Dan~,
You present a falsity. The universe is indifferent to moral, immoral, amoral. These terms are a manmade construct. The “truth” of reality is always mediated through our constructs. Amorality is simply a refusal to accept moral or immoral constructs. There is no connection to reality in any of the three positions.
I’m sorry you’re not posting on this thread anymore. I wanted to say that this attitude bothers me. I think that we should seek the truth whether it is novel or traditional instead of the Enlightenment formulation where everyone thinks new things “for themselves”. Old thought can be good thought too.
Questions:
Isn’t taking a stand part of the universe if man is a part of the universe?
What kind of being does a moral stand not have?
Why does mediation through constructs have no being for you – doesn’t thought have being as thought?
(now this with tentative is arguing!)
mrn,
Hi. I see no argument in any of the questions you have asked. There is only persective. The point in my first post was that Dan~ had started with a false premise. He knows that, and in fact, I was agreeing with him. He knows that too. But you’ve asked, and I’ll answer as best I can. This isn’t argument, it is merely my opinion.
Yes, man is part of the universe, but taking a stand? A stand on what? We can project a construct of truth onto the universe, but it is merely our projection. What is “truth” isn’t ‘out there’, it is what we choose to project. Declaring truth may be comforting, may be empowering, but there is no connection to the reality of the universe. To put it bluntly, the universe doesn’t give a damn what we think.
A moral ‘stand’ is whatever we choose it to be. All the moral, immoral, amoral pronouncements are nothing more than social engineering designed to support power To be sure, we cover these pronouncements with all the good/bad metaphors, link it carefully to religion, even to social philosophies, but strip all that away and it is what it is: the exercise of power = coercion.
Do my constructs have being? Of course they do. I even have a working sense of what is moral or immoral - for me. I just don’t pretend that there is some immutable morality carved in stone waiting to be discovered or dispensed from on high.
“Thou art not august unless I make thee so.”
it’s as simple as this.
We agree to what’s moral.
that’s relative.
But… we absolutely know that our morals are the best.
That’s absolute.
For the moment…
Dan~
I should like very much to hear a lecture on the proper reasons to come into a thread, from the likes of you.
I agree with this completely- as my real name pointed out, these aren’t the only things in the universe, though. You and I are here too. Our moral ideas are a part of the universe as much as anything else, even though they don’t apply to rocks and nebulae.
Well, since I’m a theist, I’m bound to disagree- proper morals also concern our relationship between ourselves and our Creator, and since He also made the rocks and trees, it’s all connected.
As I’ve said, though, I agree with you that morals are subjective. My point from before was to say that even if they are, they are still not arbitrary, and there are still good reasons for religions to be caught up in them.
Scy,
If morals are “relative”, to what are they relative? The human good?
How concrete is that to which they are relative? Human nature?
If we agree on morals (as you said), why would we think them to be relative?
mrn
Morality only exists through understanding, logic, ect. Truth is neither amoral or moral, it simply is. Youve attempted to place polarity to that which cannot be polarized. Integrating opinions or facts to conceptual existences offers no better an explanation of truth beyond the conceptions themselves. Truth cannot contain within it these existences of concept, it must stand alone.
Isn’t the objective of morality to describe true things about people? For example, a man in a small village kills another person so that he can take his shovel. This killer would, according to conventional morality, be starkly emotionally damaged–by his own definition–and would further contribute notably to an emotional degradation of the community he is a part of. Plus, the actual death of the victim would hurt the community emotionally and physically. This damage to the community and to himself outweighs the usefulness of the shovel. Thus, according to our own personal aims of living, killing someone for a shovel is bad.
That’s the utilitarian/relativist perspective as best I can manage, but the point is that pretty much anyone who uses morality treats it as a truth with reasons and contexts.
Because the whole world doesn’t agree on morals. Is that “bad” though?
Does that mean we can’t judge right and wrong? If we stop judging right and wrong, then right or wrong don’t exist.
People differ on morals, but the great moral teachers of the world seem to agree on treating others how you would want to be treated. But can you give an example of cultural moral systems where it is the moral principle and not merely the application that is different? (This is a philosophy project of mine, and I ask for your critique.)
I propose that if we stop judging right and wrong, “truth” will be on the side of morality – unless maybe you propose we do morality from the heart and not from prior deep rationalization – if moral principle is based on truth.
If we stop judging right or wrong, truth wont have a side.
Right and wrong are entirely dependent on our judgement, what significance beyond their relative nature do they have in reality?
Hi my real name, I thought I’d jump into your and scythe’s crossfire:
I agree that humans are inclined to the same set of morals, even perhaps wordviews, but that does not address the question of whether or not our morals are somehow metaphysical or at least external reality–if they’re bigger than us. If they are not, then morals are relative to us; that doesn’t mean it is baseless to judge right and wrong, it means that we think things are bad because they hurt us, not because they infringe on abstract natural codes of being, or God.
I’m not sure what this means. How can “truth” have a side? I view moral principle as a derivative of true patterns in human conduct, and thus something true about us. Even if we stopped believing in morality (which would be impossible I think), those patterns would apply.
Why are we assuming there is only one kind of truth?
illative,
alun,
For Aristotle, the purpose of life is happiness – in fact he says all people would agree with this. The question is: what will make us happy? He argues that living a life of virtue – reaching our fullness of form – is what the end of life will consist in, and thereby make us happy.
Now moral laws are set up to aid in attaining and protecting our happiness. For example, in America they profess that “we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and happiness.” These are rights because they protect our happiness – a good thing in a liberal state (in any state!). Now other countries might agree with these principles: have the highest good in mind for the citizenry – but they might enact different particular civil laws to protect them. To say it another way, the state protects our needs – and I think most cultures, even primitive ones, legislate on this principle.
I don’t know whence alun’s problem with these laws being universal, but they are due to human nature, which is universal. As for references to God, if He created us in our state, universal needs and their protections would seem to be sanctioned simply by being in our nature.
Thank you.
mrn
Sorry, the disagreement seems to be simple. I didn’t read “universal” as “applying to all humans”, but rather “applying to all existance.” I think there’s an error in your application of those things to all people though; a simple contemporary example would be the Muslim world of the Middle East. An older one would be Nazism in post-depression Germany. People have wanted less freedom, and have wanted for life–like, being alive–to be something you don’t get by default.
mrn,
There are some who have suggested that the founding fathers were intentional in the phrasing of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”.
Concentric circles… life, then liberty, then pursuit of happiness.
This may be the foundation for moral principles in some parts of the world, but as A A points out, not everywhere, nor every time. To say that anyone has a “right” to anything sounds good, but history says other.
You speak of our God-given nature, and universal needs, but you would have to show some sort of causal connection historically to give those sentiments credibility. God-given moral precepts? No. Man-made rules based on the maintenance of power structure, both religious and secular.
“You speak of our God-given nature, and universal needs, but you would have to show some sort of causal connection historically to give those sentiments credibility. God-given moral precepts? No. Man-made rules based on the maintenance of power structure, both religious and secular.”
How do you reconsile that with man’s original nature, Tentative?
I would argue that we are born with a certain moral compass. This idea has been supported by various thinkers throughout time and common sense supports it.
Indeed, you need only think of monsters who were born without that moral compass and you realize how defective they are. Anyone with this compass (easily the majority of us) cringe with revulsion and terror when people speak of what they did.
Look at Post-Traumatic Stress disorder. It takes training to be able to kill another man, it breaks us as human beings.
Hi Xunzian,
Mans original nature… At base, this is the discussion of man as evil, man as good. It encompasses all the back and forth of “original sin”.
Everyone has their opinion one way or the other, but I find nothing convincing either way. Trying to extricate “original nature” from enculturation in any way convincing seems problematic in that for every example given to “prove” one position, an example of the opposite is available.
I see us as neither good nor evil, but with the capacity for both. I find nothing inherent, but only our constructs that create concepts of that which is good, and that which is evil. If there is such a thing as an inherent original nature, it is the capacity to choose, and even that is denied by the Dawkins adherents.
It seems to me that one releases such concepts of inherent morality, and acknowledges that what we choose as “moral” to be the construct that it is. The difficulty with this is that we would have to accept responsibility for ourselves and our actions. We can no longer say “the devil made me do it”, or I’m just a product of DNA evolution and can’t be held responsible.
So to sum up, there is nothing for me to reconcile. One observes the flow of nature and attempts to act in concert with, and not against. In this, true understanding is indifference to both good and evil, seeing both, and choosing one’s path.
???
That seems to be quite the argument for carving away at that block of your’s.
Au contraire.
That is the uncarved block.