|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
|
| |
| ChatGPT | |
| Total: 916,483 Year: 3,740/9,624 Month: 611/974 Week: 224/276 Day: 64/34 Hour: 1/2 |
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
Member (Idle past 5841 days)  Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
| Author | Topic: Moral Absolutism v Relativism (and laws) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
1) Morality v preference
Morality is about choice and so synonymous with relative judgements of preference... Hence if ALL relatives can only exist because of an absolute truth, then the LIKING of chocolate over another flavour must be based on some absolute. You keep saying this, but it makes no sense. Liking a certain flavor bears no reflection towards right and wrong. And the mere fact that we all agree on that would be enough to support that. The fact that there is a huge chart at the ice cream store with a variety of flavors to choose from is enough to support that it bears no reflection towards any kind of morality. The more you speak, the more you sound like neither an absolutist or a relativist. As I shared in the other thread, you said like a Pluralist, but more specifically, a value-pluralist. 2) Morality v Habit
I did not say that everyone was inherently honest. But you seem to be glancing over the conundrum here. What IS honesty in a world of sole relativity? What meaning does truth and honesty have in a world that has no absolutes? Obviously that's not the case, because the sole fact that if everything in life dealt with in relativity, then that would be an absolute phenomena, which would refute its own argument. Secondly, I shared above, it has philosophical difficulties. How can anything have meaning when we are rearranging everything.
It is not like people are generally chaotic in behavior, they tend to act in specific ways as is their personal nature. There first has to be some standard that we all agree on in order for that statement to have any meaningful context. Maybe chaotic to you is calm for me, or vice-versa.
I personally do not believe or maintain moral codes, I am open to some social pressure but do not necessarily agree or obey all such, the same goes for laws. Thus I am never immoral (as that simply does not exist for me), but at times can be asocial, as well as criminal. Then I could rightly describe you as amoral. Some people have objections to the terminology. They feel stigmatized by it. 3) Laws v Morality
Laws can be made based on morality, and clearly many have been. My only argument is that they need not be, including the usual biggies such as murder, theft, rape, etc. Laws clearly stem from a moral framework, especially the biggies, IMO. But one has to ask the question how you can even come a determination about what constitutes a 'biggie' if you don't have a moral framework in mind. How could you have reasoned that there are tiers or were levels of criminality if there was not some framework already established somewhere in the recesses of your mind?
You may discuss influences all you wish, but social contract assumes that LAW is made by people taking rights for themselves. This certainly CAN be done without having a concept of morality. Consider this dialogue: Man: I'm gonna go kill that guy that because he cut me off in traffic. Woman: LOL! Yeah, okay. Calm down, I'm sure he didn't see you. Just let it go. Man: No, I'm gonna kill him! Woman: Stop it! You almost sound serious. Man: What do you think the best way is? Woman: What? Seriously, knock it off. You're starting to freak me out. Man: Why wouldn't I be serious? Do you have a problem with me killing this idiot? Woman: Yes, I do! Man: Uh-huh... And why is that? Woman: What do you mean, because you can't just go around killing people that piss you off. If that were the case, we'd all be dead. Man: Yeah, but why? Woman: Because its illegal. Man: So? What does that mean to me? Why is it illegal? Women: Its illegal because... because, it's wrong. Man: Wrong? What a convoluted and specious plea. There is no reason why I shouldn't be able to do it. Woman: Yes, there is, its wrong! Its just wrong. Now, what other argument can this woman make? What else could she say, other than repeat that its wrong. What would you say if you were the woman? She is so taken back by the man, she doesn't know how to respond other than what she knows to be true in her heart. Its wrong, and her heart is bearing witness. It may make no sense logically, but it doesn't negate it.
The fact that killers might try to hide what they have done means absolutely NOTHING about whether they feel any moral reality. Yeah right! It has nothing to do with anything? Killers hide their crimes for the simple fact that its wrong. Why else do they hide their crimes? You might say that because they don't want to go to jail, which will only bring you full circle. Why do people go to prison for that? Answer: Because its wrong. And the answer really is that simple. It may bother us that we can't come up with a more elaborate reason, but the beauty of it is its simplicity.
The Yanomamo allowed killings between tribes and to a great extent within them. IIRC they didn't even have laws to speak about, much less charges of murder. I know the Yanomamo is an Amazonian tribe, which is about all I know about them. I'm not familiar with their customs, so I can't offer any kind of counterpoints. I would have to ask you to substantiate your claims, however. 4) Violence, Murder and Mayhem
You posited several situations in an attempt to elicit a moral charge of right or wrong from me. You seem not to believe what I am telling you. You need to lift your moral goggles and try to understand what I am saying. Let us use the situation you encountered with the guy being shot then robbed. According to my system of beliefs nothing within that was morally wrong. Such labels would be meaningless, beyond telling me what you personally like or dislike. Would I be viscerally shocked by a person being shot? Yes. Would I be repulsed by the choice of the shooters to gun him down and so want to defend him? It would depend on the situation. From what you described the answer would be yes. Would I be upset with someone taking money from him? Again it would depend on the situation, but from what you described yes I would. But why? Couldn't someone make the argument, "Well, he was dying. The pizza shop owners were not EMT's. They couldn't save him. He was gonna die. Dead people don't need money, but living people do." Now, what in you senses that there was something unjust about and sick about that? How can you defend your position without coming to terms of where right and wrong come from?
Visceral shock/disgust at the result of violence, personal distate with the choices others make, and engaging in the reciprocal/communal act of legal enforcment have NO inherent connection to any moral codes of right or wrong. Don't you find it odd how many people are in agreement about that? Don't you think that is something worthy of a little investigation? These terms you've concocted, "personal choices," is just a massive strawman. You are liberalizing to the point of being absurd, IMO. I don't say that to offend you, it just makes no sense. And I can almost guarantee as time goes by, I will catch you using the very terms and concepts you seem to be fighting against. You must know exactly what I'm talking about, but the that the implications are bit uncomfortable. If there really is a universal sense of right and wrong, then surely it must derive from a universal source. Is that an insane concept or a logical deduction?
Could you not find yourself in a situation where you might have to shoot someone and end up accidentally killing someone and consider it an acceptable loss? I have no qualms, whatsoever, for killing a man that intends on killing me or my family or an innocent member of society. I would have terrible guilt for killing someone because I was being stupid. In which case, that's why manslaughter is a crime. Because its wrong to act foolhardy only to have it cost the life of an innocent passerby. But what you are trying to do is equate all killing to murder when you know that isn't the case. The universal law is, "Thou shalt not murder." And murder is the unjust, intentional act to kill someone.
You might argue that my "personal distaste" is a sense of morality but that would not be accurate. No, I just don't believe you. I may believe your sincerity that you have actually trained yourself to believe such nonsense, but I don't believe that you can actually live by your own rules-- or lack thereof. I'm confident that you will violate your own rules at some point simply by the virtue of them being universal. I wager that you will find yourself inescapably coming back to your own sense of morality, even if you decide to call it apple pie. You may say that is a very bold wager of mine, and perhaps it is, but I feel confident in that because I've yet to see anyone who can live apart from it. 5) Bible and morality
It is quite clear in Genesis that Adam and Eve had no moral understanding. The tree of knowledge was moral knowledge. Once eaten from the first thing that they did was judge God's Eden as wrong. Remember, they judged themselves to be naked and so in need of clothes, which is NOT as God had made them. Since they did judge this are you claiming they did recognize some universal morality? The idea was to have mankind live with God, apart from sin, apart from death, in total harmony. The Tree is obviously symbolic of morals. Their innocence is the very thing that protected them. But once beguiled and ate of the tree, they were aware of the things that you and I are aware of. That evil exists, and going against these laws is like battling a strong current.
Ecclesiastes (in the OT) and Jesus (in the NT) repeat these same sentiments. Both claim that God and absolute truth, including moral position, is not accessible to man and so should not be dabbled in. Both argue to remain simple and nonjudgemental on such topics. Whatever there might be is for god to sort out... not humans. What verses are you are you referring to? The entire premise of Ecclesiastes, once you sift through the depressing dialogue, is that all is meaningless without the context of God. Jesus, obviously, agrees with these sentiments. Paul, in one of his epistles, Romans, makes what I am describing quite clear. "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools... All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) -Romans Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : edit to add Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typo "The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2nd Corinthians 10:4-5
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
for instance, it is illegal to murder not because god says so, but because it deprives another person of their natural right to live. You could make an argument that God doesn't factor into it, but now you have to account for hos nature does. I agree with you that we naturally abhor the deprivation of a life by snuffing it out. But now you have to ask why that is, and why it is so universally accepted.
morality is not an external system; it is an internal one. law is the external system. you are confusing morality with religious dogma and rules such as found in the books of exodus and leviticus. this is a common mistake, even among christians. but these books are found in a volumne called ha-torah, or "the law." this is not a coincidence. I agree with this. This is the spirit of the law versus the letter of the law. As Paul describes in some discourses, the law is a schoolmaster and a foreshadowing. "All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith." The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these things will live by them." Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree." He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit. What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator. A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one. Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe." -Galatians 3 "Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet." But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful. We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do”this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it. So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God's law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God”through Jesus Christ our Lord!" -Romans 7:7-25 The purpose of the law is ecumenical. There are reasons for why it exists and how it relates to us. The law is to teach the believer how to serve, worship and please God. Its to instruct the believer how to treat his fellow man. It teaches believers how to be happy (blessed) and prosper in life. The Law was given to measure a man's deeds both toward God and his fellow man, straightening out all matters contrary to sound doctrine. The Law is a teacher or a schoolmaster showing that we are guilty and then leading us to Christ. The Law gives us both the knowledge and depth of our sin. The Law reveals the good, holy, just, and perfect nature of God. And by that standard we see how we are supposed to act in all things. It is also to be established or accomplished by our faith, which is why the Spirit of the Law, which saves, is greater than the letter of law, which condemns. This Law is written on our hearts and our conscience bears witness to that fact.
you are attempting to justify moral relativity with moral relativity. poor form. and while these are certainly complicating factors, they do not change the fundamental immorality of the situation, nor the fundamental illegality of the situation. theft is illegal because it deprives another person of property -- that this is "wrong" is a moral notion. murder (or in this case, manslaughter?) is illegal because it deprives another person of life -- that this is "wrong" is a moral notion. they are illegal simply because of these moral notions. How, then, did it become illegal to begin with without the simple notion of depriving someone of personal property was 'wrong?' If we didn't understand it be wrong in our deepest convictions, how we could have possibly made a law about it? If it were really as you and Holmes claim, laws would just be arbitrary rules with no moral affectations attached. That clearly is not the case. Laws are guided by the very principles of the heart. We may not fully comprehend why that is, or by what mechanism, but its stultifying to see people try to pretend it doesn't exist.
[qs]"unjust" is a moral notion. "greed," at the expense of another, is a moral notion. that you are calling these actions either of these two things is a demonstration of morality. without morality, neither of these two things are applicable or descernable in any manner. and we certainly would have no need for laws against them, because they would not even be recognized as unusual, or "distasteful" or "different than [our own] nature[s]" in any degree.[/qs] Then place yourself in a very personal situation. Suppose it was your friend who was shot and these men started to take his money. But to up the ante, lets say your friend was already dead. If he were still alive like in the story I presented, one could argue that he might live and that you are in effect, stealing from him. But dead men don't need money. Now, these men are traipsing through your friends pockets. What are you going to say to them, and explain the words and actions you have for them. "The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2nd Corinthians 10:4-5
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
But that is exactly what morality is. It is a choice from a large selection of possible choices. Different societies have made different choices concerning morality. Within each society, different people have also made different choices, sometimes believing in a moral code that is different from the overall society's. Do morals have anything to do with truth?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
quote: No.
(And truth has little to do with Truth either.) Then I'll just assume you're lying to support my case. Thanks Ringo. 
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Just to let you know, you missed the point of #2 which was to discuss individual habit as opposed to morality. Ah, thanks for the clarification. I apologize for not answering it as appropriately as I could have.
If a statement is intentionally factually correct then it is truth. That is definitional. Honesty is the activity of telling the truth. That is also definitional. You're still not understanding why this is circular logic, or if you do know, you are intentionally treading lightly. Like mathematics, for anything to be true, there must first exist some absolute standard or criterion, otherwise it loses all meaning. For instance, if relativity is certainly true, then 2 + 2 could = 21 for you, and we'd all have nothing to say against it, because that's what is true for you. We would be in an indefensible position because we could both be right. Everyone could be right. 2 + 2 could = giraffe, and we really couldn't have an argument. But that isn't truth. In order for someone to define what is factual, certain rules must have been established prior to receiving the answer. What, then, is truth in a world of relativity? It makes no sense without some established rules. Imagine how the architect would design a house with relativity. It would not work. And if did, it would be by pure chance. How can you tell the truth and not have absolutes?
I imagine people tend to prefer having proper information so they can make useful decisions and so want others to be honest in general. There may be other reasons though I suppose. Feeling betrayed if the liar is close and trusted? This is not definitional but not effected by relativity. It is effected. How can you be betrayed if there is nothing wrong with betrayal to begin with? If there is nothing 'wrong' then betrayal loses its meaning. Its just noise that came out of your mouth. How can you be lied to when truth is just some abstract concept with no concrete rules? This is why moral relativism doesn't work, either practically or philosophically. It eventually will cancel itself out.
I will admit I find them to be the more common as they tend to be the most easily agreed upon. My thought of why this is the case is that most people don't want to be killed, raped, and stolen from. Again those can be derived from concepts of self-preservation or selfishness. That explains nothing, especially not why it is so universally understood. Not wanting to have your property stolen has two stipulations attached to it. 1. You need to have a sense of propriety. 2. That propriety has to be shared by everyone in the group. If one person decides not to play by your rules, what are you going to say in order to defend your property? "Hey, in my respectful, completely non-judgmental opinion of you and your cultural uniqueness, perhaps you should not take my property, not that "my" property is greater than yours, its just that, um, well, I really like that piece of property. I'm not saying that you are 'wrong' for taking it. There is no such thing as wrong, its just that I think maybe we should respect each others property.".... And that's where he cuts you off and simply says, "Piss off. This is mine." What are you going to say to that?
Your incredulity does not prove anything. Forget the incredulity of it, look at from a statistical point-of-view. There must be a laudable reason for such a high consensus of propriety. And no one has offered any reasons for that other than some implausible ad hoc solution
To answer why it is illegal, that's because the person has a right to live. You keep coming full circle here, Holmes. What do 'rights' mean if not by some absolute standard?
I answered the question and gave you a counterexample. This does not deal with either. Xianity itself could at some points in time send you to prison. Why? Because it's wrong? Xianity is a large set of beliefs. One set pertains to them believing that morals are absolute. Christians offer an explanation for their beliefs are compatible with those absolute laws, but that is really a side issue. Those are just examples.
quote: Yes they could. Some would find that just fine. For me, my first thought on seeing someone in trouble is that I would like to help them if I can. I don't believe I could think through the shock of seeing someone in pain and realize this was a chance to make some money. That's my nature. But why is that apart of your nature? I think we have two natures that war with each other when confronted with such a scenario. The first is self-preservation. "Hey, the killer might still be around. If I go help this guy, I could shot too simply by default of being at the wrong place at the wrong time." The second is more virtuous, and may be extemporaneous. "Oh my gosh, that man just got shot. Somebody has to help him! I have to help him because its the right thing to do." Surely there has to be times in your life, Holmes, where you say to yourself, "This guy is in the wrong," or, "I am doing this because it is the right thing to do. You place alot of stock on survival as being the mechanism of why we do things. But just last week, a Navy Seal pounced on a grenade tossed into an enclosure by insurgents with the sole purpose of saving the rest of the platoon. The man sacrificed his life to save others. Obviously his own self-preservation was overcome by a much more virtuous action. What can you say in defense? You may not even have understanding as to why it is right or wrong. I know I don't. But I don't pretend that it doesn't exist. What do you make of these instances?
quote: You may see me use the terms right and wrong. You may also see me say God and Jesus Christ. That does not mean I believe in them. Having been raised in a culture where right and wrong is used all the time it is hard to drop using such things. You said that what happened to Haggard was, "Ahhhhh, justice." Did you not really believe that it was justice. Humans do not like duplicity because they esteem truth as a virtue. And what happened to Haggard does instill in us all a sense of cosmic justice. By why pretend that it doesn't exist, when we all know it does?
quote: Then how do you explain the ability of whites to kill slaves at will, as well as feudal japan which allowed samurai to kill most of the rest of society (and pretty much each other) at will? I don't believe either of those have a thing to do with absolute morals. In fact, I could make a case against it that it is murder, not that it is justified homicide.
There are things that are considered moral by others and things that are not. I do not feel an ounce of guilt when I do the things that are not. And I am offended by some behavior of others that is considered morally right. Nor would I expect anyone to feel guilty about something that was not immoral. I would expect them to feel guilty about engaging in things that are immoral.
The most you are going to come up with is that I am not chaotic in behavior and tend to act consistently across time. Oh yes and that I have feelings. To conclude, I can do nothing that is actually right or wrong, neither can you or anyone, laws bear no reflection to morals but are basically arbitrary, and truth is important, even though its actually not subjective to anything. Is that an accurate description of your stance on this matter?
Yes I can feel guilty, Yes I do not like some things. They have no grandiose connection. What happens if I say something like: Taking your kids to church is wrong. I really feel like your God is immoral and wrong. Am I connected to some absolute? Relativity exists, Holmes. I have no doubt about this. I'm not even trying to convince you of which faith has the absolute moral code. This argument is simply recognizing that you could not have even come to any decision without first having a moral framework to begin with. We act intuitively with regard to morality, do we not? If the police came to door right now and imprisoned you for a murder you did not commit, is your 'opinion' on the matter going to mean one whit to someone else who has an equally valid opinion in th opposite direction? What can your defense be? It can't injustice, because justice must first exist in order for there to be an injustice. Since justice doesn't operate in a vacuum, standards must be applied beforehand. Are simply going to say, "I don't like this."? What should that matter another man of relativity? Who cares what you like? All he is concerned about is his own likes and dislikes. If value is up to you to assign for yourself, then the same would apply to all people. At some point, as is the case here, two views are going to conflict and eventually one system of thought is going to impinge on another's. Naturally, one view will end up being superior to the other, as the one with the power gets to decide your fate, essentially cancelling out your view.
I am not aware of any evil except as a generic term for things that people don't like, or are generally causing problems. Morals are a generic term for you. So is right and wrong. Presumably, everything is abstract for you. Would you describe yourself as a nihilist? The entire premise of Ecclesiastes, once you sift through the depressing dialogue, is that all is meaningless without the context of God. Well I certainly agree that he extolls God, but I wasn't addressing that. Part of the dialogue is him expressing how little we can know. We must trust in God because we cannot know anything for real. "The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2nd Corinthians 10:4-5
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Mathematics is, basically, a set of rules that allow us to transform one set of sentences into another set of sentences. If we arbitrarily say that the first set of sentences are "true" then the we will say that the sentences that we can derive using the mathematical rules are also "true". The rules for mathematics are absolute. Never is 1 + 1 going to = 4. It is with absolute precision that mathematics operates. I used mathematics as an example of how it doesn't or couldn't function under some relativistic expression.
a Platonist would argue against me on this, but the rules of logic and of mathematics are largely arbitrary, and chosen for their ability to model the real world, but this ability has, so far, been largely imperfect seemingly to indicate that there is no reality to logic or mathematics except in our heads. Well, being that logic begins in our head, that should do just fine. If mathematics is so imperfect, as you claim, then how can we ever arrive at a coherent conclusion?
This isn't a thread to argue the philosophy of mathematics, but I just felt that if your analogy requires mathematics to have some sort of "objective" truth, then it is going to fail. I wasn't offering an object truth through mathematics, I was offering an analogy of something subjective. Mathematics isn't interested in personal opinions. I feel the same about a set of morals. Again, the argument isn't to identify which morals are absolute and which are relative, the argument is that even relative morality cannot exist philosophically without a set of absolute morals.
Finally, again I may be misreading your point, but even if we were to accept some sort of independent objective reality to mathematics, I don't think that holmes is saying that everything is relative. Perhaps the word "relative" is causing some sort of confusion here. All a moral relativist says is that there is no external, objective standards by which we can measure morality. Morality is, basically, a set of beliefs and emotional responses concerning the actions of people, beliefs and responses that are dependent on the different cultural norms and the different emotional make-up of the individual people. I'm sure I've had my fair share of adding to the confusion. Yes, there are absolutes in the known universe, but they don't necessarily bear a reflection of a moral code. Again, I was using mathematics to point to the absolute necessity of some things being concrete and not subject to amendment. "The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2nd Corinthians 10:4-5
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
As has been pointed out already, we supply the meaning to mathematics. People may then explore based on the logic of definitional relations, but we start by giving the definitions. I agree that we supplied the initial rules for mathematics, but once established, they have remained intact. In the same way, an absolutist could say that God instituted the policies that would affect the affairs if the universe, to include man and morality.
There is nothing inherently wrong with betrayal. This is mind-numbingly stultifying. There is nothing inherently wrong with betrayal, and yet, not one person enjoys being betrayed... Unless you are able to provide some rational criterion for making your own moral choices, you must then allow for amorality to flourish. If your only objection to what any sensible person might refer to as 'wrong', yours would only be, "I don't like it." You have then rendered your own version of morality ineffectual. Limiting your beliefs as morally neutral essentially emasculates you of any sense of morality to begin with.
Ahhhh... the fallacy of the gun. Someone is going to shoot you so how will you stop them with relativist philosophy? I'll stop them the same way an absolutist will have to... hit them fast and hard. But why? Why stop them? Forget about them pointing a gun at you, how about a loved one? See, essentially your argument focuses on pure selfishness. And what you are doing is trying to separate yourself from the face of right and wrong. This reminds of a sermon that I've heard, I've posted it once before from one of my favorite contemporary apologists. He begins his sermon explaining how he was at buisness luncheon in Hong Kong where he was asked to speak a bit about morality. He describes one man who shares similar, if not identical views that you are espousing, on how we didn't believe in a sort of moral code. Listen to the first 5 minutes and give me your opinion on the matter if you don't mind. I think this sounds very similar to our conversation. Listen to it and answer me whether you are not, as CS Lewis called it, "A man without a chest?" Remember your earlier example of the lady screaming her head off to the roadrage case. "Its wrong! Its wrong!" She screamed. Try that to a guy stealing your stuff or pointing a gun at you. Its not likely to stop any bullets. I mean how exactly did the lady stop the roadrage case? The only thing we can do-- appeal to his propriety that I believe was instilled by God. Its a powerful force, and neither you nor anyone can escape from it. And the longer you keep telling yourself that its all relative, the more quickly it will be evident that you are inconsistent in your views. They are so loose in context so as to loose all meaning for anything.
Oh and by the way, why do people not like having stuff taken from them? Because they don't like to be without things (at the very least necessities). Is it really that simple? If I walked up to you in a resturant and took the food off of your plate, what would it matter to you if you could just get more food for free from the owners? That meal for you isn't critical to your survival because food is in abundance at the resturant. I think I have an idea. You would feel angry because what I had done was wrong. And really, its that simple. And its so axiomatic that you can anywhere on earth and try pulling that b.s. on someone and either be arrested or beaten-- why? Because its wrong.
A right will be something that I absolutely defend. That's about the length of its standard. Some people live without such concepts as rights as I have. They will likely defend those. Those are their rights. What are rights if not in an absolute context? How can you have any rights unless those rights are agreed upon by everyone?
Indeed some reps these days have argued civil rights are not so important. They apparently are not willing to fight for them. Where is this absolute standard of which you speak, when once attained, such things are thrown away? Reps don't fight for civil rights? First of all, this is OT. Secondly, its a totally specious argument. If they weren't willing to fight for civil rights they wouldn't fight for their constituents, such as children. If they weren't willing to fight for civil rights they would have sat on their hands about affirmative action which DOES judge people on the basis of their skin, rather than, as Martin Luther King duly noted, the basis of their character.
Xians hid what they did when it was illegal. If people only hide criminal acts because they know they do something wrong, what does that mean about Xianity? Well, you know, I have this crazy opinion that Christians aren't measured by each other, but rather, are measured by Christ Himself. Since He is our Lawmaker, I will let Him institute what policy He wills. His will be done on heaven and earth. And I will allow Him to have compassion for whom He will have compassion, and judge those who He will judge.
I agree with virtue characterizations. In that act he was brave and loyal and altruistic. That does not make what he did "right" in an absolute sense (though perhaps to some code he himself ascribed or promised himself to). You're missing the point entirely. You stated that, (paraphrasing), that people essentially do things in compliance with their self-preservation extincts and that this explains peoples sense of morality. This instance of a man who acted altruistically completely undermines your central premise that we do things because of self-preservation mechanisms. Where does a sense of honor and integrity come from? Why is it that we laud his actions as brave and heroic, when, from a strictly humanistic view, what he had done was incredibly stupid? So much for selfishness. There is a reason why selflessness is virtuous and selfishness is generally despised.
If you do something to someone that they don't like, and it comes back to bite you in the same way and you don't like it... that's justice. According to you. In my relativistic worldview, if you do something to pickles that cars don't like, and it comes back to drink you in the same way that keyboards don't like it... that's chicken soup. And if all is meaningless, then so are words.... (not words, I mean alligators.)
I believe in most egalitarian societies, or those focused on individualism, justice will be ranked pretty high. In order to even come up with relative laws, one must first understand justice as an absolute concept.
For example Bush has set out, and reps have argued, that security is much more important than justice. I've never heard anything from the Bush Admin that claims security is more important than justice. But supposing they did, is that wrong?
quote: Wait a second, you said that all societies have a concept of murder. I showed you some that didn't, and you tell me that they are cases of murder. It doesn't matter what you think. Your claim is that there are universal moral truths which are reflected in our morals and laws. Deal with the counterexamples. They do! Every culture has a concept if unjust killing. See, here's where your concept of justice is at odds with your personal belief. The only thing relative is what constituted murder. And even then, they might not be square with the absolute law. There are standards in society and criteria to distinguish one thing from the next. An absolute moral law is no different.
You are right that justice doesn't operate in a vacuum, that's why there is no absolute morality. We create and apply our own definitions. We have come up with a term with a definition and called it justice. Then who are we to impose our moral views on the rest of the world? Or who is the next guy to impose their moral views on us? What's the point of defining terms if we can't even agree on the terms or what constitutes it to begin with?
My accurately calling my false arrest "unjust" will do nothing if people don't care or feel something outweighs that. You know like that Canadian guy who was picked up by the US while coming back from a vacation and then sent to secret prisons while he was tortured for a year. Now he claims that is unjust. I think its unjust. We both think it sucks. He would likely call it wrong. But if there is no right or wrong, what do you care either way? 1. It didn't happen to you. 2. There's nothing right or wrong about what happened to him. It just is.
Bush and reps are calling it necessary and right... while murmuring on the justice issue. Say what do YOU think about that poor Canadian guy getting unjustly arrested and tortured? What I think is I'm starting to believe in your views. I say kill 'em all, hack 'em up if that's what fancies you. Its not wrong. Its not unjust. It just is. Torture is like a tree growing. It just sort of happens and there is nothing good or bad about it-- it just is. That's what I think.... but who cares what I think? My thoughts are ineffectual
My basic concept is that the only system of normative ethics which remains credible is virtue ethics, which is devoid of judging actions right or wrong anyway. But that this is only credible in a practical way, and even then set within a relativist (perhaps skeptical) perspective (understanding that virtues will be applied differently across cultures with no true scale to them either). In my last post to Arach I described myself as a very muted value-pluralist. I have discovered the value system that I think best suits you-- not that my opinion matters in a sea of meaninglessness.
Emotive Ethics "In modern ethical thought an unusual answer has been given to the question, "What makes an action right or wrong?" The answer? "Nothing is literally right or wrong: these terms are simply the expression of emotion and as such are neither true nor false." This is answer of emotive ethics. This theory of morality originated with David Hume and his belief that knowledge is limited to sense impressions. Beyond sense impressions, our knowledge is unfounded. What difference does such a theory make? It renders intelligent talk about God, the soul, or morality impossible, because real knowledge is limited to phenomena observable by our physical senses. Discussion of phenomena not observable by our physical senses is considered to belong to the realm of metaphysics, a realm that cannot be touched, felt, seen, heard, nor smelled. What can we know if our knowledge is limited to our sense experience? Hume claimed that all we can know are matters of fact. We can only make factually verifiable statements such as, "That crow is black" or "The book is on the table." On the other hand, we cannot, in this system, make a statement like, "Stealing is wrong." We cannot even say, "Murder is wrong." Why? Because wrong is not a factual observation and cannot be verified empirically. In fact, it is a meaningless statement, and merely an expression of personal preference. We are really just saying "I don't like stealing," and "I dislike murder." It is on the order of saying, "I like tomatoes." Someone else can say, "I dislike tomatoes," without factual contradiction because it's just the statement of two different personal preferences. In summary, emotive ethics holds that it is impossible to have a rational discussion about morals. This is because ethical statements cannot be analyzed since they do not meet the criteria of scientific statements; that is, they are not observation statements. Thus, in emotivism, all actions are morally neutral." Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : Edit to add "The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2nd Corinthians 10:4-5
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
