Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Conventionalism is Dead - Society does NOT determine what is moral.
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 99 of 113 (386317)
02-20-2007 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by kuresu
02-20-2007 9:33 PM


Re: Morality: limited by code
kuresu writes:
if we know better now, it implies that at one point we didn't.
at that past point, it would have been okay, because "we didn't know better".
Of course at one point we didn't know what we now know.
If you can now say that treating others bad was once good, that is implying that 'good' is unknowable. I really thought we talked about this in depth yesterday.
Here, again, it was once acceptable to do certain things.
That DOES NOT mean that it was right to do them. Was the inquistion right, was slavery, the crusades, any of those things which we commonly and constantly call immoral?
Morality is retro-active. We have no problem ever without exception applying our morals to the events of history. If a Catholic for example dares to qualify the crusades as a product of the age, and a moral thing, it is always as far as any debate I have ever seen, been called 'making excuses'.
I am not contradicting myself, and, if you want to paint ignorance of admin attempts to preserve the integrity of the forum by keeping threads on topic, as some heroic activity...well, good luck. I personally don't see what possible dramatic revelation about life can be made by talking about the same old topic in the wrong place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by kuresu, posted 02-20-2007 9:33 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by kuresu, posted 02-20-2007 9:53 PM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 101 of 113 (386321)
02-20-2007 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by kuresu
02-20-2007 9:53 PM


Re: Morality: limited by code
kuresu writes:
at one point, slavery was right. you can only say that it is now wrong, and we can consider them wrong for doing it, but you have to realize that they thought it right.
Yes, for the millionth time, I know they thought it was, they were wrong, we know better, and nothing will ever make it right no matter what we think.
as to admin actions, i wasn't calling it heroism. just letting you know that some of us don't let people hide behind admin actions.
Good, I am glad that some people don't hide behind admin actions. I know Rob certainly has not paid much attention to them either. He clearly thinks that what he has to say is important enough to be banned over. I do not think that anything any of us has to say about absolute morality is new or breath-taking, or worth making a stink about. Especially because there are unlimited opportunities for one on one debate and new threads.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by kuresu, posted 02-20-2007 9:53 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by kuresu, posted 02-20-2007 10:36 PM anastasia has replied
 Message 104 by nator, posted 02-21-2007 10:49 AM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 103 of 113 (386357)
02-21-2007 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by kuresu
02-20-2007 10:36 PM


Re: Morality: limited by code
kuresu writes:
no. no. no. it once was right. and still is by some moral codes.
it is not right by our moral code. it is by theirs. blanket statements do not work.
Then please, do not worry about the extremists, fundies, radicals all over the world wreaking havoc. By their code, their actions are perfectly moral. Should we stop them in this 'moral' behaviour? Or should we just say, we are different? Live and let live? I think I finally understand the reasoning of Harris. Ha ha.
also, the last part of your statement doesn't work. if we can decide that it's wrong, what prevents us from regressing? you go straight from a subjective determination (we know better, and your stance that societies determine the moral code) to the absolutist (no matter what we think). again, a contradiction. a relative cannot be an absolute.
I never said anything about 'absolute'. I said 'better' right there in the sentence you used. I have already been thrgouh this with you. Better can be subjective if you are picking out a shirt, but if you are contemplating a regression into a society where we don't recognize the rights of others, I can not fathom a time or a place when this would be better than what we are working on now.
Unless, of course, we discover like 'Men in Black' that all of our neighbors could be evil aliens out to get us, or bitten zombies...
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by kuresu, posted 02-20-2007 10:36 PM kuresu has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 105 of 113 (386371)
02-21-2007 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by nator
02-21-2007 10:49 AM


Re: Morality: limited by code
nator writes:
So, are you saying that absolute right and absolute wrong exist, but we won't ever really know what they are?
I have already pointed out that I do not wish to go against Admin wishes and pursue the topic of absolutes in this thread. If I can get a go-ahead, fine. At any rate, I have answered this question before, and most recently in the last few posts of thread 'Spinoza Patheism Defined'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by nator, posted 02-21-2007 10:49 AM nator has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 107 of 113 (386376)
02-21-2007 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by crashfrog
02-21-2007 11:06 AM


Crashfrog writes:
But that's exactly my point. To allow that society generates morality of any kind is to accept my point, and to contradict the OP of this thread. If society is generating morality, albeit false morality, then society does generate morality. A society's morals come from the society itself, not from some kind of real morality that is just out there.
The first post I made in this thread was to say, good, good, good, someone has finally drawn a line. I can live with the idea of real morality and false morality as you have explained the concept.
Thing is, you can not prove that there is no real morality that is just out there waiting to be discovered by the society generating the morals. I can't prove there is, you can't prove there isn't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by crashfrog, posted 02-21-2007 11:06 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by crashfrog, posted 02-21-2007 12:41 PM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 109 of 113 (386428)
02-21-2007 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by crashfrog
02-21-2007 12:41 PM


Crashfrog writes:
I never claimed that I could do that. But if society can generate its own morals, to specification, then there's hardly any need to go on the search for "real" morals that aren't any more valid - just different - than the morals that we already have. Why bother?
Why bother? Why bother looking for an answer to anything? There very well could be an ultimate right way to live, and my observation is that most people are actively looking for it.
Of course, the burden of proof is on those who claim that there is such a "real" morality out there, not those who claim there isn't. And I notice that you've completely given up trying to prove that. Of course, how you would tell the difference between society-generated morals and "real" morals is a question I doubt you've even considered.
I believe that there are some things that are truly good in themselves. Treating others fairly seems to be one of those. I can't prove it, and the only 'evidence' I have is that most people agree with me. Although we have differing opinions about 'why' it is good, it is pretty unanimous amoung civilized and educated humanity. Since doing good to others has benefits for society in general, as well as for the individual, I would not hesitate to say it is part of 'real' morality, as in; the best possible way for humans to live.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by crashfrog, posted 02-21-2007 12:41 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by purpledawn, posted 02-21-2007 5:49 PM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 111 of 113 (386441)
02-21-2007 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by purpledawn
02-21-2007 5:49 PM


Re: Agreement Woes
PurpleDawn writes:
I guess with no one supporting prophex's position they have to argue nuances of agreement.
I do think societies 'produce' codes, as noted but I ALSo think someone is climbing through the figurative tunnel to get new information about morality.
It is similar to the process used in any debate forum...we generate rules to be followed, look at other rules, and come up with new rules which can be tested for benefits. I do not doubt that there is a possibility of a perfect set of rules for a debate forum, but when an ideal is subject to human 'imperfection' even the perfect rules need to be enforced.
So, it ultimately comes down to; is the perfect moral code, if it exists, something which will or could come out of our human minds? Or something 'real' and waiting to be discovered by human minds? It is the same scenerio as asking whether God is 'real' or a product of society. It does not surprise me to see that the same people who do not believe in God also have a hard time conceptualizing a 'real' morality.
There is still no proof either way, and I am pretty much done with the subject, unless it is discussed on a level of 'belief' and not 'fact'. People get too cranky.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by purpledawn, posted 02-21-2007 5:49 PM purpledawn has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by RickJB, posted 02-22-2007 8:02 AM anastasia has not replied
 Message 113 by ringo, posted 02-22-2007 10:14 AM anastasia 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