NationStates Jolt Archive

in fact I know I am a little confused.

I hear around here that there is no "good" and no "evil" and yet, I also hear that there are things that are "wrong" and things that are "right"

how do we objectively prove something is wrong? if we can't then how do you go around and say it is? isn't it being a hypocrite to say that something is wrong when you can't objectively prove that it is in fact wrong, especially when you say that nothing is right or wrong and morality is not objective?

Wrong and right are value judgments. As such they can be grounded in some objective reality/fact/system: e.g. 2 + 2 = 5 is wrong, or they can be subjective and determined in relation to the individual/society/species: e.g. lying for personal gain is wrong.

Just because a value judgment is not objective does not mean it cannot be made. What the subjectivity implies is that the judgment may not be universal.

ah, but I hear them using subjective reasoning to deem something universally wrong, that would be my point of :confused:

in fact I know I am a little confused.

I hear around here that there is no "good" and no "evil" and yet, I also hear that there are things that are "wrong" and things that are "right"

how do we objectively prove something is wrong? if we can't then how do you go around and say it is? isn't it being a hypocrite to say that something is wrong when you can't objectively prove that it is in fact wrong, especially when you say that nothing is right or wrong and morality is not objective?

When I say somethings wrong, I'm only working with my own feeling and intuition. I don't set out to make every statement I make completely objective and provable. I would also guess that the prople who say that there is no good or evil would also argue against wrong and right.

Wrong and right are value judgments. As such they can be grounded in some objective reality/fact/system: e.g. 2 + 2 = 5 is wrong, or they can be subjective and determined in relation to the individual/society/species: e.g. lying for personal gain is wrong.

Just because a value judgment is not objective does not mean it cannot be made. What the subjectivity implies is that the judgment may not be universal.Most excellent post.

ah, but I hear them using subjective reasoning to deem something universally wrong, that would be my point of :confused:Well, outside of philosphical debates about the objectivity of value judgements, doesn't everybody?

ah, but I hear them using subjective reasoning to deem something universally wrong, that would be my point of :confused:

That would be a common behavior trend.
The "I know it is right, so you have to accept it as well." attitude

This is moral bullying as carried out by nearly all organized religions and political groups. It is normally associated with some more or less direct threat of dire consequences if you don't accept their subjective views.

My reaction to this is to think to myself that if their beliefs are so weak that they need others to help them believe, then I pity them.

there are lots of objective justifications that can be used but they are all based on subjective assumptions.

anyone can make a logical case, for example, against gay marriage. anyone can make a logical case FOR gay marriage. the difference lies in your base assumptions and the priorities of your values.

in the end, the decision of good and bad relies on consensus. in the past, gay marriage has been seen as so wrong as to be a ridiculous concept. when enough people agree that gay marriage is acceptable, then gay marriage will be the law of the land.

consensus.

in fact I know I am a little confused.

I hear around here that there is no "good" and no "evil" and yet, I also hear that there are things that are "wrong" and things that are "right"

how do we objectively prove something is wrong? if we can't then how do you go around and say it is? isn't it being a hypocrite to say that something is wrong when you can't objectively prove that it is in fact wrong, especially when you say that nothing is right or wrong and morality is not objective?

Don't worry. You know the difference between good and evil and that there certainly are good things, as well as there are evil things. There's nothing wrong with being judgmental about these things.

That would be a common behavior trend.
The "I know it is right, so you have to accept it as well." attitude

This is moral bullying as carried out by nearly all organized religions and political groups. It is normally associated with some more or less direct threat of dire consequences if you don't accept their subjective views.

My reaction to this is to think to myself that if their beliefs are so weak that they need others to help them believe, then I pity them.
Er.... okay, under this definition, not everybody does.

I dislike it when people assert that that their value judgments are objective, universal norms.

Most excellent post.
Thank you.

Well, outside of philosphical debates about the objectivity of value judgements, doesn't everybody?
No. There are plenty of people, maybe even the majority, who are happy to make their specific personal value judgements and leave others to make their own as they see fit so long as this is reciprocated

Yes we all argue from our values, but not everyone initiates such arguments.

I dislike it when people assert that that their value judgments are objective, universal norms.

me too.

i stop trying to work it out years ago,as it confused me so much

Thank you.


No. There are plenty of people, maybe even the majority, who are happy to make their specific personal value judgements and leave others to make their own as they see fit so long as this is reciprocated

Yes we all argue from our values, but not everyone initiates such arguments.

Sorry to interrupt for a personal note, but I can't TG from this account.

How far are you from Cuiaba? I've got a job there after the New Year.

No. There are plenty of people, maybe even the majority, who are happy to make their specific personal value judgements and leave others to make their own as they see fit so long as this is reciprocated

Yes we all argue from our values, but not everyone initiates such arguments.

Nonetheless, few people are willing to say, "yes, I can see your point, and even see how it might be a way I could think...but I prefer my own view". It seems to boil down to, "I know I'm right and you are wrong, but I know I can't convince you so let's leave it at that" rather than, "we may both be right".

Sorry to interrupt for a personal note, but I can't TG from this account.

How far are you from Cuiaba? I've got a job there after the New Year.

2137 kilometers away. It is not exactly in my neck of the woods. I am in Rio Grande do Sul (The southernmost state in Brazil), Cuiabá is the capital of Mato Grosso (Thick woods would be the literal translation) in the Center West of Brazil.

Good luck there. I don't know the city

in fact I know I am a little confused.

I hear around here that there is no "good" and no "evil" and yet, I also hear that there are things that are "wrong" and things that are "right"

how do we objectively prove something is wrong? if we can't then how do you go around and say it is? isn't it being a hypocrite to say that something is wrong when you can't objectively prove that it is in fact wrong, especially when you say that nothing is right or wrong and morality is not objective?

And there my dear Smunkeeeee you have hit the jackpot.

In truth there is no such thing as objectivity(except perhaps some perceptions of God) everything, and I mean everything is in some way subjective, or relative including our very own science.

I dislike it when people assert that that their value judgments are objective, universal norms.

The point is, that there is only one reality, a truth.

We must recognize that there is only one reality. Although we may not agree whether how a thing is, we surely must agree that if we are speaking of it, then it must exist. Existing is only one act, something can't exist twice; therefore which that exists is only in one way.

It's true that when several people know something, their knowledge is limited by subjective considerations (such as ideology or even physical limitations). However, it doesn't follow that such things is as the observer knows it. The thing is as it is - as I mentioned above - and defined by it's nature. Therefore, there is only one "opinion" which could be absolutely correct: the one that says how the thing is as it is. That's logical truth: the correct relation between the mind that is knowing and the object that is being known.

Now, something similar happens with moral truth. Humans exists, therefore, in one way and have a nature. In order to be really humans they must behave as that nature states. Acting against that nature would make the actor "less-human". Morals is that set of standards which indicate what that human nature is in terms we are able to understand. Therefore, the only moral act is one which adheres to our human nature; all the other ones can't be correct. Therefore moral truth is the correct relation between the subject and it's own nature. It can't be subjective.

Is not dangerous to defend an objective moralism. What is dangerous is that certain groups feel that their interpretation of moral truth is the only one acceptable, discarding all the work of philosophers from Socrates to Immanuel Kant (and among them St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, Rene Descartes, John Locke and some other few...) have developed over the years.

The point is, that there is only one reality, a truth. I don't agree...because reality is shaped by our perception of it.

And I find it interesting your list of philosophers only includes 'Western' thinkers. *raises the eyebrow saved for suggestions of conspiracies*

The point is, that there is only one reality, a truth.

We must recognize that there is only one reality. Although we may not agree whether how a thing is, we surely must agree that if we are speaking of it, then it must exist. Existing is only one act, something can't exist twice; therefore which that exists is only in one way.

It's true that when several people know something, their knowledge is limited by subjective considerations (such as ideology or even physical limitations). However, it doesn't follow that such things is as the observer knows it. The thing is as it is - as I mentioned above - and defined by it's nature. Therefore, there is only one "opinion" which could be absolutely correct: the one that says how the thing is as it is. That's logical truth: the correct relation between the mind that is knowing and the object that is being known.

Now, something similar happens with moral truth. Humans exists, therefore, in one way and have a nature. In order to be really humans they must behave as that nature states. Acting against that nature would make the actor "less-human". Morals is that set of standards which indicate what that human nature is in terms we are able to understand. Therefore, the only moral act is one which adheres to our human nature; all the other ones can't be correct. Therefore moral truth is the correct relation between the subject and it's own nature. It can't be subjective.

Is not dangerous to defend an objective moralism. What is dangerous is that certain groups feel that their interpretation of moral truth is the only one acceptable, discarding all the work of philosophers from Socrates to Immanuel Kant (and among them St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, Rene Descartes, John Locke and some other few...) have developed over the years.

I hate to break it to you, buddy, but 6 billion or so of us seem to be existing in different ways. And we all seem to have different natures.

If moral truth is the correct relation between the subject and its own nature, then I have to say you have to clarify the subject.

The point is, that there is only one reality, a truth.

We must recognize that there is only one reality. Although we may not agree whether how a thing is, we surely must agree that if we are speaking of it, then it must exist. Existing is only one act, something can't exist twice; therefore which that exists is only in one way.

It's true that when several people know something, their knowledge is limited by subjective considerations (such as ideology or even physical limitations). However, it doesn't follow that such things is as the observer knows it. The thing is as it is - as I mentioned above - and defined by it's nature. Therefore, there is only one "opinion" which could be absolutely correct: the one that says how the thing is as it is. That's logical truth: the correct relation between the mind that is knowing and the object that is being known.

Now, something similar happens with moral truth. Humans exists, therefore, in one way and have a nature. In order to be really humans they must behave as that nature states. Acting against that nature would make the actor "less-human". Morals is that set of standards which indicate what that human nature is in terms we are able to understand. Therefore, the only moral act is one which adheres to our human nature; all the other ones can't be correct. Therefore moral truth is the correct relation between the subject and it's own nature. It can't be subjective.

Is not dangerous to defend an objective moralism. What is dangerous is that certain groups feel that their interpretation of moral truth is the only one acceptable, discarding all the work of philosophers from Socrates to Immanuel Kant (and among them St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, Rene Descartes, John Locke and some other few...) have developed over the years.

OK
You are proposing a naturalistic morality, one based on our common nature as Homo Sapiens. This can indeed provide a grounding for the subjective value judgements made by human beings within a limited sphere.

The problem is that you are associating natural goodness - what is determined by our nature to be good for us, with moral goodness. The strength of this association is highly questionable. There have been philosophers, notably David Hume (and there still are philosophers today - Simon Blackburn comes to mind), who argued strongly and persuasively that morality does rest upon our nature. However these are outnumbered by a long way by those that argued that morality is independent of our physical nature (including all of those that you mention from Socrates to Kant).

The problem for the naturalist philosophers is that behavior that would be clearly wrong, on the basis of our social nature for example, if everyone were to act that way cannot be shown to be wrong for the individual in that society if just the individual acts that way. An appeal is made to the conscience of the individual, to their moral sense. If a naturalistic morality requires us to have a built in moral sense, then it has failed in some way as we clearly, from the empirical evidence available have no such sense. Moral values have changed over time and vary from place to place. Thus they cannot be solely derived from our common nature. This is not to say that our nature does not play a significant role in our moral judgments - it clearly does - but it cannot be all that is involved.

Right and wrong are also much more than just moral terms in their scope of use. They are used in connection with matters of faith that are not moral issues per se. If I die without making a pilgrimage to X then, by my faith I have done nothing wrong. But another of a different faith would have made a very great error. Who is right here? What is the truth? The truth is, and can only be, subjective in such circumstances. I am right, he is right and we contradict one another.

I will try to adress the three issues one at a time.

First, Neeseka, you tell me there is no objective reality because we have different perceptions of it. That's half-true: we have different perceptions of reality, but, that reality exists in it's won way, separately from what we think of it. Therefore, it has it's own, unique, way of being. Take this example: both of us are infront of a red ball. But I think it's blue. I may die believeing that ball is blue and you would't be able to convince me otherwise (or me to you). The "correct" opinion here is yours, for it reflects how the ball really is, even if I don't agree with you. Now, if you can kill me or deny any kind of freedom of expression for it, is topic of another discusion...

Oh, and I am not financed by any church or the Republican Party... I say it for that eyebrow of yours... XD

Now, Gift-of-God (are you Chilean...??? I mean, for the flag of your country... XD) I was talking of metephysical existance. It's true: poor people, for instance, exist differently than rich people, but metaphysicaly they exist the same for they both are human beings and endowed with the same nature and rights.

Regarding moral truth, when I say it's the correct relation between the subject and it's own nature, I mean it's the adecuation of someone with that makes him better according to it's nature (metaphisicaly speaking or... "more human").

2137 kilometers away. It is not exactly in my neck of the woods. I am in Rio Grande do Sul (The southernmost state in Brazil), Cuiabá is the capital of Mato Grosso (Thick woods would be the literal translation) in the Center West of Brazil.

Good luck there. I don't know the city
Thanks. I knew Brazil was a big place, but that sort of puts some new perspective to it. The job is a couple weeks. I just hope I find some time for sight-seeing.

Thanks. I knew Brazil was a big place, but that sort of puts some new perspective to it. The job is a couple weeks. I just hope I find some time for sight-seeing.

You will be right on the edge of one of the largest areas of wetlands in the world - the Pantanal.

Nearest to Cuiabá is a place called Poconé, but I think you will be there at the wrong time of year. You will be there in there in the wet season (200+ mm rain average in January) and it is only really practical to visit in the dry season (May to September).

To give you some idea of distances from Cuiabá - in Kms

Rio de Janeiro 2116
Brasilia 1141
Manaus (Amazonas) 1462 + 130 hours on a boat!
Recife 3253

Basically - less than 1000 Km there is
Campo Grande - the capital of Mato grosso do Sul
Dourados - A region of radical sport based activities in Mato Grosso do Sul
Goiânia - The capital of Goiás.

So unless you can afford to fly everywhere (air fares are high here - and we are currently having air traffic control problems) I would suggest that you look to the local attractions around Cuiabá itself.