lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: moral relativism
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 10-28-2006, 05:51 PM   #41
Windu Chi
Banned
 
Windu Chi's Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Getting revenge on that traitor, Anakin.
Posts: 882
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider AL
I'd like to preface this post with a re-iteration that I appreciate the unusual quality of debate in this thread particularly. And though I disagree with much of what's said, I appreciate the thoughtful and mature... and most importantly detailed way that most of it has been presented. In contrast to other somewhat less illustrious threads that have sprung up on the board in the past few days, this is an interesting topic.
What less illustrious threads would those be?

Quote:
Once again, logically, morality is a universally applied standard. The thing that changes from individual to individual, is each individual's ability to comprehend/observe/uphold that standard. It's not that morality is in some way "relative" (which would mean that there is no right/wrong in ANY situation, which is clearly fallacious) it is that some people are unwilling to be moral, and still more people are incapable of being moral. Due to a lack of reasoning power, lack of empathy, etcetera.
Ok, wait a minute here.
How the hell do you know that morality is not relative?
And your belief that it is a fallacy for anyone else who will think so?

Have you been anywhere in this galaxy or universe.
You are biasing the rest of this galaxy, the, universe and
existence for that matter.

Our definition of what is right or wrong is only define here on Earth,
from the human perspective and our experiences.
There may be other universes out there in existence, where evil is the norm.

But as I have already said way back then in this thread,
I have a hard time believing that such a universe will last long for the inhabitants of it.

But since I believe that absolutely nothing is impossible.
I will have to deal with that possibility.

Last edited by windu6; 10-28-2006 at 06:05 PM.
Windu Chi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-28-2006, 07:12 PM   #42
edlib
Close to the Edge
 
edlib's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Boston, MA., USA
Posts: 9,498
Current Game: DiRT 3; Forza 4
Hot Topic Starter 10 year veteran! Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider AL
If the previous post will indeed be your last post in this thread edlib, very nice discussing with you.
Likewise.

It may not be the last (as this very post proves... ) but the last of that length, certainly.
That last post distracted me to the point where I was almost late getting ready for work (where I'm posting from now...)
I don't have another day off for at least a week... but I'll read through the rest of the thread when I can, and contribute if not too busy.

Gotta go...


Native XWA.Netter (Nutter?)
edlib is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-28-2006, 07:55 PM   #43
ET Warrior
PhD in horribleness
 
ET Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Evil League of Evil
Posts: 9,405
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by windu6
There may be other universes out there in existence, where evil is the norm.
Just because "evil" could be the norm in places, does not mean that the norm is moral.

I seem to have fallen behind in this thread, lets see here

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider AL
Couldn't disagree more with this as a principle, or even as a rough general rule. I'm sure we could both cite many examples of how majorities (diverse or not) have held views which were immoral, and examples in which minorities have held views which were moral.
I'm taking this stance based on a scientific philosophy for obtaining objectivity. Because individuals are generally to locked in their own paradigm to actually view things with an objective stance, the key to determining what is right falls to large, diverse groups of people who are well-versed in the subject at hand.

This is what I'm saying as far as morality is concerned, I don't think we should just grab a highly diverse group of people and let them try to come up with morality, more that it would be important to get a large, diverse group of moralists to attempt the feat of moral consensus.

I know that despite my attempts to always look for the correct morality in a situation, it's not always possible for me to be objective, but having external perspectives can definitely help.

I'm still not necessarily convinced that empathy is the key to finding the proper morality in a situation. I don't think that I need to feel another's pain to know that I shouldn't be causing it. For me, the knowledge that I am hurting another makes the action immoral. It is possible that the empathy is so deep seated I'm not necessarily aware of it's role in my decision making process, but I really think the Categorical Imperative is good enough to make the decision.



ET Warrior is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-29-2006, 03:55 PM   #44
Emperor Devon
36 Wings, 365 Eyes
 
Emperor Devon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 5,479
Current Game: Ass Effect
Contest winner - Fan Fiction 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider AL
Sorry, that's not true, and for some pretty basic reasons. First, your example: {snip}
There are some things which are universally unaccpetable, yes, but not everything is. Sometimes our morals seem just as foolish to other people's as theirs do to us. My following example:

Quote:
Originally Posted by windu6
Well, this is just disgusting, eating puppies sick people. And I don't mean disgusting only a little.
I mean this disgusting, disgusting, disgusting and even more disgusting.
My point exactly. Eating puppies seems sick to me, but it's just as sick to some people as eating cows is to me. To me eating a young dog seems like killing a cute animal for no reason, but to others, I'm desecrating a holy animal by consuming its flesh. Yet to me that doesn't matter, since I have no religious faith related to cows. It's all relative.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabretooth
We will be great failures one day, you and I
Emperor Devon is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-29-2006, 06:56 PM   #45
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by ET Warrior:

I'm taking this stance based on a scientific philosophy for obtaining objectivity. Because individuals are generally to locked in their own paradigm to actually view things with an objective stance, the key to determining what is right falls to large, diverse groups of people who are well-versed in the subject at hand.

This is what I'm saying as far as morality is concerned, I don't think we should just grab a highly diverse group of people and let them try to come up with morality, more that it would be important to get a large, diverse group of moralists to attempt the feat of moral consensus.

I know that despite my attempts to always look for the correct morality in a situation, it's not always possible for me to be objective, but having external perspectives can definitely help.
I understand your desire for an impartial system to determine what's moral. However, as I have pointed out in previous threads regarding the validity of the scientific method, peer review or any other "majority opinion" method of answering difficult questions has serious drawbacks, as well as the advantages you mentioned.

There are several points in scientific history where the peer review system has acted as a limiting factor on innovative thought. (Which in many cases eventually turned out to be correct thought.) And I'll once again posit a theory I posted long ago in another thread. If we take as fact several past statements in the media from scientists regarding Stephen Hawking- that his theories are SO complex and his intellect so far-reaching that few of his colleagues are even capable of understanding his ideas, let alone evaluating them- then we must conclude that this is an example of how peer review ceases to function effectively when confronted with the fruits of an intelligence far exceeding the reasoning capacity of the "peers" that are doing the reviewing.

In other words, the more intelligent you become, the fewer "peers" you have.

I think this may apply in your hypothetical "moral forum" concept. If we accept that morality must be logical in nature and cannot be arbitrary, we must also accept that our capacity to perceive moral courses of action in complex situations is limited by our reasoning power.

Those with the highest reasoning power (in possession of empathy) will always be in a minority, and therefore will be the comparitively moral minority. This will be true of any given group of people. Some will be more moral than others.

So how can a majority opinion ever consistently reflect the most moral course of action? I personally don't think it can.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ET Warrior:

I'm still not necessarily convinced that empathy is the key to finding the proper morality in a situation. I don't think that I need to feel another's pain to know that I shouldn't be causing it. For me, the knowledge that I am hurting another makes the action immoral. It is possible that the empathy is so deep seated I'm not necessarily aware of it's role in my decision making process, but I really think the Categorical Imperative is good enough to make the decision.
Oh I never said empathy was "the key to finding proper morality in a situation". I said that empathy was the root of morality. Without empathy, there's no reason to be moral. Logic is the "key" to divining moral truths, however. What I said was that without empathy, there's no reason to apply logic to find moral truths. I mean, if one doesn't care about others, why bother being moral?

And I'd like to ask, why do you think is it wrong to cause another being pain? If it amuses you, why not do it? If it gets you wealth and power, why not do it? Empathy is the only quality that I can personally think of that would cause one to care about the pain of others. If you can think of a purely logical reason to give a crap about others' suffering, please tell me. I'd love to know, as it would aid me in future debates with amoral people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor Devon:

There are some things which are universally unaccpetable, yes, but not everything is. Sometimes our morals seem just as foolish to other people's as theirs do to us. My following example:
(snip puppy-abuse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor Devon:

My point exactly. Eating puppies seems sick to me, but it's just as sick to some people as eating cows is to me. To me eating a young dog seems like killing a cute animal for no reason, but to others, I'm desecrating a holy animal by consuming its flesh. Yet to me that doesn't matter, since I have no religious faith related to cows. It's all relative.
Devon, in your earlier post, you made a statement that amounted to: "I think eating puppies is wrong, but other people don't! Therefore, morality is relative."

And I posted four-hundred words of carefully considered argument- to my mind at least- proving that your stance was logically incorrect.

You have snipped all my points out, have ignored them, and have to all intents and purposes just copied your earlier post, stating once again that "I think eating puppies is wrong, but other people don't! Therefore, morality is relative."

You'll forgive me, but I don't consider that to be genuine involvement in the debate. Rather a cop-out, in fact. If you actually wish to do me the courtesy of addressing ANY of my points in future, I refer you to my earlier post. Until then I must infer that you have no valid responses to my arguments on the topic.


[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: quote & reply,
Old 10-29-2006, 09:45 PM   #46
Emperor Devon
36 Wings, 365 Eyes
 
Emperor Devon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 5,479
Current Game: Ass Effect
Contest winner - Fan Fiction 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider AL
If you actually wish to do me the courtesy of addressing ANY of my points in future, I refer you to my earlier post. Until then I must infer that you have no valid responses to my arguments on the topic.
Have it your way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider AL
Morality is independent of individual likes and dislikes, or national character, religion or social customs.
So would it beconsidered immoral, for instance, to tear off someone's clothes in a room full of people? It's not harming them exactly, in a sense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider AL
Did the fact that those groups or cultures condoned the immoral acts make them any less immoral? clearly not. I'll give some simple examples:
Pretty much every other culture in the world at that time thought needless killings was a bad thing for the Nazi death camps. We're also a much more civilized world now than we were back in the days Europeans were discovering Australia.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider AL
2. Battery farming techniques. A lot of farmers still think it's okay.
I've got to disagree on that. The people doing that generally have profit over morals in mind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider AL
As for the specifics of your example, killing and eating any animal is technically immoral if its death was unneccesary, i.e: you are only eating it for the taste of its flesh, not to sustain your own life. The REASON it's immoral is that causing any unneccesary suffering or death is immoral.
Now that is a gray area to be going into.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabretooth
We will be great failures one day, you and I
Emperor Devon is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-29-2006, 10:07 PM   #47
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
I do appreciate the fact that you've gone back and have indeed addressed some of my earlier points, Devon. But it's still a bit half-hearted.

If I were hypothetically only marginally interested in a certain debate, not really interested enough to bother typing out sufficiently detailed responses to things... I have to say that I'd probably just refrain from posting altogether. But that's just me. No value judgement inherent.

Quote:
So would it beconsidered immoral, for instance, to tear off someone's clothes in a room full of people? It's not harming them exactly, in a sense.
If they were on fire, tearing their flaming clothes off would be entirely moral. If on the other hand you were tearing their clothes off to gain some sort of perverted sexual gratification, then it would undoubtedly be classified as a self-interested act without any concern for the unnecessary psychological suffering visited upon another being. And as such, it would undoubtedly be immoral.

But frankly I'm fumbling around with your non-specific example here. You'll really have to come up with some specific details before we can examine the hypothetical situation logically.

Quote:
Pretty much every other culture in the world at that time thought needless killings was a bad thing for the Nazi death camps. We're also a much more civilized world now than we were back in the days Europeans were discovering Australia.
At least superficially, this is a totally totally irrelevant paragraph. What exactly are you trying to say here?

And furthermore, we're not all that much more civilised. We're still illegally and immorally invading foreign lands for our own selfish purposes, regardless of the cost to the native peoples therein.

Quote:
I've got to disagree on that. The people doing that generally have profit over morals in mind.
The people "doing that" are almost without exception firmly convinced that the animals they're torturing are an irrelevance. Only delusional people could think thusly, therefore they are a good example of those who are committing an immoral act without any conception of how immoral it truly is. It's also socially acceptable to battery farm, in that people will not shun or lambast you if you are a battery farmer, as a general rule. Some animal rights activists might, but they're in the minority.

Quote:
Now that is a gray area to be going into.
What, the question of the morality of vegetarianism? Doesn't seem too grey to me. But as I said before, grey areas only seem grey because of our own limited reasoning power. The more logical the analysis, the less grey the area appears.


[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: quote & reply,
Old 10-31-2006, 02:05 PM   #48
Windu Chi
Banned
 
Windu Chi's Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Getting revenge on that traitor, Anakin.
Posts: 882
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by ET Warrior
Just because "evil" could be the norm in places, does not mean that the norm is moral.
I didn't mean that normality is moral, ET.

Evil is connected to morality.
Of course you know that.

I was trying to explain that in those universes out where the evil we see as negative from our experiances and our individual perspectives the inhabitants in those universes will see it as positive.

Meaning : The Holocaust was a good thing to happen to the Jews and the Nazis was angels and not demons for committing the act.

Of course I won't ever accept that relativity of morality of those inhabitants located in those universes.

Because I am hell-bent on reminding people on this world, that the Holocaust was a period where true evil dwelled and Hitler the Nazis was true demons, no f**king question about it.

I am still extremely and piss off about the Holocaust crimes.

Last edited by windu6; 10-31-2006 at 03:00 PM.
Windu Chi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-31-2006, 04:52 PM   #49
Jae Onasi
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem
 
Jae Onasi's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 10,916
Current Game: Guild Wars 2, VtMB, TOR
Alderaan News Holopics contributor Helpful! LucasCast staff Veteran Fan Fic Author 
Quote:
Originally Posted by windu6
I was trying to explain that in those universes out where the evil we see as negative from our experiances and our individual perspectives the inhabitants in those universes will see it as positive.
Don't know about anyone else, but I have enough to worry about in this universe without worrying about what's going on in some alternate universe that may or may not exist.


From MST3K's spoof of "Hercules Unchained"--heard as Roman medic soldiers carry off an unconscious Greek Hercules on a 1950's Army green canvas stretcher: "Hi, we're IX-I-I. Did somebody dial IX-I-I?"

Read The Adventures of Jolee Bindo and see the amazing Peep Surgery
Story WIP: The Dragonfighters
My blog: Confessions of a Geeky Mom--Latest post: Security Alerts!
Love Star Trek AND gaming? Check out Lotus Fleet.

Jae Onasi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-31-2006, 05:20 PM   #50
Windu Chi
Banned
 
Windu Chi's Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Getting revenge on that traitor, Anakin.
Posts: 882
Exclamation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
Don't know about anyone else, but I have enough to worry about in this universe without worrying about what's going on in some alternate universe that may or may not exist.
You know I didn't mean my example to be interpreted that way, Jae.
I guess you misunderstood my anger toward the Holocaust.
Windu Chi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-31-2006, 07:21 PM   #51
ET Warrior
PhD in horribleness
 
ET Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Evil League of Evil
Posts: 9,405
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by windu6
I was trying to explain that in those universes out where the evil we see as negative from our experiances and our individual perspectives the inhabitants in those universes will see it as positive
And I was trying to explain that regardless of whether or not they look at 'evil' as a positive aspect or not, that does not make it morally correct.

What Spider AL and myself have been trying to convey this entire time, is that just because people believe things to be moral or valid does not make it so. Even if it is something entirely cultural, or 'universal'.

Moral people see 'evil' as a negative not because of experiences, but because of logic and empathy. (I'll concede it, AL, I think you're probably right).

Even if an entire universe is completely devoid of empathy, that simply means you will have an entire universe of likely immoral inhabitants.

Quote:
Originally Posted by windu6
Of course I won't ever accept that relativity of morality of those inhabitants located in those universes.
...
Quote:
Originally Posted by windu6
How the hell do you know that morality is not relative?
I'm confused.



ET Warrior is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-31-2006, 08:32 PM   #52
Windu Chi
Banned
 
Windu Chi's Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Getting revenge on that traitor, Anakin.
Posts: 882
Cool Guy

Quote:
Originally Posted by ET Warrior
And I was trying to explain that regardless of whether or not they look at 'evil' as a positive aspect or not, that does not make it morally correct.

What Spider AL and myself have been trying to convey this entire time, is that just because people believe things to be moral or valid does not make it so. Even if it is something entirely cultural, or 'universal'.
You are losing me here, ET.
Are you saying what Hitler and Nazis did didn't matter in a logical sense?
Because with the use of logic moral standards are invalid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ET Warrior
Moral people see 'evil' as a negative not because of experiences, but because of logic and empathy. (I'll concede it, AL, I think you're probably right).
You give up that easily?

So I am guessing, you are saying people come to accept society moral standards of what is negative like evil because of deductive reasoning and their emotions.

Human emotions are bias respect to the accurate definition of good or evil in a logical sense, since emotions can't be trusted.

So their definition of what is good or evil is inaccurate or invalid respect to a logical morality process.

So is that your reasoning why morality is not relative?
Or, what ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ET Warrior
Even if an entire universe is completely devoid of empathy, that simply means you will have an entire universe of likely immoral inhabitants.
So what are you saying, you don't believe morality is relative respect to logic?
Or, are you talking about Schrödinger's cat dead or alive scenario.
Also they can possibly be moral inhabitants, of course.

Quote:
Of course I won't ever accept that relativity of morality of those inhabitants located in those universes.
I was expressing my anger toward the Holocaust.
By saying that I won't ever accept the Nazis as good people as the inhabitants of those evil universes believe them to be.

Quote:
How the hell do you know that morality is not relative?
I was asking Spider how can he conclude morality is not relative respect to the rest of existence.
Unless you believe, ET that our universe is the only one that exist.

Last edited by windu6; 11-01-2006 at 06:05 PM.
Windu Chi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-31-2006, 09:02 PM   #53
Emperor Devon
36 Wings, 365 Eyes
 
Emperor Devon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 5,479
Current Game: Ass Effect
Contest winner - Fan Fiction 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider AL
I do appreciate the fact that you've gone back and have indeed addressed some of my earlier points, Devon. But it's still a bit half-hearted.
I had enough of an opinion to post one, but this isn't an issue I'm very thoughtful on.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabretooth
We will be great failures one day, you and I
Emperor Devon is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-31-2006, 10:15 PM   #54
Jae Onasi
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem
 
Jae Onasi's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 10,916
Current Game: Guild Wars 2, VtMB, TOR
Alderaan News Holopics contributor Helpful! LucasCast staff Veteran Fan Fic Author 
Quote:
Originally Posted by windu6
You know I didn't mean my example to be interpreted that way, Jae.
I guess you misunderstood my anger toward the Holocaust.
Windu6, there is no way I could possibly misunderstand your anger toward the Holocaust. I got that one loud and clear.


From MST3K's spoof of "Hercules Unchained"--heard as Roman medic soldiers carry off an unconscious Greek Hercules on a 1950's Army green canvas stretcher: "Hi, we're IX-I-I. Did somebody dial IX-I-I?"

Read The Adventures of Jolee Bindo and see the amazing Peep Surgery
Story WIP: The Dragonfighters
My blog: Confessions of a Geeky Mom--Latest post: Security Alerts!
Love Star Trek AND gaming? Check out Lotus Fleet.

Jae Onasi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-01-2006, 04:01 PM   #55
tk102
Well past expiration date
 
tk102's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 5,766
Current Game: Dragon Age: Origins
Forum Veteran Helpful! Notable contributor 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider AL
However, as I have pointed out in previous threads regarding the validity of the scientific method, peer review or any other "majority opinion" method of answering difficult questions has serious drawbacks, as well as the advantages you mentioned. In other words, the more intelligent you become, the fewer "peers" you have. Those with the highest reasoning power (in possession of empathy) will always be in a minority, and therefore will be the comparitively moral minority.
Your arguments are interesting here and I think they highlight the limits to which morality can be considered objective. Certainly the most intelluctual minds may be able to find objective truths without the need for peer review. The truths are "out there" as it were, waiting to be discovered. But this is where morality is different. It's not something that you put in a box and label. It is a fuzzy set of values assigned to an action. Because we can't write out an equation or assign an objective numerical property that describes the "morality" of an act, we are forced to concede that morality is subjective. There is no hard and fast way to accurately depict every nuance of either the impetus to act or the way the act is received. All we can describe objectively is the act itself. Morality, as Kant argued, does not lie in the outcome of the act, but in the motive of the act. Because we cannot know the actor's intent directly, we forced to subjective infer it from the act. Therefore the morality of an action whether a priori or a posteriori is relative to the interpretative abilities of those making the judgement.


tk102 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-01-2006, 05:28 PM   #56
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by tk102:

Your arguments are interesting here and I think they highlight the limits to which morality can be considered objective.
On the contrary, my arguments showed that few people can be considered to be objective.

As an objective universal standard is quite simply the only way morality can exist at all, as detailed in posts above. If morality is not a universal standard, it doesn't qualify as morality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tk102:

Certainly the most intelluctual minds may be able to find objective truths without the need for peer review. The truths are "out there" as it were, waiting to be discovered. But this is where morality is different. It's not something that you put in a box and label. It is a fuzzy set of values assigned to an action.
I don't think you have any reasoning to back that statement up. Morality is frankly quite easy to define in clear-cut terms. Morality is the universal standard of behaviour that aims to minimise the negative impact of one (moral) organism's actions on all other beings. In any given situation there will be a course of action that presents itself which is more moral than all other available courses of action, by virtue of the fact that it causes the minimum amount of distress or injury to other creatures. The moral man seeks to take this most responsible course of action in preference to all others.

The values aren't fuzzy. Our perception of individual circumstances may be limited, our reasoning may be flawed. But- as an analogy- a mathematician who is incapable of comprehending all aspects of complex equations can only find fault in himself. He can hardly "blame the numbers" and keep a straight face.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tk102:

There is no hard and fast way to accurately depict every nuance of either the impetus to act or the way the act is received. All we can describe objectively is the act itself. Morality, as Kant argued, does not lie in the outcome of the act, but in the motive of the act. Because we cannot know the actor's intent directly, we forced to subjective infer it from the act. Therefore the morality of an action whether a priori or a posteriori is relative to the interpretative abilities of those making the judgement.
Kant's arguments were undoubtedly revolutionary in his time, but they have dated poorly in many respects. Morality is in fact largely based on the anticipation of likely consequences, otherwise it ceases to be moral.

Some cases are clear-cut. Say... "If I stamp up and down on this frog, it will most likely be crushed, and expire. Therefore to stamp up and down on the frog is immoral."

Some cases are less clear-cut: "If I release this frog I found in my house into the garden, it might be tortured and eaten by next door's cat. If however I release it onto the street out front, it might be run over by a passing car. The likelihood of the frog dying by cat is slightly less than dying by car (the road is busy) therefore releasing it into the garden is more moral, as it will lessen the chance of any ill-effects to the frog that might occur directly due to my interference."

But just because some situations are more difficult to reason out than others, doesn't mean that there isn't an optimally moral course of action just waiting to be discovered. We don't create morality anew for each new situation we encounter, we merely apply the same basic principles, add a dash of intellect and hope to divine the truth. We won't always be able to. But that doesn't make the truth "relative".

-

Quote:
Originally Posted by ET Warrior:

I'm confused.
Hmm, me too. It's certainly possible that I'm wrong about Windu being a troll, but a lot of what he does just screams "contrived" to me. Isn't it a Japanese proverb that "artlessness is the most difficult art"?

Or was that Michael Crichton.


[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: quote & reply,
Old 11-01-2006, 06:52 PM   #57
tk102
Well past expiration date
 
tk102's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 5,766
Current Game: Dragon Age: Origins
Forum Veteran Helpful! Notable contributor 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider AL
On the contrary, my arguments showed that few people can be considered to be objective.
Ah, thank you for helping me understand better. Yes, in retrospect, I concede that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider AL
Morality is the universal standard of behaviour that aims to minimise the negative impact of one (moral) organism's actions on all other beings. In any given situation there will be a course of action that presents itself which is more moral than all other available courses of action, by virtue of the fact that it causes the minimum amount of distress or injury to other creatures. The moral man seeks to take this most responsible course of action in preference to all others.

The values aren't fuzzy. Our perception of individual circumstances may be limited, our reasoning may be flawed. But- as an analogy- a mathematician who is incapable of comprehending all aspects of complex equations can only find fault in himself. He can hardly "blame the numbers" and keep a straight face.
Let's look closer at the numbers and see if we can't blame them.

Do equations of utilitarianism take into account future generations? Could it be that the most moral course of action for one civilization at war with another is to decimate that civilization in order to bring a homogenous world peace? (or: was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki moral?)

What about free will? How is that taken into account? If someone is screaming and ranting and causing distress to others, is it morally right to sedate that person and give them a painless lobotomy?

And are people's comforts and distresses measured equally? Does the comfort of a king outweigh the discomfort of a peasant?

How about pleasure/pain over time? If I give a piece of candy to child everytime he cries, I provide immediate pleasure to both of us. But over time, he might become spoiled and fat.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider AL
But just because some situations are more difficult to reason out than others, doesn't mean that there isn't an optimally moral course of action just waiting to be discovered. We don't create morality anew for each new situation we encounter, we merely apply the same basic principles, add a dash of intellect and hope to divine the truth. We won't always be able to. But that doesn't make the truth "relative".
What coeffecients do we assign to each of these factors in our equation? In fact, what objective equation do really have to begin with? We write our own rules as to what is important and what is less important, about who we empathize with and who we do not. With no objective way to measure morality, the argument of what is the most moral course of action is word-play for politicians. You cannot pretend that it is anything like a mathematical equation. It does not hold the same "truth".


tk102 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-01-2006, 10:11 PM   #58
Windu Chi
Banned
 
Windu Chi's Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Getting revenge on that traitor, Anakin.
Posts: 882
Cool Guy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider AL
On the contrary, my arguments showed that few people can be considered to be objective.
I don't possibilty believe no human or intelligent life can be objective since it has emotions that determine its behavior toward reasoning. I will say a AI intelligence can possibility be consider totally objective.
If it's programing is not change from day one.
By the human programer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider AL
Morality is frankly quite easy to define in clear-cut terms. Morality is the universal standard of behaviour that aims to minimise the negative impact of one (moral) organism's actions on all other beings. In any given situation there will be a course of action that presents itself which is more moral than all other available courses of action, by virtue of the fact that it causes the minimum amount of distress or injury to other creatures. The moral man seeks to take this most responsible course of action in preference to all others.

The values aren't fuzzy. Our perception of individual circumstances may be limited, our reasoning may be flawed. But- as an analogy- a mathematician who is incapable of comprehending all aspects of complex equations can only find fault in himself. He can hardly "blame the numbers" and keep a straight face.
You can't use math yet to define what is right or wrong, respect to a specific society moral standards.

Everybody experiances evolve on different paths.
Everybody view the negative and positive of the societal system from different perspectives.

Example: The mistreatment of the Jews by the Nazis before the negative of the Holocaust in Germany, was look apon by the German society as positive.
But for the bigger society system of the Earth it was view as negative or evil.
So, I believe the optimal values are or will be always fuzzy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider AL
Kant's arguments were undoubtedly revolutionary in his time, but they have dated poorly in many respects. Morality is in fact largely based on the anticipation of likely consequences, otherwise it ceases to be moral.
So more playing dice with morality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider AL
Some cases are clear-cut. Say... "If I stamp up and down on this frog, it will most likely be crushed, and expire. Therefore to stamp up and down on the frog is immoral."
You are being a little to specific here, Spider.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider AL
But just because some situations are more difficult to reason out than others, doesn't mean that there isn't an optimally moral course of action just waiting to be discovered.
I disagree with you here, Spider.
I believe that the definition of right or wrong will change indefinitely from universe to universe.
With not respect to existence, the definition will change from society to society also indefinitely, of course if the society system last indefinitely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider AL
We don't create morality anew for each new situation we encounter, we merely apply the same basic principles, add a dash of intellect and hope to divine the truth.
So we just play dice with respect to morality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider AL
But that doesn't make the truth "relative".
Once again how can you reason that logic respect to existence.
You seem to be using inference reasoning here.
You don't have a complete generalization of morality or truth respect to existence.


Back down to Earth; from society to a specific society.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider AL
Hmm, me too. It's certainly possible that I'm wrong about Windu being a troll, but a lot of what he does just screams "contrived" to me. Isn't it a Japanese proverb that "artlessness is the most difficult art"?
You know Spider, I guess my aggressiveness in arguments seem to make you think that I want to decive others into less civilize arguments that lead to flame wars.
But by you saying "artlessness".
You seem to want to start a flame war.

I am assuming you saying that I have an inability to mask my emotions.

Or are you saying that: I lack the skill, the knowledge, is uncultured or to ignorant to mask my feelings.



You know your arrogance is amusing to me.

Last edited by windu6; 11-02-2006 at 01:50 AM.
Windu Chi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-02-2006, 02:28 AM   #59
ET Warrior
PhD in horribleness
 
ET Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Evil League of Evil
Posts: 9,405
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by windu6
Example The mistreatment of the Jews by the Nazis before the negative of the Holocaust in Germany, was look apon by the German society as positive.
But for the bigger society system of the Earth it was view as negative or evil.
And as has been said, over and over again, and it is the last time I am going to say it. Just because a specific society deems something as morally positive, does not make that a correct morality. It means the reigning 'morality' of that specific culture is actually amoral.

Moral relativism is a contradicting ideal.



ET Warrior is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-02-2006, 03:18 AM   #60
Windu Chi
Banned
 
Windu Chi's Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Getting revenge on that traitor, Anakin.
Posts: 882
Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by ET Warrior
And as has been said, over and over again, and it is the last time I am going to say it. Just because a specific society deems something as morally positive, does not make that a correct morality. It means the reigning 'morality' of that specific culture is actually amoral.

Moral relativism is a contradicting ideal.
So, you are saying you believe nobody standards of good or evil is correct.
So, everybody moral standards are false.
Because they use their emotions to form standards, so with the use of emotions this make any moral standards invalid.

But I guess I am one of those few who relate moral standards to the rest of existence. Which I don't know if anyboby will accurately obtain, so I guess this reasoning will remain fuzzy to me: if moral relativism is a contradiction.
Since there is nothing as of yet that have the accurate laws of morality respect to everything in existence.

So, since I believe nothing is impossible I will have to accept that this might be a possibilty.

But this argument is not going to hold up for this planet.
So, society will continue to argue this reasoning many indefinite years to come.

Last edited by windu6; 11-02-2006 at 03:45 AM.
Windu Chi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-02-2006, 03:36 AM   #61
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
I'm gonna have a shot at this. Most would agree that murder is wrong, wouldn't they? Even those who believed in large scale murder would likely agree that child predetors were the lowest of the low wouldn't they? Those are two morals that are pretty much universal.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-02-2006, 03:55 AM   #62
Windu Chi
Banned
 
Windu Chi's Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Getting revenge on that traitor, Anakin.
Posts: 882
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
I'm gonna have a shot at this. Most would agree that murder is wrong, wouldn't they? Even those who believed in large scale murder would likely agree that child predetors were the lowest of the low wouldn't they? Those are two morals that are pretty much universal.
Yes, of course Nancy.
This is ET reasoning: The Nazis evil didn't matter because moral standards is invalid, because of our emotions.
Emotions flaw the logical reasoning.

You know, Nancy that I won't ever believe the Nazis evil didn't matter, even if I end up burning in hell.

The idea of moral standards respect to any individual will be a fuzzy concept to me.
Until we have the documents that will say what are the laws of morality respect to existence.

That is my reasoning, Nancy.

But until then I will accept the evil that is define now as negative.

Last edited by windu6; 11-02-2006 at 10:27 AM.
Windu Chi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-02-2006, 09:57 AM   #63
Ray Jones
[armleglegarmhead]
 
Ray Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: digital
Posts: 8,256
10 year veteran! LF Jester Helpful! Forum Veteran 
Spider AL, the "way to morality" you describe here requires basic skills in logical reasoning and empathy - in other words: a certain level of intelligence is needed on the part of the individual to be able to find the (most?) moral way for its actions. If I understood it right, you also say that the more intelligence there is, the better is the ability to find moral and the better might the possible quality of moral be, but the lack of the ability to find moral does not mean the individual must not be moral - thus acting amoral cannot be "excused" with not being able to act moral intentionally.

I wonder if acting in a "moral way" unintentionally really can be considered acting moral? Is it moral not to crush the frog just because you don't want your shoes to be all frog-inside-out-ish, but you wouldn't care about his life at all? Is it amoral to split a worm in two, who will not die from it, nor feel any pain, but there's just increased "worm population" instead?

Isn't it already amoral just to live, because whatever action you take, it most probably will cause pain, suffering and death of other lifeforms? Is it moral to safe one animals life just to cause the death of others with it? Can one be absolute and totally moral?

And isn't morality, the "universal standard", an exclusively human concept? Can "real" and especially intentional moral or amoral acting be expected from individuals/creatures/lifeforms, who are not capable of percieving a concept like morality? Is the elephant, who frequents your yard, amoral, just because he stamps down on the frog and crushes it while he was focussing in on your apple tree instead of caring about where to step next? Or, is the (universal) principle of evolution, like survival of the fittest in particular, amoral? Is the little eagle, who is screaming the loudest, thus getting the most food and probably causing one of his siblings to starve, amoral? Or is it the mother eagle, giving him the most food and not sharing it equally?

Do we find something like morality outside of the pink monkey society?



Last edited by Ray Jones; 11-02-2006 at 10:33 AM.
Ray Jones is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-02-2006, 11:49 AM   #64
Windu Chi
Banned
 
Windu Chi's Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Getting revenge on that traitor, Anakin.
Posts: 882
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Jones
Spider AL, the "way to morality" you describe here requires basic skills in logical reasoning and empathy - in other words: a certain level of intelligence is needed on the part of the individual to be able to find the (most?) moral way for its actions.
But this reasoning seem to always end up being flawed because of the influence of the emotional state of empathy.
No matter how high the intelligence is of any individual.
But we would see what he would say on this point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Jones
If I understood it right, you also say that the more intelligence there is, the better is the ability to find moral and the better might the possible quality of moral be, but the lack of the ability to find moral does not mean the individual must not be moral - thus acting amoral cannot be "excused" with not being able to act moral intentionally.
This sound like a contradiction.
That why is I say it will remain a fuzzy concept.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Jones
I wonder if acting in a "moral way" unintentionally really can be considered acting moral?
This for me will require those laws I have been talking about respect to existence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Jones
Is it moral not to crush the frog just because you don't want your shoes to be all frog-inside-out-ish, but you wouldn't care about his life at all? Is it amoral to split a worm in two, who will not die from it, nor feel any pain, but there's just increased "worm population" instead?
Well, for me this will require those same laws for a accurate answer to these type of questions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Jones
Isn't it already amoral just to live, because whatever action you take, it most probably will cause pain, suffering and death of other lifeforms? Is it moral to safe one animals life just to cause the death of others with it? Can one be absolute and totally moral
I will say, yes it is with his reasoning.
Well, with emotions influencing the reasoning.
Also we will have to find out what the hell totally moral is respect to existence, that is my reasoning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Jones
And isn't morality, the "universal standard", an exclusively human concept?
I would say yes, humans aren't the only intelligence that exist in the universe; here on Earth for example, dolphins and killer whales have high intelligence and emotions, I believe.
We just can't accurately determine their intelligence and emotions, because we can't communicate property with these creatures yet.
Also the they have feelings toward themselves and feelings toward the human trainers who train them to be less wild.
On a local scale anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Jones
Can "real" and especially intentional moral or amoral acting be expected from individuals/creatures/lifeforms, who are not capable of percieving a concept like morality?
I would say yes on his point here.
The ebola virus can't be label as amoral or moral because these basic life forms seems as of now, not to have no emotions or a high enough intelligence, to be responsible for it's actions.
So, it can't be label caring for or not caring for the possible death of the host.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Jones
Is the elephant, who frequents your yard, amoral, just because he stomps down on the frog and crushes it while he was focussing in on your apple tree instead of caring about where to step next?
My reasoning: I would say no.
Because a elephant have a high intelligence and similar emotions of humans.
Elephants seem to mourn for their dead as we do; I would label that a human emotional state of empathy.
Also on a local scale.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Jones
Or, is the (universal) principle of evolution, like survival of the fittest in particular, amoral? Is the little eagle, who is screaming the loudest, thus getting the most food and probably causing one of his siblings to starve, amoral? Or is it the mother eagle, giving him the most food and not sharing it equally?
I am guessing yes respect to Spider reasoning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Jones
Do we find something like morality outside of the pink monkey society?
I would say yeah if we want to go off this planet and explore the universe.
And find out what are the laws of morality respect to the rest of existence.

Last edited by windu6; 11-02-2006 at 02:20 PM.
Windu Chi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-02-2006, 12:03 PM   #65
tk102
Well past expiration date
 
tk102's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 5,766
Current Game: Dragon Age: Origins
Forum Veteran Helpful! Notable contributor 
Quote:
Originally Posted by windu6
But this reasoning seem to always end up being flawed because of the influence of the emotional state of empathy.
Flawed only in practice, but that does not refute what Spider was arguing. His assertion was that given a set of choices, there is one choice that is objectively the highest moral choice. Whether you can determine that choice or not is irrelevant to the argument. The issue is whether this asertion is true.

My argument is that there is no foundation to objectiveness of morality since we have no means of determining moral magnitude that is objective.


tk102 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-02-2006, 12:14 PM   #66
Windu Chi
Banned
 
Windu Chi's Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Getting revenge on that traitor, Anakin.
Posts: 882
Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by tk102
Flawed only in practice, but that does not refute what Spider was arguing. His assertion was that given a set of choices, there is one choice that is objectively the highest moral choice. Whether you can determine that choice or not is irrelevant to the argument. The issue is whether this assertion is true.
Well, tk102 to find this ultimate truth we would need those laws of morality repsect to the rest of existence, in my opinion.
That seem to be located in infinity, being respect to existence, or reality, or whatever the hell there else is out there.
So in my opinion, this reasoning is flawed period until we obtain those laws of morality for all of existence.

Last edited by windu6; 11-02-2006 at 12:46 PM.
Windu Chi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-02-2006, 12:32 PM   #67
tk102
Well past expiration date
 
tk102's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 5,766
Current Game: Dragon Age: Origins
Forum Veteran Helpful! Notable contributor 
@windu6: I think if it was possible to quantify moral actions, by maximizing hedons and minimizing dolors, then we'd have something. Maybe on a robotic world where every action could be computed for its net effect upon the robotic society as a whole with some predetermined criteria for what is considered a "positive" effect. Unfortunately, I think that's as close as we can come to objectiveness.

It just seems to blatant to me that morality is an internal concept. Why must we externalize it and proclaim it as an objective truth? I'm okay with it being subjective.


tk102 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-02-2006, 01:03 PM   #68
Windu Chi
Banned
 
Windu Chi's Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Getting revenge on that traitor, Anakin.
Posts: 882
Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by tk102
@windu6: I think if it was possible to quantify moral actions, by maximizing hedons and minimizing dolors, then we'd have something. Maybe on a robotic world where every action could be computed for its net effect upon the robotic society as a whole with some predetermined criteria for what is considered a "positive" effect. Unfortunately, I think that's as close as we can come to objectiveness.

It just seems to blatant to me that morality is an internal concept. Why must we externalize it and proclaim it as an objective truth? I'm okay with it being subjective.
I am ok with good or evil being define in the mind and modified by individual bias too.
Only the creator or creators of existence might have a high probability of being consider totally objective, in my opinion.
But since I believe nothing is impossible I am not sure about this.
Believing nothing is impossible for me, seem to make me have the beliefs of contradictions.

So, since I don't yet know of existence, I will continue believing that absolutely nothing is impossible.
Even if contradictions show up in the data.

Last edited by windu6; 11-02-2006 at 01:43 PM.
Windu Chi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-02-2006, 05:28 PM   #69
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by tk102:

Let's look closer at the numbers and see if we can't blame them.

Do equations of utilitarianism take into account future generations? Could it be that the most moral course of action for one civilization at war with another is to decimate that civilization in order to bring a homogenous world peace? (or: was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki moral?)
You're asking whether the killing over 200,000 Japanese civilians, (with small proportions of US citizens, Korean indentured labourers and sundry western prisoners of war therein,) was the most moral course of action available to the United States in the "cause of peace"? I don't find that question too tricky. Do you?

Let's examine the historical context. Japan at the time was being manhandled into continuing the conflict predominantly by a militaristic elite. A rarified class of warmongering, bushido-obsessed toffs who were perfectly willing to let every single Japanese civilian and footsoldier die even if the effort to defend Japanese soil was totally futile. In their minds- it might be reasonably assumed- the Japanese people existed only to maintain their position and further their nefarious goals. This was of course a long-standing point of view among the Japanese political elite, even prior to the decadent Edo period. And lest we forget it was also (of course) a point of view readily shared by the ruling classes of Western nations throughout history.

The result of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings was that it demonstrated that the West had such monumentally destructive power that they could completely raze Japan without very many casualties of their own. It also demonstrated that the West didn't mind killing swathes of Japanese civilians in an instant. Those are powerful statements to make.

But whether those statements of power affected the course of the war is another question. The Japanese, according to contemporary accounts from notable figures on both sides of the conflict, might well have been willing to surrender before the atomic bombs were ever dropped... pending a little negotiation. The moral course of action in the cause of peace would naturally therefore have been to pursue the route of negotiation in a serious way. The US cannot be said to have tried in any serious way to "negotiate" Japan's surrender. Slightly less moral than diplomacy but infinitely more moral than the slaughtering of countless innocents, we have the equally unexplored option of surgical strikes. Rather high quality Commando units had been trained during WW2, especially by the British. However, the assassination of key Japanese officials wasn't on the cards.

But of course there were tertiary concerns to the US. The first concern was to cripple Japan's political structure so that their government would be easier to control and westernise following the conflict. The second concern was to demonstrate to the rest of the world (not just Japan, and in particular the soviets) that the US was militarily the most dangerous nation on the planet. The third concern was to save time, money and Allied soldiers' lives by abruptly ending the campaign as decisively as possible. The fourth concern was to take an unusual opportunity to test a new weapon on living targets in-situ. Not one of these concerns can be said to be anything less than amoral.

So when confronted with the evidence, it's clear that the bombings were immoral, but it's hardly surprising that they occurred. After all, the policy of bombing civilians common to ALL sides during the war was immoral. Additional factors that make the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombings immoral are as stated- that they were an issue not of victory over an aggressor, but of dominance and control over a defeated people, and dominance on the world stage.

To provide additional proof that the act was immoral, we apply the "universal standard of behaviour" principle. What if Japan or Germany had dropped the bombs on us? Why, then it would be a war crime. Not because they were expansionist aggressors, but because the intentional targeting of non-combatants to illicit political capitulation is terrorism in its purest form. If it's immoral for them, it's definitely immoral for us.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tk102:

What about free will? How is that taken into account? If someone is screaming and ranting and causing distress to others, is it morally right to sedate that person and give them a painless lobotomy?
You describe a hypothetical situation in which irreversible brain injury is inflicted on someone because their loudness is socially unacceptable, and then you imply that discerning whether the act is immoral or not is some way difficult? Surely you aren't being serious.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tk102:

And are people's comforts and distresses measured equally? Does the comfort of a king outweigh the discomfort of a peasant?
Actually morally speaking, the discomfort of the peasant carries more weight than the comfort of a king. Because the king has wealth and power, and therefore has extra responsibilities. If a man wishes to be a leader, he has a moral obligation to care for those he leads, if necessary giving up his own comforts to improve the lot of "his team". This is why a moral executive would cut his own wages, before cutting the wages of those staff that work under him. Of course executives are rarely moral people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tk102:

How about pleasure/pain over time? If I give a piece of candy to child everytime he cries, I provide immediate pleasure to both of us. But over time, he might become spoiled and fat.
Well here we have a good example of why applied morality is dependent on our ability to gauge the likely consequences of our actions. Anyone who gives excessive amounts of sugary candy to their children has to be aware that they could be inflicting an injury on the child that won't manifest itself for some months or years. If someone chooses to sacrifice a child's health in order to make the child less noisy, or more "manageable", That's immoral. Very similar to the lobotomy angle, in that respect.

Like many other apologists for moral relativity in this thread, you have given me a list of hypothetical situations that you consider to be morally "fuzzy" in some way. I think in this case I've found all of them to be relatively clear-cut questions. But it's worth remembering that even if a moral conundrum was presented to me that was complex enough to render it insoluble by me, that would not make morality relative.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tk102:

What coeffecients do we assign to each of these factors in our equation? In fact, what objective equation do really have to begin with? We write our own rules as to what is important and what is less important, about who we empathize with and who we do not. With no objective way to measure morality, the argument of what is the most moral course of action is word-play for politicians. You cannot pretend that it is anything like a mathematical equation. It does not hold the same "truth".
That whole paragraph is completely devoid of any logical reasoning to back up the argument it asserts as truth.

You ask what "objective equation" we begin with, and the question of whether there are objective basic moral principles has been answered exhaustively throughout the thread. We begin with a basic understanding that others feel suffering just as we do, and that the lives of others have value, not merely our own life. Therefore through the quality of empathy we arrive at the conclusion that we wish to be moral, by minimising the amount of suffering and death we inflict upon others. We apply our reasoning powers to discern what will cause suffering and death to others, and then we strive to the best of our ability not to engage in such actions. If we find ourselves engaging in such actions by accident, we cease to engage in them. If we find that we have engaged in such actions in the past without fully understanding it, then we make whatever reparations to the wronged parties we are capable of making. These are very simple standards to remember, apply and adhere to.

You say that we "write our own rules" when it has been previously demonstrated that- logically speaking- writing one set of rules for oneself and a different set for others is inherently immoral as it is incompatible with the most basic principle of morality, that one must apply a moral standard universally. If one chooses to behave morally towards some people and immorally towards others... ONE IS BEING IMMORAL.

As for there being no "objective way to measure morality", you're incorrect. In many circumstances it is easy to measure, when death and suffering are easy to measure and options are starkly different and easy to evaluate. If there are circumstances in which death, suffering and the differences between available options are NOT easy to measure, it is the fault of those doing the measuring, not the "fault of the measurements".

And lastly, I do not "pretend" anything. Morality is almost exactly like a mathematical equation, in that every factor involved in "teh weighty moralz conundra" can theoretically be expressed as a simple value, and a logical train of thought emerges with a definite conclusion at the end of it, directly dependent on the relationship between values preceding it.

Likely outcome of stomping on frog = Death of frog.
Causing death when that death is unnecessary for continued survival of self != Moral
Death of frog necessary for continued survival of self? = No.
Other courses of action available to self = Not stomping on frog.
Therefore:
Stomping on frog != Moral.

Tertiary concerns can also be expressed in mathematical form:

But me stomping on frog = fun!
Therefore:
Me = Psychopath.



This jocular tangent merely points out that some moral questions are clear-cut and easy. Whereas some moral questions can be more difficult. But they only seem "difficult" due to our own inability to comprehend/discern/calculate all the variables involved, not because the variables themselves are in any way "relative". Just as only few people have the wherewithal necessary to comprehend complex mathematical equations, only few people have the reasoning power to process the tougher moral questions.

I've said it a dozen times already, and there's little I can do to elaborate on it any more than I have already. Like a lot of other people in this thread, it seems that you have observed the inability of a large proportion of people to calculate complex moral questions, and have concluded erroneously on the strength of that evidence that such a thing as "moral relativity" actually exists.

It's like observing that most people can't handle simple mental arithmetic and concluding erroneously that "two and two can equal seventeen, it just depends on your point of view."

Quote:
Originally Posted by tk102:

My argument is that there is no foundation to objectiveness of morality since we have no means of determining moral magnitude that is objective.
And once again, I must contradict you. I have demonstrated that some moral questions are extremely clear-cut and easily objectively evaluated. Once again, some moral questions are tougher than others. But that's due to our stupidity as a species and as individuals. That is why the moral man strives to better himself and increase his wisdom. Because without wisdom, we will often inadvertently act immorally. Therefore to be optimally moral we must be optimally wise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tk102:

It just seems to blatant to me that morality is an internal concept. Why must we externalize it and proclaim it as an objective truth? I'm okay with it being subjective.
Well no offence, but you're not being moral if you're "okay with morality being subjective." Without a genuine effort to adhere to a universally applied standard of conduct, one can hardly call oneself a moral man. The moral man first wishes to be as moral as possible. This means that the moral man will strive to be as moral, if not MORE moral, than all other people. He will then apply the same standards to himself as he does to others, and vice versa. In addition, the moral man has a right to demand that all other people behave morally towards him, and all other beings. (Otherwise he is in a sense violating his OWN rights.)

In other words: If you wish to be moral you wish to do what is right. Therefore you believe there IS a right and a wrong. Therefore excusing others who are doing what you believe is wrong (immoral) because those people erroneously believe their own actions to be moral,.. is immoral.

Without the desire to adhere to an objective moral standard, we become the purveyors of nothing more than inequality, and become inherently immoral.

-

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

I'm gonna have a shot at this. Most would agree that murder is wrong, wouldn't they? Even those who believed in large scale murder would likely agree that child predetors were the lowest of the low wouldn't they? Those are two morals that are pretty much universal.
The word "Murder" really denotes an illegal killing of another human. Not necessarily an immoral killing. There's a big difference. It's perfectly morally acceptable to shoot a man who is trying to shoot you in order that he might take the wallet from your cold dead... pocket, for instance. The law might deem such a killing to be murder, depending on the circumstances; but sometimes it's moral to kill.

That aside, your post seems to be an attempt to find some moral principle that everyone believes in. That's not only futile, it's irrelevant. Not everyone believes the earth to be round, but it is. Likewise some amoral people believe that their immoral acts... are moral. They're incorrect. Their "state of incorrectness" doesn't mean morality is relative.

-

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Jones:

I wonder if acting in a "moral way" unintentionally really can be considered acting moral? Is it moral not to crush the frog just because you don't want your shoes to be all frog-inside-out-ish, but you wouldn't care about his life at all? Is it amoral to split a worm in two, who will not die from it, nor feel any pain, but there's just increased "worm population" instead?
Well here's the distinction. If you unintentionally commit a moral act- avoiding squishing the frog merely to save your shoe-leather- Your act was moral, but your intent was not. And without the desire to be moral, no matter how many good deeds you do by accident, you as a person will never be moral.

Secondly regarding the worm angle, cutting a worm in half doesn't result in two worms. That's an old wives' tale. Cutting a worm in half will most often kill it. In some cases if the cut is very exact, one portion of the worm will heal and survive, but not often. And therefore, cutting a worm in half is immoral.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Jones:

Isn't it already amoral just to live, because whatever action you take, it most probably will cause pain, suffering and death of other lifeforms? Is it moral to safe one animals life just to cause the death of others with it? Can one be absolute and totally moral?
In the purely philosophical sense, we can never be totally anything. Because we're human, and intrinsically flawed creatures. Perfection is a goal to strive for, it's never attainable.

But in certain circumstances, our choices can be totally moral, when they are clearly the most moral option available to us. When we do the right thing for the right reason and both are easily computed, then we're being totally moral. Choosing not to hit a guy who annoys you is a totally moral choice, with moral action attached. Choosing not to stomp that frog. Choosing to take that injured stray cat you found on your doorstep to the vet instead of throwing it into the canal. (as some people would.) The more complex the situation however, the more difficult it is to be sure that you're being totally moral. But it's your responsibility as a moral man to try to be totally moral in both thought and action.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Jones:

And isn't morality, the "universal standard", an exclusively human concept? Can "real" and especially intentional moral or amoral acting be expected from individuals/creatures/lifeforms, who are not capable of percieving a concept like morality? Is the elephant, who frequents your yard, amoral, just because he stamps down on the frog and crushes it while he was focussing in on your apple tree instead of caring about where to step next? Or, is the (universal) principle of evolution, like survival of the fittest in particular, amoral? Is the little eagle, who is screaming the loudest, thus getting the most food and probably causing one of his siblings to starve, amoral? Or is it the mother eagle, giving him the most food and not sharing it equally?

Do we find something like morality outside of the pink monkey society?
I think I've answered this question before in this thread with the simple statements that the ability to apply morality is limited by limited intelligence and reasoning power, and that without the quality of empathy one has no reason to be moral. I don't know that animals other than humans possess empathy. I don't really know that other humans possess empathy. I assume they do, because they tell me so. But animals without empathy won't really want to be moral. And animals without our ability to reason and anticipate likely consequences of actions, won't be ABLE to be moral. Hey, most PEOPLE aren't moral. It's doubtful that many other animals are.

Also, the fact that other animals may not be capable of possessing a sense of morality is just as irrelevant as the fact that some humans aren't capable of possessing a sense of morality. So they can't. So what? The moral standard exists outside of individuals, be they man or elephant.

And of course, in the final analysis it's a moral truism that those with the most power have the most responsibility to use their power morally. Who has more power than intelligent humans? Who has a greater responsibility to be moral?

-

As for Windu's comments, I'm not responding to them. Not because I'm being rude, but because I believe- due to many inconsistencies in his writing style, and his perennial steering of every topic back to the same irrelevant yet emotive nonsense- that Windu is a troll. And I don't reply to trolls.


[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.

Last edited by Spider AL; 11-02-2006 at 05:40 PM.
Spider AL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-02-2006, 06:17 PM   #70
Windu Chi
Banned
 
Windu Chi's Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Getting revenge on that traitor, Anakin.
Posts: 882
Cool Guy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider AL

As for Windu's comments, I'm not responding to them. Not because I'm being rude, but because I believe- due to many inconsistencies in his writing style, and his perennial steering of every topic back to the same irrelevant yet emotive nonsense- that Windu is a troll. And I don't reply to trolls.
Man, I don't give a damn you don't respond to my comments. I don't know what hell you are seeing in my comments that make you think that I am baiting people into arguments.

The arrogance you show in your comments to other people sickens me anyway.

Last edited by windu6; 11-02-2006 at 07:33 PM.
Windu Chi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-02-2006, 07:50 PM   #71
Emperor Devon
36 Wings, 365 Eyes
 
Emperor Devon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 5,479
Current Game: Ass Effect
Contest winner - Fan Fiction 
Quote:
Originally Posted by windu6
The arrogance you show in your comments to other people sickens me anyway.
From what I've seen, Spider is just responding in a logical manner to other people's arguments. Arrogance is a different thing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabretooth
We will be great failures one day, you and I
Emperor Devon is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-02-2006, 08:06 PM   #72
Windu Chi
Banned
 
Windu Chi's Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Getting revenge on that traitor, Anakin.
Posts: 882
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor Devon
From what I've seen, Spider is just responding in a logical manner to other people's arguments. Arrogance is a different thing.
He seem a little to arrogant to me, Devon.
He keep calling me names, but I am going to be cool about it.
I'm not going to get piss off with him or angry at him.
I'm not going to get into an argument with him.
He seem to want to get into a argument with me, though.
But he do seem to act a little to arrogant toward other people's comments here.
Logical with obvious arrogance attached.

Last edited by windu6; 11-02-2006 at 09:43 PM.
Windu Chi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-03-2006, 12:07 AM   #73
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider AL
The word "Murder" really denotes an illegal killing of another human. Not necessarily an immoral killing.
That's exactly what I mean, murder. Not killing in self defense, in fact I strongly support wasting some ******* who threatens your life. I have no problem with that at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider AL
That aside, your post seems to be an attempt to find some moral principle that everyone believes in. That's not only futile, it's irrelevant.
As far as something like pedophilia goes not even 1 percent of the world, probably not one member of Al Qaeda or any Nazis or even anyone in the Bush administration would be behind it. I doubt even Palpatine would go there. If you want a moral principle that everyone believes in that's pretty hard to beat. Name one culture that supports it.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-03-2006, 01:00 AM   #74
ET Warrior
PhD in horribleness
 
ET Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Evil League of Evil
Posts: 9,405
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
Name one culture that supports it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophile_activism

They do.

Once again, I don't point this out to show that morality is relative, more so to show that even though some people believe things are good, does not mean they are moral things.



ET Warrior is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-03-2006, 01:39 AM   #75
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
What the hell?

These sick bastards really are fighting a losing battle as currupting the ideals of a youth is currupting the ideals of a youth regardless of country or culture. That's not questioning the morality of how pedophiles are percieved, but universally they are the least defensible people out there. Where as militant Islam would be defended by the Muslim world you cannot say child predetors would be, especially to be fair to the Muslim world their strong beliefs in defending children. Pedophiles in the Muslim world are probably stoned to death, I know us in the Western world want to put them to death. Plus all this defence people like NAMBLA throw up, I'm of the same opinion of it as I am of people like Al Qaeda using the Quran to justify terrorism: some of them would know it's bull****, they just use whatever they can to try and justify their actions.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-03-2006, 06:51 AM   #76
Ray Jones
[armleglegarmhead]
 
Ray Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: digital
Posts: 8,256
10 year veteran! LF Jester Helpful! Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider AL
Well here's the distinction. If you unintentionally commit a moral act- avoiding squishing the frog merely to save your shoe-leather- Your act was moral, but your intent was not. And without the desire to be moral, no matter how many good deeds you do by accident, you as a person will never be moral.
Ah yes, I see, I agree.

Quote:
Secondly regarding the worm angle, cutting a worm in half doesn't result in two worms. That's an old wives' tale. Cutting a worm in half will most often kill it. In some cases if the cut is very exact, one portion of the worm will heal and survive, but not often. And therefore, cutting a worm in half is immoral.
Okay. Bad example. [/O'Neill]

But.. in theory, with a space worm, maybe..? No?

Quote:
I think I've answered this question before in this thread with the simple statements that the ability to apply morality is limited by limited intelligence and reasoning power, and that without the quality of empathy one has no reason to be moral. I don't know that animals other than humans possess empathy. I don't really know that other humans possess empathy. I assume they do, because they tell me so. But animals without empathy won't really want to be moral. And animals without our ability to reason and anticipate likely consequences of actions, won't be ABLE to be moral. Hey, most PEOPLE aren't moral. It's doubtful that many other animals are.
I think many animals feel empathy, especially the "higher developed" ones. Primates for instance and elephants, why not. I think empathy (and morality) becomes an aspect when a "social together" and also the ability to act independent to or despite of instinctive impulses exists. And the more complex the social interaction is, the more instinct-independend the train of thought is, the more "we" can expect empathy and some kind of desire for being moral, at least within this group of individuals.

Quote:
And of course, in the final analysis it's a moral truism that those with the most power have the most responsibility to use their power morally. Who has more power than intelligent humans? Who has a greater responsibility to be moral?
God?

However, these two questions lead me to the conclusion that whoever is aware of the fact that he can act in a way that will "destroy" life, or will be harmful or affect other lifeforms in a somewhat negative way, has responsibility to avoid doing so.


Ray Jones is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-03-2006, 02:51 PM   #77
tk102
Well past expiration date
 
tk102's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 5,766
Current Game: Dragon Age: Origins
Forum Veteran Helpful! Notable contributor 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider AL
You ask what "objective equation" we begin with, and the question of whether there are objective basic moral principles has been answered exhaustively throughout the thread. We begin with a basic understanding that others feel suffering just as we do, and that the lives of others have value, not merely our own life. Therefore through the quality of empathy we arrive at the conclusion that we wish to be moral, by minimising the amount of suffering and death we inflict upon others. We apply our reasoning powers to discern what will cause suffering and death to others, and then we strive to the best of our ability not to engage in such actions. If we find ourselves engaging in such actions by accident, we cease to engage in them. If we find that we have engaged in such actions in the past without fully understanding it, then we make whatever reparations to the wronged parties we are capable of making. These are very simple standards to remember, apply and adhere to.
The two assertions here:
1. Morality is the minimization of the suffering of others (up to and including death).
2. Morality is objective.

lead us to conclude:
The suffering of others must be objective in order that its minimization can be considered objective.

So we must only use objective tools to measure the suffering of others. In some cases it is pretty simple to do this. This action kills a frog that action does not. A computer program could be written around that logical determination. We can use our reasoning, logic, calculations, forecasting and all other traits that a computer might use to make a decision. But we're missing something…something human.

Oh here it is. In the quote above, "quality of empathy" plays a role in determining the amount of suffering. That's quite human. But can "empathy" be considered objective in its measurements? Doesn't familiarity and love skew the amount of empathy felt towards a person, an animal, or even a species? If so that would make empathy a subjective quality (eg. I love different people than you do). Is it immoral to allow love into the equation? If we disallow such emotions, doesn't that make empathy "empty"? We might as well use a computer (or be a Vulcan).

Maybe all people should be loved equally? All animals? All plants? All bacteria? That would make empathy more objective. And maybe to some people maybe killing a fly is as immoral as poaching. But then, if empathy is a constant it can be "factored out" of our morality equation and ignored. We're back to the computer brain again.

Let's say we have a scenario that is not a simple either-or situation, but one that's more continuous in its shades of possible choices. If we look at the second assertion (morality is objective), we should expect any third party to arrive at the same moral conclusion as ourselves if we all have the same objective evidence and understanding of that evidence. But also, somehow, we must all have this same quality of empathy irregardless of whatever predispositions we arrived with so that the factors in our equation will be the same. That is, you must love the same people, animals, and plants as I do and to the same degree and vice versa. I think it suffices to say that we have no way of knowing whether emotional states are identical between two people, much less controlling them to become so.

If we allow that, then it follows that two individuals even with the most powerful abilities of cognition and desire for morality, when faced with the same circumstances may arrive at different choices because they bring with them different sets of emotional ties to the targets of their action.

I chose not to describe a particular example here in an effort to save time that could better spent on the core argument and less upon trying to serve up or deconstruct a particular scenario.

Aside: Spider AL, I am impressed by your post, by its consistency and its entirety. Your arguments can stand on their own, so it isn't necessary to point your language in second person quite so often. It detracts from what would otherwise be a pleasant argument.


tk102 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-03-2006, 03:29 PM   #78
ET Warrior
PhD in horribleness
 
ET Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Evil League of Evil
Posts: 9,405
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by windu6
This is ET reasoning: The Nazis evil didn't matter because moral standards is invalid, because of our emotions.
I'd prefer if you didn't try to explain my reasoning, because it seems evident that you do not understand what it is that I am saying.



ET Warrior is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-03-2006, 03:37 PM   #79
Windu Chi
Banned
 
Windu Chi's Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Getting revenge on that traitor, Anakin.
Posts: 882
Cool Guy

Quote:
Originally Posted by ET Warrior
I'd prefer if you didn't try to explain my reasoning, because it seems evident that you do not understand what it is that I am saying.
Well, ET tell me what you mean.

You said, that morality from anybody's perspective is invalid.
I read about the emotivism stance on moral relativism, so I am guessing that is your reasoning.
Since we have emotions or feelings for each other any moral standards will always be invalid.
Because the bias of individual emotions.

Now, if that isn't your reasoning then tell me what it is.

And don't ignore me like that arrogant guy, Spider AL.

Also don't get offended by how I use that statement, I just feel so strongly about the Holocaust.
I didn't mean your reasoning to be interpreted that way.




Moral relativism might be consider a contradicting ideal on a small scale respect to the society of Earth or to specific individuals here.
But we can't determine if this contradiction is true until we know if there is a ultimate law or laws of morality throughout existence.
Where we can relate that reasoning with those morality standards.

Also our moral standards don't even account for the societies that may populate the Milky Way, so our moral standards are already bias on that large scale of the galaxy.
I'm not sure if there is such a law or laws, since the laws of it will probably have infinite definitions to account for existence.

So, I disagree that moral relativism is a contradiction in respect to the larger scale of existence.
Until we know if those laws exist and if they do exist, then until we can obtain that law or laws to test that theory.

In my opinion !

The possible logical contradiction of moral relativism might just be the way to go in the light of the infinite existence of reality.

Last edited by windu6; 11-04-2006 at 02:31 AM.
Windu Chi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-04-2006, 03:37 PM   #80
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
You do realize that by arguing in favor of moral relativism, Windu6, that your constant anti-nazi screed seems a little neurotic. W/o objective standards of morality, there is no reason not to kill people if you've the power to do so. It's not "nice", but then why should that matter. With no definite good or evil, all actions are basically amoral in nature and equally "good" or "bad". Subjective morality is a thinly veiled defence for people who feel that they should be ablee to do ANYTHING they like, regardless of the consequences of such actions. It is somewhat symptomatic of increasingly narcisistic cultures.
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > JediKnight Series > Community > Senate Chambers > moral relativism

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:20 PM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.