Conventionalism is Dead - Society does NOT determine what is moral.

Most of your statements are nonsense. It'd be nice if you could ratchet up the sense level of your post. One way to dot his would be to stop implicitly redefining words to suit your purposes. But that often happens. In Greece, homosexuality was approved. Later, it was stigmatized by society. Now, it's becoming approved again. Societies move back and forth - exactly what you say can't happen. This is nonsense. By definition, it is never acceptable to act immorally. What's changing are morals. We can literally watch them change before our eyes. You're asserting two moralities - the morality that is real, and the "fake" morality that society generates.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.

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?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.

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. 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.

Wow!I wonder what would have happened if you weren't agreeing with them. Message 64
Message 106
I guess with no one supporting prophex's position they have to argue nuances of agreement.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

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.

Which God?If there is a "real" morality then from which God does it come?

I think you have your terminology backwards."Real" morality is what we can conceive with human minds and understand with human minds. The spooky, injected-from-outside "morality" that you postulate is very unreal. You can't even describe it in real terms.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC