|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Conventionalism is Dead - Society does NOT determine what is moral. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5011 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
Ana writes: nator writes: Can you give an example of an "objective morality"? Sure, my objective for instance is serving God. Sounds like you misunderstand the meaning of "objective morality". We're talking about an unchangable, universal moral truth. How does serving a particular interpretation of a God that no one has ever observed equate to "objective morality"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPD Inactive Administrator |
This thread is about whether society determines what is moral.
It is not about whether morality is objective or subjective. Please adjust accordingly and direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread. Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour timeout. Thank you Edited by AdminPD, : Update
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: The point is, though, that the morality of using the word "nigger" has, indeed changed over time. Back when the word was invented, it was considered a normal word to refer to the "Negro" sub-humans. It was perfectly moral to use it. Then later, it was considered a very terrible, immoral word in pretty much all cases where it was used. It was a terrible put-down to anybody. Nowadays, however, in certain cases calling someone "nigger" is not a put down, but a term of affection or group identification. It has been kind of "reclaimed" by the group that used to be most affected by it. So, it can be considered both moral and immoral, depending upon context. What you seem to be saying is that once an action, like calling someone "nigger", is considered immoral, it always is. That is demonstrably not true. I think you are once again trying to reduce human social behavior into simplistic, soundbites and it just doesn't work.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Can you give an example of an "objective morality"? quote: That is a nonsensical response. I wanted an example of "objective" morality, as in, "the opposite of "subjective".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5974 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
nator writes: I wanted an example of "objective" morality, as in, "the opposite of "subjective". Didn't you even read the Time Out and the Admins?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5974 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
nator writes: The point is, though, that the morality of using the word "nigger" has, indeed changed over time. And didn't you even read the rest of my post where I said that I am quite aware of how the use of the word can be moral depending on how a person feels about it? And the rest, where I said that the moral is about doing good to others? Since we know better now, it will never be ok, and has never been ok, to call anyone anything that is derogatory and/or makes them feel sub-human. Even if that includes calling them pussy-cat, love-bug, or whatever. You can tell me...will it ever be moral to call someone a name while knowing that it hurts their feelings?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2534 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
the admins have power, yes. that doesn't stop some people from letting others get away with bs.
hiding behind the admins is not always possible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2534 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
contradiction:
we know better now, it will never be ok, and has never been ok 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".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5974 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2534 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
i don't know what's so hard about this.
those things are wrong by your moral code.not by the past's moral code. 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. you cannot say it has never been right, for it obviously has been in the past. again, only wrong by your morality, not their's. it is very difficult to make an aboslute statement that stems from a relativistic stance. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5974 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2534 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
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. 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. ABE: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. Edited by kuresu, : No reason given. "Have the Courage to Know!" --Immanuel Kant " . . .and some nights I just pray to the god of sex and drugs and rock'n'roll"--meatloaf Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5974 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: So, are you saying that absolute right and absolute wrong exist, but we won't ever really know what they are? If so, how is that different from a nonexistent absolute morality? Edited by nator, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5974 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
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'.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024