Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-23-2019 9:48 PM
26 online now:
kjsimons, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Tanypteryx (3 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,129 Year: 5,166/19,786 Month: 1,288/873 Week: 184/460 Day: 29/97 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234567
8
Author Topic:   Conventionalism is Dead - Society does NOT determine what is moral.
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 106 of 113 (386372)
02-21-2007 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by anastasia
02-19-2007 7:18 PM


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.

My point is that since we know better, we can't go back to when we didn't.

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.

But whether it is acceptable to act immorally does.

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.

What a society thinks is moral, determines whether it views a particular citizen as moral. As opposed to; what a society THINKS is moral determines what IS moral.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by anastasia, posted 02-19-2007 7:18 PM anastasia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by anastasia, posted 02-21-2007 11:45 AM crashfrog has responded

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 4062 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 responded

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

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 108 of 113 (386388)
02-21-2007 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by anastasia
02-21-2007 11:45 AM


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 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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by anastasia, posted 02-21-2007 11:45 AM anastasia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by anastasia, posted 02-21-2007 4:47 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 4062 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 yet responded

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

    
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1566 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 110 of 113 (386439)
02-21-2007 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by anastasia
02-21-2007 4:47 PM


Agreement Woes
Wow!

I wonder what would have happened if you weren't agreeing with them. :laugh:

Message 64

anastasia writes:

Societies do produce moral CODES I think, which subsequent behaviours are defined by.

Message 106

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.

I guess with no one supporting prophex's position they have to argue nuances of agreement. :laugh:


"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by anastasia, posted 02-21-2007 4:47 PM anastasia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by anastasia, posted 02-21-2007 6:09 PM purpledawn has not yet responded

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 4062 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 yet responded

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

    
RickJB
Member (Idle past 3099 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 112 of 113 (386511)
02-22-2007 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by anastasia
02-21-2007 6:09 PM


Re: Agreement Woes
Ana writes:

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.

Which God?

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by anastasia, posted 02-21-2007 6:09 PM anastasia has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16358
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 113 of 113 (386533)
02-22-2007 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by anastasia
02-21-2007 6:09 PM


Re: Agreement Woes
anastasia writes:

... 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?

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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by anastasia, posted 02-21-2007 6:09 PM anastasia has not yet responded

  
Prev1234567
8
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019