Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-25-2019 11:43 AM
39 online now:
Diomedes, Faith, JoeT, ooh-child, RAZD, ringo, Tanypteryx (7 members, 32 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,197 Year: 5,234/19,786 Month: 1,356/873 Week: 252/460 Day: 4/64 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
Author Topic:   -Moral Standard In All of Humanity-
jar
Member
Posts: 30936
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 61 of 72 (379580)
01-24-2007 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Archer Opteryx
01-24-2007 6:24 PM


Re: Why?
Does AT here stand for 'Appalachian Trail' or 'Absolute Truth'?

Odds are you can actually make progress on the 'Appalachian Trail' while 'Absolute Truth' will forever remain a myth and fantasy.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Archer Opteryx, posted 01-24-2007 6:24 PM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded

  
joshua221 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 62 of 72 (379593)
01-24-2007 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by jar
01-24-2007 6:02 PM


Re: Why?
quote:
Thinking about hiking the AT is not hiking the AT.

But so far everyone has told me that hiking the AT is impossible, that human beings cannot know what is truly true.

You yourself have.

If there is anything close to "hiking the AT" it is in writing a work that can be regarded as true or beautiful or amazing. A book like "Either/Or" or "The Castle", you know, you know.

quote:
Thinkers are okay, but they are pretty much useless. It is fine to think about hiking the Trail, or think about Justice, but in the end it comes down as always to doing.

Something I'm going to be thinking about for a while jar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by jar, posted 01-24-2007 6:02 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by jar, posted 01-24-2007 7:49 PM joshua221 has responded

  
joshua221 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 63 of 72 (379594)
01-24-2007 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by jar
01-24-2007 6:02 PM


Re: Why?
Awesome post by the way, I really appreciate it.

Edited by prophex, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by jar, posted 01-24-2007 6:02 PM jar has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30936
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 64 of 72 (379599)
01-24-2007 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by joshua221
01-24-2007 7:43 PM


Re: Why?
But so far everyone has told me that hiking the AT is impossible, that human beings cannot know what is truly true.

You yourself have.

"Truly True?" What the hell does that mean?

And where has ANYONE made such a silly statement?


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by joshua221, posted 01-24-2007 7:43 PM joshua221 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by joshua221, posted 01-24-2007 8:30 PM jar has responded

  
joshua221 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 65 of 72 (379615)
01-24-2007 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by jar
01-24-2007 7:49 PM


Re: Why?
Truly true.

Absolutely true.

You know before it gets old.

You said that noone has put forth a "perfect" model. Perfect morality.

Wait, why is it silly? Because you acknowledge what I am saying about absolutes really existing right?

Or is the phrase "truly true" a complete turn off?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by jar, posted 01-24-2007 7:49 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by ringo, posted 01-24-2007 9:02 PM joshua221 has not yet responded
 Message 67 by jar, posted 01-24-2007 9:20 PM joshua221 has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16362
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 66 of 72 (379620)
01-24-2007 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by joshua221
01-24-2007 8:30 PM


Re: Why?
prophex writes:

Or is the phrase "truly true" a complete turn off?

Hint: By modifying "true" with the adverb "truly", you acknowledge that "true" is not an absolute. Absolutes can not be modified.

Come to think of it, even the phrase "absolutely true" acknowledges that "true" is not absolute on its own.


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 65 by joshua221, posted 01-24-2007 8:30 PM joshua221 has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30936
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 67 of 72 (379626)
01-24-2007 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by joshua221
01-24-2007 8:30 PM


Re: Why?
Truly true.

Absolutely true.

Huh?

The problem in most cases there simply is no truly true or Absolute Truth.

You can say that 2 + 2 = 4 is absolutely true.

So far though, no one has been able to present an absolute moral.

You said that noone has put forth a "perfect" model. Perfect morality.

What does perfection have to do with absolute? Try to stick with one subject. What makes you think Absolute Morality would be perfection?

Wait, why is it silly? Because you acknowledge what I am saying about absolutes really existing right?

Of course some absolutes exit. But "Absolute Truth" or "Absolute Morality"? I haven't a clue what they might be.

Frankly, they sound like totally useless constructs. Pointless and inane.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by joshua221, posted 01-24-2007 8:30 PM joshua221 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Phat, posted 01-29-2007 4:00 AM jar has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 12254
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 68 of 72 (380836)
01-29-2007 3:56 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by joshua221
01-24-2007 3:30 PM


Standards of definitions by definition (Morally speaking)
Websters writes:

the•ol•o•gy n, pl -gies 1 : the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; esp : the study of God and of God's relation to the world 2 : a theory or system of theology — the•o•lo•gian \'thÈ-€-"lÖ-j€n\ n — the•o•log•i•cal \-"lä-ji-k€l\ adj

phi•los•o•phyn, pl -phies 1 : sciences and liberal arts exclusive of medicine, law, and theology 2 : a critical study of fundamental beliefs and the grounds for them 3 : a system of philosophical concepts 4 : a basic theory concerning a particular subject or sphere of activity 5 : the sum of the ideas and convictions of an individual or group 6 : calmness of temper and judgment — phil•o•soph•ic \'fi-l€-"sä-fik\ or phil•o•soph•i•cal \-fi-k€l\ adj — phil•o•soph•i•cal•ly \-k(€-)lÈ\ adv

I think it is important to point out that absolutes are rarely found in philosophy, which tries to find the grounds of belief and is exclusive of theology. Theology properly presupposes God as the uncaused first cause. Philosophy never assumes anything but, rather, attempts to define and clarify the origin of human beliefs on an intellectual level.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by joshua221, posted 01-24-2007 3:30 PM joshua221 has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 12254
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 69 of 72 (380837)
01-29-2007 4:00 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by jar
01-24-2007 9:20 PM


Re: Why?
jar writes:

What does perfection have to do with absolute? Try to stick with one subject. What makes you think Absolute Morality would be perfection?

I would think that absolute morality would be what Jesus had. You and I disagree on his sinless nature...you thinking he was 100% human and therefore subject to fallible whims.

I think the dude never even looked at a woman with lust...stopping just short of that fine line between respect and appreciation versus longing and desire.

Jar writes:

Of course some absolutes exit. But "Absolute Truth" or "Absolute Morality"? I haven't a clue what they might be.

Frankly, they sound like totally useless constructs. Pointless and inane.

so then, Jesus, being totally human, was in fact not without sin? Even if the standard is unobtainable to our fallible selves, why can't the standard have been personified in Christ? This sounds shockingly similar to The Last Temptation Of Christ by Martin Scorsese. While Wiki claims that Jesus was portrayed as a man full of doubts, insecurities, and lusts,(yet still sinless) I would ask at what point does a thought become a sin? This would answer the dividing line between absolute and relative definitions of what sin is in the first place.

I am certainly not perfect, and have exhibited a relative morality through much of my life, but I can still look to Christ as an absolute standard.

Were Christ imperfect, I would then agree that absolute standards cannot exist within humanity.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by jar, posted 01-24-2007 9:20 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by jar, posted 01-29-2007 8:58 AM Phat has not yet responded
 Message 71 by ringo, posted 01-29-2007 6:54 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30936
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 70 of 72 (380863)
01-29-2007 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Phat
01-29-2007 4:00 AM


Re: Why?
Again, what you have posted has nothing to do with what I said.

I do not deny that there are Absolutes.

I have never seen anyone present an example of Absolute Morality or Absolute Truth.

To say that Jesus is some Absolute Standard might be fine if it had any meaning and wasn't just jabberwocky.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Phat, posted 01-29-2007 4:00 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16362
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 71 of 72 (381086)
01-29-2007 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Phat
01-29-2007 4:00 AM


Re: Why?
Phat writes:

... I would ask at what point does a thought become a sin?

If sin is strictly between you and God, there is no "dividing line".

God knows, but you might not. That's why it's necessary to constantly examine your life to see where you have gone wrong and where you can do better.

No fine line between sins and non-sins. No fine line between morality and immorality.

Just individual situations and using your knowledge of good and evil.


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 69 by Phat, posted 01-29-2007 4:00 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
MadaManga
Junior Member (Idle past 4319 days)
Posts: 31
From: UK
Joined: 03-06-2007


Message 72 of 72 (391048)
03-23-2007 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by joshua221
01-20-2007 3:58 PM


Any moral code which promotes intolerance &/or ignorance is not born of morality. True morality is based on empathy and sympathy, which aid you in determining how to interact with others. Intelligence is our natural advantage over other species and morality is a part of intelligence - it helps determine our reasoning. Thus the absolute standard of morality is 'social responsibility' - that which aids society is moral, that which deprive society is immoral.

Spreading preconceptions & presumptions can make people intolerant to "the other" that they have been given preconceptions & presumptions about. In defiance of reason, people can become convinced that immoral acts are actually moral.

Thus they no longer allow themselves to feel empathy or sympathy for these "other(s)". That is how "subjectivity" is made between cultures. Some cultures promote an ignorance to the ultimate deprivation of the society. The society will stagnate over time unless it addresses this issue, eventually leading to its destruction & the birth of a new social order. This has happened several times in history.

You do not commit murder, theft etc, unless you have lost your ability to reason (insanity). Unless you are born a sociopath, or have recieved brain damage to that effect though accident or substance abuse (accounts for 1-4% of the population), the natural order of your brain is not to murder. Normal reasoning tells you that you that murder will not profit you unless it is in self-defence. Loss of reasoning may convince you that you will profit, but it is a lie.

You have to work at bending your mind against it natural inclinations to commit immoral acts, because they are literally stupid acts.

A young child or sociopath will commit 'foolish' acts because they do not have morality, they are in a state of innocence. For a child it is the responsibility of adults to punish harmful acts & reward benefical acts because they haven't developed full reasoning yet. The incentive to receive reward & avoid punishment will substitute for moral reasoning until the child developes. If a child does not have the correct incentives they can develope skewed reasoning and have a harder time dealing with society. They know what acts are immoral but the skewed reasoning makes them commit immoral acts anyway. Sociopaths do not respond to the punishment/reward system & never develope morality or full reasoning.

Scroll down for the table version. (For some reason the table shows up way below & I can't figure out why!)
















Intelligence Asinine
Reason IntellectLogicv Presumption Ignorance Insanity
Analysisv Preconception
In balance withFeedsback
Morality Empathy vIndifference Intolerant
SympathyvDistain
Will Practicalityv Delusion Purposeless
Imaginationv Dullness

Edited by MadaManga, : Touching up table.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by joshua221, posted 01-20-2007 3:58 PM joshua221 has not yet responded

  
Prev1234
5
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019