailed and reviled on all of these different aspects of their act, and would be depending on another person's nature.
i caught the tail end of predator 2 on television last night, and was watching it with brenna for a while. the thing that made the predator especially terrifying was that it was not an indiscriminant killer, a dim-witted raging brute or a vicious animal. it appeared to have some form of ethical consideration, and certainly intelligence. it only killed people who were armed, but left children and pregnant women unharmed. it hunted with honor -- we were just placed lower in the moral scheme than we are used to. the films were effective, because they put up a moral dilemma. we consider it immoral to kill human beings, but at the same time we recognize the morality of the killer.
sorry, bad sci-fi nut.
Absolutely nothing is wrong with being cowardly. Heck those people just made some money. In wars it might keep one alive, and even lead to victory.
yes, our revolutionary war was a case in point.
In the more overt virtue ethics theory cowardice may be thought a vice, but only in the sense that habitual cowardice in a person is less likely to lead to personal achievement and happiness.
why?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Silent H, posted 11-09-2006 10:48 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Silent H, posted 11-13-2006 9:43 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 38 of 44 (363517)
11-13-2006 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Silent H
11-09-2006 10:48 AM


part 4-6 of 6
I'm not sure there is any motivation than understanding the factual nature of ethics. What is true regarding moral statements? In doing so one must factually consider the reality of other systems, but one does not have to care about them one bit.
i just intend to point out that cultural relativism is ironic, in that it uses our western personal relativism, a moral concept, to view other societies. even in considering them, we are using our own moral goggle to do so.
You seem to be confusing the philosophical position of relativism with political activists who appeal to relativism in some portions of their arguments. That absolutists, or simply political activists, appeal to some tenets of relativism to push their agenda, does not change what relativism is or says.
ok, perhaps i misunderstand.
I have already dealt with this with NJ. I am willing to switch that statement to "there are no known absolutes".
that is then a known absolute.
I meant what was the tree literally called, not what people may interpret it as. I'm trying to get if the literal wording in the Torah is the same as in the Bible.
the torah is part of the bible.
You can't get more clear than the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil. To argue it means awareness is to start moving away from literal meaning, to more speculative interpretation.
the bible is often semantically unclear. is the knowledge good and evil? is it knowing good and evil? is it knowing good from evil? given that the hebrew is , ‘ (etz ha-daat tov v'ra), it appears that "tov" and "ra" are being used as adjectives to modify "daat," forming a single phrase. thus it is "good knowledge and bad [knowledge]." i could be wrong, i'll examine it more. but i do not see any sense of judgement between what is good and what is bad, simply knowledge that is good and bad.
In this case it clearly starts with them being naked and unashamed. Eating from the tree and then being ashamed of that nakedness. God clearly made them that way and was not happy that they judged it.
god made them clothes. god is a strange character in genesis 2 and 3. he creates by trial an error -- it's possible he was not aware man would be ashamed of his naughty bits, as he was not aware that man would be lonely. i also think you're overthinking the text.
The serpent convinced them they could "eat of this knowledge" but they were fooled. They were not gods and not beings gods, they might FEEL they know like such, or ACT like they are such, but in reality they know nothing they only talk that way. Thus (among other things) they gain a false impression that naked is shameful, which is not correct.
no, clearly, god says they have become like gods in their knowledge. eve indeed makes a certain call when the serpent suggests the idea to her. she sees the tree is "good for food." clearly, she has just made a judgement here -- so the story cannot be about that. she can't judge that eating from the tree is GOOD is she cannot judge before she eats it.
no, the simplest reading is that it is knowledge -- possibly specific knowledge held in the tree, that god withheld from them. and they key phrase in the text was "their eyes were opened." they were made aware of something, or possible just in general. but they were not aware they were naked before this point, as per what the text says.
quote:
And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked;
they did not know they were naked before. the judgement that this is "bad" is irrelevent -- it might just be an assumption of the story, something the author took for granted. the issue is the knowledge, not the judgement.
I think it meant knowledge too. Not sure that I said otherwise. One cannot make moral judgement without moral knowledge.
no, not moral knowledge, knowledge in general. or possibly carnal knowledge, but i'm not sure i follow that one.
Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Silent H, posted 11-09-2006 10:48 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Silent H, posted 11-13-2006 10:05 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 44 of 44 (369847)
12-14-2006 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Silent H
11-14-2006 11:20 AM


i'd like to apologize for letting this discussion go for a while. i think we both more or less agree on the majority of points, and it's gotten a bit lengthy. both of which have placed it realitively low in my priority list for the end of this semester, but i have a bit more time now. i'd like to add something interesting to the pot though. earlier, i started speaking of morality as almost biological.
well, i heard a story on npr recently, about this, and thought of this discussion. the study there leads to conclusion that morality is probably biological. not only do 85% of people respond the same way to these moral dilemmas, but the same areas of their brains are active for particular answers. the npr story (a full hour on morality) went on to discuss how chimps essentially display the same characteristics. it seems "morality" is an evolutionary adaptation.
Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Silent H, posted 11-14-2006 11:20 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