Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-18-2019 11:16 PM
28 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, edge, Faith, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (6 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,107 Year: 9,143/19,786 Month: 1,565/2,119 Week: 325/576 Day: 128/98 Hour: 1/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A personal morality
kuresu
Member (Idle past 678 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 3 of 196 (392915)
04-02-2007 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Neutralmind
04-02-2007 8:57 PM


the deal with relative morality is not that their is no "right" or "wrong". you are subject to your own moral code.

if you feel that it is wrong to steal, why would you steal?
if you feel that it is wrong to cheat, why would you?
lieing, why?
killing, why?
anything else, why?

I find this to be the funniest objection to relative morality (not that it's not a serious problem for those like you. it's just such a misunderstanding that, well . . .).

if you seriously, honestly believe that something is wrong or right, why would you change your behavior if you eliminate the "objective" part of morality? this makes no sense to me (that you would, that is).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Neutralmind, posted 04-02-2007 8:57 PM Neutralmind has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-03-2007 3:30 PM kuresu has not yet responded
 Message 48 by Neutralmind, posted 04-03-2007 4:31 PM kuresu has not yet responded
 Message 49 by Neutralmind, posted 04-03-2007 4:35 PM kuresu has not yet responded

    
kuresu
Member (Idle past 678 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 6 of 196 (392933)
04-02-2007 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Rob
04-02-2007 10:00 PM


Re: you are correct...
guess what rob. in a relative morality system, if you think it right to enforce your morality onto others, then you're able to do so.

i'm not driving at being accepting of other's morality. i'm driving at following your own morality.

why would you change your behavior if morality was relative instead of objective? I know I wouldn't.

If morality is not a real and objective thing, then how can we protest anything?

no one's stopping you from doing it. only your own misunderstanding is.

So if I believe that killing is wrong, but my neighbor does not, then what is the proper course of action when he comes to my door with a gun in his hand?

you do value your life, right? then I suggest fighting for your life. it's your morality that you have to follow. it's the other guy's morality that brought him to your door. (well, not necessarily . . .).


"Have the Courage to Know!" --Immanuel Kant

" One useless man is a disgrace. Two are called a law firm. Three or more are called a congress" --paraphrased, John Adams

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Rob, posted 04-02-2007 10:00 PM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Rob, posted 04-02-2007 10:14 PM kuresu has responded
 Message 9 by anastasia, posted 04-02-2007 10:46 PM kuresu has responded

    
kuresu
Member (Idle past 678 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 8 of 196 (392936)
04-02-2007 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Rob
04-02-2007 10:14 PM


Re: you are correct...
I do believe I asked the question first. First to nuetral, and first to you. And I already answered the question anyhow. so do the polite thing and answer my question instead of avoiding it by deflecting it back at me.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Rob, posted 04-02-2007 10:14 PM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Rob, posted 04-02-2007 11:18 PM kuresu has responded

    
kuresu
Member (Idle past 678 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 11 of 196 (392945)
04-02-2007 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by anastasia
04-02-2007 10:46 PM


Re: you are correct...
ana writes:

Based on what?


kuresu writes:

if you think it right to enforce your morality onto others, then you're able to do so

it's the ability. not the effect.

ana writes:

You are invoking an objective here


not really. it's just bad to say that it is "morality" that brought the murderer to the door. what brought him there is a desire to kill you. it's just that that doesn't clash with his morality. bad writing on my part.

how can you say he is wrong?

he's wrong in my book. plus, I value my life. that gives me all the right I need to say he's wrong and to resist his attempts.

all one big mess, huh?

p.s. since actual invites seem to not work, i'm throwing the chat invite in here (and for a change, it's in a message that actually has something to say that's on-topic!). anywho, would love to chat if you can tonight.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by anastasia, posted 04-02-2007 10:46 PM anastasia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by anastasia, posted 04-02-2007 11:10 PM kuresu has responded

    
kuresu
Member (Idle past 678 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 17 of 196 (392954)
04-02-2007 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by anastasia
04-02-2007 11:10 PM


Re: you are correct...
your morality is objective because it judges other people as 'evil' even if they don't think they are.

that's not what "objective" means.

objective implies lack of bias--there is clearly bias in my morality statements. my morality is based off of me and how and/or what I define "right" and "wrong". you will probably have different definitions or considerations. my morality is rooted in my life experience, to a degree.

an objective morality would be free of bias, would be free of life experiences, there would be a single definition of "right" and "wrong" as well as what is "right" and "wrong".

Not because he really is

actually, he really is. he really is wrong (imo). and at that point, that's all that's of concern to me.(well, aside from surviving the ordeal).

i think it's right to infringe on other people when they are directly interfering with me in a way I don't approve of.


"Have the Courage to Know!" --Immanuel Kant

" One useless man is a disgrace. Two are called a law firm. Three or more are called a congress" --paraphrased, John Adams

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by anastasia, posted 04-02-2007 11:10 PM anastasia has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-03-2007 3:53 PM kuresu has not yet responded

    
kuresu
Member (Idle past 678 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 18 of 196 (392955)
04-02-2007 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Rob
04-02-2007 11:18 PM


Re: you are correct...
I would change my behavior because there would be no ultimate consequence for my actions. There would be nothing to hold me accountable to.

bullshit. you can't hold yourself accountable? or do you not trust yourself? when I do something I know is wrong, I don't shrug it off. I feel bad over it. I hold myself accountable for my actions. can't you?

[qs]Furthermore, if morality is relative, then so is justice and mercy. The whole idea that life is meaningful, would very quickly devolve into meaningless chaos.[qs]

non sequiter. why is life meaningless if justice and mercy are relative? just stating doesn't make it so, and I'd argue that one does not follow the other. you give life meaning. if you can only find meaning by having god, fine. but that's your choice.

And if life is not meaningful and chaos is the only reality

what does meaning and order have to do with each other? order is the opposite of chaos, not meaningfulness. I will grant you, though, that some people find order in their lives by having meaning, but that does not mean that meaningfulness = order.


"Have the Courage to Know!" --Immanuel Kant

" One useless man is a disgrace. Two are called a law firm. Three or more are called a congress" --paraphrased, John Adams

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Rob, posted 04-02-2007 11:18 PM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by fallacycop, posted 04-03-2007 12:04 AM kuresu has not yet responded
 Message 22 by Rob, posted 04-03-2007 12:06 AM kuresu has responded

    
kuresu
Member (Idle past 678 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 25 of 196 (392963)
04-03-2007 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Rob
04-03-2007 12:06 AM


Re: you are correct...
as you love to say, we're only human. i've never claimed to be superman over here.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Rob, posted 04-03-2007 12:06 AM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Rob, posted 04-03-2007 12:24 AM kuresu has responded

    
kuresu
Member (Idle past 678 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 31 of 196 (392983)
04-03-2007 1:01 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Rob
04-03-2007 12:24 AM


Re: you are correct...
why would it be? I'm holding myself accountable. it does a pretty good job right now.

never claimed it was perfect either.

I don't see where you're going with this, unless you're trying to somehow prove that having God hold you accountable is a better system. Here's a hint--your system fails just like mine does. Granted, you can stay a child with your system, which is easier. Always easier having someone else tell you what to do than yourself.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Rob, posted 04-03-2007 12:24 AM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Rob, posted 04-03-2007 1:12 AM kuresu has responded

    
kuresu
Member (Idle past 678 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 34 of 196 (393015)
04-03-2007 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Rob
04-03-2007 1:12 AM


Re: you are correct...
I didn't fail the moral system. The moral system is not separate from me. It is my morality. Hence, I fail me.

And the system I was referring to was my conscience, my sense of right and wrong, that voice that says "don't do this", or makes me feel bad (or good) after I've done wrong (or right).

My system is not your set of god-given rules. Don't confuse them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Rob, posted 04-03-2007 1:12 AM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Rob, posted 04-03-2007 9:18 AM kuresu has responded

    
kuresu
Member (Idle past 678 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 38 of 196 (393067)
04-03-2007 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Rob
04-03-2007 9:18 AM


Re: you are correct...
that's not my answer to your question. If you'll read carefully, you'll see that it is a response to your statement that "we failed it[the moral system].

I've told you why I do break my own morality.
I've told you what my system is.

the last half of your last question is irrelevant. The whole question also requires an incredibly massive post if I'm going to list what I feel is right/wrong and why I feel such (and then I will still miss many many items).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Rob, posted 04-03-2007 9:18 AM Rob has not yet responded

    
kuresu
Member (Idle past 678 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 39 of 196 (393069)
04-03-2007 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Rob
04-03-2007 9:52 AM


Re: you are correct...
dude. since when did breaking a single moral make one depraved? you make it out to be that a man is always breaking the rules.

throw out Hobbes, man.

Our nature is to lie, kill, and steal etc... to aquire what it is we want for the moment

this same nature includes love, friendship, helping people, being good. it also includes planning for the future (yes, some of us do it because we can see the big picture--we don't live for today, but for tomorrow.

Human nature is not solely bad. We can do good without the "Fear of consequence". We're not all out to rape and pillage. In fact, most of us aren't.

If we were really honest with a human judge, he would be appalled

really? try me.

sorry I don't fit your misconcieved stereotype of mankind. Actually, I'm not sorry.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Rob, posted 04-03-2007 9:52 AM Rob has not yet responded

    
kuresu
Member (Idle past 678 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 87 of 196 (393408)
04-04-2007 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Rob
04-04-2007 10:57 PM


Re: Just fear of the consequences?
so why did you mention that people don't do bad things because of the "fear of consequences"? seems to me you've got two separate answers for the same question.

(unless, of course, you want to argue that there are indeed "nuetral" actions. granted, I don't think such an argument exists, but hey, give it a shot).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Rob, posted 04-04-2007 10:57 PM Rob has not yet responded

    
kuresu
Member (Idle past 678 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 102 of 196 (393584)
04-05-2007 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Neutralmind
04-05-2007 8:00 PM


And would be changed if I was certain that morality is relative and so isn't actually true.

i bolded the false part. a relative morality is still true--but only for you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Neutralmind, posted 04-05-2007 8:00 PM Neutralmind has not yet responded

    
kuresu
Member (Idle past 678 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 106 of 196 (393621)
04-06-2007 1:16 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by working out eating chips
04-06-2007 12:31 AM


brilliant man. absolutely confounding.

you come back here as "ignatius". when he gets banned, you start "ethics", claiming to not be "prophex". "ethics" get's banned. you post as MOO (a second time), referring crash to a post by "ethics" by saying "I wrote".

why not just use your real account? And why try to hide who you are?

foolish.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by working out eating chips, posted 04-06-2007 12:31 AM working out eating chips has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by anglagard, posted 04-06-2007 1:46 AM kuresu has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019