Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Conventionalism is Dead - Society does NOT determine what is moral.
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 3 of 113 (385660)
02-16-2007 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by joshua221
02-16-2007 5:37 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by joshua221, posted 02-16-2007 5:37 PM joshua221 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by joshua221, posted 02-16-2007 10:28 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 61 of 113 (385828)
02-17-2007 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by joshua221
02-16-2007 10:28 PM


What society discerns as true or moral is far from it.
Regardless of whether or not there's a "real" morality that individual societies may or may not have accurately perceived; if you admit that there are societies that have developed moral systems that deviate from that "real" morality, then you've admitted the truth of my position - societies do produce morality.
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.
Completely backwards. The fact that you can develop moral systems that people are just fine with, irrespective of the "real" morality everybody is supposed to have, proves my point that it's entirely possible, and common, for societies to be developing their own morality. Which is exactly what you say doesn't happen.
Your argument is inconsistent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by joshua221, posted 02-16-2007 10:28 PM joshua221 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by anastasia, posted 02-18-2007 5:09 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 66 of 113 (385990)
02-18-2007 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by anastasia
02-18-2007 5:09 PM


My main problem is that codes change; what was once bad is now good.
Well, yes. Change happens. If you're expecting things to be eternally the same, well... in the words of the Dread Pirate Roberts, "get used to disappointment."
Can we really say slavery was once moral, or only that it was once acceptable in some moral code? I don't think it was ever moral.
See, I can't see what possible merit these sorts of questions have. People considered it moral (indeed, God's own commandment) then; now, they don't. And indeed, we should all wonder what is accepted now that future generations will find us culpable for. (Pollution, perhaps, or overfishing. Who knows?)
The morals changed then not because somebody discovered slavery was bad, but rather - somebody was able to convince several somebodies that it was, and they each convinced several more, and then in the midst of a great social upheaval, those people convinced leaders to take a stand against the practice, and the consensus of society was revealed to be that slavery was an abomination.
Sure, it was acceptable as per that society's code, but I don't think we can view morality as limited by any code.
But that's exactly what it's limited by, because the only reason slavery is viewed as immoral in our society is because society saw fit to change the code. They didn't see that "slavery is bad" was written on some hitherto-unknown tablets handed down from on high; no scientist discovered precepts against slavery written on the fabric of the universe.
We just changed our collective mind. It was a process of collaboration and conversation - and, indeed, bloodshed. But it's the same process by which society produces anything. Everything. It's the same process that produces art and science. It's just people talking with each other about what they think is right and wrong, and what they think people should do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by anastasia, posted 02-18-2007 5:09 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by anastasia, posted 02-19-2007 12:07 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 73 of 113 (386085)
02-19-2007 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by anastasia
02-19-2007 12:07 PM


No, but I wouldn't use any analogies of over-fishing or pollution. We already acknowledge that they are undesirables.
We? We who? These things are still going on, you know. Much as slavery persisted for a while even though there were abolitionists.
Your comment doesn't make any sense.
So, instead of 'what once was good is now bad', it is more, what once we THOUGHT was good we now know is not.
But they knew slavery was right and just back then, too. They knew so because the Bible told them. Now we "know" they were wrong. How do you explain this?
That is what I mean by morality not being limited to a society's rules. It is often hindered by the rules, the same as science or technology. But someone, somehow, has to 'discover' a better idea, and begin the tough process of convincing others.
That doesn't bear any relation to the history of abolitionism, so it's not clear to me what you're talking about. For as long as humans have practiced slavery, humans have also felt that it was wrong.
So, I say, morality is defined by society's current knowledge, but not limited to it.
I don't know what that sentence means. If society defines morals, then obviously society is the source of morals.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by anastasia, posted 02-19-2007 12:07 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by anastasia, posted 02-19-2007 7:18 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 106 of 113 (386372)
02-21-2007 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by anastasia
02-19-2007 7:18 PM


Most of your statements are nonsense. It'd be nice if you could ratchet up the sense level of your post. One way to dot his would be to stop implicitly redefining words to suit your purposes.
My point is that since we know better, we can't go back to when we didn't.
But that often happens. In Greece, homosexuality was approved. Later, it was stigmatized by society. Now, it's becoming approved again. Societies move back and forth - exactly what you say can't happen.
But whether it is acceptable to act immorally does.
This is nonsense. By definition, it is never acceptable to act immorally. What's changing are morals. We can literally watch them change before our eyes.
What a society thinks is moral, determines whether it views a particular citizen as moral. As opposed to; what a society THINKS is moral determines what IS moral.
You're asserting two moralities - the morality that is real, and the "fake" morality that society generates.
But that's exactly my point. To allow that society generates morality of any kind is to accept my point, and to contradict the OP of this thread. If society is generating morality, albeit false morality, then society does generate morality. A society's morals come from the society itself, not from some kind of real morality that is just out there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by anastasia, posted 02-19-2007 7:18 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by anastasia, posted 02-21-2007 11:45 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 108 of 113 (386388)
02-21-2007 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by anastasia
02-21-2007 11:45 AM


Thing is, you can not prove that there is no real morality that is just out there waiting to be discovered by the society generating the morals.
I never claimed that I could do that. But if society can generate its own morals, to specification, then there's hardly any need to go on the search for "real" morals that aren't any more valid - just different - than the morals that we already have. Why bother?
Of course, the burden of proof is on those who claim that there is such a "real" morality out there, not those who claim there isn't. And I notice that you've completely given up trying to prove that. Of course, how you would tell the difference between society-generated morals and "real" morals is a question I doubt you've even considered.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by anastasia, posted 02-21-2007 11:45 AM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by anastasia, posted 02-21-2007 4:47 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024