NationStates Jolt Archive

Riamole your posts are insulting and degrading to the discussion, either stop with the "you're a joke" and "you're too stupid to understand" crap or stop posting here.

If God is comprised of "infinite" characteristics, and no one can understand "infinity," then neither are you in any position to make any particular claim about the nature or existance of God. Right? Seems to me you just refuted your own argument.

The only claims that I make about the "nature or existance of God" is what He Himself has revealed. Beyond that I'm helpless.

I think I like this dude.

No-one takes a life without a reason. It's an empty statement. Check your assumptions.

Riamole your posts are insulting and degrading to the discussion, either stop with the "you're a joke" and "you're too stupid to understand" crap or stop posting here.
You insult me and then demand that I stop insulting others? I wouldn't respond to this post, but...
The "you're a joke" line that you're referring to was in response to Melkor labelling something else a joke. Neither of us got personal; I did not call HIM a joke. Please don't misrepresent the story.
When did I call someone too stupid to understand something? The part about how no one can grasp infinity? Yes, I'll admit: I publicly stated that all of humanity, including myself, is too "stupid" (to put it in your words, not mine) to "understand" infinity.

No-one takes a life without a reason. It's an empty statement. Check your assumptions.
....?

How does one arrive to this reply after my "I think I like this dude" remark?

I find it odd that you would bring something up to prove a point, but then insist that it not be discussed. However, I'll go easy and not discuss it.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=443453
Don't "go easy" I don't want mercy.

Sure, we could impose our thoughts of right and wrong on animals (assuming you hold us higher in the hierarchy). However, where do we get our ideas of right and wrong if there's nothing above us? Majority rules? Might be hard to poll everyone. In any case, it was the majority's fault for electing Bush (assuming you're anti-Bush; I'm relatively neutral on the matter). And this world has massacres and genocides, sponsored by the majority, to this day. That would only make sense if we ourselves were ultimate. It would only make sense if we were ourselves infallible. Sadly, we're not.

I said specifically in previous posts I'm not for majority rule. There was a system called Aristocracy, in which the best people made the rules.

You insult me and then demand that I stop insulting others? I wouldn't respond to this post, but...
The "you're a joke" line that you're referring to was in response to Melkor labelling something else a joke. Neither of us got personal; I did not call HIM a joke. Please don't misrepresent the story.
When did I call someone too stupid to understand something? The part about how no one can grasp infinity? Yes, I'll admit: I publicly stated that all of humanity, including myself, is too "stupid" (to put it in your words, not mine) to "understand" infinity.
Bjorn, as much as I hate to admit it, s/he's right. The 'joke' [or, more accurately the 'laughable assumption'] argument was made in reference to an idea, not a person. Rigamole, while I'm not likely to agree with him/her on almost any moral issue, is not breaking any forum rules at present.

Ok. I misread.

But denouncing an argument as a joke is not helping the discussion, or saying that we are not capable of certain thoughts is not getting us anywhere.

Not insulting,
Just not getting anywhere.

My apologies

The only claims that I make about the "nature or existance of God" is what He Himself has revealed. Beyond that I'm helpless.

What I'm hearing is: "I can claim that God said 'X', but if anyone asks me to demonstrate that God actually did so, or even exists, I can claim ignorance because God is 'infinite.'" (EDIT: This is simply too convienient )

....?

How does one arrive to this reply after my "I think I like this dude" remark?

His entire justification for not going on a killing spree was that it would be wrong for him to take a life without a reason. But the plain fact is that no-one takes a life without a reason: There is always a reason, you just may not agree with it, is all.

He's kidding, right? You honestly think that value is impossible without God?
Why did you do that? Please try to understand where I am coming from here (this is the part where I hate not being able to talk to the person face to face: I'm not trying to be a jerk or being sarcastic or anything like that, I'm being sincere). Values exist, but the ones that CAN'T exist without God or other supernatural existence are absolute values. With only the natural world, you can have values, but they can only ever be your own. They can never be real truth.

Both appear to be equally legitimate points of view, from where I sit. God, since he supposdly exists beynd the realm of logic and reason, cannot therefore be used interchangeably with these concepts. God cannot both be reason and 'above' reason any more than he can exist 'above' and within' nature at the same time.
Well, I don't really see as how He IS 'above' reason. He is reason. He is, however, above OUR reason/judgement/knowledge of right and wrong, etc. Our only hope is that we can come ever closer to a realization of His perfect knowledge of all these things. Are we talking about the same things? I think the two of us might have two different things in mind.

I said specifically in previous posts I'm not for majority rule. There was a system called Aristocracy, in which the best people made the rules.
*hearty guffaw*

Ok. I misread.

But denouncing an argument as a joke is not helping the discussion, or saying that we are not capable of certain thoughts is not getting us anywhere.

Not insulting,
Just not getting anywhere.
Perhaps, but it's difficult to resist the occasional editorial. I never really had very high hopes for this argument 'getting anywhere' in the first place. As a general rule, I debate in order to facilitate some sort of thought process within my opponent's mind. I'm content with myself so long as I am capable of making them think, since I understand that changing peoples' minds on moral issues is generally a practical impossibility. It kind of sucks, in a way, when I argue here because unlike a person-to-person debate, I frequently have few tools at my disposal with which to determine whether or not I've actually succeeded. Most of the time, people already know how they're going to respond before even reading to the end of my post; and it shows. Every once in a while, though, I get some sort of sign that makes my success obvious, but they're few and far between.

If God is reason, I'm no longer an atheist.
*self revelation*

His entire justification for not going on a killing spree was that it would be wrong for him to take a life without a reason. But the plain fact is that no-one takes a life without a reason: There is always a reason, you just may not agree with it, is all.

Er... if I'm understanding DC correctly, I think he meant to apply the concept 'reason' in a broader sense; i.e. that murder is wrong because it doesn't make any goddamn sense in the first place. Saying that it would be OK to kill someone 'for a reason' is a bit vague.

Er... if I'm understanding DC correctly, I think he meant to apply the concept 'reason' in a broader sense; i.e. that murder is wrong because it doesn't make any goddamn sense in the first place. Saying that it would be OK to kill someone 'for a reason' is a bit vague.

So it's okay if there is a "good" reason then?

Seriously, this is all over the place.

Well, I don't really see as how He IS 'above' reason. He is reason. He is, however, above OUR reason/judgement/knowledge of right and wrong, etc.


I thought we determined that no one is in a position to make any claims about the nature of God? :)

If God is reason, I'm no longer an atheist.
*self revelation*
Of course, one doesn't mean that God is literally reason in solid (?) form. Rather, that he is the ultimate source of reason, and of goodness, and of knowledge, etc. You may believe in reason, but if you base that reason on a natural world basis, you're an atheist.

So it's okay if there is a "good" reason then?

Seriously, this is all over the place.
Simply put? Yes. If someone attempts to kill me or someone close to me [hell, or anyone else for that matter], his rights are forefit since he quite obviously forced someone elses' rights out the window in the first place.

Short of this, there really isn't a 'good' reason. Any other justification for murder [personal gain, pleasure, expediency etc etc] is based on faulty principles: i.e. it's based on something other than the preserverance and furtherance of life and rational consistency.

*hearty guffaw*

I'm kinda a newb at the online linguistics and human behavior in general, was that a 'yea' or a 'nay'?

I thought we determined that no one is in a position to make any claims about the nature of God? :)
I was about to reply to Rigamole's post [which, amusingly enough, only answers to a small portion of my previous arguments], but you had to come along and steal my thunder now didnt you? :p

Actually, on second thought that's kind of cool. I've been a one-man front for some time now. It's nice to see something that looks a little bit like backup.

EDIT: and just so I can say I contributed one last thing to the thread before hitting the sack, I'll rephrase DC's argument slightly.

If God is above OUR reason/logic/etc, etc then how, exactly does one arrive to the conclusion that he is reason? If he is infinite [and therfore, his qualities are impossible to judge], how do we define him?

I thought we determined that no one is in a position to make any claims about the nature of God? :)
Well, He's told us as much, that He knows something that we don't.
"The wise man knows that he knows nothing," "I am the Way, the Light, and the Truth," "That your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God," "I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser," and the list of Bible passages goes on.

Well, He's told us as much, that He knows something that we don't.
"The wise man knows that he knows nothing," "I am the Way, the Light, and the Truth," "That your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God," "I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser," and the list of Bible passages goes on.

Maybe God (or gods) is afraid that we might become as intelligent as he is, and thus told us this to keep us off track.
Even gods have hidden agendas.

Riga--just a friendly note, I'd avoid relying too heavily on Bible passages on this forum: most people trust them about as much as I trust politicians; that is to say, not at all. The predominant belief here is that the Bible contains equal parts history, fact, and pizza. I'm sorry, but a more or less open source 'divine manual' is a bit suspicious. For a long time, monks were the only people who could read and write, which meant that they effectively controlled all information. Taken with the Christian belief that men are predisposed towards sinning in the first place, the consistency of the Bible becomes a self defeating concept. If men are so prone to sin, I highly doubt that the Bible has remained completely unchanged since it was originally penned.

I was about to reply to Rigamole's post [which, amusingly enough, only answers to a small portion of my previous arguments], but you had to come along and steal my thunder now didnt you? :p

Actually, on second thought that's kind of cool. I've been a one-man front for some time now. It's nice to see something that looks a little bit like backup.

.....
(dumbfounded silence)
"one-man front"? "backup"?
First off, it's not a fight.
Second off, several people (at least three) have been responding directly to me since I first posted. You seem to be in disagreement with Flintoff about something, but it's not what we're talking about currently.

Oops, didn't want to get in trouble again for not answering every single iota of every single one of your messages. So uh yeah, I'm acknowledging that you said that I haven't. And that it was amusing. Very... what's the word? A mix of dishonest, lowhanded, and cheap, I guess. You haven't quoted everything that I've said back to me either. Not a big deal for either of us. Until you posted this message (and went off on that tangent about how you never have hope for threads like these), neither one of us was dodging blows or not facing anything.

Well, He's told us as much, that He knows something that we don't.


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9630706&postcount=259

Sorry, I should have specified. DC appears to share many of my observations concerning values and morality. I meant it in a more general sense; that it's good to see someone else out there that comes somewhat close to my particular value structure.

I'm an Objectivist, and I suspect DC is close. So far, I'm the only one that I know of that posts regularly here.

.....
Oops, didn't want to get in trouble again for not answering every single iota of every single one of your messages. So uh yeah, I'm acknowledging that you said that I haven't. And that it was amusing. Very... what's the word? A mix of dishonest, lowhanded, and cheap, I guess. You haven't quoted everything that I've said back to me either. Not a big deal for either of us.

Aheheh.... yeah I have. When I debate on this forum, I answer my opponents sentence for sentence. Exceptions are few and far between. Excepting your first post here, I have done so in the two or three instances where we've had things to argue about.

Until you posted this message (and went off on that tangent about how you never have hope for threads like these), neither one of us was dodging blows or not facing anything.
You're half right. I can point you to a few examples if you'd like, but it looks like DC is doing most of my work for me.

Short of this, there really isn't a 'good' reason. Any other justification for murder [personal gain, pleasure, expediency etc etc] is based on faulty principles: i.e. it's based on something other than the preserverance and furtherance of life and rational consistency.

So you oppose the death penalty then?

With all due respect you are simply handing out a set of "givens"; that the preservation of life and rational consistency are the ultimate goals. Yet there is no evidence to support that those are the only bases for action.

I hate to be obtuse, but you have proffered a set of conditions which you believe to be the correct ones for making any given decision, without expanding upon why you came to select them in the first place - other than the fact that they are self-evident. That is hardly objective.

Aheheh.... yeah I have. When I debate on this forum, I answer my opponents sentence for sentence. Exceptions are few and far between. Excepting your first post here, I have done so in the two or three instances where we've had things to argue about.
*sigh* I really don't want to get bogged down in this silly, inconsequential point, but....
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9630710&postcount=261
You only responded to the second half, ignoring the first one completely. And, who care? I don't. It doesn't matter. In the slightest.

*edit* well it appears that I dont quite have the knack for linking things down yet... harumph! Oh wait, there we go...
This is it. Man. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9630710&postcount=261)
PPPS: Whoa, I DID just notice this ginormous post you made earlier on that I completely miss. my bad. Thinking that I ignored that one would give credence to the claim that I was ignoring posts I'll admit. Sorry.

So you oppose the death penalty then?
Depends on the nature of the case, and whether or not I'm paying money to keep $INMATE in prison purely on virtue of his alleged misdeeds. If, for example, a man was videotaped slaying his victim, or some other evidence proved his guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt, I'd have no problem with the death penalty.

However, given our current system, I'm loathe to trust almost anyone in my government to come to a rational conclusion about almost anything. Since I might still remain skeptical of the verdict, I'm on the fence about the Death Penalty. I judge it on a case-by-case basis whenever I'm lucky enough to be afforded the necessary information.

With all due respect you are simply handing out a set of "givens"; that the preservation of life and rational consistency are the ultimate goals. Yet there is no evidence to support that those are the only bases for action.
When did I say they were the only basis for action? They're the only moral basis for action, but one is just as capable of action upon irrational desies as he is capable of acting upon rational ones. Almost any emotion or cognitive construct can be seen as a 'basis for action,' but that doesn't make them valid ones.

I hate to be obtuse, but you have proffered a set of conditions which you believe to be the correct ones for making any given decision, without expanding upon why you came to select them in the first place - other than the fact that they are self-evident. That is hardly objective.
I'm sorry, I didn't know you all expected me to sit down and write a freaking book on the subject. If you want to know why I selected them, go to a library. If you want to debate said selection [assuming you're familiar with it], you can go ahead and stay here. I have neithr the time nor patience to dissect Objectivist epistemology every time it's brought up.

So you oppose the death penalty then?

With all due respect you are simply handing out a set of "givens"; that the preservation of life and rational consistency are the ultimate goals. Yet there is no evidence to support that those are the only bases for action.

I hate to be obtuse, but you have proffered a set of conditions which you believe to be the correct ones for making any given decision, without expanding upon why you came to select them in the first place - other than the fact that they are self-evident. That is hardly objective.

The death penalty is implemented by society to deter the destruction of its own individuals.
If the death penalty worked as it was intended (to scare everyone into not killing other people) then it would be a moral that supported the survival of society.

*sigh* I really don't want to get bogged down in this silly, inconsequential point, but....
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9630710&postcount=261
You only responded to the second half, ignoring the first one completely. And, who care? I don't. It doesn't matter. In the slightest.
I didn't respond to the first half because you were clarifying a concept that I actually understood [and, as you can guess, that I disagreed with]the first time around. You're basically repeating yourself, saying that absolute moral values can't exist without a God. Seeing as it's an issue that's currently being beaten to death, I ignored it.

So, perhaps I lied when I said that I respond to people sentence for sentence. I guess I only do it when they actually formulate new arguments.

I'm an Objectivist, and I suspect DC is close. So far, I'm the only one that I know of that posts regularly here.


I try to avoid the capitalized ideologies. I don't think of myself as a Libertarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian), but rather a libertarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_%28metaphysics%29). Like wise, I am not an Objectivist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivist_philosophy), but rather an objectivist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objective_morality). The capitalized ideologies tend to carry political baggage that I do not necessarily agree with or advocate. Professor Bernardo de la Paz says, in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Robert A. Heinlein:

"A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as 'state' and 'society' and 'government' have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame. . . as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and nowhere else. But being rational, he knows that not all individuals hold his evaluations, so he tries to live perfectly in an imperfect world. . . aware that his effort will be less than perfect yet undismayed by self-knowledge of self-failure."

I would add "ideology" along with "state," "society," and "government." Dissonant Cognition is Dissonant Cognition. :D

Depends on the nature of the case, and whether or not I'm paying money to keep $INMATE in prison purely on virtue of his alleged misdeeds. If, for example, a man was videotaped slaying his victim, or some other evidence proved his guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt, I'd have no problem with the death penalty.

However, given our current system, I'm loathe to trust almost anyone in my government to come to a rational conclusion about almost anything. Since I might still remain skeptical of the verdict, I'm on the fence about the Death Penalty. I judge it on a case-by-case basis whenever I'm lucky enough to be afforded the necessary information.


When did I say they were the only basis for action? They're the only moral basis for action, but one is just as capable of action upon irrational desies as he is capable of acting upon rational ones. Almost any emotion or cognitive construct can be seen as a 'basis for action,' but that doesn't make them valid ones.


I'm sorry, I didn't know you all expected me to sit down and write a freaking book on the subject. If you want to know why I selected them, go to a library. If you want to debate said selection [assuming you're familiar with it], you can go ahead and stay here. I have neithr the time nor patience to dissect Objectivist epistemology every time it's brought up.

Alright, I'll admit that I was snide with the death penalty comment. I apologize.

But I am confused with what you are saying - hence the pissiness. As far as I see it you are saying that there is a definite valid moral basis for any given action, which is the only moral valid basis and all actions not based upon that foundation is neither moral, or valid. Indeed, even though any other decision may be be qualititaively the same, it is still flawed because it is based upon a faulty moral principal. (If I have misunderstood your point, then I apologize again).

So I suppose my point is, that you have selected a set of principles which are moral absolutes, but I cannot see why they are any better or worse from a purely objective standpoint than any other - except you find them more satisfying. As you said, almost any emotional or cognative construct can serve as a basis for action, but I am questioning as to why you consider the ones you have chosen as valid, and the ones you have rejected as not.

If you don't consider this a valid line of questioning then fair enough also.

Yes.

I would like to say one more thing before I leave this debate alone:

The opening question of this thread was 'Do moral absolutes exist?' and over 17 pages, many topics were discussed: rape, murder, child molestation, cannibalism, etc. And usually there were people on both sides of the debate.

I believe that, since a debate like this exists, there cannot be any moral absolute. An absolute in any instance can only exist if 100% of the human population agrees. but if even one person out of nearly 7 billion disagrees with a given moral standard, the doubt exists, and therefore, the moral absolute cannot exist. There are rights and there are wrongs, but nothing is 100% simply because not every one agrees.

Wickedness is a myth invented by good peole to account for the curious attractivness of others.

O.O.W.W.

However, where do we get our ideas of right and wrong if there's nothing above us?
I find this comment rather sad. I'm also sad that no one wants to pick up on my earlier remarks about the difference between morals and ethics (not complaining, just mentioning ;) ). The above comment indicates a lack of belief in human reason, compassion, fellow-feeling. It rejects the principles of free will and personal responsibility. It reminds me of a question I hear often these days -- "If it weren't for god, what would stop people from killing each other?" I don't need god to tell me it's wrong to hurt others. I feel that way because I identify with others and can imagine myself in their position. Frankly, if you can't feel for others, if you really believe you can only know right from wrong if god tells you so, then I wouldn't want to live next door to you. I can't help wondering what would happen if someday, god's instructions let you down (after all, you seem to be expecting quite a lot from him).

"A man must have a pretty poor moral sense, if he needs religion to make a gentleman of him." -- Benjamin Disraeli (?)

I would like to say one more thing before I leave this debate alone:

The opening question of this thread was 'Do moral absolutes exist?' and over 17 pages, many topics were discussed: rape, murder, child molestation, cannibalism, etc. And usually there were people on both sides of the debate.

I believe that, since a debate like this exists, there cannot be any moral absolute. An absolute in any instance can only exist if 100% of the human population agrees. but if even one person out of nearly 7 billion disagrees with a given moral standard, the doubt exists, and therefore, the moral absolute cannot exist. There are rights and there are wrongs, but nothing is 100% simply because not every one agrees.
This has already been addressed, actually. I've pointed out a number of tmes that people are just as capable of disagreeing over fact as they are capable of disagreeing over opinion or heresay. For example, I'm certain a number of astronomers are in conflict about the nature and properties of neutron stars, but the mere fact that they can't all agree yet doesn't make them all wrong, or conversely, it doesn't make them all right either.

Moral fact, like any other fact, rests on a hierarchy of knowledge that must first be properly denoted. If an error lies somewhere within said knowledge structure , the conclusions one comes to based upon this knowledge are likely to be correspondingly worthless.

Sorry, but I can't sympathize with your solemnity over the given comment.

When you mention that believing in God results in likewise believing in a lack of free will, your rejecting the question over why God does not prevent mistakes and disasters if he's all perfect. God has given man free will and does not intervene since he "wants" us to learn the truth over how things occur and their consequences.

Morals do not define right or wrong (correctness). They only define the results of an action given faith in the given moral (morals are in a sense circumstantial). Like stated earlier, an act can be both moral (adj.) and immoral since situations can present cases on both sides, hence you often hear the phrase, "The lesser of two evils."

Also like stated earlier, absolute morals DO exist, but they are not what matter. The perception of the given morals is what matters. No conscious and sentinent being is perfect and we can only determine the truth through comparison and contrasts.

Also, do not confuse morals with drama. Some people do this when trying to define morals and becoming over-excited. Drama is the over-extension of emotion meant to compensate for the under-comprehension of reality. Morals are natural rules of the universe that define existence. Offen, we convince ourselves that which is dramatic to be moral since it fulfills a void of understanding. Likewise, actions can be moral and dramatic, but the motivation or definition of one strain of thought should not be used in the discovery or development of the other.

Sorry, but I can't sympathize with your solemnity over the given comment.

When you mention that believing in God results in likewise believing in a lack of free will, your rejecting the question over why God does not prevent mistakes and disasters if he's all perfect. God has given man free will and does not intervene since he "wants" us to learn the truth over how things occur and their consequences.

Morals do not define right or wrong (correctness). They only define the results of an action given faith in the given moral (morals are in a sense circumstantial). Like stated earlier, an act can be both moral (adj.) and immoral since situations can present cases on both sides, hence you often hear the phrase, "The lesser of two evils."

Also like stated earlier, absolute morals DO exist, but they are not what matter. The perception of the given morals is what matters. No conscious and sentinent being is perfect and we can only determine the truth through comparison and contrasts.

Also, do not confuse morals with drama. Some people do this when trying to define morals and becoming over-excited. Drama is the over-extension of emotion meant to compensate for the under-comprehension of reality. Morals are natural rules of the universe that define existence. Offen, we convince ourselves that which is dramatic to be moral since it fulfills a void of understanding. Likewise, actions can be moral and dramatic, but the motivation or definition of one strain of thought should not be used in the discovery or development of the other.
I'm assuming from the context that you were responding to my last post.

I didn't mean that believing in god is rejecting free will (since free will is part of religious philosophy for many). I meant that relying solely on a force perceived to be outside oneself for moral/ethical guidance is a rejection of free will.

Although I don't worship god, I still agree completely with the first 2 paragraphs of your post. I'm sorry, but I couldn't quite follow the rest of it concerning drama. Please see my earlier posts for my stance on the different functions of morals and ethics. You will see that I consider *morals* to be situational but *ethics* to be closer to absolute, even though they may not be moral.

For the record, I don't believe in absolutes, in the absolute sense of the word. ;)

I find this comment rather sad. I'm also sad that no one wants to pick up on my earlier remarks about the difference between morals and ethics (not complaining, just mentioning ;) ). The above comment indicates a lack of belief in human reason, compassion, fellow-feeling. It rejects the principles of free will and personal responsibility. It reminds me of a question I hear often these days -- "If it weren't for god, what would stop people from killing each other?" I don't need god to tell me it's wrong to hurt others. I feel that way because I identify with others and can imagine myself in their position. Frankly, if you can't feel for others, if you really believe you can only know right from wrong if god tells you so, then I wouldn't want to live next door to you. I can't help wondering what would happen if someday, god's instructions let you down (after all, you seem to be expecting quite a lot from him).

"A man must have a pretty poor moral sense, if he needs religion to make a gentleman of him." -- Benjamin Disraeli (?)

Is this a "golden rule" sort of argument?

I have a hypothetical: Let's say there is a race that actually enjoys killing other members of its race, and that the general feeling is that this is ok. Doing so would be considered "compassionate." Would it still be right, since doing so is a way of relating with others?

I would like to re-propose my first thesis:

Any moral system protects and harbors the weakest of the society. If it didn't that society would not have survived to claim its morals were "right."
If a society said killing was ok most of the time, it would destroy itself. Even if it didn't it would go against human instinct, which at least dictates we not kill our family. Morality is a human adaptation to its environment, since nature could not provide us with a good enough dictate through instinct alone, we derived these laws from our instinctual strive for survival, and if they worked to maintain society, then we looked back and proclaimed its as "good."

I have a hypothetical: Let's say there is a race that actually enjoys killing other members of its race, and that the general feeling is that this is ok. Doing so would be considered "compassionate." Would it still be right, since doing so is a way of relating with others?

I would like to re-propose my first thesis:

Any moral system protects and harbors the weakest of the society. If it didn't that society would not have survived to claim its morals were "right."
If a society said killing was ok most of the time, it would destroy itself. Even if it didn't it would go against human instinct, which at least dictates we not kill our family. Morality is a human adaptation to its environment, since nature could not provide us with a good enough dictate through instinct alone, we derived these laws from our instinctual strive for survival, and if they worked to maintain society, then we looked back and proclaimed its is "good."
Your hypothetical reminds me of the Star Trek episode, where people engaged in a weaponless interplanetary war voluntarily marched into disintegration booths to be counted as 'casualties.' Star Trek (and the old Outer Limits) was always good for posing moral dilemmas and then resolving them for you. Not only is our concept of right and wrong challenged, but we get to decide if what we feel is right and wrong agrees with the writers outcome. I have actually reversed my position on a few of their resolutions since I've aged. Go figure.

I agree that morality is an adaptation to environment, that what is good is what benefits the life-form and the quality of life, and that it is a human construct.

Is this a "golden rule" sort of argument?

I have a hypothetical: Let's say there is a race that actually enjoys killing other members of its race, and that the general feeling is that this is ok. Doing so would be considered "compassionate." Would it still be right, since doing so is a way of relating with others?

I would like to re-propose my first thesis:

Any moral system protects and harbors the weakest of the society. If it didn't that society would not have survived to claim its morals were "right."
If a society said killing was ok most of the time, it would destroy itself. Even if it didn't it would go against human instinct, which at least dictates we not kill our family. Morality is a human adaptation to its environment, since nature could not provide us with a good enough dictate through instinct alone, we derived these laws from our instinctual strive for survival, and if they worked to maintain society, then we looked back and proclaimed its as "good."
I agree with you completely.

On your hypothetical, though -- yes, the socially sanctioned killings would be a way of relating to others, but the key to whether it's good or bad would be the idea that it is "compassionate." Who says it is compassionate, the killers or the killed? This is the euthanasia argument, isn't it? A society in which group A unilaterally decides that it's such a terrible thing to belong to group B that it'd be a favor to kill them is not moral and, imo, not ethical either. But if group B consists of people suffering terrible, incurable pain, unable to help themselves (paralyzed?), and asking for someone to help them die, then group A is faced with a dilemma in which ethics and morals may conflict. My decision would be to kill them, but I would also believe that was a bad thing to do. Good and bad at the same time. The good may outweigh the bad, but it doesn't negate it.

And yeah, I guess it is a "golden rule" thing. Nothing wrong with that.

Nothing wrong indeed,

Of course this hypothetical society would not survive if it killed off more rapidly than it produced.

Another question, let's say a race is born and bred to suffer, and there is absolutely nothing they can do about it. Death was prefferable and compassionate compared to their existence.
Would it be right of them to go extinct, rather than go on living in pain?
Or should we take into account how courageous it would be if they tried to live anyway?

And that Star Trek episode sounds very interesting.

Another question, let's say a race is born and bred to suffer, and there is absolutely nothing they can do about it. Death was prefferable and compassionate compared to their existence.
Would it be right of them to go extinct, rather than go on living in pain?
Or should we take into account how courageous it would be if they tried to live anyway?
Well, since that basically describes humanity by almost any philosophy, I'd say it's right to let them go on living.

Well, since that basically describes humanity by almost any philosophy, I'd say it's right to let them go on living.

SHHH! It was a trap!

Nah, its still up for debate. I of course will hold in higher esteem those who wish to continue living then those who do not, but I'll not going to enforce this on humanity.

Ok, back to morality, do you see what the logical conclusions of my original thesis are? It is quite strange, and I can't find it but I posted it here earlier...

Nothing wrong indeed,

Of course this hypothetical society would not survive if it killed off more rapidly than it produced.

Another question, let's say a race is born and bred to suffer, and there is absolutely nothing they can do about it. Death was prefferable and compassionate compared to their existence.
Would it be right of them to go extinct, rather than go on living in pain?
Or should we take into account how courageous it would be if they tried to live anyway?

And that Star Trek episode sounds very interesting.
"To be or not to be, that is the question," eh? Nobody could answer that question for Hamlet, or for any of us. Each individual must wrestle with that himself, so I'd say it's entirely up to each member of the suffering race whether they continue living in pain or not. For the record, I personally support the right to choose to die, whether by suicide or euthanasia.

Here's another hypothetical. What if the suffering race believes that living with the pain was the moral choice and outlaws suicide/euthanasia, but some of members of that race disagree with that and believe that they should have the right to escape suffering if they choose? Would outsiders who agree with them have the right to interfere, if only to the extent of allowing the sufferers to emmigrate to their country where their wishes could be carried out?

Really? I find that odd because physicists use concepts that "do not have any basis in reality other than how you apply them" all the time. For example, you couldn't make sense of Keppler's laws of planetary motion without a "center of gravity", yet you'd be hard-pressed to find a physical center of gravity if you were to disect a planet or a star.

Well of course you wouldn't. The centre of gravity is that which physical matter centres around. Any singularity is without any real position in space-time and can only be calculated through empirical observations of physical matter.

So in a very real way, empirical science would have a very hard time describing empirical reality without resorting to the very same tactics you inveigh against in moral theory, and the use of those "imaginary" or "subjective" things allows for a greater understanding of the real world. So I fail to understand your objection to the notion of an external moral law.

It's not the notion of external moral laws/processes that I have a problem with. It the notion of a internal moral law being absolute.

How many self-described Catholics have you met who nevertheless use birth control? I know I've met quite a few. So behavior is not a very good standard even for the determination of what someone else's moral code is, much less what the moral law ought to be.

Or, maybe what people profess their moral to be shouldn't be the first basis for saying what a person's morals actually are. If I say I do or will do one thing and do another totally contradictory act; then that is the only objective level I can judge morality. Before that point the processes that are designated as 'morally good' weren't ever manifested within any object.


The deeper point, however, is that we don't name colors based on whatever the hell we happen to come up with at the moment. We name them based on objective considerations: blue is always blue because blue is always designated as the series of colors that results when EM energy is emitted at a certain narrow set of frequencies. As such, it doesn't matter how subjective the experience of seeing blue is, because you and I will always ultimately agree that a certain color is blue or not because we can test whether or not it fits the definition.

Apart from in other countries where the colour that I call 'blue' has various other designations. But of course the ontological status of light particles doesn't change, so I fail to see your point.
Then the additional reasoning you offer does not refute the relationship people would have with a particular colour should there be totally different neurophysiological responses from person to person.

Same thing with morality: given that man has a rational faculty, only a fool would argue that reason does not dictate a certain moral law, and that this moral law provides a definition against which actions can be tested.

Why is it that just because Objectivists/objectivists believe there are absolute moral truths, that their opinion always correlates with perfect synchronicity to it?

But let's look at what your saying. Mmmmm, I'd change it to

Same thing with morality: given that man has a rational faculty, only a fool would argue that reason does not dictate a certain act, and that this act provides a definition against which moral laws can be tested on how compatable they are with the surrounding environment.

But then, that's just me.

Anarchy, I think we need to agree to disagree.

That's fine, I do it all the time ;)

It seems your moral paradigm is a bit more well thought out [but precisely as worthless] as I had originally anticipated.

Errrrr, thanks??? I guess. Same to you :p

Reading through your post casually, I am forced to admit that the vast majority of your ideas and conjectures are so completely abhorrent to me that I don't really even consider most of them to be debatable issues.

I know that most people that agree to objectivism/Objectivism find subjectivism when taken to eventuality can be viewed as immoral, or creating immoral behaviour,..... and I agree. But so can Objectivism.

As a Subjectivist may claim that there are no moral truths other than the one that is enforced and then set out to enforce it due to some inflated sense of ego.
In contrast, an Objectivist may reason that they have found the correct moral law and then force all other views to adhere to their own, much in the same vain.

I'm probably not subject to as many subjectivist ideals as you may presume, and being a Classical Taoist I do regard moral virtue to be a worthwhile endeavour. A good balance to anything is in my opinion; 'good' to remember.


It's clear to me you're still in some manner of education [college?]; so there's nothing I can really tell you that life won't get around to telling you for me sometime within the next few years.

It's clear to me that we are all in a constant state of education and to say that this process has stopped is to of not learnt anything worthwhile at all.
I work as a joiner/carpenter on various projects. However I do have other interests and attending lectures of subjects I'm interested in is one of them. Luckily I get guest passes at various Universities, on such subjects as philosophy, psychology, and physics mainly.

I'm hesitant to point to someone else's prose and claim it as some sort of axiomatic truth, but I've explained this shit dozens of times and I don't imagine you're any more willing to listen to most of it than anyone else on this site has been so far.

Well, I've read the boards for longer than I have been posting but even in my short stay I have learnt that the general position before a debate by most on these boards is one of xenophobia (responding to xenophobialand was futile, lol). But I really try to be open minded, so please atleast give me the benefit of the doubt until I leave you no doubt about my boxed mind......although to some extent we are all guilty of that quality, Ex mea sententia.

The existence of a moral absolute is just like the existence of any other facet of reality; just like any other benchmark, comparative statement or occurance you care to name: it's there, but you're free to ignore it because you have an independently functioning mind.

Well, to be honest, I don't disagree. I suspect that where we differ is in our fundamental concepts of reality...... although not in that massive of proportions. I'm too an athiest that reason's there must be a first cause entity to act as catalyst. Though the term 'first cause' isn't consistent to the concept of eternity.

Yes, I know this sounds like a cop out of incredible proportions, given my general propensity to respond almost sentence for sentence with my moral adversaries here [and you certainly are one of them], and yes, I am quite aware of the fact that none of the above serves as true proof of my position. But, like I said last night, I'm on vacation dammit!

Well this may sound like a "cop out of monumental proportions", but I'm not going to respoond to you again and allow you to enjoy your time......where ever you are. You're on vacation dammit!!! :D

Ok, back to morality, do you see what the logical conclusions of my original thesis are? It is quite strange, and I can't find it but I posted it here earlier...
I didn't see it. Sorry.

Well of course you wouldn't. The centre of gravity is that which physical matter centres around. Any singularity is without any real position in space-time and can only be calculated through empirical observations of physical matter.
Right; and that singularity is easy to understand, and even obvious. I'm going to use it as an example when I talk about consciousness in other threads.

Right; and that singularity is easy to understand, and even obvious. I'm going to use it as an example when I talk about consciousness in other threads.


That's wise, as it is arguably the only region that is conscious as opposed to causally induced or deduced.
Well, that's currently what my understanding suggests anyway.

Well of course you wouldn't. The centre of gravity is that which physical matter centres around. Any singularity is without any real position in space-time and can only be calculated through empirical observations of physical matter.

. . .And you just missed the forest for the trees, so I'll lay out your argument and my argument together so you can see more clearly what I was talking about, as I was evidently not clear enough.

Your argument goes something as follows:

1) Only empirical (i.e. observable) things can be used to determine what is and what is not true about the universe.
2) Morals are not empirical (i.e. observable)
3) Morals cannot be used to determine what is and what is not true about the universe.

My refutation goes something like this:

1) If only empirical phenomena could be used to determine what is and what is not true about the universe, then physics would use only observable phenomena in their experiments.
2) Physics uses non-empirical phenomena to tell us about the observable world.
3) Empirical phenomena is not the only way to determine what is and what is not true about the universe.

Note that the conclusion of my refutation squarely contradicts the opening premise of your argument. As such, your argument is mistaken, because it uses a faulty premise to make its case. A proper response would attempt to argue that my syllogism is incorrect. Trying to argue that a center of gravity and morality are different kinds of things is not going to get you anywhere, because they both have a common quality: they both are non-observable phenomena that provide insight into how the physical universe works.


It's not the notion of external moral laws/processes that I have a problem with. It the notion of a internal moral law being absolute.

I never made the case that an internal moral law is absolute, at least not in and of itself. My argument was specifically that an internal principle of right and wrong is objectively true only insofar as it corresponds with the external moral law.



Or, maybe what people profess their moral to be shouldn't be the first basis for saying what a person's morals actually are. If I say I do or will do one thing and do another totally contradictory act; then that is the only objective level I can judge morality. Before that point the processes that are designated as 'morally good' weren't ever manifested within any object.


. . .So you are trying to argue that people never do anything wrong, even by their own standards, because their actions are the sum total of what they consider moral? Why then is there a human condition called guilt?

Secondly, moral goodness is not a quality to be found in an object like hardness. If I chuck a rock at you and hit you in the head, I don't expose the morally bad quality of the rock, although I might expose to you the fact that the rock is hard. Moral goodness and badness is determined by the reason of a person who wields the rock, and does not need to be observable to inform the action of the person.

Thirdly, how does this line of thought lead to a purely subjective understanding of morality again?


Apart from in other countries where the colour that I call 'blue' has various other designations. But of course the ontological status of light particles doesn't change, so I fail to see your point.
Then the additional reasoning you offer does not refute the relationship people would have with a particular colour should there be totally different neurophysiological responses from person to person.


My point was simple: you seem to be arguing that certain things about the objective world are subjectively colored by experience, which might lead us to accept a "lit guys" post-modernism: there is no objective, only subjective. My point of refutation was to say that we don't determine what colors are based on phenomenological or social convention; but rather because ultimately, we have decided that colors, however they are perceived by individual people, will always have certain set characteristics in the objective world, hence the post-modernism should be treated as the drivel it is. To put it simply: the fact that what you see as blue might well be what I see as green is irrelevant to deciding what blue is, because we have defined blue as having a certain range across the EM spectrum when light is shined at it. If the color of light emitted by the object falls within that band, then it is blue irrespective of how whether through defect or a trick of the light I see it as green, red, ultra-violet, or whatever.


Why is it that just because Objectivists/objectivists believe there are absolute moral truths, that their opinion always correlates with perfect synchronicity to it?

Because sometimes that's just the way things are.

"...you might want to consider this example from Dostoyevsky's The Brothers Karamazov:

One day a serf boy, a little child of eight, threw a stone in play and hurt the paw of the general's favorite hound. 'Why is my favorite dog lame?' He is told that the boy threw a stone that hurt the dog's paw. 'So you did it.' The general looked the child up and down. 'Take hm.' He was taken - taken from his mother and kept shut up all night. Early that morning the general comes out on horseback, with the hounds, his dependent, the dog-boys, and huntsmen, all mounted around him in full parade. The servants are summoned for their edification, and in front of them all stands the mother of the child. The child is brought from the lock-up. It's a gloomy cold, foggy autumn day, a capital day for hunting. The general orders the child to be undressed; the child is stripped naked. He shivers, numb with terror not daring to cry...'make him run' commands the general. 'Run! run!' shout the dog-boys. The boy runs...the hounds catch him, and tear him to pieces before his mother's eyes!"
-- Like A Splinter In Your Mind: The Philosophy Behind The Matrix Trilogy by Matt Lawrence

And I thought End of Eva was violent.

it depends on what you yourself feel. some people feel there are absolutes, others do not.

1) Only empirical (i.e. observable) things can be used to determine what is and what is not true about the universe.
*snip*

Empirical also means measurable, in the sense that an experiment can determine it. All forces (electromagnetic, gravitic, etc.) are such measurable things.