Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-26-2019 6:23 PM
27 online now:
AnswersInGenitals, Coragyps, JonF, ooh-child (4 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,836 Year: 9,872/19,786 Month: 2,294/2,119 Week: 330/724 Day: 55/114 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   Conventionalism is Dead - Society does NOT determine what is moral.
joshua221 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 1 of 113 (385656)
02-16-2007 5:37 PM


Society determines what is moral.

Any intellectual can see that this case for justice is pathetic.

Anything goes. If a man killed me for looking at him, and society allowed it, this death would be just and correct.

We determine what is right and moral with reason. We are born with the ability to know what is right. We do not determine what is moral through societal majorities.

Societal majorities don't reason, societal majorities are not rational beings.

Socrates

A group of men emerged out of ancient Greece who thought that the goal of life was to live the best life you could, the happiest life that you could - to "win the game of life". To live for oneself was established as the moral life. They were known in Greece as the most intelligent and the most respected - they established huge amounts of money from their practices. They would take money to teach people how to "defend themselves" in arguments. This was amazingly valuable because of the court system in Greece. If someone charged you with a crime, you had to defend yourself, if you were judged innocent by your 500 peers then you were allowed to choose any punishment for the accuser - if a severe punishment was put into place, one could offer to pay a fine normally, but this was actually a reasonable system of justice - better than our current system in America. So these sophists would teach people the art of "eristics" the art of winning a debate for the sake of winning not for the sake of finding out what is true or right. They argued not to know but to remain ignorant and to win. (Eris was the Goddess of Argument of Discord). They would charge a lot of money for their services - they became "successful", they were rich they lived a good life. They Won the "game of life". That is their entire purpose - to win the game of life. To win you became rich and old.

These men believed that no truth existed and that everyone's opinion was correct. What you believe is "true for you", and what I believe is "true for me". Of course living in this manner completely shuts down the need for reason and knowledge. It breeds ignorant individuals who seek success, comfort, and money instead of truth.

It is called "Relativism", "Sophism", and "Conventionalism".

"Conventionalism" is specifically what jar was referring to, "society determines truth". "Society determines what is moral".

These men were called Sophists.

A man called Socrates would emerge out of this.

Plato, his best student recorded almost exactly the words of Socrates. (This was found by a speech at Socrates death that was written down by Plato in "The Apology", a man who also attended the death/trial was there and recorded the exact same happenings and words) (The Greeks could not use paper and pens the way we do, their memories were extraordinary from repeated use.) Socrates in short, told the people of Athens that the good life was the examined life, a life in pursuit of truth and knowledge. He went through Athens asking questions to educate people in what he knew. The questions became increasingly disturbing as he kept asking because they destroy the beliefs and ignorance of those asked. The process was very unsettling. People began to detest this man of truth.

In Plato's works, he recorded dialogues between Sophists and Socrates where Socrates refutes their claims through his famous "Socratic Method". He starts with a question such as, "What is Justice". The Sophist would reply - "Whatever the elders say is right and just, is just", Socrates would continue asking questions about how they came to this conclusion until they realized that they were utterly mistaken. Socrates would then tell them what Justice really is and most would feel offended and walk away.

Socrates in short believed, that justice was for each to "mind his own business" and do what each does best.

This post is probably a dishonor to Socrates and Plato, but I feel it is good enough for this purpose.

Hopefully it is clear that Conventionalism is dead.

This was way too much for such a statement.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by crashfrog, posted 02-16-2007 5:43 PM joshua221 has responded
 Message 4 by Doddy, posted 02-16-2007 6:13 PM joshua221 has responded
 Message 5 by Archer Opteryx, posted 02-16-2007 6:43 PM joshua221 has responded
 Message 6 by CK, posted 02-16-2007 7:13 PM joshua221 has responded
 Message 7 by jar, posted 02-16-2007 8:19 PM joshua221 has responded
 Message 8 by nator, posted 02-16-2007 10:06 PM joshua221 has not yet responded
 Message 10 by anglagard, posted 02-16-2007 10:29 PM joshua221 has responded
 Message 56 by RickJB, posted 02-17-2007 3:15 AM joshua221 has not yet responded
 Message 60 by Thugpreacha, posted 02-17-2007 10:38 AM joshua221 has not yet responded
 Message 63 by ReverendDG, posted 02-18-2007 5:45 AM joshua221 has not yet responded

  
joshua221 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 9 of 113 (385710)
02-16-2007 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by crashfrog
02-16-2007 5:43 PM


Your argument has a considerable uphill battle to fight, considering that we directly observe societies doing exactly what you say they don't, and can't, do.

I acknowledged those societies, actually they were central to my rebuttal to the statement that society determines morality.

If you lived in that society and you'd both been raised to believe that, and everybody around you had as well, it what sense wouldn't it have been just and correct?

There are men chained to a wall, all they see is darkness and shadows. They perceive this to be reality. A prisoner escapes and travels a treacherous path, a path so treacherous that many others would have turned back to the wall and the shadows, a path so difficult that many would die on the way. But this prisoner makes it to the end of the path and begins to see light from the end. He reaches the end and discovers what reality really is. He sees what is real. The man returns to his fellow prisoners to tell them but they don't believe him - they persecute him and tell him that he is wrong - that these shadows are truth - reality.

As are the people in this allegory of Plato's chained to a wall, so are those in these societies who do not know true morality, only a distortion and falsity of it... What society tells them is far from moral, yet they accept and believe it.

You yourself have been imprisoned at birth and have yet to escape.

What society discerns as true or moral is far from it.

I mean the fact that societies exactly as you describe existed, and the people who lived in them thought that was just fine, would seem to prove you completely wrong.

The existence of ignorance, of darkness, of these prisoners does not prove that there is no light - it proves that you have yet to see it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by crashfrog, posted 02-16-2007 5:43 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by sidelined, posted 02-16-2007 10:40 PM joshua221 has responded
 Message 61 by crashfrog, posted 02-17-2007 12:25 PM joshua221 has not yet responded

  
joshua221 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 11 of 113 (385712)
02-16-2007 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Doddy
02-16-2007 6:13 PM


If this is true, why is it that different societies have different codes of morals and ethics? Or do you deny that this occurs?

They are not educated. They live in ignorance and sometimes expound it for their own benefit.

Only few escape from the cave and see the light, most live in the darkness and call it truth. Most live in the darkness and call it moral. Most live in the darkness and call it beauty.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Doddy, posted 02-16-2007 6:13 PM Doddy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by anglagard, posted 02-16-2007 10:42 PM joshua221 has responded
 Message 57 by Doddy, posted 02-17-2007 4:41 AM joshua221 has not yet responded

  
joshua221 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 12 of 113 (385713)
02-16-2007 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by CK
02-16-2007 7:13 PM


This is a very simplistic and wrong understanding - those are different but epistemological related concepts -

I know. For this purpose and for you people it was good enough.

Actually are you getting this from wikipedia? their article on conventionalism is woeful and very misleading.

I read books.

"Social Constructionism is Dead - Society does NOT determine what is moral." would be a more accurate (well sorta) title for this thread.

I deal with philosophy, go read up on Conventionalism related to the Sophists.

Edited by prophex, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by CK, posted 02-16-2007 7:13 PM CK has not yet responded

  
joshua221 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 13 of 113 (385714)
02-16-2007 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by jar
02-16-2007 8:19 PM


I was told not to by AdminPD.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by jar, posted 02-16-2007 8:19 PM jar has not yet responded

  
joshua221 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 14 of 113 (385715)
02-16-2007 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Archer Opteryx
02-16-2007 6:43 PM


Re: Oh, the Humanity!
I see this misunderstanding developing - I have tried to remedy it. Read the allegory of the cave in response to the second reply that I got.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Archer Opteryx, posted 02-16-2007 6:43 PM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded

  
joshua221 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 16 of 113 (385718)
02-16-2007 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by jar
02-16-2007 8:19 PM


Why wouldn't it be just and correct?

To kill me for no reason. (Allowed because society condones it.)

It isn't just because humans each have a dignity that should not be violated. All humans are each unique and special, different. To violate the lives of any human is (in the most general sense) wrong.

Of course certain exceptions apply but we are not discussing this in terms of hypothetical examples but in terms of reason.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by jar, posted 02-16-2007 8:19 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by jar, posted 02-16-2007 10:52 PM joshua221 has responded

  
joshua221 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 18 of 113 (385721)
02-16-2007 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by anglagard
02-16-2007 10:29 PM


Re: Please Elaborate
Since, according to you, all people are born with the ability to know what is right, then you, as a subset of all people, should be able to tell us what is right and what is wrong.

This isn't what the thread is about, if one is educated and understands morality, then any hypothetical example could be worked out. We aren't dealing with examples of morality but with morality itself.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by anglagard, posted 02-16-2007 10:29 PM anglagard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by anglagard, posted 02-16-2007 10:52 PM joshua221 has responded

  
joshua221 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 21 of 113 (385725)
02-16-2007 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by sidelined
02-16-2007 10:40 PM


You are an inmate in a concentration camp. A sadistic guard is about to hang your son who tried to escape and wants you to pull the chair from underneath him. He says that if you don't he will not only kill your son but some other innocent inmate as well. You don't have any doubt that he means what he says. What should you do?

I can see that you ripped it straight off of the internet, but that does not diminish the validity of this "moral dilemma".

A dilemma such as this forces you to put a "value" on human life. Something that is extremely crude and lowly.

I guess I am supposed to write that 2 humans dead is not as bad a 1 human dead although the first to die is related to you.

Immanuel Kant "Perfect Duty".

I choose to do nothing.

(Thanks Chris)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by sidelined, posted 02-16-2007 10:40 PM sidelined has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by kuresu, posted 02-16-2007 11:02 PM joshua221 has responded
 Message 32 by sidelined, posted 02-16-2007 11:09 PM joshua221 has responded
 Message 58 by Doddy, posted 02-17-2007 4:52 AM joshua221 has not yet responded

  
joshua221 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 22 of 113 (385726)
02-16-2007 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by anglagard
02-16-2007 10:52 PM


Re: Please Elaborate
We aren't dealing with examples of morality but with morality itself.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by anglagard, posted 02-16-2007 10:52 PM anglagard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by anglagard, posted 02-16-2007 10:59 PM joshua221 has responded

  
joshua221 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 23 of 113 (385727)
02-16-2007 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by jar
02-16-2007 10:52 PM


Re: You still have not answered the question.
Re-read my post, I believe I said something about humans each having a special dignity.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by jar, posted 02-16-2007 10:52 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by jar, posted 02-16-2007 11:00 PM joshua221 has not yet responded

  
joshua221 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 26 of 113 (385730)
02-16-2007 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by anglagard
02-16-2007 10:42 PM


Re: All Other Societies
Are you educated beyond the level of 'other societies?'

Please feel free to tell us how educated you are and how you have managed to 'escape ignorance' relative to others.

I attempt to understand morality through reason.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by anglagard, posted 02-16-2007 10:42 PM anglagard has not yet responded

  
joshua221 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 28 of 113 (385732)
02-16-2007 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by anglagard
02-16-2007 10:59 PM


Re: Please Elaborate
Define morality. If you can't, then there is no topic.

I attempt to understand morality through reason.

I am not GOD.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by anglagard, posted 02-16-2007 10:59 PM anglagard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by kuresu, posted 02-16-2007 11:07 PM joshua221 has responded
 Message 35 by anglagard, posted 02-16-2007 11:17 PM joshua221 has responded

  
joshua221 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 29 of 113 (385733)
02-16-2007 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by kuresu
02-16-2007 11:02 PM


how do you live with yourself?
it's not okay to violate human life but it is?
hypocrite.

How did I say it was?

I chose to do nothing.

People get so emotional, so flustered, so irritated, they can't stand to hear it. They seek comfort. They don't want this.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by kuresu, posted 02-16-2007 11:02 PM kuresu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by kuresu, posted 02-16-2007 11:09 PM joshua221 has responded

  
joshua221 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 37 of 113 (385741)
02-16-2007 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by jar
02-16-2007 8:19 PM


Why wouldn't it be just and correct?

This is the essence of morality.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by jar, posted 02-16-2007 8:19 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by jar, posted 02-16-2007 11:22 PM joshua221 has not yet responded

  
1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019