A personal morality

Please, do not presume to know my inner thoughts and drives. You have absolutely no idea what I do or do not question. What you wrote here says more about you than about me. Again, this is presumptuous and also bordering on offensive. Please, stop it. I'm not trying to bury you, I am just analyzing what you say and bringing some flaws in your reasoning, as I perceive them, to the surface. That's what I think is the right thing to do. Is that how you perceive this? That I hate you? I don't even know you, so how can I hate you? What did I say that makes you think so? Was it your "dreadful state of mind" I mentioned? That's not hate, that's pity. Anyway, if you take offense at it, I apologize.Now let's continue, quite dispassionately, to demolish each other's position, shall we?---"I get my morality from exactly the same source as a Christian does, and it's not the Bible. I can prove that, challenge me." - Parasomnium.Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given.Edited by Parasomnium, : Spelling

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Rob,Per the guidelines: Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics.Your style is invasive and disprespectful, please stop.As the Encyclopedia Brittanica states on debate: Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.General note to participants: Please respond to arguments that actually pertain to the topic.Please direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread.

​

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

I was not expecting a warm reception from my last few posts.
Yes, I came back on because I was wondering what the Dunces were going to do. jar raises an insignificant point about the writing of the dialogues. Who cares?Anyway, you have a respectable inquiry.Morality is knowledge.

quote:

---

For you have agreed that those who go wrong in their choice of pleasures and pains-which is to say, of good and bad things-go wrong from lack of knowledge, and not merely of knowledge, but, as you have already further conceded, of measurement. -Socrates

---

The man that has the knowledge cannot do wrong. For the man that has the knowledge of pleasure and pain, good and bad will be able to measure the good and the bad of an action. This man will not succumb to the illusion of immediate gratification because he can measure the good from the bad wholly.There cannot be more than one truth. If a culture believes good of the practice of suttee and another doesn't, it cannot be both right to some and wrong to others. Knowledge lends a discerning eye to man. Relativism destroys tolerance and the meaning thereof. Relativism is bullshit.IgnatiusEdited by ethics, : No reason given.

I take no offense. I know that's what it is and I wished for some help to make my thinking process a little less sloppy. The way this thread is headed it looks like just another absolute vs. relative morality thread.
That's why the "I really don't want this topic to go down this way" RobI'm still trying to figure out Crash's post so it may be some while till I post again.

I'm sorry; I didn't mean to post riddles. Let me take another stab at telling you something that, to me, is as simple as can be.You're worried that, if you embrace a certain philosophical position on the nature of morality, you'll take actions that, currently, you consider immoral.I see this as basically impossible on one hand, and irrelevant on the other. One of two things must be true:1) We're talking about something you have no desire to do under any circumstances, currently. Coming to a new understanding of where morality comes from and what morality means isn't going to make you do things you don't want to do. You're in no danger of taking actions that you feel are wrong - any more than you are now, anyway.2) We're talking about something that you do want to do, but you feel your moral community - that could be your family, or your friends, or your society - disapproves. In that case, a new understanding of the nature of morality might very well leave you feeling more free to do those things, but so what? If you only think they're wrong because others disapprove, and not because of any intrinsic harm, then perhaps your community is simply wrong about them being immoral. As you've perceived, groups of people can have very funny ideas about what is moral and what is immoral, and when you find yourself in disagreement, there's nothing inherently wrong about letting your own conscience be your guide, even when it conflicts with others. Living by your own conscience is what it means to be an adult, to take control of your life. You're the one that has to live your life; no one can make your choices for you because they don't know what you know. They're not in your shoes.Does that help? Again, I'm not telling you to live without a conscience. Far from it. But when your conscience is in conflict with the conscience of others, there's nothing inherently wrong with living as you see fit. The only consideration should be how your actions will help or harm yourself and others - not whether or not society, friends, or family approve of those actions.Like I said it's as simple as can be. There's no riddles here.

I know evidence highly points towards relative morality but I still can't be certain. Because if there actually was an objective standard of morality, it would be pretty bad if I had done some things believing in making my own morality instead of "obeying" the objective moral code.Come to think of it now. How would I ever know I'm doing something "objectively" good and not just something I think is objectively good.... Aww nuts Edited by Neutralmind, : No reason given.Edited by Neutralmind, : No reason given.

If you were punished for not dotting your i's and crossing your t's, even though you thought you were doing what was right to the best of your knowledge, then is that objective moral code a code of Good or a code of Evil?The latter, I should think. And how could following a morally evil code be something that you would want to do?

quote:

---

Because if there actually was an objective standard of morality, it would be pretty bad if I had done some things believing in making my own morality instead of "obeying" the objective moral code.

---

But how does an objective standard help you? You still have to try and figure out just what it is, and so you end up "making it up" as you go along anyway. So you're still in the same boat.

quote:

---

How would I ever know I'm doing something "objectively" good and not just something I think is objectively good

---

Oops...you already figured this out.-But there is a more serious error in logic here.To wit:

quote:

---

I know evidence highly points towards relative morality but I still can't be certain.

---

Why aren't you certain?

quote:

---

Because if there actually was an objective standard of morality, it would be pretty bad if I had done some things believing in making my own morality instead of "obeying" the objective moral code.

---

But this has nothing to do with whether there is or is not an objective standard. What you seem to be saying is (in syllogistic form):If there are objective standards of morality, then there will be consequences for not obeying them.
If there are objective standards and I disobey them, then I will suffer consequences.
Therefore, there might be objective standards of morality.If this is what you are saying, then I hope that you see where it fails.

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

Yeah well, I guess it has not much to do with my view of morality. Come to think of it, I just don't think I would enjoy a one night stand to be honest.
But that's just one thing, I think there's something I'd want to do but won't because I think it's wrong in my view of morality. And would be changed if I was certain that morality is relative and so isn't actually true. I feel a lot would change, I just can't point my finger on it Actually, most of my friends are what I consider immoral, drink, have one night stands, some use drugs, don't think about morality etc. . It's not my parents influencing me either.
If I suddenly changed my way of life to "immoral" I would actually be more approved everywhere I go. So it's not that there's outside pressure influencing me. But, that's what I'm saying aren't I? I have to meet those responsibilities 'cause I owe it... To life.

Well, it came clearer with a little more focus (and not trying to solve it 4am in the morning) so it was a good riddle It just happens neither is true. I'm not sure where I stand on this as it is too late to think clearly once again now. I'll post in a day or two.

quote:

---

But that's just one thing, I think there's something I'd want to do but won't because I think it's wrong in my view of morality.

---

As you have already asked yourself, how would you know whether this would be against some alleged "absolute moral code" to begin with?

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

i bolded the false part. a relative morality is still true--but only for you.

But you don't know what it is? It sounds like you're worried about nothing. For whatever reason you feel you have to meet responsibilities, that won't change just because you accept moral relativism. If you failed to meet your responsibilities, you'd be letting someone down. Maybe yourself! I don't see how that would change.Honestly? I think you're already a moral relativist, you just aren't yet willing to admit it to yourself. That's not uncommon; it took a year before I could admit to myself that I was an atheist. But in the end somebody asked, and I decided I was tired of prevaricating about it. It was a lot longer before I felt I could let my parents know.

Prediction:

quote:

---

In anticipating your response as a given (Didn't have to think about this): No, neo-conservatism is not important.

---

Crashfrog's actual response:

quote:

---

I don't, really. But the degree to which the thought of Strauss has affected the modern American political landscape, particularly modern conservatism, means that it's idiotic to assert that Strauss is some kind of insignificant figure.

---

LOLI am obviously not ignorant of Leo Strauss. How could you say such a thing where I've written everything you know about him in a nutshell?

quote:

---

Do you have a reply to my arguments, or not?

---

I'm sorry. You have an argument?If a person believes an action is wrong and another believes it to be right, who is right?Did you read my post equating morality to knowledge. It might help your distorted worldview. I was not simply calling you names. I was encouraging you to actually read the books of the names you throw around like you know what you're talking about.You haven't the slightest idea what morality is. You've never truly studied it. Is it wrong to let others know that you have no authority on the subject?Attack my response to Stile please.

Now you`ve opened an entirely new can of warms. Why would those things be considered immoral? but I suppose this question might be off topic here.But consider that:
I may have had one or two one night stands in my entire life. If I said I didn`t enjoy them, I would be lying. So why haven`t I had any more? simply put, I enjoy long term relationships even more. But other people may have different inclinations. I don`t feel the need to label their behaviour as immoral, though. If a couple decides to have a one-time-fling, how does that hurt me or anybody else? How could I honestly lable their behaviour as immoral?