Viewing Single Post From: Morality

Viewing Single Post From: Morality
Yzarc	Nov 21 2008, 07:53 PM
Coxian Posts: 3,432 Group: Veteran Member #308 Joined: July 8, 2005	Wind Sword The purpose of that argument wasn't saying that moral objectivism is true. I was saying that by definition, moral mistakes of the past are invalid arguments against it. My ultimate conclusion was "Objective morality and changing moral standards are not contradictory." In order to prove that, you have to suppose they are both true, if only for the sake of thought experiment. Fair enough. Wind Sword Now you're doing what you accused me of! Your argument is that changing morality and changing perceptions of morality aren't the same thing. To back it up, you say that morality is a social institution created by man. But to believe that, you have to take it for granted that my argument is false. It's begging the question. Actually, my argument is that perceptions of morality and morality itself are the same thing, which is sort of the exact opposite of what you're saying it is. And yes, I am saying morality is a social institution created by man, but you'll notice I'm not using that as evidence. Rather, that is my claim. Wind Sword Well I obviously believe God's the source of morals, but I'll humor you by sticking with the secular. As you should. A debate is worthless if someone argues that "God did it" because it makes it not a debate about finding or proving the truth, but about faith. Don't think you're being all awesome and humoring me. You're humoring the objective world. Wind Sword First, I don't remember saying animals can be moral. Morality has need of intelligence to express itself. If squirrels had our level of understanding, they'd probably have morals too. I'd say probably the same basic morals. But monkeys are intelligent. And we evolved from a common ancestor of them. So at what point did "morality" evolve? Is it specific to humans, or can chimps and gorillas be said to have knowledge of morality. Going further back, certainly my dogs have a sense of what we would call morality. They care for each other, they care for me, they're intelligent. So at one point on the mammalian cladogram was morality a synapomorphy? Or did it even evolve for mammals? Did it come earlier? Could it have evolved in different animals? Wind Sword Perhaps math isn't the best example. What I meant is that math was also around before humans, it just needed humans to put it to words. When you get down to it, if we were wiped out tomorrow, 2 and 2 would still equal 4, and killing an intelligent being would still be wrong. Killing an intelligent being would be wrong? To who? Certainly whoever killed that intelligent being would not feel remorse, and would not know to feel remorse. If a lion were to kill a human being, I would not say that lion is immoral. I would say it's a lion! That's what lions do. Moreover, if human beings and (since your point assumes humans are the only species with enough intelligence to conceptualize morality) intelligent beings were wiped out then how would anything go about killing an intelligent being? Unless killing a monkey is wrong? So you can't kill a monkey because it's smart, but a monkey can't be moral or immoral because it isn't smart. There are too many invisible lines that you seem to draw at completely arbitrary places. Wind Sword Politically incorrect, yes. Ignorant, far from. I'd definitely say it's ignorant. At least you didn't go so far as to say which morals are right and wrong. Wind Sword If moral objectivism is true, then yes, some cultures would have to be less moral. I'm not being ethnocentric, if anything our culture would probably be in the lower half. It's an uncomfortable idea. The alternative, however, is that all cultural morality is relative. Under this understanding, Nazi Germany, the Vatican, and modern-day United States are equally moral and immoral. It also robs us of the ability of criticize other cultures for even the worst atrocities. What's worse, saying that our culture today is no more or less moral than our culture before, you deny that moral progress is even possible. Ultimately, I'd say the uncomfortable position that cultures can be morally superior to others is far more comfortable than the concept that Nazis and priests are morally equal. I'm not trying to prove that my idea is the most comfortable. Who cares what makes us feel good? Shouldn't we strive to know the truth rather than what makes us feel happy? Of course you want to be able to justifiably throw out blame to Hitler. You want to criticize cultures for the worst atrocities according to our view of morality. But just because you want to do it doesn't justify it. Wind Sword Under this understanding, Nazi Germany, the Vatican, and modern-day United States are equally moral and immoral. No, I'm not saying that everyone is equally moral. Rather, I'm saying something quite different and perhaps even more uncomfortable for the fundamentalist world view - Morality is a concept, not an actual thing. So, really, I am not saying that Nazi Germany and the United States are morally equal. I'm just saying they have different views of morality. And that's all. I'm not comparing one set of morality to another and trying to say they're all just as good and awesome. Because certainly under my view of morality, Nazi Germany was very immoral. But that's my view. Their view was different. My view says they were wrong. But it's only wrong to the people that believe it is wrong. Wind Sword Who says morals today are perfect? And it's plain wrong to say that if morals were set in stone, they'd be the same. People are flawed. We tell ourselves something is right when it isn't. At what point will a person have a perfect conception of morality? Is it possible? I know I think my conception of morality is perfect. You think your conception of morality is perfect. Every single person in the world thinks that they know what is right or wrong. There are very few things that I am ambiguous about morally. The one concern that comes to mind for me is abortion. But if morals do change all the time, and they're not even agreed upon by different people of the same time, how can we possibly say which morals are right and which are wrong? And if we cannot say which are right and wrong, it's a ridiculous claim to say that some are right and some wrong. Of course, according to certain views of morality, some views would be wrong. According to our view of morality (since I assume you and I share somewhat the same morals) Hitler's view of morality was wrong. But we are inherently biased because we have a particular and differing view of morality, so we are utterly unfit to judge the morality of others. Wind Sword ? I don't recall saying society doesn't matter. I was just saying poverty wasn't. You can have a very pious, functioning society that's also dirt poor. Yes. You can. But it's very difficult to do so in the United States because of the way things are. I'm not sure exactly what to pin it on, because it's not one particular thing. Probably the most significant thing, though, is that as Americans, we put value on materialism, and so it is impossible for the poor to become as good as the middle and upper class, because it's so natural to place your self worth on how much you own. It's mostly speculation, but it doesn't matter because that's not my point. My point is that these are American people that are, for some reason or another, committing acts that we would call immoral. But instead of looking at why, and trying to change that, all you want to do is say "Oh well, they're evil, let's put them in prison." If poverty didn't matter in relation to crime, then most criminals would not come from poverty. There would be an equal distribution, but there definitely is not. Wind Sword What causes parents to raise a criminal? Probably NOT raising your child. Neglect, failing to discipline a kid. What causes that? Laziness, selfishness, apathy. Same things that make you walk out on your kid. How a person raises his or her child is directly related to the class he or she is in. How you cannot see that is utterly beyond me.


Morality · Debate Forum