View Single Post
Old 06-10-2007, 04:25 PM   #37
Spider AL
@Spider AL
A well-spoken villain...
Spider AL's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Help, help, I'm stapled to my workstation.
Posts: 2,162

Originally Posted by jmac7142
No, you believe that they are immoral.
Of course I believe that such things as slavery and illegal international aggression are immoral, because an unbroken chain of logical reasoning leads me to believe that they are immoral. Morality is defined by reason and logic.

Originally Posted by jmac7142
Nice job trying to get me to argue for slavery and the Iraq War by the way.
I don't think you understood the point I was trying to make, Jmac. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough. I'm not "trying to get you to argue for" anything. I am pointing out that just because a group of people (be it a minority or an entire culture... or the whole world) believes something to be moral... doesn't make it moral.

If two people have different ideas about the most moral course of action in a given situation... one or both of them are wrong. That is the point. That morality is not "whatever we feel like" at the time, it is an abstract that we either perceive correctly... or fail to perceive correctly.

You may sit there and state that this is an "ass way of thinking", but once again... you have no good reasons to make such statements, you have not CITED any such reasons and frankly you will never find such reasons, in my estimation.


Originally Posted by windu6
I didn't say only personal bias also I said emotions.
Emotions are merely contributing factors within the larger issue of bias, Windu. Therefore this has already been addressed.

Originally Posted by windu6
Nonsense is relative!
No, there is either sense... that is: that which makes sense, that which is logical... or nonsense. That which is not logical. They are absolutes. There is no issue of relativism when it comes to the question of whether someone is "making sense".

Originally Posted by windu6
We will always be seeking knowledge and will possibly always remain igorrant of the true abstract truth.
Of course. As an objectivist, I automatically have to accept the possibility that I will never attain the state of perceiving absolute truth.

And furthermore, I must accept the certainty that I will never KNOW to an absolute degree whether I have attained such a state or not, even if I have in fact attained it.

But that doesn't signify anything. The fact that we are fallible human organisms doesn't mean that there is no objective truth. It merely means that we may be incapable of perceiving it.

Originally Posted by windu6
Ok I'm going to ask you some questions.
Okay, I'll address your hypothetical as best I can.

First to even out the question a little, let's assume that the two people (your lover and the stranger) are of the same age and apparent physical health.

Let's discard your options that involve jumping off after them, as suicide would serve no useful purpose, moral or otherwise.

Next let's suggest that it's morally necessary to save at least one of them, as letting them both die would merely be shirking one's moral responsibility to help if possible.

Next let's point out that making a judgement based on one's personal affections for one of the falling individuals is immoral. It's perfectly human and understandable, but personal bias should be disregarded, ideally.

So we have come to the conclusion that- morally speaking- one must save one of the individuals. It is therefore morally necessary to make a dispassionate choice as to which person to save. Since we know nothing about the stranger, it's hard to weigh the impact of his/her death against the death of one's lover. Perhaps if the stranger was a family man supporting several children and one's lover was childless it would be more moral to save the stranger. But this set of factors would have to be established before such a judgement could be made.

In a situation where nothing is known about the stranger, it would be impossible to weigh their life against the life of one's lover... therefore to save either would be equally moral.

Originally Posted by windu6
Empathy, if you depend on that you can't be objective; feelings are bias by the emotions.
As noted before, objective morality is MOTIVATED by empathy, not DEFINED by empathy. Logic defines the correct- most moral- course of action in each situation. Not empathy.

Originally Posted by windu6
They are relevant, you are being bias, Spider.
Our society is not the only one.
Alien civilisations ARE irrelevant Windu, not least because you have no evidence to suggest the existence of such civilisations... but also because we are discussing a very human and very terrestrial issue, the issue of morality.

[FW] Spider AL
Hewwo, meesa Jar-Jar Binks. Yeah. Excusing me, but me needs to go bust meesa head in with dissa claw-hammer, because yousa have stripped away meesa will to living.
Spider AL is offline   you may: