Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-16-2019 7:29 PM
28 online now:
4petdinos, AZPaul3, Coragyps, DrJones*, edge, Percy (Admin), xongsmith (7 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Arnold Wolf
Post Volume:
Total: 853,869 Year: 8,905/19,786 Month: 1,327/2,119 Week: 87/576 Day: 87/50 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123456
7
8Next
Author Topic:   Conventionalism is Dead - Society does NOT determine what is moral.
RickJB
Member (Idle past 3153 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 91 of 113 (386182)
02-20-2007 4:02 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by anastasia
02-19-2007 11:17 PM


Ana writes:

nator writes:

Can you give an example of an "objective morality"?

Sure, my objective for instance is serving God.

Sounds like you misunderstand the meaning of "objective morality". We're talking about an unchangable, universal moral truth.

How does serving a particular interpretation of a God that no one has ever observed equate to "objective morality"?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by anastasia, posted 02-19-2007 11:17 PM anastasia has not yet responded

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 92 of 113 (386197)
02-20-2007 8:55 AM


Topic
This thread is about whether society determines what is moral.

It is not about whether morality is objective or subjective.

Please adjust accordingly and direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread.

Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour timeout.

Thank you Purple

Edited by AdminPD, : Update


  
nator
Member (Idle past 333 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 93 of 113 (386254)
02-20-2007 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by anastasia
02-19-2007 11:27 PM


Re: Morality: limited by code
quote:
But there is no point. What the heck is the point in bringing the 'n' word into a conversation where I have clearly said that I don't think certain things were ever moral or ever will be?

The point is, though, that the morality of using the word "nigger" has, indeed changed over time.

Back when the word was invented, it was considered a normal word to refer to the "Negro" sub-humans. It was perfectly moral to use it.

Then later, it was considered a very terrible, immoral word in pretty much all cases where it was used. It was a terrible put-down to anybody.

Nowadays, however, in certain cases calling someone "nigger" is not a put down, but a term of affection or group identification. It has been kind of "reclaimed" by the group that used to be most affected by it.

So, it can be considered both moral and immoral, depending upon context.

What you seem to be saying is that once an action, like calling someone "nigger", is considered immoral, it always is.

That is demonstrably not true.

I think you are once again trying to reduce human social behavior into simplistic, soundbites and it just doesn't work.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by anastasia, posted 02-19-2007 11:27 PM anastasia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by anastasia, posted 02-20-2007 9:30 PM nator has not yet responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 333 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 94 of 113 (386256)
02-20-2007 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by anastasia
02-19-2007 11:17 PM


Can you give an example of an "objective morality"?

quote:
Sure, my objective for instance is serving God.

That is a nonsensical response.

I wanted an example of "objective" morality, as in, "the opposite of "subjective".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by anastasia, posted 02-19-2007 11:17 PM anastasia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by anastasia, posted 02-20-2007 9:24 PM nator has not yet responded

    
anastasia
Member (Idle past 4116 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 95 of 113 (386312)
02-20-2007 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by nator
02-20-2007 3:34 PM


nator writes:

I wanted an example of "objective" morality, as in, "the opposite of "subjective".

Didn't you even read the Time Out and the Admins?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by nator, posted 02-20-2007 3:34 PM nator has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by kuresu, posted 02-20-2007 9:31 PM anastasia has not yet responded

    
anastasia
Member (Idle past 4116 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 96 of 113 (386314)
02-20-2007 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by nator
02-20-2007 3:31 PM


Re: Morality: limited by code
nator writes:

The point is, though, that the morality of using the word "nigger" has, indeed changed over time.

And didn't you even read the rest of my post where I said that I am quite aware of how the use of the word can be moral depending on how a person feels about it?

And the rest, where I said that the moral is about doing good to others?

Since we know better now, it will never be ok, and has never been ok, to call anyone anything that is derogatory and/or makes them feel sub-human. Even if that includes calling them pussy-cat, love-bug, or whatever. You can tell me...will it ever be moral to call someone a name while knowing that it hurts their feelings?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by nator, posted 02-20-2007 3:31 PM nator has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by kuresu, posted 02-20-2007 9:33 PM anastasia has responded

    
kuresu
Member (Idle past 676 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 97 of 113 (386315)
02-20-2007 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by anastasia
02-20-2007 9:24 PM


the admins have power, yes. that doesn't stop some people from letting others get away with bs.

hiding behind the admins is not always possible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by anastasia, posted 02-20-2007 9:24 PM anastasia has not yet responded

    
kuresu
Member (Idle past 676 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 98 of 113 (386316)
02-20-2007 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by anastasia
02-20-2007 9:30 PM


Re: Morality: limited by code
contradiction:
we know better now, it will never be ok, and has never been ok

if we know better now, it implies that at one point we didn't.
at that past point, it would have been okay, because "we didn't know better".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by anastasia, posted 02-20-2007 9:30 PM anastasia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by anastasia, posted 02-20-2007 9:45 PM kuresu has responded

    
anastasia
Member (Idle past 4116 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 99 of 113 (386317)
02-20-2007 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by kuresu
02-20-2007 9:33 PM


Re: Morality: limited by code
kuresu writes:

if we know better now, it implies that at one point we didn't.
at that past point, it would have been okay, because "we didn't know better".

Of course at one point we didn't know what we now know.

If you can now say that treating others bad was once good, that is implying that 'good' is unknowable. I really thought we talked about this in depth yesterday.

Here, again, it was once acceptable to do certain things.
That DOES NOT mean that it was right to do them. Was the inquistion right, was slavery, the crusades, any of those things which we commonly and constantly call immoral?

Morality is retro-active. We have no problem ever without exception applying our morals to the events of history. If a Catholic for example dares to qualify the crusades as a product of the age, and a moral thing, it is always as far as any debate I have ever seen, been called 'making excuses'.

I am not contradicting myself, and, if you want to paint ignorance of admin attempts to preserve the integrity of the forum by keeping threads on topic, as some heroic activity...well, good luck. I personally don't see what possible dramatic revelation about life can be made by talking about the same old topic in the wrong place.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by kuresu, posted 02-20-2007 9:33 PM kuresu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by kuresu, posted 02-20-2007 9:53 PM anastasia has responded

    
kuresu
Member (Idle past 676 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 100 of 113 (386319)
02-20-2007 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by anastasia
02-20-2007 9:45 PM


Re: Morality: limited by code
i don't know what's so hard about this.

those things are wrong by your moral code.
not by the past's moral code.

at one point, slavery was right. you can only say that it is now wrong, and we can consider them wrong for doing it, but you have to realize that they thought it right.

you cannot say it has never been right, for it obviously has been in the past. again, only wrong by your morality, not their's.

it is very difficult to make an aboslute statement that stems from a relativistic stance.

as to admin actions, i wasn't calling it heroism. just letting you know that some of us don't let people hide behind admin actions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by anastasia, posted 02-20-2007 9:45 PM anastasia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by anastasia, posted 02-20-2007 10:08 PM kuresu has responded

    
anastasia
Member (Idle past 4116 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 101 of 113 (386321)
02-20-2007 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by kuresu
02-20-2007 9:53 PM


Re: Morality: limited by code
kuresu writes:

at one point, slavery was right. you can only say that it is now wrong, and we can consider them wrong for doing it, but you have to realize that they thought it right.

Yes, for the millionth time, I know they thought it was, they were wrong, we know better, and nothing will ever make it right no matter what we think.

as to admin actions, i wasn't calling it heroism. just letting you know that some of us don't let people hide behind admin actions.

Good, I am glad that some people don't hide behind admin actions. I know Rob certainly has not paid much attention to them either. He clearly thinks that what he has to say is important enough to be banned over. I do not think that anything any of us has to say about absolute morality is new or breath-taking, or worth making a stink about. Especially because there are unlimited opportunities for one on one debate and new threads.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by kuresu, posted 02-20-2007 9:53 PM kuresu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by kuresu, posted 02-20-2007 10:36 PM anastasia has responded
 Message 104 by nator, posted 02-21-2007 10:49 AM anastasia has responded

    
kuresu
Member (Idle past 676 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 102 of 113 (386325)
02-20-2007 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by anastasia
02-20-2007 10:08 PM


Re: Morality: limited by code
Yes, for the millionth time, I know they thought it was, they were wrong, we know better, and nothing will ever make it right no matter what we think.

no. no. no. it once was right. and still is by some moral codes.
it is not right by our moral code. it is by theirs. blanket statements do not work.

ABE:
also, the last part of your statement doesn't work. if we can decide that it's wrong, what prevents us from regressing? you go straight from a subjective determination (we know better, and your stance that societies determine the moral code) to the absolutist (no matter what we think). again, a contradiction. a relative cannot be an absolute.

Edited by kuresu, : No reason given.


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

" . . .and some nights I just pray to the god of sex and drugs and rock'n'roll"--meatloaf

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by anastasia, posted 02-20-2007 10:08 PM anastasia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by anastasia, posted 02-21-2007 9:45 AM kuresu has not yet responded

    
anastasia
Member (Idle past 4116 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 103 of 113 (386357)
02-21-2007 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by kuresu
02-20-2007 10:36 PM


Re: Morality: limited by code
kuresu writes:

no. no. no. it once was right. and still is by some moral codes.
it is not right by our moral code. it is by theirs. blanket statements do not work.

Then please, do not worry about the extremists, fundies, radicals all over the world wreaking havoc. By their code, their actions are perfectly moral. Should we stop them in this 'moral' behaviour? Or should we just say, we are different? Live and let live? I think I finally understand the reasoning of Harris. Ha ha.

also, the last part of your statement doesn't work. if we can decide that it's wrong, what prevents us from regressing? you go straight from a subjective determination (we know better, and your stance that societies determine the moral code) to the absolutist (no matter what we think). again, a contradiction. a relative cannot be an absolute.

I never said anything about 'absolute'. I said 'better' right there in the sentence you used. I have already been thrgouh this with you. Better can be subjective if you are picking out a shirt, but if you are contemplating a regression into a society where we don't recognize the rights of others, I can not fathom a time or a place when this would be better than what we are working on now.

Unless, of course, we discover like 'Men in Black' that all of our neighbors could be evil aliens out to get us, or bitten zombies... :)

Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by kuresu, posted 02-20-2007 10:36 PM kuresu has not yet responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 333 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 104 of 113 (386369)
02-21-2007 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by anastasia
02-20-2007 10:08 PM


Re: Morality: limited by code
quote:
Yes, for the millionth time, I know they thought it was, they were wrong, we know better, and nothing will ever make it right no matter what we think.

So, are you saying that absolute right and absolute wrong exist, but we won't ever really know what they are?

If so, how is that different from a nonexistent absolute morality?

Edited by nator, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by anastasia, posted 02-20-2007 10:08 PM anastasia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by anastasia, posted 02-21-2007 11:02 AM nator has not yet responded

    
anastasia
Member (Idle past 4116 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 105 of 113 (386371)
02-21-2007 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by nator
02-21-2007 10:49 AM


Re: Morality: limited by code
nator writes:

So, are you saying that absolute right and absolute wrong exist, but we won't ever really know what they are?

I have already pointed out that I do not wish to go against Admin wishes and pursue the topic of absolutes in this thread. If I can get a go-ahead, fine. At any rate, I have answered this question before, and most recently in the last few posts of thread 'Spinoza Patheism Defined'.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by nator, posted 02-21-2007 10:49 AM nator has not yet responded

    
Prev123456
7
8Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019