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.
Ahhhh.
Excellent. That makes sense.
To my mind universal truth is fact, neither moral nor immoral (as has been stated here already), the thing itself would be true whether you believed it or not and whether you acted in response to it or not. Morality is connected to virtue, a code of ethics, completely separate from truth. One can construct a moral code system around a truth he believes in but his moral behaviour is not dependant upon it because he could believe in a universal truth and still do something that morally contradicts that belief.
The statement that religion tends to be held as the highest “truth” is what opens up the subjective debate. For their to be a universal truth assigned to religion, only one religion can be correct, in which case the believers of that religion would only be moral in so far as their virtue system was consistant among the believers, but that still would not connect their virtue to the truth of their religion.
Hi Alun, I didn’t expect such an answer!
By universal, I meant universal to moral beings, i.e. to all moral beings in the universe.
Less freedom would be good if you get that which you seek freedom to attain. For the Mohammedeans, this is a rule of God on earth. I don’t know what the Nazi’s got – a stronger economy rather than human freedom? But there is reason people can be confused about what their freedom should attain, because they often seek it without knowing it. People also have a need to seek community, which they exercise sometimes to their and others’ detrement.
First, it is this theory that can explain rights as not being merely anything you want them to be – which tends to happen in politics nowadays.
Second, my dear Thrasymachus, “justice is not the advantage of the stronger”.
Finally, I was taken aback by your demand for a historical causal connection. I have addressed it philosophically, not historically. Do you want to see that it had an organic development from early times?.. Or no development at all? Tell, ya what – I might research that if I get into Master’s school, but for now, I believe people act for more than the will to power.
I guess I’m happy to have surprised you. Could you please elaborate on what you mean by “moral being” if you get a chance? Is it a being who is simply self-aware, or must it be a being who upholds a concept synonymous with happiness? And, is it possible for a human (who is fully grown and not suffering from brain-related diseases) to be an immoral or amoral being?
moral being = a person, i.e. “an individual substance of rational nature”; a being with free will
self aware: probably = a being which needs to seek happiness
I think adults are said to be immoral if they trespass against others’ rights.
I think they could be said to be amoral if their ability to choose is compromised.
mrn,
The theories of human rights are just that: theories. Justice is not the advantage of the stronger? That’s a nice sentiment, but injustice is only declared by the losers.
I’ll accept your explanation of looking at the issue philosophically and not historically, but I would point out that a philosophical position, to have credibility, must explain how and why we act out on the world. Thus, history does have an integral part to play. Philosophical statements about how we should act are simply constructs with no impact on how we act as a species or as a group within a species.
I would very much like to agree that people act for more than the will to power, and I have seen human actions that would tend to verify that, but I have seen the opposite as well, and there are many detailed explanations that suggest that there is nothing but will to power.
I understand that you are suggesting an innate morality, but there is much evidence both in philosophic formal logic as well as historical practice that counters this position.
tentative,
Perhaps I’m somewhat of an idealist,
as I judge history by philosophy
more than I judge philosophy by history.
Philosophy is causal to history,
because people act on their ideals,
and history is only an occasion to philosophy.
And perhaps there is no worse failing of the will to power
than the victory of the morally weak –
as it’s a comfort to their body,
but misery of ill-health to their soul,
and a misery to the many.
What is moral strength?
It is power of the mind through the will over the passions.
Self-control.
Perhaps the history of philosophy bears this idea out?
EDIT: It was a couple of months back I had a discussion with someone – Uniqor I think – about how if you take a rational approach to ends, Nietzsche’s will-to-power becomes like Aristotelian virtue ethics.
This is why truth should not be a-moral both in the sense that it is a constituent part of formulating and applying ethics.
mrn,
Perhaps you’re right. There are many examples of people acting on their ideals, but the sceptic in me has seen far too many examples of the opposite to place much credence in ideals as the driving force behind man’s actions.
Perhaps if humans always acted rationally, your point of view would hold, but there is far too much irrationality in our behavior. I’ve joked that sometimes how I act may depend on what I had for lunch. Unfortunately, if I’m honest, that may not be a joke. I suspect that it might apply to others as well.
The study of philosophy is really a study of the history of ideas. So many beautiful and high minded ideals! So why are we the way we are? 
I wish I knew, but I don’t.
Maybe it’s the captivity of the will by sin.