Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A personal morality
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 4 of 196 (392927)
04-02-2007 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Neutralmind
04-02-2007 8:57 PM


you are correct...
Neutralmind:
I still refuse to believe in it (relative morality). I have a fear, no... I know that if I KNEW for sure, that there was absolutely no doubt that relative morality is correct I'd become one of the most immoral guys in this planet. I'd start "playing" girls just to get sex and doing one night stands. I'd cheat everywhere I could in the working life and so on...
Hey, if you don't mind, a joke first...
That's the problem with a neutral mind... it never get's into a gear!
Forward or reverse? I really don't want to tick anyone on either side off, you know?
Seriously, I totally understand your confusion. I had this very struggle at one time...
For example, a good friend once reminded me while we were discussing a particular moral issue, that I cannot impose my morality onto others.
After several days it hit me... So I called him and I asked him, 'Why'? 'Would it be wrong to do so'?
If morality is not a real and objective thing, then how can we protest anything?
The idea of relative morality, is itself... 'a form of morality'.
I think it is insidious and diabolically clever, for a philosophy like moral relativism to claim neutrality, when there is no possible way to apply it without labling it's alternative (objective morality), as 'wrong'.
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?
Is killing wrong or not?
I think that what kuresu is driving at, is that if he respects my morality, and I respect his, that no-one will be the worse off!
But why should He respect my morality when it is not his?
Will liars suddenly start becoming honest with me out of respect for my belief in truth? I don't think so...
So in my mind, it is nonsense to even suggest such things as relative morality, because for it to work, we must assume another morality to be at work to support it, and that is one of respecting others, as you wish to be respected.
So as you see, it turns out to be just the same old morality we have always been talking about as necessary for civility. The problem is that people want to except themselves (for their own pet pleasures)and expect it from others.
You are looking at the logical outworkings of the philosophy and rightly noticing that it is essentially chaos (nonsense)!
Neutralmind:
But now, reading through and learning a lot more about evolution I now understand how morality in fact is very subjective, and the proof can be seen around the world with different cultures ascribing different things as moral and immoral. And even individuals in the same culture.
I will defer to a master communicator on this point of yours... I think it captures the issue flawlessly...
But I appearently must do so with another reply. Something has changed with the reply limits...
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
Edited by Rob, : ???????????
Edited by Rob, : ARGHHH

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Neutralmind, posted 04-02-2007 8:57 PM Neutralmind has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by kuresu, posted 04-02-2007 10:11 PM Rob has replied
 Message 19 by fallacycop, posted 04-02-2007 11:54 PM Rob has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 5 of 196 (392932)
04-02-2007 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Neutralmind
04-02-2007 8:57 PM


"I know that some people say the idea of a Law of Nature or decent behavior known to all men is unsound, because different civilizations and different ages have had quite different moralities.
But this is not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own. Some of the evidence for this I have put together in the appendix of another book called The Abolition of Man; but for our present purpose I need only to ask the reader to think what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two make five. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to--whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or everyone. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked.
But the most remarkable thing is this. Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this in a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking on to him he will be complaining "It's not fair" before you can say Jack Robinson. A nation may say treaties do not matter; but the next minute, they spoil their case by saying that the particular treaty they want to break was an unfair one. But if treaties do not matter, and if there is not such thing as Right and Wrong--in other words, if there is no Law of Nature--what is the difference between a fair treaty and an unfair one? Have they not let the cat out of the bag and shown that, whatever they say, they really know the Law of Nature just like anyone else?
It seems, then, we are forced to believe in a real Right and Wrong. People may be sometimes mistaken about them, just as people sometimes get their sums wrong; but they are not a matter of mere taste and opinion any more than the multiplication table. Now if we are agreed about that, I go on to my next point, which is this. None of us is really keeping the Law of Nature. If there are any exceptions among you, I apologize to them. They had much better read some other work, for nothing I am going to say concerns them. And now, turning to the ordinary human beings who are left:
I hope you will not misunderstand what I am going to say. I am not preaching, and Heaven knows I do not pretend to be better than anyone else. I am only trying to call attention to a fact; the fact that this year, or this month, or, more likely, this very day, we have failed to practice ourselves the kind of behavior we expect from other people. There may be all sorts of excuses for us. That time you were so unfair to the children was when you were very tired. That slightly shady business about the money--the one you have almost forgotten--came when you were very hard up. And what you promised to do for old So-and-so and have never done--well, you never would have promised if you had known how frightfully busy you were going to be. And as for your behavior to your wife (or husband) or sister (or brother) if I knew how irritating they could be, I would not wonder at it--and who the dickens am I, anyway? I am just the same. that is to say, I do not succeed in keeping the Law of Nature very well, and the moment anyone tells me I am not keeping it, there starts up in my mind a string of excuses as long as your arm. The question at the moment is not whether they are good excuses. The point is that they are one more proof of how deeply, whether we like if or not, we believe in the Law of Nature. If we do not believe in decent behavior, why should we be so anxious to make excuses for not having behaved decently? The truth is, we believe in decency so much--we feel the Rule of Law pressing on us so--that we cannot bear to face the fact that we are breaking it, and consequently we try to shift the responsibility. For you notice that it is only for our bad behaviour that we find all these explanations. It is only our bad temper that we put down to being tired or worried or hungry; we put our good temper down to ourselves."
(C.S. Lewis Mere Christianity / Chapter 1 The law of Human Nature.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Neutralmind, posted 04-02-2007 8:57 PM Neutralmind has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 7 of 196 (392935)
04-02-2007 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by kuresu
04-02-2007 10:11 PM


Re: you are correct...
Kuresu:
why would you change your behavior if morality was relative instead of objective? I know I wouldn't.
I'll go one better... Why would you change your behavior in either case?
Hmm?
You can't change what you are... right?
Who you gonna call?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by kuresu, posted 04-02-2007 10:11 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by kuresu, posted 04-02-2007 10:21 PM Rob has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 15 of 196 (392951)
04-02-2007 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by kuresu
04-02-2007 10:21 PM


Re: you are correct...
Kuresu:
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.
why would you change your behavior if morality was relative instead of objective? I know I wouldn't.
Fair enough...
I would change my behavior because there would be no ultimate consequence for my actions. There would be nothing to hold me accountable to.
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.
And if life is not meaningful and chaos is the only reality, then what is the difference between Ghengis Khan and Jesus?
In fact, your question even becomes irrelevant... What would be the difference between relative morality and objective morality?
Under your own ideal, I could kill you for suggesting such a thing. The only reason I don't, is because I believe it would be wrong to impose my morality on you.
And that is the essence of free will. You do what you choose (morrally speaking), but somebody has to pay...
If not you, then another for your sake.
And that's why I know He is God. Because He paid our bill!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by kuresu, posted 04-02-2007 10:21 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by kuresu, posted 04-02-2007 11:52 PM Rob has replied
 Message 53 by Neutralmind, posted 04-03-2007 4:59 PM Rob has replied
 Message 123 by Trae, posted 04-06-2007 7:23 PM Rob has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 20 of 196 (392957)
04-03-2007 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by fallacycop
04-02-2007 11:54 PM


Fallacycop:
Not wrong. just incorrect.
Tell a mother who's child was murdered by a drive by, that it was just a mistake.
Was Nazi Germany a mistake?
Is child Molestation a simple error?
etc...
Checkmate!
I have to wonder what sin you like so much, that it is worth justifying things that are evil as mistakes?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by fallacycop, posted 04-02-2007 11:54 PM fallacycop has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by fallacycop, posted 04-03-2007 12:17 AM Rob has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 22 of 196 (392959)
04-03-2007 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by kuresu
04-02-2007 11:52 PM


Re: you are correct...
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.
Why would you violate your own morality?
"All men alike stand condemned, not by alien codes of ethics, but by their own, and all men therefore are conscious of guilt."
--The Problem of Pain-- Lewis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by kuresu, posted 04-02-2007 11:52 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by kuresu, posted 04-03-2007 12:19 AM Rob has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 23 of 196 (392960)
04-03-2007 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by fallacycop
04-03-2007 12:04 AM


Re: you are correct...
Rob seems to think that if something leads to internal chaos (inside his mind), then it cannot possibly be true.
Do you think chaos (incoherence) can be true?
How would you know?
Logic we can know, illogic we cannot.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by fallacycop, posted 04-03-2007 12:04 AM fallacycop has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by fallacycop, posted 04-03-2007 12:24 AM Rob has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 26 of 196 (392965)
04-03-2007 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by kuresu
04-03-2007 12:19 AM


Re: you are correct...
as you love to say, we're only human. i've never claimed to be superman over here.
Yes... so you violate your own morality... because you are not perfect.
The standard you are judged by is perfect?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by kuresu, posted 04-03-2007 12:19 AM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by kuresu, posted 04-03-2007 1:01 AM Rob has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 28 of 196 (392971)
04-03-2007 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by fallacycop
04-03-2007 12:24 AM


Re: you are correct...
Not so fast Super Fuzz...
You said:Rob seems to think that if something leads to internal chaos (inside his mind), then it cannot possibly be true.
I then asked:
Do you think chaos (incoherence) can be true?
And you replied:
The only chaotic thing aroud here, as far as I can see, is the way you think about things. You`ve been making fallacious arguments against relative morality. All I`ve done was to point them out.
Based upon your own assertion, if my thoughts are chaotic, then why does that prevent them from being true?
Calling something fallacious means what?
What is the fallacy my dear officer?
What is the difference between a fallacious statement and a non-fallacious one?
Let me help you... A fallacious statement is an incoherent one... It is not sensible.
If you say that chaotic ideas can be true, then I could say, 'choick buftowack grathernum lifzbufqueb.'
The statement is false.The only way you can know it is true, requires it be explained logically, so that you will see. And if it can be seen, then
it can't be incoherent or chaotic, because by definition it is commprehensible. Incoherence and chaos are not comprehensible.
Otherwise, I could say that 'all statements are incoherent'. There is no way to understand that or see it, because it is nonsense. It is an illusion to think otherwise. The statement does not exist, because it is not a statement.
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by fallacycop, posted 04-03-2007 12:24 AM fallacycop has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by fallacycop, posted 04-03-2007 12:48 AM Rob has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 30 of 196 (392981)
04-03-2007 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by fallacycop
04-03-2007 12:48 AM


Re: you are correct...
Ok fine... you din't actually say that!
But the point is that your rebuke of me was not valid, because it presupposes, by implication, that chaos can be true.
Of course I don't think chaotic ideas can be true. Only orderly ideas can be true.
And some orderly ideas appear chaotic from a distance, but things orderly are orderly to the bone.
They are perfect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by fallacycop, posted 04-03-2007 12:48 AM fallacycop has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 32 of 196 (392987)
04-03-2007 1:12 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by kuresu
04-03-2007 1:01 AM


Re: you are correct...
Kuresu:
never claimed it was perfect either.
Here's a hint--your system fails just like mine does.
I don't see how a moral system can fail... it is what it is.
I failed it! You failed it...
The moral code does nothing to help me be moral. It actually condemns me.
You know that don't you? And that's why people try to relativize it away, and come up with their own system. But they still fail...
Rules will not save us. because we don't obey them...
Why?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by kuresu, posted 04-03-2007 1:01 AM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by fallacycop, posted 04-03-2007 1:28 AM Rob has replied
 Message 34 by kuresu, posted 04-03-2007 8:54 AM Rob has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 36 of 196 (393021)
04-03-2007 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by kuresu
04-03-2007 8:54 AM


Re: you are correct...
Kuresu, earlier in the thread, you asked me to answer your question. I did.
I ask for the same curtiousy...
I asked, 'Why you violate your own morality'?
Your response was, 'It is my morality. Hence, I fail me.'
Ok... I know....
Why? What is the motive?
Also, you said:
My system is not your set of god-given rules
So why don't you tell me what your system is...
What is moral, and what is immoral, for Kuresu... that Rob may do unto you, without protest?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by kuresu, posted 04-03-2007 8:54 AM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by kuresu, posted 04-03-2007 12:59 PM Rob has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 37 of 196 (393026)
04-03-2007 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by fallacycop
04-03-2007 1:28 AM


Re: you are correct...
fallacycop:
I don`t think people com up with moral systems because they want to do away with someone else`s moral system. We all do it because we are moral beings.
Curiously enough, we expect ourselves to be moral (particularly our neighbor)...
But show me one who actually is!
fallacycop:
It is in our nature. We just can`t help it. That does not make those morals absolute, though. they are relative because they were created by men, not gods. they are just the best we could com up with, as human beings.
Our nature is to lie, kill, and steal etc... to aquire what it is we want for the moment.
The depravity of man, is at once, the most emperically verifiable reality. And yet, at the same time, it is the most intellectually resisted fact. (Malcomb Muggeridge)
I don't the think the Ten Commandments were created by men. It seems to me, that men really wish to get rid of them.
But on what real moral grounds do they protest them?
Hmm?
To protest is to imply a moral doctrine.
For example... War is protested as wrong. Bush is protested at home as a liar. Bush is protested by Chavez as the devil.
So it appears that to deny what is said to be reality, or our nature, is not seen as simply 'incorrect', but vociferously protested as anti-being.
fallacycop:
salvation seems to be such a selfish reason for anybody to try to be moral. It`s so blatantly contradictory that I don`t see how it could possibily work.
Who tries to be moral so as to be saved?
Morality is what condemns us.
When we go to court, it is the law that makes us guilty. It doesn't save. And it cannot save.
If we were really honest with a human judge, he would be appalled. And that is why we pretend to be so righteous. We dare not confess everything... And we justify with nuance, why it is that we are excepted in this instance. This is because we believe we cannot trust each other to forgive. So truth is killed in our spirit. If we tell the truth, we're ostricized (boy... is that true). If we don't, we continue the charade and live in fantasy.
We're trapped.
John5:45 "But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set.
Gravity is a law that will kill you. But it also keeps you anchored firmly to the ground, so as not to float away into oblivion.
But in moral terms, we cannot obey, because we are out of control prisoners to our own flesh. It is really only fear that keeps us in check.
Fear of consequence. And rightly so. Just as I fear jumping off tall buildings.
Without consequence, or fear of it, all hell would be unleashed.
And for those who deny the real and painful consequences of their sin upon others, there will be hell to pay.
And since each of us does that, we are all condemned.
Anyone want to make a plea bargain?
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by fallacycop, posted 04-03-2007 1:28 AM fallacycop has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by kuresu, posted 04-03-2007 1:09 PM Rob has not replied
 Message 82 by Parasomnium, posted 04-04-2007 5:58 PM Rob has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 69 of 196 (393204)
04-03-2007 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Neutralmind
04-03-2007 4:59 PM


Re: you are correct...
I really don't want this topic to go down this way.
Which way are you looking for it to go?
So much for neutrality...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Neutralmind, posted 04-03-2007 4:59 PM Neutralmind has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 74 of 196 (393241)
04-04-2007 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Chiroptera
04-03-2007 4:29 PM


Absolute morality...
Chiroptera:
I just checked each page, and no one has been speaking about whether or not there are "absolutes" (whatever that means).
Can we please discuss this with some civility and good sense?
That is what this whole subject is about: Is morality personal (subjective / relative)? Or is it universal (objective / absolute)?
I can't believe how many people actually ask 'whether or not there are absolutes'?
It is clear to see, that in either case, there is.
If absolutes are absolute, then no logical problem.
But if relativism is absolute, then nonsense!
There is unquestionably an absolute of some kind...
This whole excersise about relative morality is rather silly when you think about it.
If you disagree, then you point to another absolute by implication with which to measure the opposing statement as false.
When we talk of morality... it either exists or it does not. There is no middle ground. Either you agree with me, or not.
Once again (because I know some of you are having difficulty with this...), if you disagree, then you prove that there is such a thing as a real wrong.
And the reason it is wrong and not simply incorrect (as some would lead us to believe), is because the implications of getting these things right, is what wars are fought over.
People will revolt and kill over getting mere sums wrong... They will do the same with more vigor and emotion over moral convictions.
People will fight with the most irrational vigor, before they admit they are in the wrong. That is how little truth means to them.
That
is the essence of immorality and rebellion: the inability to just finally acknowledge wrongdoing.
It is crucifying the truth, to protect one's own name in spite of falsehood and deception.
'What falsehood and deception?', they say.
We are soooo intent on maintaining our good name, that we will kill to keep the truth hidden.
Reality and sound thinking came... And He embodied the virtues. He calls our bluff, and forces us to either kill Him, or bend our knee. We may want all truth to be relative, but He forces us to deal with Him one way or another.
John 3:19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Chiroptera, posted 04-03-2007 4:29 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Chiroptera, posted 04-04-2007 10:21 AM Rob has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024